2-23-06, 9:23 am
Over the trajectory of its development, the World Social Forum (WSF) has become the main event for popular movements from many countries. This year, in a way heretofore unprecedented, the Forum was indeed a polycentric event. For the first time, too, it captured the air of the new moment that Latin America is living through: the trend towards the rapid growth of the progressive movement. Cebrapaz, the Brazilian Center of Solidarity with the People and the Struggle for Peace, had an outstanding level of participation both in the Bamako Forum in Mali as well as in Caracas, Venezuela, in January of last year. In the following interview with journalist Priscila Lobregate, the communications director of Cebrapaz, writer and international affairs analyst, Jose Reinaldo Carvalho, who was present at both events, offers an examination of the current international situation and of the meaning of the new rise of the left. To him, 'the spirit of the time is not one of conciliation with imperialism, but of anti-imperialist struggle' and the organization of the 'new struggle for socialism.'
Jose Reinaldo Carvalho: The Bamako World Social Forum reflected the outcry of the African people against the neo-colonialism and capitalist globalization that are the root causes of that continent's poverty and misery. In their primary themes, the organizers firmly stated that a new Africa would only be possible in a world of equity and mutual cooperation, and emphasized that neoliberal globalization is the equivalent of social apartheid. This development shows that there is today a clear understanding that the idea or slogan that “another world is possible” is not enough. It is now also necessary to identify the precise conditions in which that new world and a new Africa will become possible.
In the opening act of the political drama that unfolded in Bamako, the WSF participants from Mali, representatives of a wide range of Malian civil society and organizations, delivered their remarks in an intensely militant manner. The tenor of their words was clearly anti-imperialist, anti-neoliberal, and highlighted the fact that, as long as the economic and social policies aimed at Africa are carried out by the same international financial and economic bodies that take the lead in globalization, those policies, which theoretically are intended to fight poverty, will be amount to nothing more than mock combat.
To those who are part of that struggle, it is heartening to see local leaders debating and reflecting on their problems in a mature way, and devising proposals that converge with the platform of the anti-imperialist struggle. It is absolutely necessary to state that poverty in Africa is the direct result of the neocolonialist policies of the imperialist powers. In visiting Africa, we could see at first hand how shocking the inequality is and how income and wealth are concentrated in the wealthy countries. It shows that overcoming the present system is an urgent matter for the survival of humankind. For if neoliberal policies persist, social and economic life everywhere will become increasingly degraded, and civilization will take a step backwards toward barbarism.
Question: Before the Forum, a conference organized by many of the main entities of the global movement against war and imperialism took place in the capital of Mali. As the director of Cebrapaz, your participation was the result of an invitation by the event's organizers. What is your opinion regarding that conference?
Jose Reinaldo Carvalho: That conference preceded the WSF in Bamako and was held in the same city on January 18th. It was organized by the Third World Forum, the World Forum for Alternatives, the Forum for Another Mali, and by the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Environmental and Development Action in the Third World (ENDA-TM) under the leadership of renowned intellectuals such as Samir Amin and Francis Houtard. The event was inspired by the anti-colonialist ideas of the meeting of Bandung (Indonesia) which took place in 1955 [a milestone in the struggle of Third World nations and nonaligned countries against colonialism]. The present conference had as its motto the “struggle for a new spirit of Bandung' and a 'Bandung of the peoples.'
The conference brought forward the urgent task of organizing a new anti-imperialist movement opposed to neocolonialism and neoliberalism. It is clear from the objective evidence that under neoliberal globalization much of the world is living in a neocolonial system, characterized by the attempt by the United States to impose its unilateral hegemony based on a strategy of continuous war and military domination of the planet. Therefore, it is mandatory to organize the struggle bearing in mind two strategic goals: the first is to defeat the neoliberal policies that currently predominate and which are truly global in their reach. In order to defeat these policies, it is vital to fight the institutions that generate neoliberal capitalism – the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) which form en bloc, in the words of Samir Amin, a kind of 'new Ministry of Colonialism,' and are together responsible for policies that are harmful to the national sovereignty, social development, and progress of nations and peoples. Our goal is no longer to work for partial changes in the system, deluding people with the false possibility of remodeling capitalism. The Bamako conference has set the challenge of defeating the present system, taking into full account the understanding that such a system cannot function unless it does so at the expense of the increasing misery of the countries it dominates.
The second aim is to defeat the United States' policy of imperialism, its strategy of world domination by means of war and military intervention, and by deforming and degrading democratic institutions (such as the United Nations) and violating international standards of legality. Neoliberalism never works in a democratic way. Such a system is only kept in place by governments that become ever more authoritarian and pro-colonialist, by creating subservient governments that function at the command of imperialism and are subjugated to its designs.
Aiming at achieving these two goals, the Bamako conference addressed another important question, the struggle for a new UN, something which can only appear within the framework of a new international economic and political order. The United Nations has lost its ability to function effectively, its independence degraded by United States imperialism. Now it is only called upon by the US when it is a matter of using the UN as a tool to ensure that the demands of imperialism are fulfilled. At present, what we are facing is not a typical juncture in the policy of United States imperialism. That policy is now one of permanent globalwar against sovereign nations and peoples. It is a policy which is incorporated in the current platform of the Republican Party and espoused by the US establishment.
Jose Reinaldo Carvalho: The WSF, since its inaugural meeting in 2001 in Porto Alegre, Brazil has gone through several stages and is now assuming a new face. The first stage was limited to identifying the problems that we face and reaching a diagnosis regarding globalization's new world order. From there it evolved to a new phase where which timely mass demonstrations were organized worldwide against the Free Trade in the Americas Agreement (FTAA) and the imperialist war on Iraq. The Forum has also become the focal point for a huge assemblage of social movements. It was out of the WSF that some of the great recent stages on the journey of struggle arose, such as the massive anti-war mobilizations in February and March of 2003, which preceded the United States' aggression against Iraq. Even though they were not able to prevent the war, they played an essential role in forming a worldwide consciousness against the war-oriented policies of the imperialists.
Now a new stage has arisen, in which the WSF must formulate concrete, politically- oriented propositions aimed directly at the nerve center of the world’s problems, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO, where the neoliberal policies of war and militarization are created. If it does not do so, the Forum risks becoming a mere folkloric display. Although its multifaceted quality is positive, there is a risk of diluting the strength of the WTF’s objectives. However, the polycentric forums of 2006, which have taken place in Bamako, Caracas, and with a third soon to be held in Karachi, are also providing ample evidence that a worldwide anti-imperialist movement is being formed, along with a huge volume of mass struggle with specific, concrete political and economic objectives.
Question: Were Bamako and Caracas part of that evolution?
Jose Reinaldo Carvalho: Both polycentric WSFs took a great step towards making the forum anti-imperialist-oriented. It was essential to hold the forum in the capital of the country that is the setting of the Bolivarian revolution, a profound, extensive and unique mass movement in the present circumstances. In his seventh year of government, commemorated on February 2nd, Chávez has the massive support of the population. The fact that the WSF was held in Caracas held an advantage in relation to previous forums, since the environment in Venezuela is one of anti-imperialism.
Another relevant point is that, even though the contours of what socialism will be like in the 21st century are not yet clear, since socialism should not depend on models, the Bolivarian revolution has ideologically evolved to a point where Chávez now presents the implementing of socialism as a keyissue. He claims 'Socialism or Death'; that is, the Bolivarian Revolution is anti-imperialist and has the strategic goal of reaching socialism. Those ideas marked the discussions held at the Forum. Therefore, within a diversified forum, the most careful and profound discussions were those based on anti-imperialism.
There was a clear feeling that imperialism, even though it is powerful and wields enormous destructive power, is not invincible, and that the limits to its actions lie in the depth of its structural crises, in its historically accentuated decadence and, most of all, in the people's reawakening and becoming opposed to all it represents. On that basis, a consciousness of the need to organize the new struggle for socialism is being formed, while at the same time respecting the specific conditions that exist in the world today, and taking into account the peculiarities of each country and region.
Question: What was the nature of Cebrapaz’s participation in the Caracas Forum?
Jose Reinaldo Carvalho: Despite being a forum outside our own borders, we had an extraordinarily militant presence representing a large number of Brazilian popular organizations, among them Cebrapaz. We focused our attention on specific activities, including our participation in the grand opening march of the Forum and our response to the dramatic speech of President Chávez in the Poliedro gymnasium. In the conference sessions, we focused on United States imperialism’s strategy of domination, the resistance of the world’s people, and their struggle against it. We participated in a dialogue with the President of the Cuban National Assembly, Ricardo Alarcon, along with the political scientists Atílio Borón and Ana Esther Ceceña, and the Venezuelan writer Luís Brito Garcia, before three thousand people in the majestic theater Teresa Carreño. We also organized a large conference session that included Cebrapaz, the World Peace Council, and 20 other organizations and movements engaged in the struggle for peace all over the world, which was coordinated by our president, federal representative Socorro Gomes.We also coordinated another conference in defense of the Amazon that highlighted the militancy of Cebrapaz's Amazonian bureau and was the center of a great deal of attention in Caracas. The spirit that guided us at the Caracas Forum was the desire to contribute to the perpetuation of the World Social Forum as an arena that gives voice to the worldwide struggle of social movements, and gives that struggle a firmly anti-imperialist and unitary character. We are now facing the challenge of building the second Brazilian Social Forum, next May, in Recife and Olinda, which will have as one of its most important activities the establishment of a Court to charge President Bush and United States imperialism with war crimes.
Question: Despite the importance of these events, the Brazilian mass media does not give the WSF the attention it deserves. What is your analysis of the attitude of our nation’s press?
Jose Reinaldo Carvalho: This is due to an ignorant attitude on the part of the Brazilian mass media, which is politically and ideologically biased. Our press went to Caracas to look for items of gossip and political intrigue, something the newspaper Folha de San Paulo and the magazine Veja are accustomed to do. That sort of attitude renounces the main function of journalism, which is to inform the reader.
Unfortunately, it is an attitude nourished by a feeling of opposition towards the direction taken by the Forum. In its early stages the WSF was belittled as an 'ideology fair', and the press was interested in presenting it as an amusing novelty. Now that it has developed into a consolidated social and political movement, it has ceased to be treated as news of importance by the mass media and only serves as fodder for editorializing.
Question: What has changed in the international situation in regard to the actions of the United States?
Jose Reinaldo Carvalho: Today we are living in a new political moment. President Bush's government, already in its second term, has achieved no political victories of significance. I would also say it has not achieved any military victories either, since in Iraq it has carried out a scorched earth policy, unleashing a lethaldestructive power for which the United States government will have to answer before history for crimes against humanity. President Bush has committed genocide in Iraq. That was the American “victory”. The United States invaded Iraq believing that the people would receive them as liberators; however, they are being fought as occupiers and enslavers.
The victories of left-wing candidates in Latin America are political defeats for the United States, as well, as was the recent massive demonstration of opposition at the Summit of the Americas at Mar del Plata. This succession of defeats demonstrates that the United States has not succeeded in imposing itself on the rest of the world like it wants. It has also been obliged to confront a series of negative electoral results in Latin America. The failure of its policies in the Middle East has also been an overwhelming defeat for United States imperialism. There was the massive split in the rightwing Likud Party in Israel, the failure of Sharon’s policies, and now the result of the recent elections in Palestine, which indicate a radicalization of the process of struggle for Palestinian liberation, and is in part due to the failure of American policy in the region. In Iraq, the Americans are now debating the best moment and manner to withdraw, because they realize they are stuck in a quagmire and no longer have a way out. There are even rumors in the international press that President Bush's agents are trying to contact Iraqi resistance groups to set up a summit meeting, groups they classify as 'terrorist', in order to find an honorable way out for the American troops. It has been proved amply proved from the experience of the struggles in the 20th century, marked by great democratic, popular and socialist revolutions, as well as by anti-colonial and pro-national-independence struggles, that it is impossible to maintain an occupation regime, no matter how great the destructive power of United States imperialism. Inevitably, the national factor re-imposes itself with incomparable strength. Positively, imperialism is not invincible. Without a doubt, it will be defeated.
Question: What is your opinion about the ascension of progressive leadership in Latin America?
Jose Reinaldo Carvalho: It is necessary to distinguish, within the process of the ascension of progressive leaderships in Latin America, the differences among them. It is not possible to trace signs of equality among them. There are more profound and radical processes, such as in Venezuela, and what seems to be the one inaugurated in Bolivia with the victory of Evo Morales. And there are processes of a more moderate and limited character, like in Brazil and Uruguay, and even more limited ones, as in Chile. Michele Bachelet's victory was only a way to hinder a victory of the rightwing, and we should not nourish the illusion that she will form an anti-neoliberal or leftwing government. There are also good expectations in Mexico and Nicaragua for the next elections. These are different leaderships in different contexts. But it is possible to say that, in general, there is a progressive impulse in Latin, and that such an impulse comes from societies, people and social movements that have been able, in varying degrees, to elect progressive, anti-neoliberal governments
The Latin-American left must come to two conclusions from all this. First, that it is necessary to support that process. There are sectors of the world, Latin American and Brazilian left that want to ignore that process by means of false antinomies. Some claim to support Chávez and Evo Morales, but not to support Lula, Kirchner and Tabaré Vázquez. Chávez himself said that one cannot demand that president Lula do in Brazil the same things he is doing in Venezuela, because the two realities are different. He has that lucidity, and at the same time knows that it is necessary to support Lula because, in case he is not reelected, the process might start to be reversed. If Brazilian neoliberals (the PSDB-PFL alliance) win the elections, the United States will have in Brazil a prop firmly in place in Latin American territory to fight for the FTAA and against the progressive process on our continent. It is also necessary to reach a second conclusion: the political climate that is being formed is favorable for the activation of progressive social forces. It is necessary that those forces, by being coherent and realistic, find their proper place in this new environment. They also must achieve greater political daring within the social movements and mobilizations, and their input into government policies at all levels. The reason for this necessity is that, as we well know, when economic policy is instituted that conflicts with national and popular interests and the yearnings for change of the Brazilian people - the reason why President Lula was elected – the government and the forces that support it inevitably risk political disfiguration in the process.
Lately, some problems have arisen in the Lula government's conduct of foreign affairs, which, even though may have been meant as positive steps, are opposed, in some aspects, to the spirit of the new moment. I quote two examples of this, not as mere criticism, but to call attention to real problems. One of them is the Brazilian military presence in Haiti under the UN. That decision was a mistake, and it is now a difficult task to extricate ourselves from the situation. The explanation that the Brazilian presence in Haiti was a way for Brazil to show its qualifications to act in international crises, and in that way achieve a seat on the United Nations Security Council, is not convincing. It has been demonstrated that such an aspiration depends on the articulation of new kinds of alliances and other political circumstances. We risk seeing an action taken in the name of peace become its opposite, even if the intention was a noble one. Another example is the struggle against the protectionism of wealthy countries, an important goal of the Lula government's foreign affairs policy, which reached its peak in the formation of the G-20 at the WTO meeting in Cancun.
Now, however, our 'commercial' diplomacy has entered more pragmatically into negotiations at the WTO meeting in Hong Kong, perhaps under the pressure of an economic policy that employs an exports model as a mechanism to reduce foreign financial vulnerability, or by pressure from the agribusiness lobby. Thus, the government ended up accepting compromises regarding the withdrawal of subsidies, in the face of very vague promises that will not be accomplished. Europe and the United States will not give up on their subsidies. Brazil cannot let itself be used as a reserve force by the United States in its struggles against Europe in the WTO. Brazil must act as a coalescing force that unites dependent, oppressed countries in their the struggle for development, as it did at Cancun. The search for fair international trade is a legitimate goal in the struggle for development. Nevertheless, it is a goal which is incompatible with the WTO's concept of free trade.
For that organization, so-called free-trade works as a mechanism by which the developing countries, including Brazil, liberalize their capital markets and investment rules, deregulate their finances and capital markets, and give up their national preferences regarding government spending, in return for something that is nonexistent. The wealthy countries are not willing to give anything in return. That is the logic of the ferocious struggle fought for markets among the imperialist powers, and those countries will not yield their markets.
We are entering the electoral period of open political struggle. I believe that in order for President Lula and the forces supporting him to rewarded with the power to govern Brazil for another four years, it is necessary that they stand up to the new challenges and the spirit of our time. That spirit is not one of conciliation with imperialism, but one of anti-imperialist struggle.
From Diario Vermelho and Cebrapaz in English and Portuguese.
