www.greenleft.org.au BY ORLANDO SEPULVEDA

PORTO ALEGRE — Brazilian President Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva spoke to tens of thousands of people at the World Social Forum (WSF) on January 25. It was the first time that Lula, a former factory worker and union leader, addressed a mass audience of the left as leader of the biggest nation in Latin America.

There was a great deal of expectation about the speech — particularly after the announcement that Lula would then go on to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to meet the world's top political officials and corporate chiefs.

But in his speech at the WSF, a very cautious Lula explained to his followers that the times are tough — and that it would be practically impossible to comply with every one of the demands of the Brazilian people. “We have four long years to work”, Lula said. He claimed that he was going to Davos “to bring the voice of Porto Alegre to them".

Despite the fact that the WSF showed very clearly the widespread opposition to neoliberalism, the Washington-backed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) and George Bush's war on Iraq, Lula followed the same script in Davos as all new presidents who want to gain the favour of the big moneylenders. In his speech to the wealthy and powerful, he spoke of fiscal responsibility and greater openness to imports and foreign investment.

Two days later, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez came to Porto Alegre for an indoor rally at the city hall and a press conference. News of Chavez's visit spread like wildfire, with people attending the WSF anxious to demonstrate their solidarity with the people of Venezuela.

Delegates understand that the workers and poor of Venezuela are suffering from a disruption of the oil industry by a bosses' “strike" backed the Bush administration. Many have organised solidarity activities, such as a Brazilian youth group that issued a statement opposing the bosses' strike and denouncing US imperialism.

Unfortunately, the WSF authorities didn't provide space for Chavez to speak to a mass demonstration. This would have been a great opportunity to show support for the Venezuelan people.

The close relationship between the organisers of the WSF and the Brazilian Workers Party, Lula's party, is responsible for this missed opportunity.

Lula was given the chance to speak to a mass meeting of the Latin American left to crown his career from trade union organiser to Brazilian president — and by extension, the new leader of Latin America. But now, as president, Lula wants to be seen as the leader of all Brazilians — including Brazilian capitalists. So he didn't make the kind of fiery speech that he's famous for — and WSF organisers apparently didn't want Chavez to upstage him.

Lula did provide emergency oil shipments to Venezuela during the bosses' strike. But he also tried to broker a deal with an international “group of friends" of Venezuela that included the US — even though Washington openly backed a coup attempt last April.

Chavez and Lula don't have fundamental differences in their approach to issues like the FTAA, the International Monetary Fund and neoliberalism. Chavez was unacceptable to the WSF organisers, who were afraid of giving away Lula's leadership. This approach deprived the Venezuelan people of a great opportunity to gain the kind of international solidarity that they urgently need.

[From Socialist Worker, weekly paper of the US International Socialist Organization. Visit www.socialistworker.org.]

From Green Left Weekly, February 5, 2003. Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

www.greenleft.org.au BY FEDERICO FUENTES

PORTO ALEGRE — This year's World Social Forum (WSF), a countersummit to the corporate elite's World Economic Forum, held in this southern Brazilian city, January 23-28, attracted 100,000 participants, including 20,763 delegates, representing 5717 organisations from 156 countries.

The third WSF had two central themes — the growing resistance to the US-sponsored Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and opposition to the impending US-led war on Iraq. These two themes predominated on the banners and placards carried by participants at the WSF's opening march through the streets of Porto Alegre and on the march which concluded the official agenda of the WSF. They were also the main themes reflected in the panels and 1700 workshops held during the forum.

In the opening panel, entitled “Against Militarisation and War” renowned Marxist scholar Istvan Meszaros, noted that in the context of this current US war drive, Rosa Luxemburg's famous saying had to be modified to read “socialism or barbarism … if we are lucky”. The panelists each stressed the point that war was an integral part of the neoliberal drive for “free markets” and global “free trade” and therefore had to be seen as an integral part of the anti-neoliberal movement around the world.

Egyptian-born political economist Samir Amin added that without stopping the current US drive for permanent war, “no progressive change would be possible”. New Left Review editor Tariq Ali pointed out the key role that the anti-war movements in the US and Britain had to play in order to stop the war against Iraq. Ali noted that opinion polls in the US showed support for a war against Iraq dropped from 60-70% to 30-35% if the war was to be carried out unilaterally, which meant that pressure on other governments to withdraw their support for such a war could politically isolate the US government.

Noam Chomsky, who spoke on the final panel, “How do we confront empire”, noted that “if we do not make them [the US rulers] pay a high cost for going to war, then they will already be planning their next”. He stressed that there was hope, pointing to the hundreds of thousands who turned out in the US on January 18 to protest the war. The US movement against war was “unprecedented”.

Chomsky reminded the audience that it was just over 40 years since the then US president John Kennedy announced the first deployment of US combat troops to Vietnam, but that it took years before there was any significant opposition to that war. Today, however, even before US combat troops have invaded Iraq there is a mass movement in the US opposing the war.

Another theme running through this year's WSF was discussion of the growing social movements in Latin America. A number of workshops looked at the political situation in Argentina one year after the popular uprising against neoliberalism, the developing process of the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela and the situation in Brazil under the newly elected government of Workers Party (PT) leader Luis (“Lula”) Inacio de Silva.

A common thread among these presentations was that the social struggles taking place in these countries were not just limited to local demands but had incorporated opposition to the FTAA, defence of human dignity and national sovereignty.

The planned protests against the World Trade Organisation meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in September were highlighted as a common focus for the social movements in Latin America and the rest of the world, as was the February 15-16 international day of action against the war on Iraq.

Two of the figures around which much of the discussion focused, not only in the context of Latin American resistance, but more broadly at the WSF, were present in Porto Alegre but not officially part of the WSF. Both Lula and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez were excluded from the official agenda of the WSF due to its secretariat's ban on official participation of government representatives and political parties.

Despite the ban, more than 100,000 people turned out on January 24 to hear Lula speak, many wanting to know what he would say about the fact that the following day he would be flying to Davos, Switzerland, to participate in the World Economic Forum. In his speech, Lula pledged to take the issues of the WSF to the WEF. He said he wanted to make clear at the WEF that “an economic order in which a few eat five meals a day while many go five days without eating is unacceptable” and that “we need peace, not war”.

While most of those present seemed to accept Lula's explanation for attending the WEF, a considerable minority at the WSF continued to oppose his decision, fearing it would give unwarranted credibility to the WEF, fostering the false idea that the corporate elite represented at the WEF could be persuaded to reform their profit-before-people's needs outlook and agenda.

Chavez, whose presence in Porto Alegre was only confirmed a few days before he arrived on January 26, spoke for two hours to a packed room in the local Legislative Assembly building. Thousands showed up to hear him but could not fit into the room, and the local police used batons and pepper spray to move the crowd away from the doors.

During his visit to Porto Alegre, Chavez announced that his government would be introducing currency and price controls to block the rich exporting their capital from Venezuela and to protect the poor from price rises.

As at the two previous WSFs, participants at this year's meeting discussed a wide range of issues from Third World debt to the plight of women in war, to HIV/AIDS and pharmaceutical companies. In conjunction with the WSF, a World Children's Forum, the World Parliamentary Forum and an Assembly of the World Social Movements were held, as were a diverse range of cultural and musical events.

The third Intercontinental Youth Camp also took place with its own agenda of political debates, discussion, cultural events and video presentations. Some 25,000 young people attended.

Many of the members of the WSF organising committee and many delegates noted the lack of representation of the diverse social movements from, for example, Africa and Asia. Developments in Africa received only 2% of the official agenda time.

In order to help the process of further internationalising the “Porto Alegre process”, the WSF international council (IC) decided to hold the next WSF in India in 2004. The IC also resolved that due to the feeling that the WSF had overtaken the WEF in political importance, the dates of its meeting would not necessarily have to coincide with those of the WEF. The IC decided to call for an annual international day of action under the banner of “Against neoliberalism and war, another world is possible”, which would be organised on one of the days of the WEF.

From Green Left Weekly, February 5, 2003. Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

www.gulf-daily-news.com

LONDON: Oil prices fell sharply yesterday as Venezuelan exports recovered from a supply-choking strike and after Opec (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) ministers warned of a possible glut of crude in the second quarter when winter demand ebbs.

But the threat of a US-led war on oil-producer Iraq kept crude above $30 a barrel. In London, IPE Brent crude was trading 52 cents weaker at $30.58 a barrel, while US light crude dropped 60 cents to $32.91 a barrel.

"The Venezuelan strike is clearly cracking. The question is how quickly they can ramp up production," said J P Morgan's Paul Horsnell.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday crude oil output had risen to nearly 1.8 million barrels per day (bpd), up from a low of 150,000 bpd after the strike began in December and more than half of the 3.1m bpd pumped in November.

Oil strikers said yesterday production stood at 1.2m bpd.

Data from shipping agents showed Venezuela's oil exports rose to 890,000 bpd in the week to February 1 from 550,000 bpd a week earlier, but were still only one-third of normal levels of 2.7m bpd before the strike.

Opposition leaders, who want Chavez to resign, scaled back the nine-week action on Sunday in the non-oil sector only.

A return of oil sales from Venezuela, the world's fifth biggest oil exporter, could put pressure on the Opec producers' group to rein in output.

The Opec agreed in January to raise official production limits by 1.5m bpd from February 1 to offset the Venezuelan outage.

But Opec ministers warned at the weekend that oil markets could tip into oversupply in the second quarter and trigger a price collapse.

"If Venezuela comes back (to full capacity), we could have 4m bpd or more floating," said Opec President and Qatari Oil Minister Abdullah Al Attiyah.

Non-Opec supplies also looked robust, with output from Russia, the world's second largest exporter, hitting a post-Soviet high.

Russian Energy Ministry sources said exports via Russia's Transneft pipeline monopoly rose 200,000 bpd in January compared to December and output reached a new high of 8.07m bpd.

But even if supplies have grown, analysts predict oil prices will not fall far until uncertainty is resolved over Iraq, which sells roughly 2m bpd of crude to the world market.

Traders fear supplies might be disrupted, not just from Iraq, but from elsewhere in the Middle East if there is a military strike against Baghdad.

Dealers were also awaiting US Secretary of State Colin Powell address to the United Nations tomorrow when he has pledged to present "straightforward, sober and compelling" proof that Iraq is hiding banned weapons.

Estimados amigos:

Los invitamos a participar en el foro:

"Análisis de la situación petrolera hoy", en el cual participarán el Ing. Horacio Medina, Luis Pacheco ex-gerente de Planificación de PDVSA, el Dr. José Toro Hardy y el Dr. Humberto Calderón Berti.

El foro se llevará a cabo este miércoles 5 de febrero en el Auditorio Polar a las 2:00 pm.

Contamos con su asistencia y agradecemos pasar esta invitación a quienes crean que están interesados en participar.

Muchas gracias.

APUM-RDU UNIMET

-------- Mensaje Original --------

Asunto: Los Moderados De: Clara Gonzalez clgonzalez@unimet.edu.ve Fecha: Lun, 3 de Febrero de 2003, 5:32 pm Para:

Fuera del Foro, mientras espero un poco más, aprovecho para enviarles lo que Emeterio Gómez opina sobre los moderados de la Coordinadora Democrática y otros...

From: gentedesoluciones@gruposyahoo.com Date: Domingo, 02 de Febrero de 2003 07:11:23 a. To: gentedesoluciones@gruposyahoo.com Subject: [GdS] los moderados

Los moderados

Emeterio Gómez en gente de soluciones

  Un moderado -también llamado por algunos autores "opositor

democrático"- es alguien que se empeña en hacernos creer que la demencial crisis que vivimos deriva del choque de dos extremismos. No es que el chavismo -férreamente liderado por un fanático- sea en su esencia extremista, precisamente porque dicho liderazgo es férreo y primitivo, porque es impensable un "chavismo moderado", porque nadie que pretenda hacer una Revolución puede ser democrático! Nada de eso, la verdad es que sólo una pequeña parte del chavismo es extremista... y este mínimo sector junto con los extremistas de la oposición son los causantes de esta tragedia.

  No dice el moderado, que hay una preguerra entre, por un lado, el 30% del país, hipnotizado, dominado y acallado por un bárbaro que intenta emular al Che Guevara; y que en cualquier momento es capaz de ordenar, no un ensayo como el de Llaguno, sino una matanza en serio; y, por el otro, el 70% de la sociedad que quiere contarse, que pelea por unas elecciones y que se aferra desesperadamente a la noción de libertad.

  No es -arguye el "opositor democrático"- el choque entre un núcleo duro totalitario, que pretende imponer en Venezuela un igualitarismo decimonónico y el grueso de una sociedad que lucha aguerridamente por la democracia y por no eructarle en la cara a los otros; nada de eso, un moderado es alguien que cree que en este país hay una confrontación entre dos grupos extremistas que quieren la guerra y que, en su irracionalidad, avasallan al 80% de la nación que no "tiene velas en ese entierro".

  Un moderado es alguien que cree que es necesario negociar y que "no podemos seguir atizando los odios" Como si con llamados a la paz se pudiese apaciguar a ¡una bestia! Como si Chávez y sus fanáticos estuviesen allí esperando pacientemente ¡para transar! Como si no se tratara de alguien que de ninguna manera va ¡a negociar!, a no ser que -por el uso de la fuerza- ya esté más o menos derrotado.

  El meollo del asunto. Un moderado es una persona respetable que no ha captado del todo lo que es la polarización. Él  cree que ésta no permite la moderación, por culpa de los extremistas, de estados de ánimo individuales o psicológicos, de personas que no tienen la suficiente fuerza moral para imponer la conciliación. Como si ante alguien que está dispuesto a hacer la guerra, a radicalizar... y a matar, los individuos pudiesen evitar la confrontación.

  Hay moderados que no entienden que de verdad!, a veces, "la

polarización no permite la moderación". Que no es retórica, buenos deseos o fuerza de voluntad individual, sino una dinámica feroz, aplastante y objetiva, en la cual, al querer mantenerse en el medio, nuestros moderados corren el riesgo de ponerse al servicio del Totalitarismo. Un "opositor democrático", además, es alguien que aún no se ha convencido que Chávez es comunista!

  La que nos espera. Chávez ya perdió esta pelea, pero nos esperan meses terribles. No sólo por la agudización de la guerra contra él, sino por la confrontación... con los moderados! Ellos seguirán repitiendo que es necesario negociar, mientras el Che Guevara II seguirá moviendo todas sus piezas, recursos y triquiñuelas, para que no haya elecciones... o para que, si las hay, sean trampeadas. Apelará a todo el inmenso poder que le dan el Estado, las Farc y el chantaje de los Círculos Violentos, para imponerse por la fuerza.

  Los moderados, seguirán insistiendo en que "la salida tiene que ser electoral", sin captar que sólo a través de la fuerza! podemos imponer dicha salida. Porque un comunista sólo hará elecciones con un revólver en la sien! La fuerza de un paro petrolero que arriesga la destrucción del país con tal de no verlo bajo el yugo del Totalitarismo; la de un millón de personas instaladas a vivir en la autopista; o la de unos países amigos decididos a salir de un comunista, aunque para ello tengan que presionar con un par de poderosos alicates dos partecitas muy sensibles de la humanidad de Lula.

Visita nuestro sitio web en www.gentedesoluciones.cjb.net Para cancelar tu suscripción, envía un mensaje de correo-e a: gentedesoluciones-unsubscribe@gruposyahoo.com