www.alternet.org By Jennifer C. Berkshire, AlterNet January 30, 2003

Porto Alegre – When tens of thousands of protesters streamed through the center of this city in Southern Brazil last week, denouncing George W. Bush and his war on Iraq, it was the second major anti-war gathering in the Americas in as many weeks. The World Social Forum in Porto Alegre was supposed to be about globalization, but talk of war dominated everything.

"Can there be any progress, civil, social or economic, while the American military project continues?" mused one European delegate. It wasn't just the anti-globalization crowd that found itself preoccupied by military matters. The few tycoons who showed up for this year's World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland spent most of their time wringing their hands over the prospect of war.

Despite being separated by thousands of miles – and a not insignificant distance on the thermometer – the anti-war protests in Washington and Porto Alegre weren't all that different. Both took place in contexts of economic uncertainty, looming austerity and an air of inevitability about the war itself. Both were notable for the huge presence of ordinary citizens who had made lengthy trips to march against war.

The majority of people who came to Porto Alegre – more than 100,000, say World Social Forum organizers - -were neither seasoned veterans of the anti-globalization circuit nor political movers and shakers.

"I came here from Foz do Iguacu," a teacher told me over lunch one day, referring to the dramatic falls near the Argentina border, mentioned by the Bush administration as a possible next frontier in the war against terror. "It's a long trip. Fifteen hours," he said, counting them out on his hands.

But while the two marches may have looked alike – demonic effigies of George W. Bush are as popular in Brazil as they are in Washington – that's where their similarities ended. The Jan. 18 demonstration in the US sprang out of a uniformly bleak political context, peopled mostly by protesters whose only organizational affiliation was a church group, a school club or a small network of friends and coworkers. The Porto Alegre protest, more shimmying spectacle than tribunal, was powered by deep organization – trade unions have a powerful presence here – and above all a sense of hope. After all, this is the same country that recently elected to the presidency Workers' Party candidate Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva.

A few days after the march, Lula spoke to an audience of tens of thousands of fans at the amphitheater in Porto Alegre. There are people in the crowd today who don't speak our language, he said, referring to WSF delegates who had traveled from some 130 countries to come to Brazil. For them I have a simple message, he said. "Look into my eyes."

I thought of Lula's statement on Tuesday night while watching George Bush's State of the Union address. I imagined Bush extending the same offer and wondered who would take him up on it. And what, I wondered, would they see in there?

For the people in Porto Alegre who marched against war that day, Lula's victory is the proof that organization and militant mobilization can work. The Workers' Party, or the PT, is everywhere here, from the flags that flutter about the city to the number 13 (the PT's spot on the electoral list) with which Porto Alegrenses adorn their clothes and cars. In the US, there is simply no equivalent. The Americans who traveled from Cleveland, Chicago and beyond to protest their president do not yet have an organized alternative with which to contest him. Should they join with the rancid Workers' World Party? Jump aboard the Lieberman campaign?

Another World Is Possible – But What World?

The war was the glue that held this, the third World Social Forum, together. "Another World is Possible" may be the official slogan (trademark pending) of the anti-globalization movement, but there is little agreement over what that world should be like. The range of conflicting visions was on vivid display in Porto Alegre; the gulf is as wide as ever between the reform crowd, which seeks fair trade and better managed capitalism vs. the revolutionaries, who want to tear the whole thing down and start over.

Lula essentially walked right into that divide with his decision to go from the people's forum directly to the annual ruling class reunion in Davos. "He's making a terrible mistake by going to Davos," Chris Nineham from the UK group Globalize Resistance said in a talk on the global anti-war movement. "It will lead to disappointment and to the kind of compromises that let people down."

The United Socialist Workers Party, or PSTU, a left split-off from the PT, was firmly on the side of keeping Lula in Porto Alegre. They staged regularly rallies during the forum, imploring Lula not to go, and they were the first to arrive at his speech, armed with huge banners and flags. As the crowd waited for the president to arrive, the PSTU kept up an ominous drum beat and alternated between chants condemning Bush, Sharon and Lula. But as the president began to speak, the PSTU contingent was as rapt as everyone else in the crowd.

When Lula announced from the stage that he couldn't stay, that he was, in fact, on his way to Davos, the audience fell silent. The PT flags stilled, and the soccer chants, "Lula, Lula, le-oh-le-oh-le," stopped as well. They would not have invited me to Davos if it weren't for you, Lula told them. "I'll say to them what I'd say to my comrades, that it's impossible to continue to live in a world where some people eat five times a day and others just once in five days."

But there is another conflict looming, one that won't be smoothed over as easily as this: Brazil's position on the Free Trade Area of the Americas Agreement, known here by its Portuguese acronym, ALCA. Activists in North and South America who hope that Lula's administration will simply walk away from the trade deal are likely to be sorely disappointed. On the campaign trail, Lula and other PT candidates criticized the FTAA as it had been negotiated by the Brazil's last president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. But their intention all along has been to fight for the best trade deal for Brazil, not to appease the anti-globalization movement.

"I keep hearing talk that another FTAA is possible," Canadian labor activist Michelle Robidoux told me. "If that's where things are headed, people are going to be devastated. Canadians have seen what has happened as a result of NAFTA."

Like many at the forum, Robidoux seriously doubts that capitalism as we know it can be reformed. She and a friend were peddling red "anti-capitalista" buttons, spelled out in the Coca-Cola logo. "I believe that another world is possible," she said. "It just can't be capitalist."

One, Two, Many Social Forums

Since the anti-globalization movement burst into Northern consciousness in 1999, some of its novelty has worn off. The 'globo-trotters' who make their way from forum to forum (Genoa? It must be July), clad in movement swag, are already cliché. While they were out in force in Porto Alegre – I sat behind Jose Bove on the flight to Sao Paulo – the World Social Forum was about much more than movement stars.

What was on display here was the kind of spark and energy produced when huge numbers of people come together around an idea. Young, old, in-between, they turned out in force to learn about what globalization would mean for them. They crammed into theaters to hear live, streamed testimony from newly freed death-row inmates in Illinois. They stood in line to get into classrooms in order to hear about the US movement against the war in Iraq.

It may sound vague ("simpleminded" was the description that one American lent to the event); far more time was devoted to talking about demands than in figuring out how to make them. But for once, the statement "another world is possible" seemed like more than trite globo-talk; we were watching it unfold here. As in the US, much of public life in Brazil has been eroded by privatization, income inequality and a relentless process of malling. There are few places where ordinary Brazilians of all walks of life can simply go to mingle together.

"Public life has moved behind walls and gates," explained my friend Gianpaolo, a sociologist who grew up in Porto Alegre and now lives in the US. For five days, though, Brazilians and the people who had traveled from countries all over the world to join them took that world back.

One of the most contentious debates this year was over where the 4th WSF should take place, indeed, whether it could take place anywhere in the world but Brazil. And while there was general consensus coming into the meeting that the 2004 event would be moved to India, the Brazilians, the real power behind the WSF organizing structure, have been loathe to let it go. So too the merchants of Porto Alegre, who have made a killing during each of the last three Januarys. In the end, a compromise was reached: WSF 2004 will take place somewhere in India then return to Porto Alegre in 2005. Hyderabad, India played host to a successful Asian Social Forum in 2002.

Moving the event is important, says Njoki Njoroge Njehu, director of 50 Years is Enough.

"This shows that the World Social Forum isn't just a Brazil thing, but part of a global movement. The choice of India is important because of the strength of the social movements there."

But wherever civil society comes together to oppose globalization, says Njehu, people have an opportunity to experience solidarity. "Whether they're fighting water privatization in Bolivia, electricity cut-offs in South Africa, or demanding community control in the US, they're not alone. There are other people involved in the same struggles. Amongst all of the people here, if I call out for help, someone will answer."

Jennifer Berkshire is a freelance journalist in Boston who writes about globalization and immigration. Parts of this article first appeared on counterpunch.org. Contact her at jenniferberkshire@hotmail.com.

www.ictsd.org

While potential conflict in Iraq took centre stage at this year's World Economic Forum and World Social Forum -- both of which concluded this week -- participants also addressed international trade, the WTO and the next WTO Ministerial in Cancun. The World Economic Forum (WEF) took place in Davos, Switzerland from 23-28 January, while the World Social Forum (WSF), an event originally organised as a response to the former, was held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, on the same dates. The WEF, which brings world leaders, especially corporate representatives, together to address global citizenship and various other global challenges, was organised under the heading of "building trust." The WSF, which aims to unite a diverse body of groups and individuals opposing neo-liberalism and the current form of globalisation -- if not the trend of globalisation itself -- focused instead on the theme of peace.

Brazil's Lula - a bridge between the forums

Brazilian new president and former union leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (also known as Lula), attended the two forums, bringing the same message to both: "another world is possible." He stressed the need to close the gap between rich and poor nations, especially through the eradication of hunger. He also said he saw no reason why parties at both events should not be able to come together and learn from one another, likening them to unions and management. He stated that once they begin a true dialogue, the challenges become less great than when the two sides refuse to talk.

On the issue of trade, Lula -- a leftist previously known for his opposition to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) -- stated that Brazil needed to make "extraordinary effort(s)" to increase the nation's international trade, particularly by enhancing exports through diversification of products and markets. He also targeted wealthier nations, however, saying that "all the export effort that [poorer nations] make will be useless if countries continue to preach free trade on one side and practice protectionism on the other side." Dealing with bilateral issues, Lula vowed to enhance the South American Mercosur agreement, create a "more positive" US-Brazil relationship, and make efforts with Europe and Asia.

War and trade

A great deal of concern was voiced this year at the WEF, as participants made links between a possible war with Iraq to higher oil prices and potential continuation of difficult global economic times. At the WSF, other economic concerns in relation to the threat of war were raised. Some activists said that the conflict could hurt developing country bargaining positions at the next WTO Ministerial in Cancun (in September 2003). Martin Khor of the Malaysia-based Third World Network said that a conflict could distract developing nations from planning for the negotiations, and could allow industrialised countries to bring in new issues. Khor felt that the US had previously used 11 September as a tool to pressure other countries to accept its proposals at the last Ministerial in Doha.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI), with delegations both at the WSF and to the 'The Public Eye on Davos' counter-conference in Davos, argued that the WEF was directly linked to the creation of the WTO and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). FoEI stressed that WSF is "vital to formulate alternatives to neo-liberal economic globalisation policies and to review ways to minimise the negative impact of a corporate-led globalisation process."

What business needs, or needs to give

At a WEF event entitled "Next Trade Round: What Business Needs," Niall FitzGerald, Chair of Unilever UK, highlighted global poverty and the necessity to responsibly address this issue. He noted that "there is a rising tide of discontent and anger in the developing world and we need to understand that and address it." FitzGerald stressed the connection between trade and growth and the dangers to trade should the discontent over global resource use and access go unchecked. He went on to say, "If we want to defend prosperity and security, we have to attack poverty. If we don’t we will pay for it. This might be seen as enlightened self-interest, but for me it's a moral issue."

Other participants who were surveyed at the WEF event on the next trade round believed that for the next WTO trade negotiation round to be a success, four key areas must be addressed, including:

• Trade-distorting agricultural subsidies, especially in the EU and US;

• Markets must be opened in developed countries for textiles and other products from developing countries;

• Significant liberalisation of most major service sectors must be agreed, and this must include "the movement of natural persons" or labour mobility from developing countries to the rich economies; and

• Agreement must be reached urgently on adapting the Agreement on Trade- related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) to allow poor countries to acquire cheap medicines, wherever they are available, to tackle AIDS and other health crises.

"100,000 expected at the World Social Forum," CWI BRAZIL, 23 January 2003; "WEF vs. WSF," PRAVDA, 24 January 2003; "Davos Versus Porto Alegre, Round Three," PRESS RELEASE, Friend of the Earth International, 15 January, 2003; "Brazil's Lula: 'Another World Possible," UPI, 23 January 2003; "Dialogue with the President of Brazil on Global Governance," WEF, 26 January 2003; " Remarks from President Lula da Silva of Brazil," WEF, 26 January 2003; "World Social Forum: War on Iraq would Affect WTO Trade Talks," IPS NEWS, 25 January 2003; "Next Trade Round: What Business Needs," WEF, 25 January 2003.

www.dailytimes.com.pk Kaleem Omar

Japan’s GDP per capita, at $ 34,715, is 70 times higher than Pakistan's, at $ 492. The gap lessens when one adjusts per capita income statistics for purchasing power parity. But even adjusted for purchasing power parity, Japan’s GDP per capita, at $ 23,480, is still 15 times higher than Pakistan’s, at $ 1,570

There is a huge per capita income gap between rich and poor nations. Switzerland, the world’s richest nation in GDP per capita terms, has over 400 times the per capita income of Ethiopia, one of the world’s poorest countries. Japan’s GDP per capita, at $ 34,715, is 70 times higher than Pakistan’s, at $ 492. The gap lessens when one adjusts per capita income statistics for purchasing power parity, or what a dollar will buy in the respective economies. But even adjusted for purchasing power parity, Japan’s GDP per capita, at $ 23,480, is still 15 times higher than Pakistan’s, at $ 1,570.

Moreover, the gap between rich and poor nations continues to widen. In 1939, the income of the average American worker was 16 times higher than the average Indian worker’s income. By 1969, it was 40 times higher. Today, it is 78 times higher.

The emergence of a large middle class in India has made little difference to the overall picture. Caught in the nutcracker of low-income growth on the one hand and a burgeoning population on the other, India remains a very poor country. It has the largest concentration of impoverished people in the world, with some 350 million people living on less than a dollar a day and another 350 million that are not much better off.

As co-authors Philip Kotler, Somkid Jatuspripitak and Suvit Maesincee note in their study “The Marketing of Nations”, there is also a large and often widening gap between the rich and poor within individual nations. This income gap is generally greater in less developed nations than in industrial nations.

If we compare the share of national income that accrues to the poorest 40 per cent of the country’s population with that of the richest 20 per cent, we find that countries South Korea, Canada, Japan and Sweden have relatively lesser inequalities. Others like Malaysia, Tanzania, Chile, Costa Rica and Libya have moderate inequalities. Yet others like Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, Jamaica, Mexico, Venezuela, Kenya, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Guatemala have drastic income inequality in their overall income distribution.

Apart from struggling with poverty, many people in developing nations fight a constant battle against malnutrition, disease and poor health. In 1999, the average number of doctors per 100,000 people was only 5 in the least developed countries compared with 220 in the industrial countries. Every year, about 20 million people die from infectious and parasitic diseases. The infant mortality rate is 99 per 1,000 births in the least developed countries, compared with about 74 in developing countries and only 11 in industrial countries. Average life expectancy is about 52 years in the least developed countries compared with 61 years in developing nations and 75 years in industrial nations.

Malnutrition is another major problem in the poor countries. About one billion people in poor countries still do not get enough food. In terms of per capita daily protein consumption, it is 97 grams per day in the United States, compared with 63 grams per day in Brazil and 43 grams per day in Ghana.

Literacy levels in poor countries also remain low. Literacy rates in the less developed and developing countries average only 45 per cent and 64 per cent of the population, respectively, in contrast with 99 per cent for the industrial nations.

Most important is the interaction of all the above characteristics. They tend to reinforce and perpetuate the pervasive problems of poverty, ignorance and disease that restrict the lives of so many people in poor countries.

In October 2000, the world population reached 6 billion, double the 1960 figure. The world population is projected to reach 7.2 billion in the year 2010, of which almost 5.9 billion will be living in poor countries.

The population of what comprises today’s Pakistan (the former West Pakistan) was only 37 million at the time of the first post-independence national census in 1951. Today, Pakistan’s population is close to 150 million, more than four times the 1951 figure. This very high rate of population growth lies at the heart of Pakistan’s economic problems.

As the authors of the “The Marketing of Nations” study note, the explosive birth rate found in many poor countries means that these nations have the burden of supporting millions of people younger than 15 (in Pakistan, for example, 40 per cent of the population is under 15).

Today, millions of children in poor countries are working in farms, factories, workshops, street corners and garbage dumps. Enhancing educational opportunities is a way to make schooling a real alternative for these children. However, the immediate challenge is, how will the poor countries build enough schools? And some years later, how will these countries provide enough jobs for young people entering the job market?

Discussing the job shortage problem, the authors of the study note that technology improves productivity but may reduce the number of jobs. The growth in GDP and unemployment in many countries indicates that employment has consistently lagged behind economic growth.

Developing countries have also experienced jobless growth. The labour force in developing countries continued to increase by 2.3 per cent throughout the 1990s, requiring the creation of an additional 260 million jobs – a staggering task for which the economies of developing countries were simply not equipped.

In Pakistan’s case, an estimated two million new jobseekers enter the job market each year. To create jobs in the large-scale manufacturing sector for so many jobseekers would be prohibitively expensive for a country of Pakistan’s means, given the fact that creating one job in large-scale manufacturing at today’s prices requires an investment of between Rs 300,000 to Rs 500,000.

The answer to the problem lies in adopting social sector policies aimed at reducing the population growth rate to below two per cent, and in creating more jobs in the agricultural sector, the small manufacturing sector and the services sector, which create more jobs per dollar of investment than the capital-intensive large-manfucturing sector. But success in this endeavour depends, among other things, on continuity in policy — something that has often been lacking in Pakistan.

www.dailytimes.com.pk

I’ve been asked to speak about “How to confront Empire?” It’s a huge question, and I have no easy answers, says Arundhati Roy When we speak of confronting “Empire,” we need to identify what “Empire” means. Does it mean the US Government (and its European satellites), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and multinational corporations? Or is it something more than that?

In many countries, Empire has sprouted other subsidiary heads, some dangerous byproducts — nationalism, religious bigotry, fascism and, of course terrorism. All these march arm in arm with the project of corporate globalization.

Let me illustrate what I mean. India — the world’s biggest democracy — is currently at the forefront of the corporate globalization project. Its “market” of one billion people is being prized open by the WTO. Corporatization and Privatization are being welcomed by the Government and the Indian elite.

It is not a coincidence that the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, the Disinvestment Minister — the men who signed the deal with Enron in India, the men who are selling the country’s infrastructure to corporate multinationals, the men who want to privatize water, electricity, oil, coal, steel, health, education and telecommunication — are all members or admirers of the RSS. The RSS is a right wing, ultra-nationalist Hindu guild which has openly admired Hitler and his methods.

The dismantling of democracy is proceeding with the speed and efficiency of a Structural Adjustment Program. While the project of corporate globalization rips through people’s lives in India, massive privatization, and labor “reforms” are pushing people off their land and out of their jobs. Hundreds of impoverished farmers are committing suicide by consuming pesticide. Reports of starvation deaths are coming in from all over the country.

While the elite journeys to its imaginary destination somewhere near the top of the world, the dispossessed are spiraling downwards into crime and chaos. This climate of frustration and national disillusionment is the perfect breeding ground, history tells us, for fascism.

The two arms of the Indian Government have evolved the perfect pincer action. While one arm is busy selling India off in chunks, the other, to divert attention, is orchestrating a howling, baying chorus of Hindu nationalism and religious fascism. It is conducting nuclear tests, rewriting history books, burning churches, and demolishing mosques. Censorship, surveillance, the suspension of civil liberties and human rights, the definition of who is an Indian citizen and who is not, particularly with regard to religious minorities, is becoming common practice now.

Last March, in the state of Gujarat, two thousand Muslims were butchered in a State-sponsored pogrom. Muslim women were specially targeted. They were stripped, and gang-raped, before being burned alive. Arsonists burned and looted shops, homes, textiles mills, and mosques.

More than a hundred and fifty thousand Muslims have been driven from their homes. The economic base of the Muslim community has been devastated.

While Gujarat burned, the Indian Prime Minister was on MTV promoting his new poems. In January this year, the Government that orchestrated the killing was voted back into office with a comfortable majority. Nobody has been punished for the genocide. Narendra Modi, architect of the pogrom, proud member of the RSS, has embarked on his second term as the Chief Minister of Gujarat. If he were Saddam Hussein, of course each atrocity would have been on CNN. But since he’s not — and since the Indian “market” is open to global investors — the massacre is not even an embarrassing inconvenience.

There are more than one hundred million Muslims in India. A time bomb is ticking in our ancient land.

All this to say that it is a myth that the free market breaks down national barriers. The free market does not threaten national sovereignty, it undermines democracy.

As the disparity between the rich and the poor grows, the fight to corner resources is intensifying. To push through their “sweetheart deals,” to corporatize the crops we grow, the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the dreams we dream, corporate globalization needs an international confederation of loyal, corrupt, authoritarian governments in poorer countries to push through unpopular reforms and quell the mutinies.

Corporate Globalization — or shall we call it by its name? — Imperialism — needs a press that pretends to be free. It needs courts that pretend to dispense justice.

Meanwhile, the countries of the North harden their borders and stockpile weapons of mass destruction. After all they have to make sure that it’s only money, goods, patents and services that are globalized. Not the free movement of people. Not a respect for human rights. Not international treaties on racial discrimination or chemical and nuclear weapons or greenhouse gas emissions or climate change, or — god forbid — justice.

So this — all this — is “empire.” This loyal confederation, this obscene accumulation of power, this greatly increased distance between those who make the decisions and those who have to suffer them.

Our fight, our goal, our vision of Another World must be to eliminate that distance.

So how do we resist “Empire”?

The good news is that we’re not doing too badly. There have been major victories. Here in Latin America you have had so many — in Bolivia, you have Cochabamba. In Peru, there was the uprising in Arequipa, In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez is holding on, despite the US government’s best efforts.

And the world’s gaze is on the people of Argentina, who are trying to refashion a country from the ashes of the havoc wrought by the IMF.

In India the movement against corporate globalization is gathering momentum and is poised to become the only real political force to counter religious fascism.

As for corporate globalization’s glittering ambassadors — Enron, Bechtel, WorldCom, Arthur Anderson — where were they last year, and where are they now?

And of course here in Brazil we must ask ...who was the president last year, and who is it now?

Still ... many of us have dark moments of hopelessness and despair. We know that under the spreading canopy of the War Against Terrorism, the men in suits are hard at work.

While bombs rain down on us, and cruise missiles skid across the skies, we know that contracts are being signed, patents are being registered, oil pipelines are being laid, natural resources are being plundered, water is being privatized, and George Bush is planning to go to war against Iraq.

If we look at this conflict as a straightforward eye-ball to eye-ball confrontation between “Empire” and those of us who are resisting it, it might seem that we are losing.

But there is another way of looking at it. We, all of us gathered here, have, each in our own way, laid siege to “Empire.”

We may not have stopped it in its tracks — yet — but we have stripped it down. We have made it drop its mask. We have forced it into the open. It now stands before us on the world’s stage in all it’s brutish, iniquitous nakedness.

Empire may well go to war, but it’s out in the open now — too ugly to behold its own reflection. Too ugly even to rally its own people. It won’t be long before the majority of American people become our allies.

Only a few days ago in Washington, a quarter of a million people marched against the war on Iraq. Each month, the protest is gathering momentum.

Before September 11th 2001 America had a secret history. Secret especially from its own people. But now America’s secrets are history, and its history is public knowledge. It’s street talk.

Today, we know that every argument that is being used to escalate the war against Iraq is a lie. The most ludicrous of them being the US Government’s deep commitment to bring democracy to Iraq.

Killing people to save them from dictatorship or ideological corruption is, of course, an old US government sport. Here in Latin America, you know that better than most.

Nobody doubts that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, a murderer (whose worst excesses were supported by the governments of the United States and Great Britain). There’s no doubt that Iraqis would be better off without him.

But, then, the whole world would be better off without a certain Mr. Bush. In fact, he is far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein. So, should we bomb Bush out of the White House?

It’s more than clear that Bush is determined to go to war against Iraq, regardless of the facts — and regardless of international public opinion.

In its recruitment drive for allies, The United States is prepared to invent facts.

The charade with weapons inspectors is the US government’s offensive, insulting concession to some twisted form of international etiquette. It’s like leaving the “doggie door” open for last minute “allies” or maybe the United Nations to crawl through. But for all intents and purposes, the New War against Iraq has begun.

What can we do?

We can hone our memory, we can learn from our history. We can continue to build public opinion until it becomes a deafening roar.

We can turn the war on Iraq into a fishbowl of the US government’s excesses.

We can expose George Bush and Tony Blair — and their allies — for the cowardly baby killers, water poisoners, and pusillanimous long-distance bombers that they are.

We can re-invent civil disobedience in a million different ways. In other words, we can come up with a million ways of becoming a collective pain in the ass.

When George Bush says “you’re either with us, or you are with the terrorists” we can say “No thank you.” We can let him know that the people of the world do not need to choose between a Malevolent Mickey Mouse and the Mad Mullahs.

Our strategy should be not only to confront empire, but to lay siege to it. To deprive it of oxygen. To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness — and our ability to tell our own stories. Stories that are different from the ones we’re being brainwashed to believe.

The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling — their ideas, their version of history, their wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability.

Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them.

Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing. —Outlook India

www.corpwatch.org By Naomi Klein Globe & Mail January 30, 2003

The key word at this year's World Social Forum, which ended Tuesday in Porto Alegre, Brazil, was "big." Big attendance: more than 100,000 delegates in all! Big speeches: more than 15,000 crammed in to see Noam Chomsky! And most of all, big men. Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the newly elected President of Brazil, came to the forum and addressed 75,000 adoring fans. Hugo Chavez, the controversial President of Venezuela, paid a "surprise" visit to announce that his embattled regime was part of the movement.

"The left in Latin America is being reborn," Mr. Chavez declared, as he pledged to vanquish his opponents at any cost. As evidence of this rebirth, he pointed to Lula's election in Brazil, Lucio Gutierrez's victory in Ecuador and Fidel Castro's tenacity in Cuba.

But wait a minute: How on earth did a gathering that was supposed to be a showcase for new grassroots movements become a celebration of men with a penchant for three-hour speeches about smashing the oligarchy?

Of course, the forum, in all its dizzying global diversity, was not only speeches, with huge crowds all facing the same direction. There were plenty of circles, with small groups of people facing each other. There were thousands of impromptu gatherings of activists excitedly swapping facts, tactics and analysis in their common struggles. But the big certainly put its mark on the event.

Two years ago, at the first World Social Forum, the key word was not "big" but "new": new ideas, new methods, new faces. Because if there was one thing that most delegates agreed on (and there wasn't much), it was that the left's traditional methods had failed.

This came from hard-won experience, experience that remains true even if some left-wing parties have been doing well in the polls recently. Many of the delegates at that first forum had spent their lives building labor parties, only to watch helplessly as those parties betrayed their roots once in power, throwing up their hands and implementing the paint-by-numbers policies dictated by global markets. Other delegates came with scarred bodies and broken hearts after fighting their entire lives to free their countries from dictatorship or racial apartheid, only to see their liberated land hand its sovereignty to the International Monetary Fund for a loan.

Still others who attended that first forum were refugees from doctrinaire Communist parties who had finally faced the fact that the socialist "utopias" of Eastern Europe had turned into centralized, bureaucratic and authoritarian nightmares. And outnumbering all of these veteran activists was a new and energetic generation of young people who had never trusted politicians, and were finding their own political voice on the streets of Seattle, Prague and Sao Paulo.

When this global rabble came together under the slogan "Another world is possible," it was clear to all but the most rigidly nostalgic that getting to this other world wouldn't be a matter of resuscitating the flawed models of the past, but imagining new movements.

The World Social Forum didn't produce a political blueprint -- a good start -- but there was a clear pattern to the alternatives that emerged. Politics had to be less about trusting well-meaning leaders, and more about empowering people to make their own decisions; democracy had to be less representative and more participatory. The ideas flying around included neighborhood councils, participatory budgets, stronger city governments, land reform and co-operative farming -- a vision of politicized communities that could be networked internationally to resist further assaults from the IMF, the World Bank and World Trade Organization. For a left that had tended to look to centralized state solutions to solve almost every problem, this emphasis on decentralization and direct participation was a breakthrough.

At the first World Social Forum, Lula was cheered, too: not as a heroic figure who vowed to take on the forces of the market and eradicate hunger, but as an innovator whose party was at the forefront of developing tools for impoverished people to meet their own needs. Sadly, those themes of deep participation and democratic empowerment were largely absent from Mr. da Silva's campaign for president. Instead, he told and retold a personal story about how voters could trust him because he came from poverty, and knew their pain. But standing up to the demands of the international financial community isn't about whether an individual politician is trustworthy, it's about the fact that, as Mr. da Silva is already proving, no person or party is strong enough on its own.

Right now, it looks as if Lula has only two choices: abandoning his election promises of wealth redistribution or trying to force them through and ending up in a Chavez-style civil war. But there is another option, one his own Workers Party has tried before, one that made Porto Alegre itself a beacon of a new kind of politics: more democracy. He could simply hand power back to the citizens who elected him, on key issues from payment of the foreign debt, to land reform, to membership in the Free Trade Area of the Americas. There is a host of mechanisms that he could use: referendums, constituents' assemblies, networks of empowered local councils and assemblies. Choosing an alternative economic path would still spark fierce resistance, but his opponents would not have the luxury of being against Lula, as they are against Mr. Chavez, and would, instead, be forced to oppose the repeated and stated will of the majority -- to be against democracy itself.

Perhaps the reason why participatory democracy is being usurped at the World Social Forum by the big men is that there isn't much glory in it. A victory at the ballot box isn't a blank check for five years, but the beginning of an unending process of returning power to that electorate time and time again.

For some, the hijacking of the forum is proof that the movements against corporate globalization are finally maturing and "getting serious." But is it really so mature, amidst the graveyard of failed, left political projects, to believe that change will come by casting your ballot for the latest charismatic leader, then crossing your fingers and hoping for the best? Get serious.

Naomi Klein, author of No Logo and Fences and Windows, resumes her monthly column in The Globe and Mail.

FAIR USE NOTICE. This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. CorpWatch is making this article available in our efforts to advance the understanding of corporate accountability, human rights, labor rights, social and environmental justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.