31 Jan. - 6 Feb. 2002
Issue No.571
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 31 Jan. - 6 Feb. 2002 Issue No.571 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Anti-terrorism versus anti-globalism
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed discusses the significance of the World Social Forum meeting in Porto Alegre today
Since 11 September, a single issue, namely, the war against terrorism, has dominated the global agenda. From the moment he was first fingered as the likeliest suspect in the terrorist attacks against America, Bin Laden has become the global bogeyman, an ubiquitous presence with tentacles stretching everywhere. Evidence is emerging every day that the terrorist organisation he heads, Al-Qa'eda, is not limited to one country or region, but has extensions and ramifications in a wide variety of countries, including prominent Western nations, and that, in addition to its active cells, Al-Qa'eda also has sleeper cells that can be activated when the need arises. Global conflict has been reduced to confrontation with Bin Laden in such an exaggerated manner that powerful media organisations in the West have taken to portraying the current confrontation as being not between terrorism and civilisation, but between Islam and civilisation. Huntington has been rediscovered and his "clash of civilisations" theory used to buttress the allegation that the confrontation is between Islam and the rest of humanity.
But even if the anti-terrorism offensive now occupies centre stage, it is far from being the only global conflict being played out. Even before 11 September, and ever since the demise of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the bipolar world order, another confrontation of global dimensions has been underway. No less important than the confrontation with terrorism, its defining moment was not the destruction of symbols of America's economic power (the twin towers of the World Trade Centre), or of its military might (the Pentagon), but the mass demonstrations in Seattle that scuttled the World Trade Organisation meeting in 1999.
In both cases, the confrontation is between forces at the summit of the international community (the ruling elites who support globalisation as represented in the hegemony of the transnational corporations) and forces at its base who suffer from this hegemony and, because of it, are exposed to persecution, dispossession, injustice and alienation. But there is an important difference between the two confrontations: in the confrontation between pro- and anti-globalisation forces, the "villain" is the establishment at the summit of the international community, while in the confrontation with terrorism, the "villains" are the anti-establishment forces at its base.
For a number of years, the Swiss resort town of Davos has played host to annual gatherings of the World Economic Forum (WEF). While this association of global corporate elites has no power to set policy, its members meet to consult over the issues that matter and to hash out their vision for the rest of the world. In their own words, they "are fully engaged in the process of defining and advancing the global agenda." In 1999, the World Social Forum (WSF) was established as a counterpoint to the WEF, and held its first meeting at the same time and in the same place as the WEF. Proposed by a coalition of Brazilian civil society organisations, the idea received strong international support from organisations such as Attac (an influential Europe-wide organisation supporting a tax on global financial transactions, known as the Tobin tax), the French Le Monde Diplomatique and Britain's Oxfam.
The WSF's anti-Davos campaign included workshops and debates which attracted high-level intellectuals. It also attracted activists and militants, which made it possible to transform the counteroffensive against globalisation into a mass protest movement grouping a wide diversity of communities adversely affected by the globalisation process. However, demonstrations could not grow beyond a certain limit in a remote place like Davos, lost in the Swiss Alps. It was decided that a different location would be preferable for the anti-Davos gathering, where the local authorities would be sympathetic to the demonstrators' ideas, and ready to offer them assistance and facilities. That is how Porto Alegre in southern Brazil was chosen. And today, on 31 January 2002, Porto Alegre is hosting the World Social Forum's second session.
Located in one of Brazil's more prosperous states, Rio Grande do Sul, and ranking near the top in terms of the country's "quality of life" index, Porto Alegre, with 1.2 million inhabitants of mainly European stock, is not exactly a Third World city. And yet its name has become the byword for the spirit of the burgeoning movement against corporate-driven globalisation. Galvanised by the slogan "Another world is possible," some 70,000 people are expected to flock to the coastal city in the four days to come, a sixfold increase over last year's figure. These include fisherfolk from India, farmers from East Africa, trade unionists from Thailand and indigenous people from Central America. There is also a sizeable contingent of intellectuals and politicians, such as world-famous American linguist-activist Noam Chomsky, Guatemalan Nobel Peace Prize laureate Rigoberta Menchu, Indian physicist-feminist Vandana Shiva, Egyptian economist Samir Amin, Canadian people's advocate Maude Barlow, six French ministers, and the secretary-general of France's ruling Socialist Party.
The wide ideological gap between the WSF and the WEF was perhaps best articulated in a televised trans-Atlantic debate between representatives of the WSF and some luminaries attending the WEF, which was billed by the Financial Times as a collision between two planets, that of the global super-rich and that of the vast marginalised masses. The most memorable moment of that confrontation came as a representative of the Argentine human rights organisation Madres de la Plaza de Mayo shouted at financier George Soros: "Mr Soros, you are a hypocrite. How many children's deaths are you responsible for?"
In a break with tradition, the WEF is not holding its annual meeting in Davos this year, but in New York. Some observers believe the change of venue is a show of support for the stricken city, others that it was dictated by security considerations, to enable Bush to take part in the Forum without exposing himself to security risks.
While both considerations may well have figured in the decision to hold the WEF in New York, the real reason Davos is no longer considered a suitable site by either the WEF or the WSF is the ugly incidents which marked the latest chapter in the confrontation between proponents and opponents of globalisation. As the anti-globalisation movement acquired greater momentum, 300,000 demonstrators gathered to protest against the G-8 summit in Genoa last July. Riot police using tear gas attacked the demonstrators, killing one and injuring many. Shortly after the Genoa clashes, there was speculation in the press that gatherings in non-authoritarian countries might no longer be possible. And indeed, Canada's offer to host the next G-8 meeting in a resort high up in the Canadian Rockies seemed to confirm the fact that the global elite was on the run from the democracy of the streets.
Then came 11 September. The next big confrontation between the establishment and its opponents was supposed to take place in late September in Washington, DC, during the annual meeting of the World Bank and the IMF. But unnerved by the prospect of a week of massive protest, the establishment used the trauma of 11 September as an excuse to cancel the meeting. Sensitive to the change in the national mood, organisers cancelled the protest demonstrations and held a march for peace instead. This unexpected opportunity was used to press developing countries to approve a declaration launching a limited set of trade negotiations during the WTO ministerial meeting in Doha last November. Taking no chances, the WTO and the Qatar regime limited the number of legitimate NGOs attending the meeting to about 60.
It thus appears that two distinct confrontations are being played out concomitantly on the world stage, one against terrorism and another against globalisation. The first pits forces at the summit of the global community against forces at its base, where terrorism thrives; the second pits forces that are both anti-globalisation and anti-terrorism against the corporate elites at the summit of the global community.
The World Social Forum condemns terrorism as detrimental to the oppressed and believes that it is bound to ultimately backfire, because terrorist activities, like state counter-terrorism measures, are undertaken secretly, in a spirit antithetical to democracy, transparency and basic human rights. Because terrorism as a phenomenon will not be eradicated through police measures limited to catching and eliminating terrorists as individuals, but by addressing its root causes, fundamental steps must be taken to reform world order, not only to liquidate terrorists. That is exactly what the WSF has been doing. It is concentrating on the construction of an alternative human society, not getting involved in perpetual rounds of violence and counter-violence.
The present confrontation with terrorism has brought about another phenomenon, namely the Americanisation of the globalisation process. This is a direct corollary of Bush's statement that whoever is not with America is with terrorism, from which it follows that the offensive against terrorism is America's instrument for the Americanisation of the world. Actually, the WSF is a European rather than an American initiative. The WSF's weight has increased with the advent of the single European currency. Some in Porto Alegre may worry that this could usher in a new stage of "euro-imperialism." Even if this diagnosis is true, multipolarity is better than unipolarity, and multipolar globalisation is better than the unipolar Americanised version now prevailing.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page