The WEF, the WSF and the Third World
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed believes Egypt should be present at the two forums debating global developments: the World Economic Forum in Davos and the World Social Forum in Mumbai
At the meeting President Hosni Mubarak held last week with the Egyptian intelligentsia, I raised an issue that I believe to be of paramount importance at a time social activists from all five continents are calling for an alternative to neo-liberal globalisation. "In the past," I said, "the world was horizontally divided into East and West, with Non-Alignment in between. Today, it is vertically divided into North and South, into upstairs and downstairs, I believe we cannot open up only to upstairs but should be present downstairs as well."
The president agreed with what I said, thus implicitly acknowledging the emergence of a new global dichotomy: the Davos "World Economic Forum" (WEF) which, from 21 to 25 January last week, held its annual meeting in Davos, bringing together some of the most powerful business leaders, politicians, and top supporters of neo-liberal capitalism, versus the anti-Davos "World Social Forum" (WSF), which held its fourth annual meeting the week before, from 17 to 21 January in Mumbai, attracting 100,000 activists from all over the world to take part in its anti-globalisation activities. Each claimed it was better placed than the other to serve the interests of developing countries.
According to the World Economic Forum, the phenomenon of globalisation, which goes hand in hand with the unfolding of the process of neo- liberal capitalism, benefits people in developing countries in at least three important ways. First, by opening up markets, it increases economic growth, which, in turn, improves living standards. Second, globalisation leads to cheaper imports, meaning poorer countries pay less for goods they cannot produce. And, third, it helps undermine totalitarian and corrupt regimes by encouraging good practice based on rules.
By applying such criteria even to a communist country, like China for example, it has been noticed that living standards have increased sixfold in the last 20 years; the Chinese today have many more choices and the government has become more responsive than it was.
Proponents of globalisation criticise the World Social forum for its sweeping denunciation of globalisation, arguing that it need not necessarily serve neo-liberal capitalism and corporate interests. In their view, one can have a social conscience, care about world poverty and also support globalisation.
But WSF organisers point out that free trade policies have aggravated poverty, social exclusion and intolerance, while the forum brings together diverse groups, arising from a multitude of struggles, and allows new global alliances to be created. The main aim of the forum is to provide a space to discuss alternatives to the "free-market" policies of the West, which are operating in favour of the powerful of the world and widening the gap between rich and poor.
What is needed is to go back to the idea of full employment, a state that puts people before profit, which gets away from the law of the jungle, from the famous Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest. The state should guarantee that every one has a home and access to water supplies and, therefore, should stop assisting neo-liberal policies. Globalisation makes economic and social changes based on profit for the few, not the majority of people. The rich get richer, the poor poorer.
When public sector organisations are privatised, the new owners immediately begin to make staff redundant. All the gains made since independence was won are undermined by such policies. Within the context of the WSF, farmers and landless movements can eventually come together to share strategies to challenge abuses of corporate power.
the World Social Forum is a space for people all over the world who are opposed to globalisation to share ideas and strategies and develop joint programmes. Part of its role is as a symbolic alternative to the World Economic forum's vision of the future, which lacks humanity.
The message from the WSF is clear and urgent. It cannot simply be ignored by world leaders or the mainstream media. The democratic values of justice, peace and non-violence expressed in the WSF's charter of principles found in Mumbai a place where cosmopolitan values bloom. The event united AIDS activists from across Africa with American anti-war campaigners and Afghan women's groups, present to express their opposition to fundamentalisms of all kind. About 100,000 anti-globalisation activists, representing 2500 NGOs, gathered in India's biggest city for the World Social forum, including 6000 from Brazil, 2000 from Germany and 1300 from France. Groups attending included the ATTAC anti-globalisation group, Nobel prize winner Shirin Ebadi from Iran, Indian author Arundhati Roy, French anti-globalisation activist Jose Bove, American scientist Noam Chomsky, Egypt's Samir Amin, former Irish President Mary Robinson and Bolivian indigenous people's leader Evo Morales.
This was the first time the anti- globalisation meeting was held in Asia. One reason India's finance capital was chosen as the venue is the need to make the movement, so far dominated by Europeans and Latin Americans, more representative and inclusive of some of the world's poorest people and countries.
There was also an attempt to revitalise and broaden the forum's agenda, so debates were not limited only to what the forum sees as the economic imperialism of the rich countries. Also high on the agenda was opposition to the US occupation of Iraq and issues as diverse as genetically modified foods and racism. Anti-war activists welcomed the recent India- Pakistan peace initiative. But the Mumbai meeting's focus on issues like caste discrimination, child labour and the widening gap between India's rich and poor was embarrassing for the Indian government.
Despite the broad agreement of the delegates on many issues, an alternative forum has also emerged. Mumbai Resistance 2004 has been set up opposite the forum by left-wing groups who feel the main forum is not left-wing enough. Some anti-globalisation activists have criticised it for "lacking concrete outcomes that generate real change". Writer Naomi Klein claimed that the last forum in Porto Alegre was hijacked by political parties from the traditional left and that there was little real debate.
Last year's forum also attracted criticism for accepting sponsorship from multinational corporations. No sponsorship is being accepted this year.
The forum should also give birth to fresh concepts of alternative thinking in order to create a better world for the human race -- one that is fair, humane, peaceful and prosperous. The forum's slogan, "Another world is possible," must move beyond words into deeds; it should not be a Utopian vision that will never become a reality.
Former President Clinton told business leaders "that globalisation's opponents have got their criticism right. There are lots of wonderful people who are dealing with the rough edges of globalisation, but we do not have the systems the world needs to respond in a comprehensive way." Some people have suggested building bridges between the two summits. Many have spoken of a "healthy development".
Local offshoots of the WSF have appeared across the world. There are over 300 in 20 countries. Next year's forum is scheduled to return to Porto Alegre, Brazil and to go the following year to Africa. One can only hope that Egyptian NGOs will follow through with their plan to establish a local chapter of the WSF in Egypt.
