Report
on the Activities of the ARTICULACIÓN FEMINISTA MARCOSUR
This
report has two sections. The first covers the responsibilities assumed
by the Articulación Feminista Marcosur (Marcosur Feminist
Articulation, AFM) since it began participating in the World Social
Forum’s (WSF) International Committee. The second part of the report
covers the activities carried out by the AFM during the WSF, with
respect to both its interaction with global networks and its campaign
against fundamentalisms.
I.
AFM responsibilities in the WSF process, as a member of the
International Committee
Meeting
of the WSF International Committee
WSF
2003 was preceded by a meeting of the International Committee (IC),
which took place on 21 and 22 January.
The agenda of the meeting was as follows:
At this meeting a series of questions and
tensions were aired, relating both to the future development of the
WSF and to the IC and the role of the Brazilian Organizing Committee
(OC, the acting WSF Secretariat). This meeting was preceded by a
public campaign in the Brazilian media against the Brazilian OC. Some of the more problematic questions
relate to the fact that this third edition of the WSF had all the
characteristics of a “mega-event”. Undoubtedly the active
participation of networks and movements is an expression of their
growing consolidation within global civil society, but it is also
becoming apparent that it is increasingly difficult to organize such
an event properly. In addition, the IC itself, as the joint
decision-making body of the WSF, is experiencing difficulties. On the
one hand, the levels of participation and assumption of
responsibilities within it are unequal, and it is a space in which it
is difficult to establish an efficient functioning dynamic (100 or 120
networks meeting for a couple of days does not allow for any real
discussion to take place). On the other hand, there is an increasingly
urgent need for its functions to be properly defined, transparency and
accountability mechanisms to be put in place, and procedures for the
incorporation of new networks to be established, while at the same
time guaranteeing its ability to act efficiently. The networks and organizations that are
members of the IC were invited to participate by the Brazilian OC on
the basis of unclear criteria, which so far has made it difficult to
establish more adequate membership criteria. They were not
“elected” through any formal procedure, which, on the other hand,
would be difficult to establish, given the diversity and wide range of
organizations, initiatives and networks that participate in the WSF.
This intrinsic weakness of the IC is what, in the opinion of the AFM,
makes the IC a body that cannot be regarded as representative of the
world’s social movements and requires that its functions and remit
be defined within strict parameters. For some time now the IC has been seeking
to define mechanisms that would render its functioning more
transparent, by establishing clear rules and responsibilities for its
members and clearer criteria for the incorporation of new members. The IC meeting was preceded by what was
intended to be an active debate amongst all its member networks to
discuss the IC charter of regulations, covering in different ways both
these and other urgent issues necessary for the smooth internal
functioning of a body such as the IC. Although the discussion, via
Internet, was completely open to anyone wishing to participate beyond
membership of the IC, only a minimum number of networks took part
(around 10, according to information from the OC). The AFM presented a
preliminary response drafted by Lilián Celiberti, Gina Vargas and
Guacira Cesar de Oliveira. All these questions and challenges that the
WSF presents today, and to which there are no adequate answers yet,
have been made more pressing by the growing and successful process of
globalization of the WSF, clearly visible in the impact of the
thematic and regional forums. During 2002 and the first month of 2003,
three thematic forums —the Forum on the impact of neo-liberal
policies on the Argentine economy; the Palestine Forum; and the
Pan-Amazonian Forum— and three regional forums —the European
Social Forum, the Asian Social Forum and the African Social Forum—
took place. The European SF was a large-scale event, which ended with
a march in which close to a million people took part (from all over
Europe, most of whom did not attend the Forum itself, but joined the
mobilization). The Asian SF was attended by a much higher percentage
of Indian participants than other Asian nationalities. The African SF
was the weakest, since the process is just getting started in that
region, although strategies are now being defined to achieve a greater
impact. Preparations are already underway for the Forum of the
Americas, to be held in Quito, Ecuador, in 2004, and a series of
national Forums have taken place or are being organized. One of the principal concerns of a good
number of sectors in the IC is the need to uphold the Charter of
Principles, which is the only formal document to articulate the huge
diversity encompassed by each of these different forums. This is even
more important insofar as the different thematic and regional forums,
as well as the process of decentralization of the WSF itself, have the
necessary autonomy to organize the events and process in the way that
each considers most appropriate. This autonomy should be contained
within limits that are sufficiently broad, but that also establish the
independence of the forum processes with respect to other political
forces, such as political parties. However, there is a worrying
current within the IC that is proposing that political parties play a
more active role, despite the fact that the non-participation of such
organizations as such in the WSF is one of the explicit principles
defined in the Charter. Other proposals to modify the Charter of
Principles include the possibility that the WSF make unified public
declarations on events and happenings of global importance. This would
endanger the necessary plurality and diversity of visions, emphases
and opinions, which until now have characterized the WSF and have been
its most enriching and democratic expression. Equally, there is
pressure to open up the IC to national level movements and
organizations, a proposal presented in several national arenas that
would imply yet further difficulties. These modifications would substantially
alter the Charter of Principles, thus weakening the WSF’s nature as
an autonomous space/process, which emerges from civil societies,
through global and regional organizations that interact with and are
fed by local and national experiences. But, as we have mentioned in
all our reports on the IC, this space is the arena for a political
struggle for hegemony, which is being expressed, inter alia, in terms
of a supposed polarization between NGOs and social movements, with the
former occupying the “reformist” pole, while the latter are
labelled the “genuine” spokespersons of the alternative world. At the end of the IC meeting a short
document was discussed and approved, which contained 15 points
relating to the future perspectives of the WSF process (see Annex 1).
The main aim of this document was to attempt to provide a response to
some of the questions mentioned above. After lengthy discussions, it was decided
that the WSF would be held in India in 2004, and at the same time it
was proposed that it should return to Porto Alegre in 2005. It was
also decided that the Forum should be separated, both symbolically and
practically, from Davos, although obviously its clear anti neo-liberal
globalization principles would be retained. It was also agreed that the IC meet less
frequently than previously (just two IC meetings will be held between
WSFs), although to compensate, the next meeting will be longer than
previous ones. At this meeting, which will be held around June, there
will be a discussion on what was not resolved at the meeting in Porto
Alegre —the IC’s internal regulations. This discussion is urgently
needed, as the IC currently possesses no document defining its
functions and responsibilities, or containing clear procedures for the
incorporation of new networks. One of our objectives as the AFM should be
the active incorporation of other feminist networks, since there are
very few feminist members in the IC and that limits our possibilities
of formulating common strategies.
2.
The AFM’s responsibility for the development of Thematic Area 4 For this year’s WSF, the IC and OC
decided to work by prioritizing inter-movement debate around five
central thematic areas, with care being taken to include both gender
and youth as crosscutting issues, and to maintain a regional and
ethnic balance, in all of them. The idea was that the centre of
attention and debate between the social movements should take place
through the panels organized around each thematic area. However, this
did not happen, partly because the panels, which were supposed to be
the principal activity of the WSF, were assigned a location that was
logistically inadequate and secondary to what until now has been the
central location of WSF activities. In practice, people attended the
large conferences, which were transmitted live on TV, and the
controversy roundtables, which represented the new attraction at the
WSF. The two months of work that had gone into articulating between
panel members went virtually unnoticed and did not enjoy press
coverage. The AFM was in charge of Thematic Area 4
(democracy, political power, civil society, see Annex 2). The make-up
of the 6 panels organized within each thematic area (each with 6
panellists) aimed to bring together experience and reflection on the
proposed issues and to represent full geographic, sexual and
generational diversity. The panellists came from global and regional
movements and networks (Annex 3). Thematic Area 4 aimed to facilitate an
understanding of the different issues, taking as its starting point
the new directions being pursued by social movements, on the basis of
their experiences with respect to the new realities on which they seek
to have an impact. WSF 2003 was designed to elicit and inter-connect
strategies (WSF 2001 focused on analyses, WSF 2002 on alternatives).
The networks were selected according to their record of experience
with respect to the issue of the panel, as well as to criteria of
geographic, gender, sexual orientation and ethnic balance. In each
panel, the panellists presented a series of possible strategies around
the specific issues being debated. At the end of the three days, a
closing strategies panel was held, in which the person responsible for
the thematic area and the 6 panel moderators participated. The first
joint proposal on strategies, which is still being revised, is
included in Annex 4. A meeting will be held in April to evaluate
the development of all the thematic areas.
II.
Mobilizations and activities organized by the Articulación Feminista
Marcosur
YOUR MOUTH, FUNDAMENTAL AGAINST
FUNDAMENTALISMS This year, the activities in the campaign
“Against fundamentalisms —what’s fundamental are people” were
centred around:
Our thanks to all the networks
participating in the campaign and all those who are adding their
voices (Campaña por una Convención de derechos sexuales y
derechos reproductivos, Campaña 28 de setiembre, Red de Salud de las
mujeres de América Latina y el Caribe (RMSLAC), Red de Educación
Popular Entre Mujeres (REPEM), Development Alternatives with Women for
a New Era (DAWN), International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights
Commission (IGLHRC), Center for Women’s Global Leadership, Women
Living Under Muslim Laws, Catholics for a Free Choice, Articulación
Feminista Marcosur). Special thanks are also due to the
Articulation of Brazilian Women and Themis, Porto Alegre, for helping
both with producing the materials and organizing the networks’
meeting and the Campaign book launch.
22
AND 28 FEBRUARY MEETINGS
This “report/account” is a summary of
the two meetings, not only because one was a direct consequence of the
other, but also because it aims to highlight the common bases of both
meetings: the underlying subtexts; the ideas that come and go,
floating around until they find somewhere to anchor (while others sink
to the bottom); the practices, and even the feelings about the
practices and ideas. When the AFM proposed the first meeting,
the aim was to try to achieve something that several of the feminist
organizations and networks present at the WSF felt to be crucial:
share our perspectives, discuss the activities that each one was
organizing within the WSF, and explore the possibilities of
coordinating common strategies. The FSM is not a Feminist Encounter,
nor a conference in Vienna, Cairo or Beijing, but we feminists share a
notion of continuity and accumulation and it was this that gave rise
to the meetings held on 22 and 28 February. This was also why so many
networks called the meetings and so many more participated in them. As everything in life, the methodology we
chose to adopt for the meeting is questionable. Some would have
preferred a more “political” meeting, with an in-depth discussion
of the current global situation and of our strategies. Others would
have liked there to have been a panel of three or four speakers, whose
analyses could have provided the starting point for us to identify
points in common. However, this was the first time that we
had come together in a space like the Social Forum, and for this
reason, the networks that called the meeting decided that each
participant should introduce her organization and its strategy. In the
end this turned out to be a very “political” choice, which made it
possible for all of us to feel that we were setting out together on
the road that we want to/must travel together. In the meeting members of the AFM made two
reports on the WSF:
Both reports emphasized that it was
important that more feminist networks get on to the IC and participate
actively in the discussions regarding the nature of the WSF. Until the
question of new membership of the IC is resolved, those networks that
are already members made the commitment to inform the other networks
about the debates taking place in the IC, and at the same time to
relay the opinions of those networks that are not members, functioning
as a “kind of coalition” towards the WSF (a “kind of
coalition” because it is not to have any structure or content other
than that detailed above).
Relevant
points
a)
In
addition to the two descriptive reports mentioned above, FIRE and the
AFM presented two CD-ROMs on WSF 2002. Both of these show the “other
face” of the WSF —the part relating to people’s participation
and the activities organized by feminist and women’s organizations. b)
WICEJ
asked that the networks send in summaries or reports of the panels and
workshops on women’s and gender issues that were held at the Forum. c)
A
statement against the war was presented, which was signed by the
majority of organizations present. d)
The
importance of holding a press conference prior to the start of the WSF
was stressed. e)
A
description was given of the activities planned in the Campaign
against fundamentalisms, and those present were invited to participate
in the inaugural march around the focus of the Campaign. f)
A
proposal was made to hold another meeting on 28 February to carry out
together a primary evaluation of the WSF. Incredibly, point f), which we forgot about
completely for five days, was one of the most important results of the
first meeting. Once the madness and hustle and bustle of
the Forum was over, and without anyone sending out a reminder of the
meeting, we all began arriving at the distant and semi-dismantled
Planeta Femea, each one of us thinking that we would be the only ones
there and that no one else would have remembered the meeting. But everyone had.
Evaluation
of the WSF —main points:
a)
At the press conference given by the IC at the end of the WSF,
we were told that more women than men had participated in this WSF,
and that two thirds of the costs of the WSF had been met by
participants. At the press conference María Suárez from FIRE asked
why there had been such a gender imbalance among the speakers in the
Conferences, a question that was met by a self-critical response by
the Organizing Committee, which resolved to meet this challenge at the
next Forum.
b)
This year there were more feminists on the central panels than
in previous years. But it just happened that this year —without any
explicit decision being taken— more visibility was given to the
Conferences, where fewer feminists participated (the presence of
Susana George from ISIS Manila was a notable exception).
c)
We need to coordinate and concentrate our respective activities
more, so as not to duplicate themes, to spend fewer resources and
achieve greater attendance figures.
d)
We should invite more global and regional networks to
participate in this initiative since we all share a common goal of
having an influence on the WSF.
e)
The Planeta Femea was too isolated from the activities of the
Forum, which were themselves fragmented in different locations and
spread over a wide area.
f)
The Campaign against fundamentalisms served to help give us all
visibility in the inaugural march.
g)
In part owing to the fragmentation of the locations, many women
ended up without a clear idea of the main discussions taking place
within the Forum. With respect to this point, the AFM told those
present that it was preparing a METAFORUM to debate the main currents
and exchanges of thought present at the WSF, as a means of promoting
the internal political development of the AFM.
h)
Among other points, Gigi F. gave an overview of the challenges
implied by the fact that the next WSF was to take place in India. A
few days previously, concerned by the public declarations of one
political representative from India in a workshop, the AFM and other
networks had held an informal meeting to analyze the challenges and
dangers of the next WSF in India. The following points were given
especial emphasis: (1) attempts by political parties to discredit NGOs
in the eyes of the social movements; (2) the patriarchal style of the
Asian Social Forum, which was held immediately before the WSF; (3) the
need to establish close links with Indian and Asian women’s
organizations in order to prepare for and guarantee the plurality and
diversity of the debate at the next WSF.
Proposals/results:
1.
Study the “possibility” of creating a special fund with
contributions from networks and agencies, to provide financial backing
for women’s participation in the next WSF. Once the amount is known,
negotiate with the IC and OC better conditions for all. For example,
that in India the Planeta Femea and/or the space which we decide to
create is given a central location, that more feminists be included as
speakers in the conferences, etc.
2.
Creation of a Hospitality Group so that women would not feel so
lost and without support if they find themselves needing somewhere to
stay, a doctor, etc. Ana María P. promised to look into getting one
started.
3.
That an information bulletin be produced between now and the
next Forum.
4.
That the Campaign against fundamentalisms be a central activity
in India. Its specific focus must be defined, taking into account the
religious and political conflicts in the region.
5.
That one delegate per network (self-financing) be allowed to
participate in the AFM METAFORUM meeting and that it should take place
close in time to the next WSF IC meeting to ensure up-to-date
information and increase the possibility of bringing influence to
bear.
6.
The AFM resolved to: ·
Send
a report in a month’s time on the meetings of the 22 and 28
February, as well as a political report on the IC. ·
Welcome
the participation (but is unable to offer funding, because we have
none) of network delegates in the METAFORUM. ·
Send
the results of the METAFORUM to ALL the feminists who participated in
the 22/28 meetings. ·
Produce
an electronic bulletin similar to the one we prepared prior to this
WSF, with information and discussion documents, contributed by
everyone, and to make it available on www.mujeresdelsur.org.uy,
where the activities carried out in previous forums is already
available.
The
AFM can “start developing” some of the ideas and suggestions made
by all those present, but to make sure that we arrive at the next WSF
truly strengthened, each network, each organization, each feminist
must take on responsibilities and tasks. We take it for granted that
we are all working for all of us, in the same way that we did in Porto
Alegre.
You
will find attached the list of participants in the meetings, which we
ask you to check to see that the details are correct.
Please
send us any articles that you have written on WSF 2003 to put on our
web site.
Fondest
regards to everyone. Lucy Garrido,
Virginia Vargas, Lilián Celiberti
ARTICULACIÓN
FEMINISTA MARCOSUR
|
||
|
|
