Annual meetings of the World Economic Forum, the club of the world’s rich and powerful, and that of its counterweight, the World Social Forum, representing the aspirations of the poor, concluded in New York and Porto Alegre (Brazil) respectively on February 4,2002, after 5 days of deliberations. They were expected to deal mainly with the problems of global economy as seen in their different perspectives.
Media coverage of the two indicates that both gatherings were heavily impacted by the 9/11 catastrophe.
This was the 32nd session of the WEF and the first outside Davos, its headquarter and the beautiful ski-resort in the Alps of Switzerland.
New York was chosen this year for the meeting as the Swiss authorities expressed their inability to provide requisite security, in the wake of 9/11 to a galaxy of world elite -the movers, shakers, deep-thinkers, deal-makers, and the wielders of political power. Bill Clinton attended the session last year.
More importantly, the selection of New York was intended to mark the Forum’s solidarity with the spirit of capitalism embodied by the World Trade Center.
The anti-thesis, the counter-weight to the WEF was provided by the World Social Forum that convened its annual session, only the second since its inception last year, in Porto Alegre, a socialist stronghold in southern Brazil. Few places in Brazil are more enmeshed in the global economy than this city of 1.2 million. Apart from Brazil’s own multinationals, the port city hosts many foreign corporations like the General Motors, Dell Computers, British American Tobacco, and Telefonica of Spain. Also, it is one of the more prosperous areas of Brazil with a high component of white population.
No wonder, some cynics felt that the formation of the WSF was a clever device of the multinationals to institutionalize anti-globalization protests and maintain it as their own front organization. This appears to be too far-fetched.
The World Social Forum was attended by 14,000 delegates from over 100 countries, five times the 2,700 attending the gathering of the elite in New York. In contrast to the $25,000 needed to participate in WEF in New York, the forum of the socialists charged delegates $50 only.
Although globalization of world economies and its fall-out, particularly on the weak economies, is at the heart of the dialectics at both forums, the meetings this year were held under the dark shadow of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on the Trade Center, the world monument to the attainments of free trade.
Speakers at the Social Forum were therefore cautious in the formulation of their critique of globalization lest it puts them behind Osama’s message in the demolition of the twin towers.
The speakers at the New York forum, while showing an upbeat attitude and a disdain for Osama’s message, also reflected the steeling of their determination to fight the opponents of the system no matter what it takes. As the famous MIT professor, Noam Chomsky, put it: “The message is we the powerful will pursue our own agenda even more relentlessly than before, while the rest of the world are supposed to be quiet and submissive and obedient and not raise your voices.”
But their support for globalization was weakened by the massive bankruptcy at Enron and many other corporate failures and the wide-spread lay-off of employees in the past year.
The participants seemed to have realized that they no longer hold a monopoly on wisdom. The many unattained hopes and expectations from globalization and the dot.com revolution brought home to them their own and their system’s limitations.
The corporate leaders, celebrities and the wielders of power, analyzing the situation, could hardly avoid a discussion of US foreign policy and its possible role in breeding terrorism and the downside of globalization. In their statements on war against terror, the US authorities including the President have been wary of even mentioning the underlying foreign policy issues, particularly in the Mid-east conflict.
Much under discussion was President Bush’s statement calling Iraq, Iran and North Korea “an axis of evil”. Several delegates found fault with the US policy of (1) going it alone, and (2) expanding the arena to countries which had little to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Iran had even offered the coalition facilities in the war against Al Qaeda and Taliban. In any case, the identification of the new targets was unilateral.
Economists questioned also the enormous increase in the proposed US ;budget on defense at a time when the economy was facing serious recession. As a matter of fact, for many the main concern of the conference was to identify measures to pull global economy out of the wide-spread recession.
Similarly, the invitation to Prof. Samuel Huntington to expound his tendentious thesis on the clash of Muslim and Christian civilizations, raised questions as to who actually was laying down the foreign policy postures of the US and in whose specific interest.
The reason for the haughty attitude of Israeli leader Ariel Sharon, a conference attendee, towards Arafat, currently under a virtual Israeli siege, is not far to seek.
Monitoring the drumbeats of war, the organizers of the Social Forum in Brazil made the need to stop war a central item on their agenda.
Prof. Noam Chomsky, the key-note speaker at that conference, epitomized the general apprehension when he observed,”Either we will have a world without war, or we will not have a world.”
Evidently, the focus of both forums had deviated from the global economic problems. A brief description of these will indicate their enormity and the criminal negligence by both gatherings.
According to a recent World Bank report, a sixth of the world population living in North America, Europe and Japan received nearly 80 percent of world income, and average of $70 a day per person. The 57 % of the world’s population in the 63 poorest countries received only 6 per cent of world income, an average of $2 per person per day.
This disparity in a world that is fast becoming a global village, thanks mainly to American technology, presages cataclysmic eruptions such as massive migrations, starvation deaths and local wars. World economists have therefore been advocating measures to gradually reduce polarization. The setting up of the World Trade Organization in 1993 has, contrary to promises made, brought down the customs barriers allowing the rapacious corporations of the rich countries to exploit unhindered the fragile economies of the poor. The tide has not lifted all boats, it has sunk some. Argentina is the latest casualty. It has collapsed under the weight of its $140 billion foreign debt. Corruption cannot be blamed totally for it. The system, debt serving in particular, is largely responsible for it.
Many Third World states are unable to pay back their debts. Highly critical problems such as these merited more attention at the forums. Voices raised, such as that of the famous rock star, Bono, were snubbed and suppressed.
Calling for the help of the rich, Bono uttered in anguish: “The very poor could not escape poverty alone. They are too poor to get out of poverty.”