[fse-esf] Attac European Network : contribution to the European Preparatory Assembly of the European Social Forum

[Christophe Ventura]

Dear friends,

Please find our contribution to the discussion.

Take care

Christophe



Attac European Network


Contribution to the European Preparatory Assembly of the European Social Forum

Frankurt, 3-5 november 2006



With this letter we would like to express some 
comments, but also some concerns and some 
suggestions, regarding the ESF process.


1) Successes of the Athens ESF

First of all, we would like to stress the fact 
that we consider the ESF process to be one of the 
most important and indispensable spaces for 
European networking activities. The ESF process 
supports the building of a European space for « 
social movements ». In this space, our collective 
actors can exchange knowledge and weave links in 
order to elaborate alternatives to the neoliberal 
agenda. This space is also a privileged tool - 
not the only one - to build common mobilizations 
(G8, European Summit for 2007Š). It stimulates 
the convergence of diversity. This process is 
clearly enriching for all of us (at least, for 
those of us who can directly take part in this 
process). There's hardly any other space that is 
capable of bringing together so many 
heterogeneous political actors, and without the 
ESF process political discussions would continue 
to be restricted either in an exclusively 
national framework or in the rather formal 
networks of traditional political parties, 
unions, large NGOs and their international 
co-operation.

The fourth ESF took place in Athens. From our 
point of view, this Forum was a good one: well 
organised, it has shown that the end of the « 
traditional » big plenaries (let's say big 
meetings) had a positive effect on the event. 
This battle was useful. Another one has to be led 
: how to deal with the presence of political 
parties ? At this stage, the situation is still a 
caricature. We will come back later to this 
crucial point. Among the positive points of this 
Forum, we would like to underline the fact that 
the European issues and economic and social ones 
seem to be increasingly debated in the different 
activities.

Finally, this Forum was more successful in its 
enlarging process for Russia, central and 
oriental Europe, Turkey and Balkan countries. We 
will have to make sure this aspect is confirmed 
in the future. Unfortunately, the Scandinavian 
and Northern countries were not strongly 
represented.


2) Networks : an encouraging developmentŠ to be taken into account

A very encouraging development within the ESF 
process is the increasing ability of the 
different networks to cooperate on a European 
level. This development indicates a change in the 
process. It  must be taken into account.

Therefore, we suggest an extended time frame for 
the networks during future EPAs.

We also have to discuss collectively about the 
building of a new relationship between networks 
and the EPA plenum. Until now, the EPA plenum 
exercised a « monopoly » on the elaboration of 
the programme. This Forum has shown that 
something has changed. Our next challenge is to 
build a dynamic discussion to adapt our 
collective preparation of the Forum to this 
evolution where networks - born within or outside 
the ESF process (Education, Health,  GATS/WTO, 
War, Latin America, Public services, No Vox, Tax 
Justice, etc.) - feed the dynamics of the whole 
process as they build their own dynamics. How can 
this networking dynamic be facilitated without 
impoverishing our common space?


3) Limits of the debates during the ESF

All these steps forward must not make us forget 
some penalizing limits which often occurred 
during the ESFs.

- A lot of debates, badly prepared, are still 
repeating themselves, sometimes with the same 
speakers. The Forum suffers from these 
juxtapositions of political positions well known 
by everybody. Debates should help to go past well 
known positions.

- Frequently, there was a bad gender balance 
among speakers. This point should be seriously 
addressed.

- The time for the public debate (after the 
"speakers' time") was often reduced, due to the 
number of speakers (sometimes 7 or 8). This could 
be seen as a "side-effect" of the merging 
process. And with this, some seminaries were 
again turned into "plenaries".

- The discussion of various propositions and 
alternatives should be documented. Especially, 
the public debate (after the "speakers' time") 
should be carefully documented.

- Moreover, the Forum has a very limited impact 
on « mainstream public opinion », which doesn't 
see this space as an « alternative 
policy-producing » process. This function - a 
space to build common alternatives- is, as we all 
know, the more theoretical part of our process. 
Some of our remarks here before could help to 
enrich the process. But this issue has to be 
thoroughly addressed.

4) Concerns about the present process, and suggestions

Before and during the ESF in Athens we also saw 
some developments in the preparation process that 
were quite alarming and need to be addressed, in 
order to improve the ESF process as a platform 
for our common struggles.

As already mentioned in the last EPA in 
Frankfurt, we have not been able to extend the 
participation within the EPAs, beyond the 
individuals and organisations present from the 
beginning. In particular the representation of 
unions, environmental, development and human 
rights NGOs is too limited. Analysing some of the 
reasons behind this, we can identify the 
following problematic areas:
*	The function and scope of the EPAs are 
interpreted very differently by the individual 
participants, ranging from a deciding body or 
"committee" to hardly more than the public 
organisational framework for the next ESF, and 
others see it simply as a fine opportunity to 
improve their cross-national networks. The 
undefined functioning of EPA has given space for 
an informal yet deciding small circle taking 
decisions internally and getting the "official" 
legitimation at the end of the EPA to formally 
maintain the democratic principles of the ESF 
process.

*	We always see the same small group 
moderating the EPA without transparent 
legitimation. This "tradition" is obviously not 
accepted by a growing number of participants and 
needs to be replaced by a more democratic 
approach. We could consider designating a 
co-ordinating group which is responsible for 
insuring an open and transparent procedure of the 
EPA. This group could be composed respecting the 
diversity of participants : countries, size of 
the actors, thematic networks, etc. Yet of 
course, the members of this co-ordinating group 
would not be there to represent their own 
approach / category of actor, but to ensure the 
best common process for all.

*	A very tedious characteristic of the EPA 
is the missing agenda agreed upon beforehand. 
This would ideally allow to start the necessary 
discussions on local or national levels prior to 
the EPA and to feed the results back into the ESF 
process. A political document (attached below) 
was discussed and adopted during an EPA working 
group meeting in Brussels (15-16 January 2005). 
This document integrates several proposals 
regarding the preparation of EPAs. We should  
commit to using  and updating it.

*	Also problematic is the reluctance 
against the use of sophisticated technical tools 
supporting the ESF process. Before the ESF in 
Athens for example, the ESF Internet Team had, 
during countless hours, prepared a quite powerful 
Website to facilitate the coordination process 
(which included a web-forum supporting political 
or technical discussions). Apart from this, we 
also have a mailing list. Unfortunately these 
tools have not been used as a help for political 
discussions. As a consequence, the EPA has to 
carry the whole burden of all political 
discussions. This makes the ESF far more 
complicated than it would need to be if it had a 
proper agenda and completed some first 
discussions beforehand. In addition, this absence 
almost enforces the construction of a small and 
informal circle where discussing political topics 
is made easier.

*	In Athens we saw the confirmation of the 
high influence and visibility of political 
parties, which is a clear breach of The Charter 
of Porto Alegre. Moreover, this situation could 
-  even in the short term - drastically reduce 
the scope of potential participating groups or 
individuals, and ultimately prevent the needed 
extension of the basis for a future ESF. We 
urgently need to discuss the place of political 
parties within the process of the Forum. We 
obviously know that the question of the 
relationship between social movements and 
political parties is different from one country 
to another, from one tradition to another. We 
also know that a political party can use a social 
movement as a « showcase ». Nevertheless, we 
propose to open a calm and constructive 
discussion on this sensitive point, in order to 
find adapted solutions for the future, solutions 
inspired by the principles of the Charter of 
Porto Alegre.

Beyond the necessary discussion we need about the 
rhythm of the ESF and about the 5th ESF, we 
propose to open a collective discussion based on 
this contribution.






European Social Forum
Working group of the EPA on the format of the 
2006 ESF (Brussels - 15, 16 January 2005)
January 15. session on how the EPA functions
Summary of decisions

I.	A reminder by the working group of the status and functions of the EPA

Its function is to undertake global 
responsibility for the preparation of the ESF.
Taking advantage of EPA meetings, initiatives, 
events and campaigns linked to the ESF process 
are organised. They may range from theme 
campaigns to global campaigns. They inform the 
EPA of resulting work.

II.	The preparation of the EPA meetings
Proposal

Each European preparatory assembly is organised 
by a European working group including the EPA 
host country, the ESF host country (Greece), and 
the host country of the previous EPA. This group 
is commissioned to draw up beforehand and 
circulate on ESF electronic lists a draft agenda 
for the EPA meetings, to organise the chairing 
and the moderating of the EPA meetings, to ensure 
that the decisions are reported and circulated 
(including the list of attending organisations).
For the next EPA in Athens, the group would 
consist of Greece, France (delegates from the 
Montreuil assembly), and Belgium (delegates from 
the Belgian meetings).

III.	Schedule of the EPA
Currently, the working groups of the EPA and 
those of initiatives linked to the ESF process 
start working on Fridays. The EPA takes place on 
Saturdays and Sunday mornings, ending at 2pm. We 
propose that if and when required, the working 
groups may begin before, and that the EPA plenum 
may end late afternoon on Sundays.

IV.	Solidarity fund
A reminder of the function of the solidarity 
fund: its priority is to enable, whenever 
possible, delegates from South and Eastern 
collective groups and organisations, working on 
the dynamics of Social Forums in their respective 
countries, to take part in EPAs and the ESF. As a 
tool, it belongs to the EPA which has political 
responsibility and management over it. It is 
exclusively funded by the contribution of EPA 
participating member organisations (50 ¤ per 
organisation), or by donations from organisations.





Présents :

Haris Golemi (Greek Social Forum)

Magda Kovsiautza ( Youth Synaspismos / Greek Social Forum)

Anastasia Thiodoravopoulou (Greek Social Forum)

Guillaume Rozoy-Senechal (No Vox/ France)

Jean Yves Cottin ( No Vox/ France )

Pierre Oyez (No Vox/ France)

Annie Pourre (No Vox/ France)

Peter Damo (Romaian Social Forum)

Endre Simo (Hungarian Social Forum)

Anne Mc Share (Communist Party of Great Britain)

Tina Becker ( Communist Party of Great Britain)

Franco Russo (FSE Italia)

Piero Bernocchi (Confederazione Cobas / Italia)

Luigia Pasi (Sincobas / Italia)

Pol Buckenhent (ACV-CSC / Belgium)

Christophe Ventura (Attac France)

Pierre Khalfa (Attac France)

Sophie Zafari (FSU / France)

Jean Michel Joubier (CGT /France)

Lilian Halls French (Initiative féministe européenne)

Josette Rome Chastanet (Marche mondiale des femmes)

Gorka Elesabarrieia (Askapena)

Marianne Maeckelbergh (Babels UK)

Yannick Bovy (CADTM Belgium)

Grigoris Demestikos (Greek Social Forum)

Georgios Karatsioubanis (European Network of Democratic Youth Left)

Gérald Ryser (Scop/Village Eco sociale et solidaire / France)

Cathy Madge (Revolution / UK)

Dworczak Hermann (Austrian Social Forum)

Hugo Braun (Attac Germany)

John Street (Babels UK)

Sarah Colborne (Palestine Solidarity Campaign / UK)

Panayotis Yulis (Greek Social Forum)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Attac Network in Franckfurt.rtf
Type: application/rtf
Size: 26576 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fse-esf.org/pipermail/fse-esf/attachments/20061030/6e5c7b59/AttacNetworkinFranckfurt-0001.rtf