16.06.2004

ESF: British provincialism

Criticism of the high-handed, secretive and undemocratic methods of the main organisers of the London ESF are not restricted to the democratic opposition in Britain. A report to the Italian mobilising committee, of which we publish extracts here, has been translated and posted on ESF discussion sites. Written by Gianfranco Benzi, Piero Bernocchi, Maurizio Biosa, Alessandra Mecozzi and Franco Russo, it is also highly critical of the 'provincialism' of the British organisers. Although intended only for Italian consumption, its release provoked a terse response from Alex Callinicos of the SWP and a further public elaboration from the Italians

The small programme group met in Paris on May 29-30 in preparation for the European assembly, to be held in Berlin on June19-20. Around 50 people were present.
The meeting was more tiring than the previous ones and was often tense, conflictual and disagreeable. This was due mainly to the more powerful groups in the British delegation (the SWP or Socialist Workers Party; Socialist Action, which is the political grouping around the mayor, Livingstone; and the RMT and other small trade unions involved). They attempted to impose their own themes, 'axes' and 'titles', were constantly unwilling to enter into real dialogue, tried to impose their own way and were often arrogant or used blackmail, repeatedly refusing to accept decisions and titles which had already been decided hours before. The result was that many of the other delegations were exasperated and were frequently compelled to raise their voices or in turn threaten to leave.

In general terms the work is still affected by the provincialism of the British contingent and their distance from the rest of Europe: they believe the matters they are dealing with in their 'province' are of universal importance and the whole thing is aggravated by their incapacity or unwillingness to discuss things. This does not concern the entire British delegation: the other half are not used to shouting and it would have been far more constructive if they had been able to play a central role. However, they were happy that we are starting to struggle against a more authoritarian and non-communicative way of doing things and that we shall be circulating in the UK a report which is very severely critical of this type of behaviour and those who are responsible for it.
We are telling you this not to put you off but to ask you to make the maximum effort for the next meeting in Berlin: it would be dangerous to allow the whole process to drift aimlessly, so this is a matter of damage limitation in order not to put at risk the entire process of the ESF, including what happens after London.

On the subject of axis 3 ('Against neoliberal globalisation') there was a really bitter political conflict which did not reach a conclusion and will reopen in Berlin, around the division of the axis into two: a division accepted by all, but with very different criteria. The Italian delegation strongly supported including the theme of commodification of both 'social resources' and natural resources, to show that this is the specific and general problem of the current phase of neoliberalism which pervades both the south and the north of the world.
On this matter the mindset of the 'stronger' part of the British group was very evident in that they decided to reserve for themselves the right to consult the British NGOs over proposals for titles and plenaries in Berlin. This was after battling for hours to try and ensure that this axis would relate exclusively to north-south relations and relations between rich and poor countries, but not discuss global commodification and privatisation of public infrastructure (schools, health service, energy, transport, etc), maintaining that this would only be an interesting subject for the rich part of the planet (sic!). From their point of view the other axis might bracket together work, privatisations and deregulation of public services, giving trade unions sole responsibility for this whole 'packet' of issues, as if privatisation and commodification were central issues only for workers - and trade union workers at that!

We, on the other hand, insisted on having one axis wholly devoted to work, unemployment, casual work and migrant workers, and another axis to bring together the north-south divide, the WTO, privatisations and global commodification - in the north as in the south. The Italian delegation said that they would therefore have rendered the English-language title as 'Neoliberal globalisation, commodification/privatisation and global justice'.

This is a long-winded title which could be simplified once the general format has been clarified, but in Berlin the argument will be reopened because in Paris part of the British delegation repeatedly returned to the same old title they had proposed before (made to suit the NGOs). Only after an 'insurrection' by the majority of those present did they finally take on board the fact that the title given above had been agreed upon three or four times.

There was more pain when it came to axis 4. After a great deal of discussion to avoid reducing this axis, which is supposed to deal with work/unemployment, to the title proposed by the British - 'Solidarity and social justice' (this would have meant the disappearance of specific forms of day to day working conditions from the axis), the group eventually arrived, after repeated British attempts to insist on their own proposal, at the title, 'Against deregulation: social rights, rights at work and women's rights'. The Italian delegation argued about the way women's rights were included because it was limited merely to the politics of equal opportunity. However, we accepted a compromise in order to avoid something worse.

On axis 5 - 'Against racism and discrimination, against the extreme right: for equality and diversity' - again we had fundamental disagreements with the British contingent, but they also disagreed among themselves. Some of them wanted the plenaries to cover only their own point of view - with racism as the only form of discrimination - and, in addition to that, that the plenaries should focus on the communities which were prevalent in the UK, give an exaggerated centrality to the struggle against fascism and again give the greatest possible importance to islamophobia, even with one plenary devoted to the hijab as a key problem.

Almost all the other delegations insisted that we should remember that there are also other 'phobias' in Europe and that it is not only the black and Asian communities which experience racism; that, even if fascism is a danger, it is not the main peril facing Europe today; and that discrimination is not just about race - there are other forms (such as discrimination against people who make different sexual choices). There was a very tiring struggle involving various blackmail attempts from the UK delegation (the Socialist Action representative even said that Livingstone who, he claimed, was extremely busy in the anti-fascist front, would remove sponsorship if the plenary on fascism did not take place).

Before leaving Paris, Benzi, Bernocchi, Mecozzi [Italian delegates] and Sophie Safari [delegate from France] agreed on a proposal to send a letter from Italy and a letter from France (or a joint letter) to the UK organising committee outlining our criticisms of the way the ESF process has gone, explaining calmly but firmly that there is a need for them to find a much better way of working together and relating to others than they have at present, otherwise we shall pull out of the process (maybe we will not say it in such a brutal way, but this is what we mean!)

Alex Callinicos replies ...
In the eye of the beholder

It's useful that Massimo has translated and circulated this report, since it provides an insight into the views of some of our comrades and friends in Italy. I wasn't in the European programme meeting in Paris so I can't judge how accurate the Italian report is. I am concerned, however, about some of its content and especially about its rather arrogant tone.

There have been vigorous disagreements over such issues as the programme ever since the ESF process began over two years ago, inevitably given the diverse character of the movement. But the implication that our partners in Italy (and, according to one suggestion at the end of the report, France) should stand in judgement over the movement in Britain and decide who should 'play a central role' in Britain (particularly when the basis of who is to be preferred is that they agree with the Italian delegation) is inappropriate and divisive and would, if taken seriously, do much more damage to the movement than anything that is alleged against the majority of the British delegation in Paris.

Not having been in Paris, I can't comment on what the report says about the substantive issues, but I would say that provincialism is in the eye of the beholder. Anyone who dismisses the British unions involved in the ESF process - not just the RMT, but, for example, Unison and the TGWU, as "small trade unions" - is simply displaying their ignorance of the European workers' movement.
One of the most rewarding aspects of the ESF process has been the genuine dialogue and give-and-take to which it has given rise among, not merely diverse and sometimes conflicting political tendencies, but also movements with very different national traditions. Thus anyone who participated in the Genoa protests - as many of us from Britain did - feels an immense debt to the Italian movement. The London ESF will be another stage in this mutual learning process. Let's not damage it by talking as if there are a few 'teachers' before whom the rest of us must sit as pupils!

Italians reply to the reply ...

D ear comrades and friends, first of all, we would like to say that we are sorry about the fact that an internal report became public. We wrote our report exclusively for the Italian working group preparing for the European Social Forum. We apologise for the incident and for the discussion that it gave rise to.

We had in any case decided to write to you, before the Berlin meeting, to share with you the serious concerns we have over the process of European Social Forum.

We are firmly convinced that it is truly important to continue and further develop the process of constructing the other Europe, the social Europe, the Europe of citizenship, peace and rights - the process that we worked on together, with each one of us contributing to the success of the Florence and Paris Forums, and committing ourselves towards the construction of the London European Social Forum.

We believe that this process must continue and must improve. For this reason we think that it is necessary, at our Berlin meeting, to officially accept the proposal to hold the next ESF, in 2005, in Greece.

We all have a great responsibility, both individually and together. And we wish to appeal to this responsibility. The founding principle of the social forums is inclusion, the essential condition for the creation of a public space that can allow for the convergence of all movements, groups, individuals who are struggling against liberalism, war, racism, and working towards 'another possible world'.

We appreciate that no rule is engraved in stone and valid forever, that it is never sufficient simply to apply a rule in order to achieve the result one aims at. At best, we can rely on the lessons learned from positive experiences. And at times that is not sufficient either, since every national situation is different. But it is this taking stock of differences that increases the wealth and development of the process.

It is of enormous interest for all of us to interact with the British realities, who in recent years have experienced one of the most devastating forms of neoliberalism, yet have always succeeded in expressing remarkably high levels of social mobilisation in defence of rights, against war and racism.

We are not frightened of the idea of addressing the problems and contradictions that social movements in your country are experiencing. Each reality has its own, and there is no doubt that conflict management, in any context, can help us all understand and learn a great deal.
One of the great innovations introduced by the social forums movements was precisely the introduction of a new approach to conflictuality within movements - an innovation that enabled us all to work together, with all our differences, in mutual recognition, highlighting the points in common - not many, but essential in character - on which we found broad convergence.
For this reason, we feel that the London European Social Forum is at risk, right now, despite all the work and commitment put into the process. It is not our intention to express our opinion on the internal debate within the British Organizing Committee. It's not up to us to intervene. But it is within our sphere of competence to point out the following: if the London ESF does not succeed in guaranteeing the full inclusion of all those interested in the process, not only would one of the fundamental and essential prerequisites for the success and feasibility of the event be lost, but the very future of the ESF process would be seriously jeopardised.

Both the exclusion and the marginalisation of networks and groups, and the creation of autonomous spaces, co-existing but not communicating, are elements that stand in glaring contrast with the spirit of the European Social Forum. They would threaten its survival as a process.

Today - and the London event is only a few months away - these risks are all present. The London forum, as things stand, runs the risk of becoming an event too heavily conditioned by your national debates and issues, of scarce interest to European movements, of little use to the advancement of joint mobilisation and campaigns.

There's not much time left to shift the focus of the discussion and change existing behaviour patterns. The Berlin meeting must signal a change of course, reconfirming decisions that have already been taken jointly, starting with the proposals agreed upon in Paris.

We call upon each and every one of us to shoulder her/his responsibility and to make every effort in order to improve the situation, engaging all the existing resources in the European assembly, since they bear the political responsibility for the European Social Forum. The preparatory work must continue in such a way as to give full expression to the European dimension of the process.
We are fully aware of our limitations, but you can rest assured that we are willing to do everything possible.