The fourth European Social Forum (ESF) will take place in Athens on 6-9 April 2006. The ESF has come a long way since the first, chaotic event in Florence in 2002, and the Athens event will be big, vibrant and inspiring. Vicki Morris asks what more we should be getting out of the ESF
With many lessons learned, there is now a permanent framework of organisers and timetable of meetings for the European Social Forum (ESF), and the events are the better for it.
The main forum for organisation is the European Preparatory Assembly (EPA); this met last in Istanbul on 22-25 September.
The personnel of the EPA is the same now as at the start: left-wing trade unionists from France and Italy provide most of the impetus, and the SWP sticks its oar in on occasion to steer the ESF in the direction they want — the third ESF in London last autumn was the creature largely of the SWP.
There are still big worries about a democratic deficit inside the ESF structures; too many deals are done in backrooms.
While the EPA is open to all, and there is a solidarity fund for participants from poorer countries, the only organisations that can really hope to shape the process are those with enough full-time workers to release for the schedule of Europe-wide meetings — western European trade unions and the SWP.
So four years on, what is the ESF good for?
The holding of an ESF in a country certainly galvanises the social movement in that country, or it has the potential to. And the Athens ESF will build links between activists in eastern Europe, the Balkans and further east, and western European activists. That is great.
But it’s clear now that the ESF must be judged ultimately by the networks and campaigns it creates. We don’t have time left for just talking and, given the resources that go into an ESF, we need a good return on our investment. Most important, in the face of deepening European capitalist integration, the ESF could be playing a vital role in building workers’ unity across Europe and wider. Can it step up to the mark?
The ESF activists went crazy for the “victory” of the French and Netherlands working class when those countries voted in May against the proposed EU constitution. The AWL was damn nearly the only voice to demur inside the ESF.
The AWL supports an abstention in votes on the proposed constitution. We think that a left-wing, pro-Europe, internationalist “no” cannot easily make its voice heard against a right-wing, anti-Europe, nationalist “no”. There is nothing substantially more progressive about the current situation compared to a situation that would exist were the proposed constitution to be adopted. The same EU governments will still be in power if the constitution is not implemented. The enemy will be no different.
All that said, the European people — some of them — have spoken, and their rejecting the constitution in part reflects working class alienation from the EU institutions, and working class fear of the neo-liberal future. If, buoyed up by its “victory”, the French left goes on to fight invigorated this autumn… well, we shouldn’t complain! But it’s an “if”. The most invigorated political figure in France, for now, is the neo-liberal Sarkozy.
Perhaps ironically, European capitalist integration has forced the left to do what we had not even begun to do before: if we are suddenly all proclaiming our internationalism, it’s in large part because the EU has forced us to be internationalist, and, given us a wider field on which to operate.
A meeting on 24-25 June in Paris called by activists from the French “left-wing no” campaign proposed two main activities:
• A petition to be developed quickly — by French activists — and used Europe-wide to build on the publicity that the French “left-wing no” campaign had received;
• Elaboration of a charter of fundamental principles of “another Europe”, this to be done through wide consultation, prepared by Italian activists, the final version to be adopted at the Athens ESF.
The petition has seen the light of the day and drawn much criticism: Who is being petitioned? Will the petition be widely supported? Doesn’t it place too much hope on the possibility of reforming EU institutions rather than on the organic strength of wider social struggles? Doesn’t it anticipate too much what should only emerge from the charter’s wide consultation exercise? Etc.
A draft of the charter is due to be discussed at a conference in Florence on 12-13 November. The two sides were due to thrash out their differences at the Istanbul EPA. What happened there I do not know yet. It is hard to see what real, underlying differences there might be between these two sides except over tactics.
But it might be significant that there are connections between the French ESF/“left-wing no” activists and the organisation ATTAC, which in June announced its own, three-fronted, “ABC plan” against EU neo-liberalism:
A. a review of EU policies, and proposals for immediate reforms;
B. a campaign for “genuinely democratic EU institutions”;
C. a plan for “another possible Europe”, “a vast democratic workshop to build an alternative to neoliberal Europe”, much the same as the proposal to develop the charter.
It is unclear to what extent the idea of the charter assumes that a fight to reform the EU is a waste of time.
My own view of the charter is that we are all now probably pretty clear what we want and what we don’t want — or what were the last three ESFs about? — and very short on ideas of how to get change. That is why practical initiatives are very important to support, including the conference on 22-23 October in Liege/Luik, Belgium for public sector workers and users and social movement activists, against the GATS treaty and for public services, out of which, hopefully, concrete links and action will come.
Links
European Social Forum
http://www.fse-esf.org/
Conference against GATS/for public services http://www.agcs-gats-liege2005.net/
