Artaza acusa a médicos de aprovechar caso de interrupción de embarazo

7 - International

* Le forum social mondial 2003 du point de vue des femmes

Une autre communication est possible !

Du 23 au 28 janvier prochain se tiendra la troisième édition du Forum social mondial à Porto Alegre au Brésil. Cybersolidaires y sera pour vous informer sur ce qui s'y passe. Vous voulez en savoir davantage sur les organisations qui s'y rendent et sur les alternatives proposées par des femmes du monde entier? Vous voulez connaître les débats, les campagnes d'action et être informé-es sur les derniers développements concernant les accords commerciaux qui se négocient derrière des portes closes? Vous voulez entendre parler de solidarité, de justice, d'économie sociale et de démocratie?

Pour en savoir davantage, consultez le blogue de Cybersolidaires qui diffusera tous les jours, du 23 au 28 janvier 2003, des articles en direct
de Porto Alegre : (http://www.cybersolidaires.org/fsm03).  Ou bien lisez Tour d'y Voir (http://www.tdv.qc.ca) tous les matins. Vous saurez tout, tout, tout!
Cybersolidairement !
L'équipe de couverture médiatique de Cybersolidaires : mailto:clelievre@cybersolidaires.org

From : netfemmes@listes.cdeacf.ca


*


* What has been the impact of the World Social Forum ?

A look at the recent Interhemispheric Resource Center document entitled, ""Port Alegre & Beyond: Following up on the World Social Forum".
By Janice Duddy

"Port Alegre & Beyond: Following up on the World Social Forum". Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) - USA. 2002.

In 1999, individuals who had been working on the international campaign to defeat the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) were looking at ways of creating a shadow event for the World Economic Forum (WEF). The WEF is an elite meeting of world economic and political leaders usually held each year in Davos, Switzerland. Since its inception in 1971, the WEF has played both a symbolic and real leadership role in shaping the global economy. It functions as a UN consulting body and is funded by more than 1,000 multinational corporations.

Activists wanted to bring together "the global justice movement in a way that would create an equally influential counterweight to the WEF and challenge thconventional notion that 'there is not alternative' to neoliberal, corporate-led globalization" (1). Thus these groups of activists began to plan the inaugural World Social Forum (WSF) and selected Porto Alegre in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul. The WSF met for the first time from January 25-30, 2001 with an estimated 20,000 participants. 2002 saw an estimated 60,000 participants and the creation of smaller, regional- or country- specific social forums to complement the global event.

"The WSF is not an event per se, but is better understood as an ongoing process. In the words of the WSF Secretariat:

The World Social Forum is an open meeting place where groups and movements of civil society opposed to neoliberalism and a world dominated by capital or by any form of imperialism, but engaged in building a planetary social centered on the human person, come together to pursue their thinking, to debate ideas democratically, formulate proposals, share their experiences freely and network for effective action. The WSF proposes to debate alternative means to building a globalization in solidarity, which respects universal human rights and those of all men and women of all nations and the environment, and is grounded in democratic international systems and institutions at the service of social justice, equality and the sovereignty of peoples . The World Social Forum is a plural, diversified, non-confessional, nongovernmental and non-party context that in a decentralized fashion, interrelates organizations and movements engaged in concrete action at levels from the local to the international to build another world. . It thus does not constitute a locus of power to be disputed by the participants in its meetings, nor does it intend to constitute the only option for interrelation and action by the organizations and movements that participate in it." (3).

Although the WSF has emerged from the hopes of working towards a common goal it has not been without a number of points of tensions. The three larger ones are:

· Reform vs. Resist. "One of the leading tensions is usually framed as a reformist vs. radical divide over three analytically distinct but related issues: whether the 'enemy' is capitalism, neoliberalism, or globalization; whether intergovernmental institutions like the World Bank, IMF, and WTO are reformable, and whether working to strengthen national sovereignty and state power (including working with and through political parties) is a desirable and/or a viable strategy for social transformation. In some cases this is framed as a clash between reformist/statist or social-democratic NGOs versus more militant, anti-capitalist, grassroots-based social movements, although it is not the case that the ideological divided always plays out along these lines" (3).

· Gender issues: There has been tension around the under-representation of women at the WSF and the perceived disconnect between discussions by women's organization and the class- and nation-dominated discourse of the global justice movement.

· Organizational representation. This tension has to do with the relative role of social movements opposed to NGOs in managing WSF process.

In an effort to help citizen-based agendas succeed on a global scale as to evaluate some of the outcomes of the 2001 WSF, the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) asked a group of activists in the United States to share their thoughts on this summit and to talk about how this global forum has impacted their own local activism. Thirty-one individuals and 23 different organizations responded to the survey.

The vast majority of respondents indicated that overall, the WSF had been a positive experience. Many pointed to an expanded understanding that their local struggles form part of a larger global struggle - a feeling that brought activists a renewed sense of solidarity and optimism. In addition, many respondents spoke of the tangible benefits of networking globally, of meeting new allies, learning about new strategies, and identifying opportunities to coordinate efforts.

After networking, the benefit most frequently cited was the space for strategic thinking and planning that the Forum provided, especially regarding the articulation of concrete alternatives to current models of globalization. Another recurring theme from the US-based activists was that they were struck by the diversity and energy of the global justice movement outside the United States - which was described as more creative and advanced in some ways than the movement in the US.

The question that sparked the greatest diversity in responses was: "In your own work, do you and your constituents believe that there are clear links between their own local problems and concerns and globalization issues? What is the main global/local link in your work?" The responses suggest that this is an issue that activists continue to struggle with. "While many of the activists we spoke with did indicate their belief that the overarching challenge is global in scale and therefore demands a response that is global in scale, many also expressed a worry that incorporating work on globalization into their everyday efforts, or scaling up to also engage in national and international debates on globalization, might negatively impact their local work" (6).

This report continues by providing direct quotes that were given on this survey. To read this document is full please go to:
http://www.americaspolicy.org/reports/2002/0211wsf.html and
http://www.americaspolicy.org/pdf/reports/WSF.pdf.

 From : contribute@awid.org.


*