Written for presentation at WSF Panel "Neoliberalism, War and the Significance of the WSF", 20th January 2004 The crisis of neoliberal globalization - which itself was an attempt to overcome the structural crisis of capitalism as rate of profit fell - is becoming more and more evident. From the economic crisis in Asia in 1997 to the series of crises in Latin America, from the desperation of imperialist countries to maintain and strengthen its hegemony through military means, to the collapse of two WTO ministerial meetings - we are seeing and directly experiencing the signs that the neoliberal project of capital has failed. This sense of crisis in neoliberal globalisation puts us - as movements that desire Another World, another sort of globalization - at a very important and critical situation. Historically, political and economic crises have always rendered an opportunity for resistance to grow out of the weight of the crisis on the people. I believe we are at that moment in history now - a moment where need for a radical change is growing increasingly bigger. Indeed, at the same time that the cleavages of this global capitalist system deepen, we see the growth of global resistance against neoliberal globalisation and imperialism. From the struggles in Europe against cuts in public budget to the general strike of Korean workers against the IMF, from the global solidarity against the MAI, World Bank and WTO to the toppling of governments in Latin America, from the struggles of African people for sovereignty and the endless struggles of peasants, women, the poor, the oppressed, and to the thousands of millions of people who poured onto the streets in protest against the war on Iraq – all point towards the emergence of a new militant movement against neoliberal and imperialist globalization, coming out of the very heart of globalization itself. The World Social Forum is a direct result of the accumulation of these struggles. The birth of the WSF came out of the need to form solidarity between national and international movements, and between different forces and sectors, to start on our road to find alternatives and actually put them to practice. During the last three years, we have built a whole process of local, regional and international forums. They have grown in sheer size, in the topics that are discussed and in the amount of strategies for action that come out of these forums. However, it is now time for us to assess this process, in order to move forward. After all, the WSF came out of our need to deal with the crisis in the neoliberal project, to find alternatives, to build Another World. It is not enough to be self-satisfied by the fact that 100,000 or more people have gathered, that we have more than 1,000 workshops and seminars taking place. We are at a very important moment in history, at a crossroad where either the ruling elite continue to oppress us or the mass majority of the world finds another solution. In this sense, the WSF, as a symbol and space for resistance against globalisation of capital and imperialism, is also at a crossroad. Is it truly playing its role - and continue to do so - in making Another World possible? We cannot delay any further in answering this question. I would like to raise two interrelated issues in our discussion on the WSF and the struggles against neoliberalism and imperialism. The first is the matter of national and international mobilisations and actions in relation to the WSF. The WSF came out of the struggles against neoliberalism and there is no doubt about that. However, after having implemented three forums, is the WSF, in turn, contributing to strengthening the national movements and mobilisations? In comparison to all the energy and resources we put in just to make the event happen, in comparison to the amount of money we spend on traveling half way across the globe to make a new record in the amount of people who participate in the forums? The answer is yes - in terms of international agendas for common action, such as the February 15th action and the September 13th action against the WTO. These were extremely important decisions that came out of WSF 2003. However, the WSF was much more than those two mobilizations that took place on specific dates. There is so much going on inside WSF, so many issues raised and so much discussion – however, is the richness of the WSF truly being fed back into the mass movements of each community and nation? There has been alot of criticisms about the lack of action in the WSF. There has also been alot of discussion on whether the WSF is a movement of movements - is it, as it is, an agent for change or is it merely a space for many diverse actors to "come and use"? I think that this agent/space dichotomy is rather misleading, and I both disagree and agree to the criticisms against the WSF in this context. Whether it is an agent or space is not really important, because the real agent or subjects of change, of forming alternatives are not merely the participants in the WSF per se, nor the WSF itself, but the workers, the peasants, women, the racially oppressed in each respective community and country. They are the subjects of change. We can analyse the world economic and political situation, we can make many speeches about our vision, and formulate common agendas for action and alternatives, but the force that will ultimately realise those alternatives are the oppressed mass, whether they participate in the forums or not. Thus, the World Social Forum can be a space (not in a static sense of the word) or a bridge where different ideas can be shared, international activities proposed and coordinated, and an active process where we can experiment, learn and get to know how a democracy led by the people feels like, as a sort of a practice for real Another World. However, the important thing is how to get those experiences and learning to motivate and promote the mass movements - the grassroot movements fighting against neoliberalism and imperialism. After all, there have been very strong struggles around the world before the WSF was even conceived, and will continue to do so even without the WSF. The workers and peasants in Korea who are fighting against neoliberal restructuring and trade liberalization have been doing so without knowing the WSF exists. The people of Argentina and Bolivia did not overthrow their governments under the sole initiation of the WSF. Of course, I am not trying to cut down on the significance of the WSF - on the contrary, the WSF should have the role of further strengthening the movements and sharing the experiences, and building bridges. What we should always realise is that the WSF is not the objective itself, but the means. We should be careful not to fetishise the WSF. We should also be cautious not let a "strata" develop inside the WSF, consisting of "intelligent and well-educated" people from international NGOs and large organizations with sufficient resources, while the real agents - the mass movements – become increasingly marginalized and detached from the process, or become objects instead of subjects of the WSF. Building the WSF into a bottom-up process, while integrating the initiatives of mass movements, is one of the major tasks that we face today, in relation to forming resistance and alternatives to globalization of capital and imperialism. The second issue that I would like to raise, related to the first, is that the characteristics and the way the whole event functions should change, in order to truly fulfill its role in promoting and strengthening the "global" movements against neoliberal globalization and imperialism. We say that the WSF is an open space, and yes, it is pretty much so (although there is still work to be done in this area) among the actual participants. But is it really open to the richness and diversity of movements and people in that particular country where the WSF is being held? Is it a space, with or without walls around it? During the few days that I have spent in Mumbai, as I travel on the train or the rickshaw and pass the streets of so much activity, as I move from one venue to another in such difficulty amidst all the actions that are taking place inside the NESCO grounds, or as I think about what it would be like to have a social forum in my own country, I wonder whether the WSF is really interacting with and taking in the richness of culture and methods of political expression that many Asian and Third World countries have. A couple of days ago, a member of the Indian Organizing Committee mentioned, at one event, that the reason why there were hardly any Indian people at large events (leaving alot of empty chairs) is not because the Indian movements lack political consciousness, but because their way of expressing themselves is through colourful marches with dancing and chanting on the streets. As I wandered around between the various tents where variety of events were taking place, I passed some in which the participants were practically spilling out of the tents – many of them seemed to have been organized by local movements – and they were filled with chanting and singing – more of a "rally" than a typical "seminar" as one may know it in the "Western" rationale. What the Indian comrade said and what I saw (which unfortunately, was not all that much), made me think further than just the empty chairs or "loud" tents, to the whole WSF process itself. Is it operated and functioning in a way that it can accommodate the culture and the issues of the movements, the intensiveness and the vitality of the long struggle against economic and political oppression of the Third World, particularly of Asia? The decision to have the WSF in India is very much contributing to the true internationalization of the WSF process, and balancing out the biased spotlight that focused only on movements of the so-called "West" until now. In this sense, I believe that the Mumbai WSF will have quite a positive impact on the WSF process. However, the "positive impact" will not just be given to us to take for granted - we have to make it so. It is not enough to have quotas for African and Asian organizations in the International Council, or increasing the number of participants from those continents. The characteristics of the WSF itself have to change. Is the methodology in the way WSF functions or the language in which discourse is formulated inside the WSF still not overcoming the West-orientation of previous anti-globalisation movements? Are we truly open to, and ready to accommodate the vitality and energy of the diverse Indian movements and their sense of the world? Are our movements flexible enough to accommodate the dynamics and the political atmosphere that may be so much different from what we have previously experienced through the WSF and other international gatherings and demonstrations? The task at hand for us after Mumbai and under the prospects of having future World Social Forums in other parts of the world, would be how the WSF process is going to be fed and enriched by the mass movements of that respective community/country – and vice versa. I think these two are some of the major tasks that face us as movements against neoliberalism and imperialism participating in the WSF. As I mentioned, we are at a very important moment in history. Crisis in the global capitalist system is increasing. We must think carefully about where to go from here, and how to proceed. The ruling elite knows very well about the WSF, the significance, its strength. As we have seen historically, the ruling elite always finds a way to incorporate and institutionalize the so- called "civil society", especially in moments of crisis when they need a "cushion" to further promote their agendas, and the WSF is already becoming their target. The fight against this oppressive system is a fight against the ruling elite, but it is also a fight within ourselves. We face a crossroad - in our movements and in the WSF process. Will the WSF become a "department store" of ideas and discussion, fall into mannerism and co-opted into the hands of the ruling elite, or will it become a political space and a bridge for strengthening and radicalizing our movements? How can the WSF function to make their crisis into our opportunity? * Sohi Jeon, Korean People's Action against FTA & WTO (KoPA)