Three observations by Roberto Savio
 
 

 Dear friends,
 Via Campesina reflection document stimulated me to formulate some
 reflections, but I do not want to show it as an alternative. We all
 valued the extraordinary effort and the social newness that Via
 Campesina represents and the importance of the experience that is
 behind its observations.

 From my experience, but surely modest, I have three observations:

 a) The force of the process opened in Porto Alegre is its inclusion,
 that it has managed to motivate very different forces in a joint
 process. It seems to me an error of strategy cal policy to open a
 debate about hierarchy of these components of the process. Nobody
 discusses the importance of the social movements. I believe that
 there is a definition problem that is still opened: there are many
 groups who consider themselves social movements, but they are not,
 because they are in radical positions. This is a debate that should
 be done to clarify a definition of what a social movement is, when
 Via Campesina says: "the WSF only has sense and future if it is fed
 by the fights against the neo-liberal globalization and if it serves
 as food to the same ones, allowing to combine in its interior non
 decisive spaces, like the conferences, seminaries, panels, etc with
 others more decisive as the self organized ones by the different
 social movements. Between these social movements is the Social
 Movements Assembly that has acted as a referential frame during the
 fight against neo-liberal globalization these last year, because
 from its mobilization, others have been impelled, like those in
 Quebec, against ALCA, the one in Cancun, against WTO, the one in
 Genoa and the February 15, that in the end, was the central element
 of WSF legitimating and the fight against the system ". When Via
 Campesina says that, it does a hierarchy that does not seems to me
 positive for the movement morality. Non-legitimating of neo-liberal
 globalization is the result of a set of forces, in different ways,
 according to its area. And I see badly, for example, that the
 economists who have given very serious blows, like Stiglitz, in its
 academic work, cannot be considered part of this process of non-
 legitimating. That a Nobel Prize ties publicly to the IMF neo-
 liberal thought, is not a little help to non-legitimate the neo-
 liberalism. It is not possible to create a WSF that has fighters of
 A category and tell to people that these fighters are from B
 category. I know that we can think that, but would it be politically
 useful for our strategy? An extension of this "logical exclusivity",
 is the idea that we should not invite personalities to the WSF
 because they "submerge the most attacked social sectors to the
 invisibility and they `kidnap' participants of the social
 movements". It seems to me a dangerous generalization. To elaborate
 strategies alternatives, all the possible components about social
 and cultural reality are needed. Saying that Naom Chomski or
 Adaratuna Roy submerges the most attacked social sectors to the
 invisibility is a conceptual error. They speak, without complaining
 it, on behalf of the fight of these sectors, in absolute good faith
 and with a genuine personal commitment. Maybe this reaction comes
 from my profession. I am journalist and economist, and by the
 definition of my work, that is to create conscience against the
 damage of neo-liberal globalization, does not come from an
 experience of social movement. But I think it is not easy that the
 subject of the communication can be solved without the alliance of
 who work in it. And if my analyses agree with what is said by social
 movements, am I an activist of B category as my work is more
 elitist? Would it be good to us a Forum where just militants of
 social movements speaks, since they are closer to the reality, and
 where all the other sectors of the same fight are considered less
 genuine and legitimist?

 B) The same subject can be considered related to the IC. If we want
 to arrive at the extreme logic, there are only two possible
 thoughts: or the IC do not have important responsibilities, and it
 has the secretariat; or neither the secretariat, nor the IC, have
 responsibilities, and there is the movement march that generates,
 alone, their advances and correct their errors. This theory, that is
 basically made by Chico Withaker, the theory of the creative chaos,
 as it is studied in economy, has one single problem: it is exactly
 the same one of the free trade, that one that we are totally
 against. The difference is that the "history invisible hand",
 instead of the "market invisible hand" is the one that is going to
 push us. I believe that participation is very important, but it is
 not sufficient. It is not having an infinite participation that
 objective problems of geography, human resources and economy is
 going to limit, that the IC solves its other challenge: the
 responsibility. The IC is objectively responsible. We must discuss
 it and reach an agreement. But watching the debate of responsibility
 issue as bureaucratization and institutionalization, in other words,
 braking the spontaneity of the movement, is to look just for one
 face of the problem. The other face is how to make from WSF process
 a mechanism of elaboration and proposal of alternatives. It is
 possible that this arises spontaneously, according to the theory of
 the invisible hand. What worries me is that maybe the "friend" is
 not in the business of the invisible hand: very structured, and we
 should take more efficient ways, synergic and inclusive, to wear it
 down. Inclusively because every day thousands of victims die, and we
 must worry about it when we dedicate ourselves to debate. Then, the
 debate if IC must be opened to all the social movements, so that it
 will be legitimize and representative, seems to me an egocentric
 vision, more than a real debate about IC. IC needs transparency and
 a clear design.

 C) Based on these two points, my concern is very simple: is there
 among us the capacity to debate these themes, seeking to be
 inclusive to the maxim, thinking on behalf of the greatest number of
 people possible, even people who I do not consider important as I
 inexorably consider myself? If it is like this, the debate on the
 forums periodicity has to be posed in terms of needs, not of what I
 am willing to do. In my opinion we must make it clear once and for
 all whether being an IC member is a privilege or a duty.  Whether it
 is an honour or heaviness. Whether it is something additional to my
 commitment or a sacrifice. It is not fair that commissions are
 created and only a few organizations work.
 I have prepared my communication plan and I am sorry that, for
 instance, I haven¥t received contribution from social movements. I
 am aware that they are comrades involved in a daily struggle life
 with tough commitments. However, our effort concerning a theme that,
 maybe due to my professional deformation, I consider very important,
 is not helping. If the struggles that they face remain in a ghetto
 and do not reach everybody, the system will go on concealing them.
 Well, whatever we have to do, we have to build based on needs and
 not on our usefulness. A forum every three years, considering the
 current political and economic times, is an eternity. Of course that
 the forums represent a lot of work, besides what we already have.
 However, do we need them or not? This has to be the consideration to
 be taken into account, not our individual approach.
 Finally I congratulate the comrades from Via Campesina for having
 contributed significantly to the debate. I hope you are interested
 in my reflections. In any case, what I want to express, is that we
 have to find consensus in which everybody is reflected, from social
 movements to research institutes (Walden Bello has contributed
 lively to the debate, and is the expression of a research
 institute). I hope that on Polvese island a rich dialog is raised,
 at the same time with people who know that we have a main enemy that
 does not  belong to IC....

 Roberto Savio