I was not been able to participate in the debates on the WSF in Caracas, the Bamako appeal, or the International Council because I used an opportunity following the Venezuelan Forum to visit Colombia. In the country of the soon to be re-elected populist, Alvaro Uribe, I visited the Communidades de Paz (which are located near Panama) in an area where war continues and human rights violations are part of everyday life.

The Peace-Communities (translation) decided nine years ago to no longer take part of the conflict instead they choose to use practices of non-violence. According to their internal rules, it is defined that none of their 1500 integrants may contribute in any way to the activities of either the paramilitaries, the army (who effectively are different strategies of the state), or the guerrillas. Since that time, 170 persons have been murdered (150 by the military and 20 by the FARC) and economic isolations, forced displacement, threats, torture, and a lot of other human rights violations have occurred. My visit was overwhelming and enormously impressive, but made me think of the Forum as well.

Some representatives of the Communities visited the WSF in Caracas, but ended up being disappointed. They did not find an open space where they could have their story heard, nor did they realize the contacts they hoped for. They had expected more, different, and clearer politicisation of the Colombian situation then the forum offered. Their criticism reflects those of other grassroots activists inside and around the Forum. In an workshop NIGD organised at last years Forum in POA, an Patagonian activist talked about her disappointment, she came from a concrete-hard struggle against a multinational corporation (was it Beneton?), but she could not speak inside the Forum. This is especially understandable if we realize how hard it is for these types of organisations (in terms of money, time and possible consequences) to get to the WSF.

In Caracas, some organisations (like the Frente Campesino Ezequiel Zamora and the neighbourhood organisation 21 de Enero) decided to participate very modestly inside the Forum, and focus on the organising another event (Desalambrando las Cadenas del Imperio -Crushing the Chains of Empire) outside, in the poor and politicised neighbourhood of 21 de Enero. Members of organisations present in Caracas told me that they regarded the Forum as too institutionalised, not transparent enough, and far too controlled by Chavistas. It was cynical indeed to see Chavez speak in a Sports stadium accompanied by the silent big shots of the Global Justice Movement (Samir Amin, Walden Bello, Bernard Cassen, etc.), whilst, that same morning, indigenous movements protested against the intoxication of their lands by Chavez and his carbon industry.

The point I am trying to make is: all the discussions on the future of the Forum, Bamako appeals, worldwide demonstrations, Movement or Space, etc., are without a doubt very important, but we should not forget about the people who are really risking their lives for a better world. If the Forum can not contribute to their struggles (or does not want to make this a priority) it will loose its legitimacy. It is easy to see this happening right now, as the Forum is so big, institutionalised and hierarchitised that if you do not know the unwritten rules and practices (or are not even able to enter the Space) it is hard to make the Forum work for you. In my opinion this should be one of the main concerns of the WSF in the coming years (more so then coming up with documents on which "we all agree”). Therefore here are some of my conclusions:

!!! Discussions on the transformative strategies of the Forum focus mostly on possible interventions and articulations on international institutions, negotiations and power structures. This is -again without a doubt- very important, but another type of external politicisation (as Teivo would say) is possible as well. It seems to me that the Fora in the future should seek to intervene more directly in the experiences and realities they visit, by opening up spaces inside directly related to the concrete problems and struggles (which according to most accounts did happen, for example, in Mumbai).

!!! These types of spaces (directly and concretely open for debate, and making visible the invisibilised) can be a very constructive and important contribution to the Fora on problems around the world, and can make it gain political relevance. Why not dedicate a Forum (as was tried ambiguously some years ago) to the Colombian conflict? Why not go to Bogota (or maybe even on a smaller scale inside the conflict itself), and offer an open, internationally protected space of articulation to movements and organisations which now find themselves isolated, marginalised and repressed inside the democratic dictatorship of Urribe? In the Venezuelan WSF there existed a widespread sentiment among Colombians, that the Forum, even in their neighbouring country, did not contribute to the struggles for an other Colombia.

!!! We do have to think of way in which we can promote, help and stimulate an autonomous grassroots presence and articulation inside the Forum. Although risking a marketplace of struggles, it would be good to have some mechanisms for organisations and activists who have never visited the Forum before (as the ones mentioned above) to present themselves and construct solidarity networks around the world. Secondly, Youth Camp possibilities of spontaneous organisation of events have to be more present and visible inside the entire Forum because we cannot expect all of the participants to plan, organise electronically, and pay for their workshops in advance.

!!! It might be an idea to stimulate decentred and autonomous events in and outside the cities which host the Forum which go into the neighbourhoods or the surrounding areas to learn from and contribute to the organisations there. In a way, this is happening right now organically, but it carries the risk that the peripheries will get consciously or unconsciously disconnected from the Fora.

In conclusion I do agree that the Forum finds itself on a crucial point in its history. The Caracas forum was problematic in lots of ways (for example the presence of militaries in lots of events), but mostly because autonomous debates on the Bolivarian Revolution were marginal. Although many participants feel that Chavez´ regime might be an ally in constructing another world, it is far from perfect (especially for feminist, indigenous and LGTB activists). Thinking about the future of the Forum, we should (in my opinion) focus more on how the Fora can contribute more directly to the realities it visits (in politicising its contexts, stimulating autonomous movements). Therefore it should become directly influenced by its surroundings, but this has not been one of its central goals, or one of the central lines of analysis of the phenomena.