A Report by Azril Bacal and Tim Sandgren (Uppsala Social Forum), complemented by the views of Katarina Sehm-Patomäki (NIGD and International Council, WSF)
Uppsala, June 2004

This joint effort is intended to inform about three out of five social forums (SF), which recently took place in Sweden. The SFs in Umeå (North), Uppsala, Stockholm and Skåne (South) took place simultaneously during 7-9/5, while the first SF in Gothenburg took place the next weekend. This report is in English and meant for for our international friends.

It is worth mentioning, that a meeting to evaluate the five social forums organized in Sweden is planned for autumn 2004 in Gothenburg. The meeting also intends to discuss and articulate our further actions in Sweden, probably in the Nordic countries, at the European Social Forum in London and, last but not least, at the fifth WSF 2005 in Porto Alegre. We intend to write a follow-up of this report based on our participation at the Gothenburg meeting.

This report is organized in three parts: In the first part Katarina Sehm-Patomäki reports her views on the Stockholm and Uppsala Social Forum. In the second part, Azril Bacal presents some comparative notes on the Stockholm Social Forum (SSF), Uppsala Social Forum (USF) and Gothenburg Social Forum (GSF), while expanding his views on the USF. Third and last, Tim Sandgren gives a report from the final workshop of Gothenburg Social Forum, which focuses on the possibilities of local social forums.

I. Social Forums in Sweden: root deep and aim high

The two social forums I attended in Sweden demonstrated high degrees of well-articulated and well-founded activism. At the forums the participants discussed, among other things:

a. that neoliberalism has shifted the political decision making to non-democratic forums. The issues are now being presented to us in new packaging that we need to learn to identify (Helena Tagesson, Attac Sweden).

b. in the world there are some 110 million construction workers out of which 75 % live in the global south (Kristian Välivaara, Byggnads).

c. and we have some 3 billion workers on our planet (Ulf Edström, LO).

d. we should not be "sentimental to the politics of the BWI and their illusions of privatisations" (Ursula Berg, Agora).

e. the EU actually pays USD 50 billion annually in agriculture subsidies to European farmers and according to interviewes with countries' WTO delegations in Geneva, frustration with the WTO is only increasing (Aileen Kwa, Focus on the Global South - whose co-authored updated book on WTO politics will come out this summer).

f. the link between free trade and militarisation: the security exceptions in free trade agreements justify for the North to keep subsidising also their civil industries under the title of military spending, examples being Boeing in the US and Airbus in the EU. (Steven Staples, Polaris Institute)

g. in the WSF Charter of Principles the WSF participants take distance from violence. There is however very little work being done on the creation of new peaceful methods (Stellan Vinthagen, University of Gothenburg).

Interestingly, at the Stockholm forum, there was also a session organised by the Olof Palme International Centrum and AGORA, among others, on the new Report on Social Dimensions of Globalisation by the ILO commission. In the report much attention is devoted to migration and the special advisor to the Swedish Minister for Migration spoke on migration globally and how traditional flows from the South to the North have been expanded by flows within regions. The session began by an introduction to the politics behind setting up the authors (the commission) of the report. Since governments tend to further different politics in the ILO and WTO it was impossible to set up the originally intended commission of the directors of those organisations. In general, the report was well-received among the panelists.

The creation of links between Swedish, Nordic and the European social forums was on the agenda. Again, we discussed possibilities of organising a Nordic Social Forum. We said that we'd look into the possibilities of meeting around this in connection to the European Social Forum in London this fall. Questions on the agenda could be: Where would such a forum take place? Would the Baltic regions be included? How and when? If so, would it still be a "Nordic" Forum?

During the past years, several-well attended social forums have taken place in Sweden. So far, however, the Swedes have not organized any Swedish Social Forum, but rather strived at rooting the process at local levels. One of the goals of this method is to involve the LO, the major labour union in Sweden. By ensuring active participation by LO in seminars at local forums, the Swedes hope to engage LO also in the organisation of a future Swedish Social Forum.

To coordinate the hosting of four social forums in Sweden on a given weekend rather than to have one national event seems innovative. The forums may also have found own "nisches". For instance, as someone said, the more north you go the more positivist the forums get. By this, it was meant that in the south (Gothenburg) the forum was perceived as more analytical in identifying the reasons behind the present world situation whereas the participants of the forums in Stockholm and Uppsala "counted the numbers of crisis". In our condition of international guests, some of us were asked to speak at several forums and gladly proceeded to do so.

However, judging from the number of participants in comparison to the Swedish forums of previous years, it was clear that the forums also competed. Last year, for instance, the Uppsala social forum counted around 3000 participants whereas the number of participants now seemed somewhat lower, despite the wonderful first days of summer in Sweden. In my view, the 40 minute train trip to Stockholm and the vast program there might have motivated people to attend the forum in the capital.

I think that this experiment puts Oded Grajew's proposal in a slightly different light. Earlier this year, Oded Grajew proposed that that the world social forum should be followed by simultaneous social forums in every municipality on a given day, say 30 days after the World Forum. This idea could perhaps help bring down the fabulous numbers of participants at the World Social Forum and thus easen the logistic and other burdens on the secretariat and on the actual site of the forum. In addition, this could be a striking way to develop, expand and root the WSF process everywhere in the world. However, if the municipal forums are seen as competitors (materialised in competition for speakers and participants) this proposal may need to be further deliberated upon.

The Swedish organisation Arbetarnas bildningsförbund, ABF, covered my travel costs to the forums in Uppsala and Stockholm where I spoke mainly on the strengths of the WSF process and problems of democratisation at the WSF International Council. I was invited as representative of NIGD and member of the WSF IC.

II. Notes on the local Social Forums of Uppsala and Stockholm

1) Coordination between the Social Forums of Uppsala (USF) and Stockholm (SSF)

From our geographical base in Uppsala, we were able to coordinate some joint activities with the program group at the Stockholm Social Forum. In respectful disagreement with Katarina´s previous report, I do not believe that there was any significant competition between the SFs in Uppsala and Stockholm. The competition actually took place with other local activities and not with Stockholm. On the contrary, our cooperation between Uppsala and Stockholm was fruitful in various ways:

a) Articulation of the International and Local (GLOCAL) Dimensions of the World Social Forum Movement

Katarina Sehm-Patomäki, from the International Network for Global Democratization (NIGD), was participated in a panel on the World Social Forum (WSF) in Stokholm, led by Jens Ergon at the SSF, on the morning of Friday 7 May, in which I myself also participated. NIGD is based in Helsinki and is a member of the International Council (IC) of the WSF. I myself am one of the two representatives, along with Salete Valesan Campa from the Paulo Freire Institute at the IC of the WSF. We share with Katarina the view about the presence of engaged trade unionists in the Stockholm panel. Their presence is significant in helping us to move beyond the “middle-class” and student demographic and social base of many local social forums, at this point in time.

We were able to finance Katarina’s travel costs, as last year, with the support of ABF (the swedish popular education movement), and in this way we were able to extend the benefit of her presence in Sweden also to Stockholm. This constitutes a practical example of coordination and cooperation suggestive for future Swedish local social forums. From another angle, Katarina and my self helped to “bridge,” in a limited way, the international and local dimensions of our global transformative social movement, adding the valuable personal dimension demanded by global networking.

Last but not least, the joint panel in Stockholm, mentioned above, provided some basic information not readily available at the local social forum level, which needs to be shared by participants in all Swedish local forums. In that regard, we trust that Jens Ergon will write a report in Swedish, making this important information available for all present and future social forums.

b) Alternative Media: Visual Materials were produced along with personal engagement and support - beyond local borders (“developing personal networks”)

Another fruitful result from the Uppsala-Stockholm cooperation was the video (25 minutes) on the WSFs of Porto Alegre and Mumbai, produced by Jens Ergon and “bringing home” these events to the uninformed and interested audiences. The video is now available as an alternative “learning and media material” and constitutes a crucial communicative and informational resource. Jens’ “powerful” video was shown as a premiere at the opening of the Uppsala Social Forum, during the evening of Friday 7th, in the form of a “cine/video-forum,” followed by a lively dialogue with the audience, with Jens, Magnus Lindén and myself responding to questions and commentaries from participants. A copy of this video was generously given by Jens to the USF, as a concrete illustration of our capacity to multiply scarce material resources, by appealing to our human fantasy and creativity to construct Another Possible World!

2) Some of my own “high points” of the Uppsala Social Forum were:

A) The organic integration of the Uppsala Education Forum (UEF) within the Uppsala Social Forum. There has been a lack of information and awareness about the World Education Forum (WEF), evident at the first European Social Forum (ESF) in Florence, Italy, two years ago, and also witnessed at the Gothenburg Social Forum. To correct the former situation, the UEF was integrated as an organic educational section within the Uppsala Social Forum, in coordination with and supported by ABF. In that respect, we translated and distributed materials from the World Education Forums in Porto Alegre (2003) and Sao Paulo (2004), from Portuguese to Swedish, making them available to participants. I selectively mention below the following sessions of the Uppsala Education Forum:

A.1) A panel organized by the Student Council at Eriksberg School on Another School is Possible! – which integrated students, engaged parents, a teacher’s union representative and local politicians interested in educational policies and decisions at the municipal level. This is a promising line of work which we intend to continue developing in the future.

A.2) The Pedagogics of Paulo Freire: Its legacy and relevance in our times… Another line of work we intend to pursue further, already planning activities this coming autumn, after mid-november, tentatively labeled “Paulo Freire Days,” where we intend to invite Dr. Moacir Gadotti, Director of the Paulo Freire Institute.

A.3) Premiére show of a video, filmed by Lev Grossman-Spivack, on the workshop on “Transformative Education and Global Democratization,” that was led by Leena Rikkilä from NIGD at the IVth WSF in Mumbai, India. An edited 30 minutes version of this video has been requested from Lev for use in the future as a teaching resource.

A.4) Presentation of the Global Campaign of Peace Education (GCPE) of the Hague Appeal for Peace and Justice for the 21st Century (HAP), along with a short video (17 minutes). During this session a recent Manual for the GCPE, edited by Betty Reardon and Alicia Cabezudo (2002), was shown to illustrate the kind of available teaching materials for peace education purposes. One of the participants, an inspired (retired) teacher wrote afterwords a very suggestive reflection on the school situation in Uppsala, which was scanned and is already available in the webpage of USF. Another participant expressed interest on GCPE for his own work in Cambodia.

B) Concerning the Peace and Non-Violent Conflict-Resolution Premises of the World Social Forum, we list the following three sessions:

B.1) Information on the Village “Peace Oasis” (Nevé Shalom/Nevat al Salaam), between Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem, where Israeli Jews and Arabs coexist for over 30 years. This information on the existence of this Village helps us all to counteract the bitterness, hatred, hopelessness and confusion associated with that terrible and long-lasting violent conflict. Many refugees from that region of the world live in Uppsala. This village is a living pedagogical reminder and empirical proof that such coexistance between parties in conflict is possible, under conditions of democracy, justice and mutual respect and appreciation.

B.2) Bo Wirmark, secretary general of the Swedish Peace Council (SFR) informed of the main activities of this peace organization at the national level. We have his report available in Swedish and the report will soon included on the webpages of the USF and NKFFU.

B.3) Steven Staples from the Polaris Institute, Ontario, Canada provided ample and disturbing evidence of the increasing process of global militarization under Bush, based on his ground-breaking research. Their webpage is : www.polarisinstitute.org, e-mail: steven_staples@on.aibn.com

C) Articulation of International, Regional, National and Local Social Forums in Uppsala:

We succeeded in organizing a working-lunch session on Saturday 8/5, as we did last year, between persons whose organizations presently belong to the international councils of the WSF and WEF (Katarina Sehm-Patomäki and myself), working at the national and/or european levels (Helena Tagesson) and from the board of the USF. Hereby we established a working network coordinated by Tim Sandgren, secretary of the USF. I have already written about the importance of articulating these various levels of the WSF as a transformative social movement, in terms of both organizational and personal networking.

D) “Anchoring USF in local social reality”: humble beginnings…

We advanced on two new grounds and set of programs:

D.1) With “Forumito” (program for children) we began to respond to the needs of children in Uppsala.
D.2) “Speaker’s Corner,” with this corner we began the process of “giving a voice” to the experiences, struggles and reflections of local activists, trade union organizers and others.

It is clear for us that we need to advance and deepen our process of grounding our work in the ongoing diversity of grassroot organization and mobilization taking place nowadays in Uppsala. We are all part of a learning process and of transforming ourselves as we try to transform the world towards Another Possible and Better World.

Hopefully, this report will inspire other members from the USF - to complement and enrich its limited content, by taking action and writing about their experiences and views on the matte

5) The value of alternative media: Yelah

Lastly, it is worth to acknowledge and appreciate the value of the simultaneous media daily cover of the various ongoing social forums during 7-9th of May by Yelah, an alternative grassroots electronic and printed media outlet.

III. Discussion on the possibilities of the local Social Forum

The first GSF took place in central Gothenburg 14-16 May 2004. The main theme was privatisations and their consequences. For me it was the best experience of a social forum so far – the forum had an exciting program and, as importantly, it was well rooted in local social movement and activism. How do we continue the forum-process? That was the main question of the final roundtable, which resulted in enthusiasm and a few concrete suggestions.

Sofia Kjellén, organiser of GSF, gave an introduction and passed the word to Michael Hart of “Via Campesina,” who was the first speaker in a panel of four. Michael’s main point was that we must not forget that half of the world’s population are farmers - it is important to integrate small scale farmers in the local forums. Via Campesina with its over 100 million farming members is an important part of the global forum process. Torgny Östling, the chairman of its Swedish member organisation Nordbruk, was also present.

Åsa Hjalmers, one of the organisers of GSF continued by emphasising the role of the local social forums to bring home the discussions from the international forums. Indeed the idea of having a local forum in Gothenburg was born at the European Social Forum (ESF) in Paris 2003. These issues, Åsa continued, are often better discussed locally where the effects of economic globalisation are near and the participants can organise directly as they live in the same city. She finally formulated an important question: how do we mobilise more people to the local movements? and suggested an answer that has been taken into practice in Gothenburg.

During the last year an organisation called SITS (acronym for “healthcare is not for sale” in Swedish, www.sits.biz) has mobilised people to meetings and demonstrations against the cutting on health care budgets and the on going dismantling of local health care facilities. The experiences from SITS, which got a lot of media coverage, suggest that the effects of cuts on public spending and privatisation is one of the main questions that people are concerned about and willing to organise around.

The next speaker, Lars Henriksson, one of the activists in SITS took the role of the devils advocate or as he put it “Mr Sadness”. He made the harsh statement that the GSF was in effect no Social Forum – for there were no real social movements meeting there. Lars continued by taking some edge off his statement and said his point was that the forum takes a lot of time from activists and runs the risk of becoming an end in it self. Lars argued that the social forums should be a way of mobilising and organising an emerging social movement and focus on winning social struggles.

Stellan Vinthagen professor at Padrigu (Peace And Development Research Institute, Gothenburg University) was the final speaker and brought some optimism into the discussion, he said that all though he to had got tired of the festival like international social forums, they still have brought some real hope after the “death of ideology” that prevailed in the beginning of the 90s. Who could then foresee the rise of a global alternative-seeking social movement? Stellan also stressed the crucial importance of these alternative movements in times when the leaders of Muslim and Western countries clash, but are unified on one aspect : their lack of respect for democracy.

Following Stellan, who was the last speaker in the panel, the participants joined a roundtable discussion meant to suggest some proposals for future social forums:

• 1. focus more on participation of the seminars – one way is not counting the number of visitors but the number of people talking on the seminars;
  
• 2. support campaign initiatives with direct action as a part of the forum process;
  
• 3. find ways to include new groups and organisations in the process;
  
• 4. defend the open space character of the social forum;
  
• 5. co-ordinate between social forums, link the discussions;
  
• 6. to avoid always having to start from scratch on seminars, for example by ”telling what the WTO is” the seminars can be divided into different levels: A for an introductory B for more intermediate, and so on;
  
• 7. defend the economic sovereignty of the forums; and
  
• 8. make clear connection between the global and the local (how are local cuts on health care budgets connected to the globalisation process?).
  

Of course, it is impossible to give full justice here to the rich discussion that took place, yet what I personally brought home with me is that Stellan’s suggestion to label seminars with different levels was well received, and that “Mr Sadness” arguments were dismissed, as most of us seemed to agree that the forum-process does not take energy from activists – but on the contrary, it adds to our energy. Organising social forums will be much easier in the future, when most people and movements feel they are a part of this exciting process!