(A slightly different version of the following text was read at the 1^st International Gathering on Development and Regional Integration in the South of Mexico and Central America, San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, June 6, 2003.  Presentations from the Gathering are available at www.ecosur.mx/desarrollo)

In order to address the question of what civil society is doing regarding NAFTA, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, the Plan Puebla Panama and, with increasing frequency, the World Trade Organization (OMC), requires us first to survey where civil society is presently, and how it views the future.  For this reason I will not be addressing here why organized civil society on the left is against what we call corporate globalization or, more generically, the capitalist economic system, nor will I speak of the wide and varied gamut of activities that are being carried out as a consequence of its opposition.  These aspects are available to the public on CIEPAC’s web page and by other means.  Rather, I wish to comment on new circumstances facing us, as a backdrop with which to view civil society’s activities and to foresee possible changes in its actions.

We are today confronting a new and unknown world, with the increasing consolidation of not just US hegemony, but the US empire.  I believe we must be realistic: the overwhelming strength of the United States empire, and the unilateral imposition of its interests, implies great difficulties for organized civil society.  This historic moment might give rise to pessimism, faintheartedness, discouragement and demobilization, should we pause to ponder the possibilities of braking, or even sidetracking, the prevailing economic system.

Yet there are positive signs on the horizon that give us reason to be cautiously optimistic, which I would like to explore here, because they are the underpinnings of the optimism that continues to lead us onward, in spite of the difficulties.

I believe one of the most important motives for moderate hopefulness has to do with the increasing grassroots rejection of neoliberal policies, and their instruments which we refer to with an alphabet soup of initials (WTO, PPP, FTAA, IMF, G-8, etc.).  And I say so because daily we can see the impacts at the local, national, regional and international spheres that the social and civil organizations, and the movements, are having on some of the components of the system.

The invasions that the United States has carried out, particularly in the Middle East since George W. Bush assumed the presidency, have had a repercussion in terms of the coordinated mobilization of tens of millions of people throughout the world, something quite literally never seen before.  The millions of people who took to the streets last February 15 and on other dates are the beginning of a process, in the words of Phyllis Bennis, researcher at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, of a movement against the United States empire.  Many of the speakers at the demonstrations that day coincided on a basic idea: the invasion of Iraq, and the antiwar movement that it spawned, no longer has to do solely with Iraq and the Middle East and its natural resource wealth.  This is nothing less than a movement against the Washington government and its unilateral policies.  The arguments and the justification behind this movement are being defined, and will coalesce in the medium term.  But the parameters of the movement undoubtedly will widen and encompass the relationship between empire, war and the excluding and unjust economic system. (1)

For millions of people the inevitable connections have already been made between Iraq and Palestine and Israel, between oil and Central Asia and the invasion of Afghanistan, between terrorism and US foreign policy, between the nuclear arms of North Korea and Israel’s nuclear arms; between the protectionism of the rich countries and the deregulation and liberalization that they impose on poor countries; between corporate globalization and military expenses; between the military expenditures of the United States and the budget cutbacks in the US that are already affecting schools, hospitals and other basic public services.

Of importance to us as civil society is that for millions of people around the world the connections between the plans of the US empire and the capitalist economic system are being more clearly drawn.  The antiwar and economic justice agendas will likely merged, and the movement against corporate globalization will tend to grow.  Already one of the most influential newspapers in the world, no less than the New York Times, has called the antiwar movement “the second superpower in the world”.

Another bright spot on the horizon that may hearten us are the signs that the system has run its course.  For the moment we will leave to one side the environmental arguments, some of which we heard in this Encounter yesterday.  Here we shall only make reference to the more economic signs of exhaustion. 

Professor Immanuel Wallerstein says that in the past we have wanted to interpret any crisis of the economic system as irrefutable proof of its imminent collapse.  He insists that it is methodologically essential in analyzing any historical social system (such as capitalism) to distinguish between cyclical rhythms and secular tendencies.  These secular tendencies can signal that a system cannot contain its internal contradictions and that with time will enter into a systemic crisis.  A historic system has three major moments in its life: first its genesis, second a relatively long period of “normal” or “near normal” functioning, and then a period of terminal crisis.  Wallerstein says, “I believe that a number of trends have at last reached points where they threaten the basic functioning of the system”. (2)

A key point for Wallerstein is the rate of profit in economic operations observed over long periods of time.  Wallerstein says that the rate of profit has been decreasing continuously over the 500-year history of capitalism (in spite of technological advances), but that it has now entered a critical point.  “The entire neoliberal offensive of the past two decades”, says Wallerstein, is nothing more than a “gigantic attempt to slow down the increasing costs of production” that are pushing down the rate of profit.  Traditionally lowering production costs has meant incursions into new and less explored areas of the planet, in order to gain access to both low-cost raw materials and low cost labor rates in those areas.  The problem today, says Wallerstein, is that the capitalist has almost run out of these unexploited areas.  We are no longer facing a cyclical crisis but possibly the permanent weakening of one of the most important pillars of the economy, as it is presently run.

Crucial to this discussion of the US empire is the conviction that US civil society itself, will be, sooner or later, or it may already have become, an additional important ally for, on one hand, the linking of the peace and economic justice agendas, and on the other, for some important transformations within the US.  Even though we hear disheartening news of the support that US citizens have given to the bellicose policies of their president, many commentators have pointed to the qualitative and objective differences of US society today, before and after the invasion of Iraq, and the situation that prevailed 40 years ago when John F. Kennedy declared war on the Vietnamese people.  According to Noam Chomsky, the degree of opposition to the invasion of Iraq, even among the elite, has no precedent in the United States.  It is no longer as in the 60s, says Chomsky, when the population tolerated an “murderous and destructive war for years without visible protest.  That’s no longer true...By now, the only way to attack a much weaker enemy is to construct a huge propaganda offensive depicting it as about to commit genocide, maybe even a threat to our very survival, then to celebrate a miraculous victory over the awesome foe, while chanting praises to the courageous leaders who came to the rescue just in time.”  (3)

In spite of the propaganda machinery, US citizens have mobilized as never before in their history, according to Ted Lewis of Global Exchange, in a talk given a few weeks ago here in San Cristóbal in the Forum on Militarization.  As an example, in spite of the fact that the demonstration was expressly prohibited by the New York City authorities, one million persons took to the streets on February 15. (4)

We should discount, says Chomsky, from the US public opinion polls that give wide backing to Bush the “fear factor” felt by Americans, which is very real, but obviously manipulated.  If we could extract this fear factor from the opinion surveys, says Chomsky, the support of Americans for the invasion would fall to the extremely low levels found in other countries.

Another factor to ponder comes with a different perspective, but points in a similar direction.  Walden Bello, from the Filipino NGO Focus on the Global South, says that signs exist of a possible “over extension” of the US empire, and the apparent manifestations of force could be betraying strategic weakness, especially within the economic sphere.  Bello mentions some of the key indicators which might signal the empire’s over extension.

--Washington’s inability to create a new political order in Iraq that would serve as a secure foundation for colonial rule;

--Its failure to consolidate a pro-US regime in Afghanistan outside of Kabul;

--The inability of a key ally, Israel, to quell, even with Washington’s unrestricted support, the Palestinian people’s uprising;

--The collapse of the Cold War Atlantic Alliance and the emergence of a new countervailing alliance, with Germany and France at the center of it;

--The forging of a powerful global civil society movement against US unilateralism, militarism, and economic hegemony, the most recent significant expression [of which] is the global anti-war movement;

--The increase of US military spending begins to erode social expenses (as has already begun) to such a degree that Americans begin to question the logic and need behind it. (5)

Returning to Latin America, we have cause to celebrate the large and small victories of the movement against corporate globalization.  I would simply like to list some of these victories in Mexico and the rest of Latin America, without going into the significance of each one:

1)One already mentioned at this Encounter is the victory of the Atenco communal landowners in conserving their patrimony in spite of federal government plans to construct a new airport for Mexico City on their lands.

2)The setback of privatization plans for the Social Security Institute in El Salvador.

3)The coordination of civil society in Mexico and Central America that led to thousands of people taking to the streets last October 12 throughout the region to protest the Plan Puebla Panama.

4)The re-nationalization of the drinking water system in Cochabamba, Bolivia that had been sold to the US multinational corporation Bechtel.

5)The change in the marketing strategy of the Mexican government behind the PPP, in light of the grassroots rejection that it provoked in Mexico and Central America.

6)The change in the marketing strategy of the Plan Millenium in the state of Puebla, a local component of the PPP.

7)The halting by civil society of a road being built in the area of Xalapa, Veracruz, that would have passed through a rain forest, and its relocation to a less ecologically sensitive area.

And many other successes, victories, advances in the mobilization of civil society in Latin America, and the small steps taken by social and civil organizations, indigenous communities, autonomous municipalities, all types of groups, to resist the imposition of neoliberal policies and to create and implement alternatives.

Recent events and analysts would seem to be indicating that the conditions appear to be ripe for important changes in the present world “economic and political architecture”.  But it is not sufficient that these changes occur, Wallerstein warns.  Although we may be, for the first time in the 500 years of the capitalist system, on the threshold of a real systemic crisis, and in the midst of a transition, the result of it all is intrinsically uncertain.  There is a real possibility of fundamental change, that may possibly be progressive, but it may not necessarily turn out that way.

What is needed is a strategy to guarantee that the outcome of this moment of transition is in fact progressive.  Some observations:

Time and again, what the Zapatistas stated almost a decade ago has turned out to be true: occupying government posts, either through the proverbial assault on the palace, or through elections, is not, and cannot be, the objective.  And not because progressives, once ensconced within the government, betray their ideals, or sell out.  Such an idea is “analytically sterile and politically demobilizing”, according to Wallerstein.  What is evident, as demonstrated by Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, is that there is no room at the top of government for sudden shifts in gears.  As Sergio Antonio Gorgen, founder of the Landless People’s Movement (MST) in Brazil, stated:

The left advanced enormously with Lula, but he is not going to be able to carry out the great transformations that he promised at first; his maneuvering space is small.  This is the paradox: we have the government, but not power.  We have no expectations in this regard.  Democracy within neoliberalism is a fantasy.  Even if we elect a president, it is the World Bank and the multinational corporations that decide.  For this reason, the MST is seeking to build grassroots control over national power.  Our proposal is to build mechanisms for decision making that are controlled by the people.  This is what movements such as the MST and the indigenous people in Chiapas are proposing: we propose democratic alternatives and organized resistance against an economic model that leaves out the poor.  This is the challenge facing us now”. (6)

Another task that seems unquestionable is the forging of tactical and strategic alliances with forces and organizations that are new for some sectors of civil society.  For example Bennis puts the United Nations at the center of the diverse forces that are making up a new internationalism against the empire, and particularly the defense and promotion of the United Nations Charter.  It will take time, says Bennis, to generate a unified agenda for this worldwide movement for peace and justice. The points on the agenda will have to include universal disarmament, economic justice, internationalism and the central role of the United Nations.  This means, says Bennis, the appropriation of the United Nations as our own, as part of a global mobilizations for peace, and the empowerment of the UN as a legitimate substitute for the US empire we seek to disempower.

What lies before us?  In very broad brushstrokes, organized civil society is advancing in the forging of agendas in favor of economic justice and peace.  Tools for the task might seem limited, for example, raising awareness through workshops, talks, training, organization, mobilization, encounters, demonstrations, but all have had positive effects, especially considering grassroots ingenuity to use these tools creatively.  The search for alternatives begins precisely with these basic tools.

If I can quote from a work companion, Gustavo Castro,

In any event, what is the alternative?  Many more of us are asking this question than we might realize.  Shored-up neoliberalism?  Democratic socialism?  The center left?  The modernized right or extreme rightwing?  State terrorism or authoritarian governments?  Political-military organizations?  Or whatever arises from our joint democratic participation as we advance towards a system of inclusive development?  Solely by participating in this process, in this advancement towards a global society, can we find the alternative.  Truly, struggles against globalizations generate their own hopes and proposals, increasingly delegitimizing the system and the circuit that promotes the globalization of the neoliberal model.  The challenge is to build convergent anti-systemic struggles and create alternatives and new political expressions, of short-term, strategic, and organic alliances.  All of these diverse demands are given expression in multi-sectoral, multi-class, multi-ethnic, multi-national and multi-theme events throughout the world.  The long-term challenge is to reconstruct our utopia, the society that will benefit everyone.  The land, ecology, work, agriculture and education we have dreamt of.  We must also do so in the mid-term by building processes and generating mobilization and resistance to capitalism.  And in the short term too, with alternatives that mean survival, searching, experimentation with new routes, viable and feasible alternatives for today in keeping with regional possibilities in a world context.  There is tremendous richness in this collective search by global society...(7)

Do we see, then, significant changes in the methods of the organized civil society of the left?  We will need an objective analysis of the particular moment we face today, of the possible structural changes, and paradigm shifts that may come about over a time span that is impossible to foretell, of possible new alliances that will need to be forged.  As Chomsky sums up, “a realistic view of the world gives a mixed picture.  There are many reasons to be encouraged, but there is a long hard road ahead”.

References:

(1)Bennis, Phyllis, “Going Global: Building a Movement Against Empire”, available at the web site of Foreign Policy in Focus, www.fpif.org/papers/justice2003.html

(2) Wallerstein, Immanuel, “A Left Politics for the 21^st Century? or, Theory and Praxis Once Again”, Centro Fernand Braudel, 1999, available at: http://www.transformaties.org/bibliotheek/wallersteinleftpol.htm

(3) Chomsky, Noam, “Confronting the Empire, February 1, 2003, available at www.znet.org.

(4) Lewis, Ted, “El movimiento antibélico en Estados Unidos”, available at: http://www.laneta.apc.org/sclc/desmilitarizacion/index.html

(5) Bello, Walden, “The Crisis of the WTO and the Crisis of the Globalist Project”, document presented at the Asamblea Hemisférica y Global contra el ALCA y la OMC, Mexico City, May 12-13, 2003.

(6) Ramírez Cuevas, Jesús, “Con Lula no nos hacemos ilusiones”, interview with Sergio Antonio Gorgen, founder of the Landless People’s Movement of Brazil, Masiosare Supplement, La Jornada, May 18, 2003.

(7) Castro, Gustavo, “La agenda social mundial contra la globalización neoliberal”, CIEPAC, 2001, available at http://www.ciepac.org/bulletins/200-300/bolec252.htm

Note: If you wish to be placed on a list to receive this English version of the Bulletin, or the Spanish, or both, please direct a request to: ciepac@laneta.apc.org and indicate whether you wish to receive the bulletin in plain text or as a Word 7 for Windows 95 attachment.

Note: If you use this information, cite the source and our email address. We are grateful to the persons and institutions who have given us their comments on these Bulletins. CIEPAC, A.C. is a non-government and non-profit organization, and your support is necessary for us to be able to continue offering you this news and analysis service. If you would like to contribute, in any amount, we would infinitely appreciate your remittance to the bank account in the name of:

CIEPAC, A.C.
Bank: Banamex
Account number: 7049672 Sucursal 386
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México.
You will also need to use an ABA number:
BNMXMXMM

Thank you! CIEPAC

Telephone:
in México: 01 967 674 5168
from outside Mexico:: +52 967 674 5168