|
|
|
Africa in search of deeper dialogue beyond Addis and Bamako - February 2004
|
|
| |
2. Reviewing the Agenda
The challenges for Africa became clear during the African seminar which was occasionally punctuated by heated debates and fireworks in which delegates sought for a deeper dialogue beyond Addis and Bamako declarations.
The first of these challenges arose when Oupa Lehulere from South Africa's Khanya College requested that the agenda be amended so that the meeting concentrates on how Africa could turn its perspectives against neo-liberalism into practical programmes of action to mobilize and build movements on the ground.
The circulated agenda covered the following:
Overview and objectives of the African seminar by Taoufik Ben Abdallah.
-
NEPAD and the African Union (Mohau Pheko and Yash Tandon)
-
Cancun and beyond (Dot Keet)
-
Debt and International Financial Institutions' policies (Demba Moussa Dembele)
-
The farming issue (Ibrahima Coulibaly)
-
Peace and conflicts (Bakary Fofana)
-
Culture (Aminata Traore)
-
The gender issue (Sara Longwe & Elizabeth Eilor)
-
Activities of ASF membership (overview of national and sub-regional initiatives undertaken in 2003 or planned for 2004)
-
Seminar on the relationships between social movements in Africa, Asia and Latin America with Samir Amin, Mohau Pheko, Aminata Traorй, Walden Bello, Vandana Shiva and Roberto Bissio billed to be some of the speakers.
-
And finally, an exchange of views on "the African social movement and the WSF" where WSF organising committee members from India and Brazil would interact with the ASF.
Lehulere argued that this programme should create room for a special discussion of exactly how Africa organises itself, its networks and give each other support in-between the international meetings, World and African Social Forum meetings.
Efforts to debate the issue in the 300-seater hall which was packed to capacity were thwarted by trade unionist Hassan Sunmonu who argued that an agenda presented before him provided the basis for approaching the Mumbai seminar and any other issues people were raising should be restricted to an "African" audience only, adding that preferably, such matters have to be discussed on the African soil.
But some delegates were not satisfied with this response and indicated that Mumbai had attracted a big number of Africans and no such opportunity was available in the near future on the continent, an argument that forced some Steering Committee members to caucus and establish if a venue could be found in Mumbai for such a meeting.
Before this exercise was completed, George Dor from Jubilee South Africa, sought clarification on the matter, but was ruled out of order by Sunmonu, who in turn attracted the wrath of some delegates who felt that he was being too harsh.
Arguing that a chair could not be ruled out of order by the public led to a temporary disruption of the meeting's proceedings, as there was some heckling and walkouts.
"If we cannot be heard here in an open forum, where else do you want us to speak?" murmured some delegates.
One delegate from Kenya jumped to the podium and bawled out "African issues cannot be discussed in Mumbai!!!"
His sentiment resonated with those of the chair and was not ruled out of order despite the agreement that all issues to be raised from the floor were now directed at the ongoing discussion on NEPAD and the African Union.
Mondli Hlatshwayo another delegate from South Africa who had been noted as a contributor to the NEPAD debate by the chair never got round to speak, leaving many wondering whether the chair was panicking over the enthusiasm of South Africans to intervene.
Ironically, the lead resource persons, Mohau Pheko and Yash Tandon on the NEPAD panel were from Southern Africa.
Their presentations and barrages on NEPAD not only exposed weaknesses of the development paradigm the programme is rooted in, but also proceeded to state what should be done.
Solutions offered and action they proposed, ranged from slowing down Africa's integration into the global economy to reorienting economies of the continent so that they satisfy basic needs of the people before placing emphasis on linking economic growth to export performance.
The controversial NEPAD is closely associated with South African President Thabo Mbeki.
"What is wrong with you South Africans?" quizzed one journalist from Kenya.
Efforts to influence the agenda of Mumbai had started well before getting to India.
It has been learnt that Trevor Ngwane from South Africa had written to the African Social Forum Secretariat suggesting that the Mumbai Africa seminar considers some of the main issues that came about during the campaign against the World Summit on Sustainable Development that was held in Johannesburg, South Africa in August 2002.
In addition to his request, he endorsed the strategic proposals made in Maputo, Mozambique binding the African Social Forum to hold a meeting that could deliberate on some of the thorny issues related to mobilising Africa.
"We fully endorse the decision of the Maputo meeting (held in December 2003) that the ASF should, in addition to the seminar, have a meeting to discuss organizational and programmatic issues, namely, the structure and function of the ASF, the role of regions, the role of the Secretariat, programmes to build and support social movements, etc.
"We suggest that this meeting is very important and should be well-advertised to the relevant comrades and be given enough time to deal with ASF matters. This is especially so in the light of the failure of the annual ASF meeting to sit in 2004. We feel that it is very important to discuss how we will practically build the struggle to defend the African masses from neo-liberal attacks in between the international meetings we attend," the letter noted.
A response from the Secretariat noted the concerns, but highlighted that it was too late to make any amendments because this was an agenda that would be reflected on the registered events and printed version of WSF programme.
Part of the note read, "Regarding the Seminar, as you know, the agenda was discussed in Maputo. We ask speakers to focus on activities that took place on the ground.
As for a discussion on the future of the ASF, it was decided in Maputo to have a special meeting on it next April. I agree that these are important issues that we should discuss."
It is interesting to note that the framework document for the Mumbai meeting spells out clearly that the purpose of the African seminar was "to enable African participants to express their opinions on issues of concern to the continent and exchange their views and experiences. It also aims to make African issues more visible to the media and other components of the world movement."
The above pronouncement and call to Africa sounded fine before the "washing of dirty linen in public" doctrine was invoked as a way of defending the programme.
Inside the seminar, the presentations proceeded as outlined in the programme and the African seminar was once again running as a "festival of good intentions" which Outtara Diakalia, a delegate from Cote d' Ivoire, felt was stuck in some routine discourse that seemed not to be changing.
"We seem to be having the same discourse. What happened to our action programme and resolutions?" he noted.
If one constantly attends some of these meetings and is exposed to the same speakers all the time, there is need to listen to them much more closely.
When something new comes out, one might miss it because you think you have heard it all before.
As much as the presentations sounded like another round of Addis and Bamako and even the 2003 African seminar in Porto Allegre, they recognised the new issues and challenges coming out of the struggles versus neo-liberalism, the latest triumph being the resistance in Cancun.
There were open calls to set up democratic institutions, challenge dictatorships and most importantly, resist imperialist manipulation of Africa's political leaderships through processes like the African Peer Review mechanism in NEPAD.
For the latter intervention, South Africa was cited as being manipulated by the British and Americans in its handling of the political crisis in Zimbabwe.
|
|
Related documents