TWO international meetings that attracted considerable media attention came to a conclusion at almost the same time just recently. One was the Annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) that was held in New York and the other was the annual meeting of the World Social Forum (WSF) at Porto Alegre, Brazil. These two forums couldn’t be more different; both in their formation and their goals.
WEF is funded by one thousand of the world’s richest corporations, whereas WSF is organized by the voluntary efforts of thousands of ordinary citizens and activists from all over the world. One wants people to work for the betterment of the economy, while the other desires the opposite: for economy to work for the betterment of human beings.
The former is a symbol of a global oligopoly which — through its Machiavellian web of sham media, pocket politicians and dishonest intellectuals — constantly drills into your head that capitalism is the best system there could ever be, and that “there is no alternative” (Margaret Thatcher’s famous proclamation in defense of capitalism). The latter — which represents a global confluence of farmers, workers, activists and radical intellectuals — strongly disagrees and its official slogan is: Another world is possible.
Is it really? Nobody knows, but people associated with both forums realize that in the coming months and years a fierce war will be waged to decide the answer to this question. It won’t be a traditional war; rather it will be a war between ideas, mindsets and systems.
Currently, the WEF and its acolytes are in a stronger position thriving on the ignorance, confusion and frustration of the masses, which they themselves have helped create. However, the main weapon of the latter group is the unvanquishable moral fiber of the human spirit that always seeks justice, peace and equality.
Therefore, in the near future, the main goal of WSF and its sympathizers would be to clear away the clouds of confusion and pessimism that presently overshadow this inimitable human character, by unleashing an avalanche of facts and new ideas and providing invigorated hope to people all over the world. In this way, they would hope to build a global unification of the masses that reaches proportions strong enough to start challenging the global oligopoly of tarns-national conglomerates and the political and military setups that are in place to broaden their domination. Now, if and when that starts happening, the all important question — the answer of which will decide the future of the world — that every person all over the world will encounter would be: Whose side are you on?
To further clarify what kind of choice you would be facing; let us examine some other differences between WEF and WSF.
WEF is undemocratic in nature; its annual meeting requires a twenty five thousand dollars admittance fee. WSF is free for all people to attend. WEF says it is for globalization and accuses WSF of being anti-globalization. The fact is that both WEF and WSF are for globalization; only different kinds of globalization. WEF, among other things, is for the globalization of Western domination; for the privatization of water; for the annulment of labour rights; for the select few to prosper and for the greater part of mankind to rot in poverty.
In contrast, WSF is for global integration; for global equity and for the global implementation of the socialist ideal: “To each according to his need, and from each according to his ability”.
WEF claims that it’s for peace and that WSF members and so-called anti-globalization activists are violent anarchists. This couldn’t be farther from truth. It is, in fact, WEF that is the carrier of violence. As Noam Chomsky has repeatedly pointed out, the American policymakers are themselves aware that globalization would lead to increased poverty in all parts of the world. Hence, the need for the missile defense system, whose sole purpose is to “control the resulting turmoil among growing numbers of impoverished people throughout the world”.
The militarization of space will provide the US “with immensely destructive weapons launched from space, probably nuclear-powered. Apart from the horrendous consequences for the victims, that is also a prescription for global disaster.” So much for WEF being for peace!
As for WSF and the so-called anti-globalization protesters being violent anarchists, the fact is that these movements are made of variety of factions of people following different ideologies, including: Catholic groups, pacifists and, yes, anarchists. And even so, breaking a few windows to prevent the annihilation of millions of people by nuclear weapons launched from space can hardly be characterized as violence.
By now you must be thinking that the choice is pretty simple: For a better world, we are all for WSF. Only it isn’t so simple. In an ideal world, yes, the choice would have been very simple. But when we face this choice in our real world — divided as we are by national boundaries, religion, creed and colour — it is anything but simple. Then it remains not a one-dimensional question of choosing between WSF and WEF, but takes on life-altering proportions, and challenges all our beliefs and cherished concepts.
It asks us whether we are going to be a mere cog in the smoothly running wheel that is this tyrannical system, or are we willing to break off and rebel against this murderous scheme of things — murderous not just because of capitalism, but also because of divisions based on national boundaries, religion and race.
Consider two black Americans. One is a lowly educated boxer who converts from Christianity to Islam, not so much a religious decision, but rather an in-your-face political statement meant to anger Mighty Whitey, who he believes is the tormentor of his people. Next, he refuses to go to Vietnam “to help murder other poor people”. He is defiant in his stand and proclaims openly for all to hear: “I ain’t got no quarrel with them VietCong. Damn America and what America thinks.”
The result is that he is labelled as an ungrateful black draft-dodger and becomes the most reviled personality in his country. He only gains acceptance in old age, when his insolent mouth is shut for good due to his disease. This is the great Muhammad Ali.
Now we move on to the other black American. As a young soldier, he goes to fight in Vietnam and is decorated for his war heroics. Afterwards, he goes on to become the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He becomes a highly celebrated war hero and his job sees him carrying out successful military operations which “murder thousands of poor people” — in places like Grenada, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Later, he becomes the Secretary of State which means that he becomes the “most powerful black American in American history”. In his country, he is considered a “national hero whose charismatic image bridges America’s racial divide”. This is the present Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
Whose side are you on? But don’t answer just yet. In the above account, replace America by Pakistan; black by some native ethnic or religious minority, and you end up having to choose between a Pakistani ‘war hero’, and a Pakistani ‘draft-dodger’. Now, whose side are you on? It’s not so simple, is it? Ane we haven’t even considered the prospect of faith conversion!
As stated, the answer to this question is not going to be easy. To make a right and just choice, people all over the world are going to have to transcend national boundaries, religious affiliations and other prejudices, and work for the collective good of mankind. As the great Bertrand Russell said, “Humankind has become so much one family that we cannot ensure our own prosperity except by ensuring that of everyone else. If you wish to be happy yourself, you must resign yourself to seeing others also happy.”
In the light of this, the gleeful attitude of the Pakistani liberal elite viz-a-viz the present Afghanistan war, comes out as both morally shameful and intellectually dim-witted. Religious fundamentalism is detestable, but not speaking out against the murder of thousands of innocent people because it is paving the way for the modernization of the country, is not only shocking, but also ironic.
Those who think that they will be able to build a secular, modern palace on the graves of thousands of dead Afghans are sadly mistaken. The naively crafted, lofty dreams of such a palace will come crumbling down when, the secular fundamentalists and the globalists who designed this war, unleash the full menace of their demonic intentions. This devil will trample the entire world — including Pakistan — under its greed and lust for being the master of the universe. Does anyone need to be reminded about the Axis of Evil, missile defense system and the rest of the globalization baggage?
Combined directly with the war merriment is the liberals’ love affair with General Pervez Musharraf. Almost all are busy singing praises for the ‘magnanimous reformer’. There are only a few who point out the emptiness of such epithets; who remember past models of the ‘saviour dictator’ and remind people of the sad turnaround of similar accolades that were bestowed upon them initially, and taken back once they started showing their true colours.
There are many who applaud Gen Musharraf, even as he pledges to remain as unelected president to build a “true democracy”; but there are hardly any who laugh at the farcical nature of such a concept. In short, on the one hand, there are many who think it best to side with dictators if they promise some benefits — a modern secular state, in this case — and on the other hand, there are those few who say that the perceived benefits — even if they are real — do not in any way mean that dictators should be supported.
Whose side, then, are you on?
Thus we come back to our original question and, as stated, it is not uni-dimensional. Presently, WEF is in a much stronger position and has the capital as well as the police and military resources to throttle its opposition. Therefore, the WSF requires all the help it can get. And for that, the ordinary people of the world, like you and me, who would have to think very carefully about all the important choices in this regard.
On the one hand there are powerful tyrants — both corporate and military — and, on the other, there are few beleaguered activists challenging all authoritarian structures. On one side are the warmongers and their supporters; on the other, there are peace-lovers and idealists. On one side are those who seek to divide people on the basis of nationality, religion and race; on the other are those few who envisage a shared future for the mankind. On one side is the Homo Sapien, still a beast despite having come so far — having achieved so much, yet having achieved nothing; on the other is the Human Being locked in a painful existence — vulnerable and tortured by his own weaknesses — but still desperately trying to be a man; to hold on to his dreams. Whose side, then, are you on? Now is the time to decide!
