Commentary No. 83, Feb. 15, 2002

"Davos vs. Porto Alegre: Game Two"

In 2001, for the first time, the World Social Forum met at Porto Alegre at the same time as the World Economic Forum met at Davos.⁽¹⁾ The world press did not take Porto Alegre very seriously in 2001. And neither did many of the world's progressive movements, who failed to show up. This year it was very different.

One might have thought that the effect of September 11 would have been to destroy the anti-globalization movement, or at least to intimidate it, and in October of 2001 there were many who thought this would be the case. But by February, 2002, everything had changed. Porto Alegre II had at least 50,000 participants, multiplying by at least four the number who came in 2001. And the surprise was that the U.S. delegation, rather tiny in 2001, was the fourth largest in Porto Alegre. The atmosphere at Porto Alegre was sober, analytical, and at the same time festive. It was a serious conference, and the world press took it seriously. The process of organizing an elaborate and comprehensive counter-program to that of Davos and the old Washington consensus is well under way.

Meanwhile, thanks to the Office of Research of the U.S. Department of State, we have a splendid survey of non-U.S. press reaction to the World Economic Forum in New York <http://usinfo.state.gov/admin/005/wwwh2f09.html>. First, the State Department's key findings: "Overseas editorial reaction to the World Economic Forum was dominated by criticism of the U.S. and doubts about the merits of globalization. In a shift from the positive coverage of free trade following Doha, the focus was on the failures and negative consequences of globalization. Secretary Powell's remarks on 'waging war' on world poverty received a few nods of approval, but overall, editorials portrayed the U.S. as insincere about correcting 'global inequalities.'"

Nor was this the world left press from the countries of the South. The very first excerpt is from the "conservative" (the State Dept.'s designation) Times of London: "Is America about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? To judge by the incoherent paranoid mood of the World Economic Forum in New York, American politicians, businessmen and media commentators appear to be on the brink of a collective nervous breakdown." Italy's "leading business" daily, Il Sole 24 Ore is quoted as saying "The gap in the relations between the U.S. and Europe is widening again, on both the political and economic levels." The "centrist" Irish Examiner observed that "speaker after speaker at the World Economic Forum lambasted America as a smug superpower." France's leading conservative newspaper, Le Figaro headlined its story on the Munich NATO meeting "Europeans growl at the United States."

Meanwhile, the Financial Times (of London) headlined its report on Porto Alegre on Feb. 5 "Serious ideas behind the theatrics." The subheadline was "Anti-globalisation lobby has recovered its momentum." On the same day, its report from the World Economic Forum in New York was that: "This year, the mood was far more subdued....In today's uncertain world, Davos no longer provides answers."

What seems to be happening? Three things: First, the United States is beginning to overplay its hand badly. It is getting the backs up of even its former best friends. President Bush was apparently so surprised and shocked at the tone of a letter he received from Prince Abdullah, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, that he wrote a very appeasing reply, in effect backing down from some of the positions his senior associates had been taking publicly. When the U.S. is being openly criticized by the British Secretary-General of NATO (former U.K. defense minister), Lord Robertson, things are not going as well as planned and expected. Europeans (and of course almost everyone else) are by and large quite upset by the speech about the "axis of evil." This opposition won't slow down U.S. armaments expansion but it may slow down the intent to use them.

Secondly, the anti-globalization movement, the spirit of Porto Alegre, is trying to go beyond demonstrations and defensive actions to put forward credible alternative propositions, and to mobilize world sentiment for them. Porto Alegre still has a long way to go to attain the political weight it needs to impose its views. But it has moved beyond the gadfly phase. And this year, Davos tried to sound like Porto Alegre - a far cry from the rhetoric of the 1990's. Imitation is, they say, the greatest flattery.

The great uncertainty is the attitude of the world political center. Basically, they have been totally involved in Davos, and most of them still are. But I met at least one former Prime Minister at Porto Alegre who told me that, normally I would go to Davos, but this year I decided to come see what Porto Alegre had to offer. He did not seem unhappy with what he found. U.S. liberals are still intimidated by the impact of Sept. 11. But for the first time, after the "axis of evil" speech, a member of Clinton's cabinet, Madeleine Albright, openly criticized Bush's foreign policy. And the Europeans are manifestly beginning to feel the need to assert themselves more strongly. That is what the State Department's report of the world press shows.

The politics of the world-system is still in uncertain evolution in the coming few years. The world economic situation will play a big role. And it is still possible that U.S. hawks (and Israeli hawks) will do something dangerous. But if the forces of Porto Alegre do nothing more than put their shoulders to the wheel they should do very well in the decade to come.

1. See my Commentary No. 57, Feb. 1, 2001, "Davos vs. Porto Alegre? World Soccer Cup?".

Immanuel Wallerstein

[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text, publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at iwaller@binghamton.edu; fax: 1-607-777-4315.

These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]

Email this Commentary to a colleague

______________________________________________

Go to List of Commentaries

Go to Fernand Braudel Center Homepage