European Social Forum, London: Hijacked

The fate of this proposed mega-meeting of the anti-globalisation movement is hanging in the balance, the GLA and the unions having decided, it would seem, to take over the event entirely. In these extracts from the ESF mailing list, Dean Talent (Wombles) and Javier R (Indymedia UK) discuss how the network of other groups initially involved in the planning process should respond. Alternative event or tactical participation?

From: javier <javier AT spc.org>
To: Dean Talent <deantalent AT hotmail.com>
Cc: esf-uk-info AT lists.mobilise.org.uk, democratise_the_esf AT lists.riseup.net
Subject: [democratisESF] The UK ESF is dead, Consume the ESF!
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 04:06:10 +0000

MORE STUFF BELOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 23:33, Dean Talent wrote:

> I have just returned from the 'organising committee' at city hall.
> Firstly just to clarify: no-one was turned away from the meetings for
> not signing the affiliation proposal. (It was agreed to have a meeting
> to discuss the ammendents to this proposal). There were more than one
> 'representative' from globalise resistance at the meeting. Everyone
> was allowed to speak. No-one is admitting to just who organised this
> meeting. It remains a secret. Chris Nineham said 'it didn't matter'.
>
> Onto the meeting. Redmond o'neill was there as a representative of the
> mayor. This runs contrary to the principles & practices of the esf.
> Jeremy from workers power raised the issue of redmond o'neill being
> present. He said it should be discussed. I don't know if it ever was.
>
> Basically the meeting was the redmond o'neill show. He decided that as
> of this meeting all the working groups already in place
> (practicalities, culture, programme etc) - as set up at the
> european esf meeting in dec (which was agreed to by consensus by all)
> would be dissolved & the 'organising committee' would take on the
> responsibility for setting up new working groups. This was opposed as
> an open abuse of process but shouted down by others present. He then
> went on to outline that organisations should take responsibility in
> finding venues. Again this was not agreed by anyone anywhere. He said
> the gla would look at possible venues. This is an obvious & open
> deception.
>
> It was pointed out he gla had already provisionally booked alexandra
> palace behind everybody's backs secretly. Again this is a deliberate
> abuse of process.
>
> Not only was this done in secret, it was done without the consent,
> authority or acknowledgement of the uk esf assembly. Essentially the
> gla have disregarded all the defining conditions -transparency,
> openness, accountability, democracy that were put in place & insisted
> upon at & by the european social forum itself. This was pointed out
> only to be shouted down by those present.
>
> The esf in now the gla & the unions. That is it. They are in charge of
> all decisions that are being made concerning the organising of this
> esf. All other actors, their voices, criticisms & objections are being
> ignored.
>
> I walked out at the point when redmond o'neill admitted the the gla
> had already booked alexandra palace for the esf. Others who stayed
> will doubtless fill you in on what else occurred.
>
> I say to all peoples, organisations, networks & groups who are
> considering involving themselves in any way shape or form with the esf
> to think again. It is basically a gla event. Nothing more. To be
> involved is to legitimize the whole sordid affair & give the gla & ken
> livingstone credibility.
>
> There is talk of organising a counter esf done properly with all
> participating equally. If people are interested please contact me & we
> can start the ball rolling.
>
> Many thanks
> dean

Dean, cheers for being the harbinger of depressing but predictable news. I agree with you on everything, except the crucial point :)

I think doing an alternative event would be a grave mistake. It would drain our energies while playing into other peoples calendar. Also, we would never get rid of the whole negativity of being anti. We would be marginalised both geographically and in terms of resources.

I am thinking a proposal for a different position. No boycott, no alternative, but to participate as consumers. Minimise our energy investment and maximise the returns regarding Phil McLeish's text on networking, exchange, etc. To call ourselves consumers is insulting for them not us. Of course we have to denounce it, but lets be tactical.

We could use the esf2004 site for things like matching workshop proposals to fit the best criteria, get people together during the esf chaos, have post esf continuity, and a long etc of nicer options than to squat a building miles away and preach to the converted.

Doing interventions/actions during the forum could be much more fun and effective communication than running an enclosed space and wait for people to come in, probably across London.

Organising local fora before and after would be a better solution, which would limit any capitalisation by the shadowy ones.

There is also the G8, which should have some shape before they announce they are the official-one-and-only mobilisation, repeating the Italian mistake that caused so much trouble.

please lets think about it before rolling the ball

ciao, javi

_________________________________________________________

More details: Minutes of UK ESF Organising Committee meeting on 29/01/2004 by Stuart Hodkinson (Red Pepper)

There are meetings scheduled for Thursday nights all throughout February, 5.30pm at City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London SE1 (the GLA building by Tower Bridge), with a larger meeting on Sunday 29 February for everyone to come and give feedback on the draft proposal as it stands at that point.