Karen O Toole
The Europen Social Forum (ESF) was I can shing force behind the mobil.
sation of global oppostiion to war on the 15th February last year. The challenge for the ESF in London will be to unify the opposition to war, neoliberalism and racism within a movement which is both politically diverse and uneven.
This diversity was reflected in many of the discussions at the Europe-wide meeting of the ESF in Istanbul in mid April.
The largest and most resilient anti-war movements, in Britain, Italy and Spain have reflected opposition to Blair, Berlusconi and Aznar's support for the bombing and occupation of Iraq, and in the case of Spain has seen the end of one Bush poodle.
In France and Germany huge struggles have taken place against the creeping neoliberalism which we in Britain are all too familiar with; privatisation of public services, pension reform' and the restructuring of higher education.
This resistance to capitalism was the start... ing point for the discussions on the political content of the London ESE
The question of the European Union illustrates the diversity of experience of activists within the ESF process. In Britain, not part of the Eurozone, many people may ask why Europe matters.
Blair's main ally is the US, not Europe, and he was prepared to break relations with both Chirac and Schroeder over the question of the war.
In France and Germany (the main political axis in Europe which have seen large strikes and demonstrations against the EU) both leaders have been prepared to use the EU to argue that workers must accept a neoliberal agenda on the basis that it would be better for Europe as a whole, especially with EU enlargement into Eastern Europe.
Blair is different to Chirac and Shroeder; for one thing he has had little use in invoking the EU clause to impose neoliberalism here because the unions. many of them Labour Party affiliates, have accepted the logic of privatisation and refused to allow a fightback, making it easier for Blair to push the neo-con agenda through without any need to blame the amorphous EU for it.
So the question of Europe is a difficult one which needs to be tackled within the context of global politics, of inter-imperialist rivalry and the carve-up of the world in the interests of big capital, in which Europe as a block plays a part.
Unfortunately, the debates on Europe -and this was partly due to speakers only having five minutes each - were not sufficient and at times degenerated into an apolitical and frustrating exchange which didn't begin to address the questions: what is Europe in • relation to the rest of the world - and does it matter?
It is necessary to have a proper debate at the ESF about what kind of world we live in, however frank it ends up. We don't all agree on everything but the ESF should not be a place where only things which are agreed by consensus are discussed, it should be controversial.
The Greens are in favour of the EU as a deterrent to the USA, and some unions in Britain are also pro-EU.
There was a proposal to have a youth space within the ESF
Most activists acknowledge that even though the previous two ESF's have attracted thousands of young people, the debates have been dominated mainly by middle aged intellectual men whose experience does not reflect that of the younger generation.
In both Florence and Paris young people held parallel forums or activities outside of the process.
The answer is obvious. The ESF should allow space and political forums which are run by young people for young people from across Europe and further.
The process of agreeing the politics of the London ESF goes on, with the establishement of a European working group
Future mass mobilisations against capitalism can come out of the ESF as they have before.
However, unlike the debates, mobilisations need the maximum unity to succeed. The assembly of the social movements will have to decide what this is on the basis of unity, not division.