PGA Meeting Nº1 in Belgrade, Serbia-Montenegro

28 Participants: 20 from ex-Yugoslavia (18 from DSM), 3 from EuroDusney (nl), 2 from France, 1 from USA (IndyMedia), 2 from Croatia

June 15.06. 2003

(21 Participants)

M.: First of all, some of your members had contacted us after the PGA conference in Leiden and said it was high time for this kind of event to take place in the region of the former Yugoslavia. I can say personally and in the name of the Eurodusney collective that many of us agree with this statement.

Bearing in mind that all sorts of things are happening in the West in terms of the level of connections, while this region has been neglected and suffers many problems, we also thought that the conference should take place somewhere on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. This way, we'd like to draw attention to the Balkans and have a dominant northern Europe open up to this region. Our goal is not a classical organisation with a big logo, but to find a way to organise at international level and support/assist each other in a horisontal structure and do concrete things.

The first conference took place in Milan and wasn't verry well prepared and organised. There was also a hudge party midway the two-day conference that left us all sleepless, and the next way we came upon immigrant women were cleaning the vomit and leftovers of the party.

A lot of people from the West are interested to take part in organising the event. They'd be willing to come over for a period of several months if they are presented with a clear plan what kind of activities will be happening and how they could participate.

The Conference in Leiden

The conference was planned as a gathering and co-ordination of groups from a number of countries.

TIMEFRAME:

In March 2001 we decided that we would organise the conference. In December the same year we held the first meeting where we talked about basic things location, structure, programme… We organised workgroups. The whole collective wanted the conference and the decision was made unanimously, but not everyone wanted to take part in organising the event. There were several options for the location. There was a discussion on whether the conference should take place in the town or a non-urban area. It tool us three months to decide (January-March 2002). In April 2002, we decided the conference would be staged in Leiden. We also talked about the infrastructure, what we needed… Every member of a workgroup had one or two tasks. This involved a lot of people in the process of organising the conference, in the first phase even the people who initially did not want to participate. We began with concrete practical preparations 5 months before the conference took place.

3-4 months prior to the conference we worked 4 days per week. The workgroups were assigned to carry out a variety of tasks, so all the pieces were put together at the conference itself. An incredible experience.

We also started inviting individuals and whole groups to join in. One month prior to the conference we asked everyone to apply for participation in the conference as soon as possible, so that we could determine would kind of venues would take place. Two months before the conference the number of participants doubled, while there was a big rush just ahead of the conference (after Strasbourg).

Ten days before the conference began we had a meeting to determine the schedule of venues. The evening program that was open to the local population had already been agreed upon (culture, alternative economies…), while we had to discuss the daily internal program that the participants themselves had to define.

I.: If there can be a critical remark regarding the level of perfection achieved at the conference in Leiden in terms of organisation, it is something that should be given serious consideration if the conference is to be staged in post-Yugoslavia. Namely, at the conference in Leiden there was a « Terror of freedom of choice », a terror of particularism, or rather, a variety to choose that was to great, making it impossible to make the right choice in the myriad of workshops AND DEBATES that were held during the whole event. I also think that the local context will have to be taken into account of the conference is staged in Post-Yugoslavia. A context that will conflate the methodology of the East (more or less accustomed to the terror of centralism) and the West (more or less accustomed to the terror of particularism AND CONSUMERISM) different political contexts that will be forced to mesh and find paths to common solutions.

M.: We opted for the model with a large number of workshops and debates because the participants themselves put forward proposals and they were accepted. We made minutes of all the workshops and the program of the conference, as well as information on the participating groups. This made it easier to build the whole schedule. For example, we did not want to environmental workshops to coincide. The program was divided into seven thematic categories (militarisation, the environment, economy, PGA process, strategy and analysis…). We tried to open a number of lists to cover the various topics, but this didn't work too well. All information was ready four days prior to the conference and it was printed one day before everything started off.

The conference lasted five days. First we organised a parade through the town, handed out leaflets and invited people. Then we went by train to Amsterdam to demonstration against the UN and invited people over there to come as well. We then spent an informally organised night in talks, concerts, screening political films (people were free to bring their own). The working program lasted four days.

Strategic debates (debates over strategy?) were the highlight of day one there were six discussions. It was important to involve as many people as possible. One out of three participants took actively participated in the conference through addresses or workshops. People were also able to make additions to the program at an information board at the infocentre. There were more than 100 workshops and other venues in total. 90% of the program was printed in the newsletter prior to them taking place. Some of the topics were: the war in the Congo, social centres, anti-privatisation, global social movements, WTO, health, globalisation, implementation of cryptography, the conflict between Israel and the Palestine, the use of indymedia, Latin America, a movie on refugees in Australia. The daily program had specific topics. The evening program was more open with debates. We tried to prepare the content is such a way so the participants would really focus and we tried to organise communication at a high level, since direct democracy was a debatable issue with so many people involved. We collected the money to cover expenses in different ways. The sponsors were self-organised funds, official squats with cafes, solidarity funds, people who were invited to optionally donate 10 euros without any obligations.

Everything was happening at five different locations

1. The Infopoint Free place Koppenhinksteeg people were informed here what happened and where; the kitchen where food was prepared for 500 people three times a day; there was food at half price, coffee, a bar etc…
2. The campsite
3. Free place Boerhaavelaan where the Internet café, the conference newspaper, a office and the radio where.

And different cultural centres across the centre of town gave space for the conference including the cultural program. All was within a 20-30 minute walk.

Many of these locations are occupied, while some were allocated by different « legal » cultural centres.

The camp was placed on an abandoned football pitch. The camp even had hot running water, one of gains in negotiations with the local authorities. There were rules of conduct in the camp, non-smoking sections… The authorities were nervous over the conference. We explained that there would be no protests, but we said it would be nothing but an alter-globalist gathering. We asked them to co-operate and asked them to assist us or else be confronted with the prospect of hundreds of « loonies » dispersed across the whole town. We promised to clean up everything and stay in contact with the authorities.

An anarchist radio station reported on conference activities every day. The radio was located at the spot where we had an Internet café, so we could send news over the net. The media were co-ordinated by small group from the local radio, but everyone was free to participate.

A press conference was held every day and everything that happened was reported on and archived, so people who were not present could easily inform themselves (www.globalarchive.dk). The newspaper was printed every night. This means that the people who took an active part in organising the conference did not sleep for a while and missed out on a lot of programs because of their assignments. However, this is an inevitable consequence of the demands imposed by this kind of event.

Moderators, notaries and translators worked every day. Every speech, workshop or other kind of venue was recorded and included into the Web archive. The media drew information from this resource. Articles were published in English and French, since we went through the list of people who were coming and concluded that these two languages were dominant. People were also free to translate, so we also had articles in Spanish, Arabic, Dutch…

Six of us were organised into the conference group and we met every day to discuss how everything was working out. There were six co-ordinators for each practical area like translation/ facilitators/ campsite/applicants/program etc. We als had a coordinator for contacts with the police, who really did not give us a hard time. There were no serious incidents, since we thoroughly explained on the website how the conference was conceived. There was also a conference application form on the web site and there were several basic conditions that had to be met when applying. We also had a first aid team.

S.: The conference in Leiden was criticised by some because of the lack of involvement of the local population, especially African immigrants.

M.: This is the first time I heard this, since Eurodusney is a collective of 50 people of which half are immigrants. However, the number of local people taking part in the conference can always be higher.

I.: It's up to DSM to set the priorities (basic categories for topics) for the conference in Serbia and Montenegro.

T.: Our great interest, without any false presentation, is not only an alter-globalist gathering, but, before all, the impact of the conference and its topics on our local population.

I. or M.: The example of Italy a variety of Italian groups that were not in contact prior to the conference showed up in Leiden and linked up. These kinds of events strengthen the local structure.

PGA Meeting No2 in Novi Sad, Serbia-Montenegro

June 16, 2003

(16 Participants)

Topics:

1. Why should the next PGA Conference take place in Serbia and Montenegro

• I.: 2 goals…

1. Local level opening the debate on alternatives, introducing people to initial methods of self-organisation and informing them/us of what other are doing.
2. Global level exchanging experience and skill sharing with international groups with similar aims, principles, problems. Familiarising PGA groups with specific issues and politics of this part of the world where the victories are not evident like at the other part of the world where pga activist use to go (Brasil, Bolivia, Argentina, Mexico). The risk involved in our future activities and my personal concern related to further preparations and contacts is: how do we rid ourselves of latent paternalism of the PGA, our position of a « PGA novice » and with truly united forces, according to our particular political contexts and diversities, find a common methodology for action that will foster an egalitarian relationship.

• S.: The general public is not aware of alternatives to the already implemented (political and economic) models. People her are not content with how things are unfolding and, in general, with the government, but the alternatives we offer are not « loud » enough. The people here should be allowed to notice that other people around the world are discontent over similar issues, since there is a general anti-western sentiment here and they are not aware that many people « over there » are fighting for the same cause. There should be resistance before bad ideas (models) take root.
• Z.: It's important for people to learn how to organise resistance, to learn the real meaning of the concept of solidarity. It's not that I'm a skeptic, but I am concerned about organisational capacities in this region. For example, how do we solve the problem imposed by sanitary requirements (WC, shower) question: How did you solve this in Leiden? Another problem is that there are not amny of us. People are confused here and have little to hang on to. People have to understand that they must be proactive, to co-operate and to fight back.
• S.: I think that we should communicate with the general public at home (Serbia and Montenegro) after the conference, while the conference should be at global level communication with international groups. Maybe it should take place in Croatia, since they are better organised. The PGA conference is very important and the cause could turn sour if it is not organised well.
• È.: I don't understand why the level of our organisation is the issue here. I don't think we lack any organisational skills as a nation or as a group for that matter. And one more thing… when I say (the conference should be organised) here, I mean Serbia and Montenegro, but contacts with other parts of the former Yugoslavia have to be maintained. There is no difference. I think the conference has to be noticed at local level, but also ex-Yugoslavia should become visible globally. It is very important to create this space.
• I.: (after discussing with Sava and F.): Reviving the common ex-Yugoslav environment should be a very important goal of this conference.
• I.: I have some contacts. I can call some people and inform them to come to the preparatory meeting. I think it is important to define why the conference is taking place at all, in order to have concrete results. I'm not too anxious about the technicalities there is always a solution.

2. Mailing Lists

• M.: There are three mailing lists 1. resistance (actions, announcements, reports), 2. discussion and 3. process (PGA Europe process, preparations). There are around 60 people on the PGA process list who are willing to work on organising the conference. There is also a complete membership list that is updated every six months.
• F.: We should open a special list for preparing the conference.
• I.: I don't agree. There are more and more lists being created. We should use the existing one. I am not sure whether all these people would subscribe to a new list.
• M.: I agree. We opened new lists and we lost track of what was done by whom. In time they become elitist and only several people subscribe. There is no need to talk about toilets at international level.
• S.: I think it's important to move further than e-mail lists. There are other ways to communicate collectively.
• F.: Most of the work will be done by the people in DSM. They need means to communicate
• A.: We have our own list.
• F.: Maybe I should subscribe!
• ?: We should open a site. We need a contact address.

X-The government…

• Florance: Communicating with the authorities is an importan matter.
• Zeka: We cannot employ the same technique as you. « Our » authorities do not grasp much of this. They can understand something having to do with relations between multiculturalism and nationalism. They don't dig anything else.
• M.: What do you need from the authorities anyway?
• I.: I think it's too early to discuss this issue. We have to see whether we want to organise this conference and why we want to do this. We should talk about our own strategies.

Practical stuff and examples…

M.: I brought some suggestions …

• The « kitchen » group would most probably want to come, they are pretty enthusiastic
• The Internet group too, they can do loads of stuff
• Groups with sound systems, tents, buses, tractors…Not all of this is for free, they need money for petrol…
• A video beam costs that 150 euros
• Radio for broadcasting information…
• An office-bus, mobile phones (?), computers, printers…
• We can get second-hand computers
• Raise funds over the Internet
• Some people would come a few months earlier to help prepare the conference
• We also have the old site with everything that happened, application forms…

All of this is possible if the preparatory meetings are organised well. It's not a matter of « M. will fix it ».

• I.: There were around 50 people at the preparatory meetings in Strasbourg. Around 10 were from local groups. The first meeting was held half a year before the event took place. Most people arrived one month before the event began. The meetings should have concrete aims, plans and priorities. Our first priorities were: the strategy, contacts with the City Council, logistics, toilets…, which groups were coming. We agreed to have meetings with specific topics. Dry toilets are more environmentally friendly and they are cheaper. We set them up in a parking lot. The communication concerning the meetings was lead through mailing lists. If people are to actively involve themselves in something like this, they have to feel it is their project as well.
• I.: In Dijon, the issue of organising the No Border Camp in Strasbourg was mentioned in light of the contradictions it raised: after the camp, there were even people who wore T-shirts saying « No Border Never Again », while again there were people who were very enthusiastic about the whole thing. What was the problem?

pga conference | pga europe | www.agp.org | www.pgaconference.org