Friends!
I am not sure that there was not someone taking notes before me (and some of these notes are not mine and difficult to read) and I may well have missed a lot especially after 2 AM... So, please consider this as provisory and send all necessary corrections! I regrouped some interventions from when we were jumping back and forth on several subjects so it reads coherently.
Olivier
New european convenors:
Two groups are currently possible candidates:
The final decision does not have to be made before Cochabamba. If necessary another meeting can be held just before. It is clear that it is not a case of competing, but of seeing who can best do this very demanding job (it would perhaps also be possible that they both be convenors). Trust is an essential part of the PGA network. The two groups will discuss it between them and Ya Basta will check the situation (including new offers from other groups) in two months.
It is proposed that for the next time the convenors open this discussion before the european conference so that groups come prepared for a decision.
Luca and the Gender group express their concern with the fact that five women were sexually harassed in the dormitory during the night of Saturday. One of the harassed women and the group were upset that there was not more time to discuss this subject.
Later we came back to this:
The man who was identified in two of the cases was not of the PGA meeting (some 6000 other people were partying downstairs), but they feel that better security should have been assured. Lack of security is one of the basic ways that patriarchal societies uses to exclude women, and this kind of thing could make a lot of womyn stay away from PGA meetings. It is fundamental that people coming here know that they can be safe and have trust. It is pointed out that this is not the first time that harassment has happened in PGA events (Bangalore and InterContinentalCaravan). And that the response about it was terrible. So its a structural question that we all have to address.
The subject widens:
We haven't talked about gender. This should be a compulsory forum for everyone about gender issues. Because its not getting done. Gender should be discussed in plenary, even if you don't go the working group.
We would like next time to have reports on what each group has done for gender issues. People responsible for gender, speaking lists, etc. Lets widen this. People should also be warmer to each other. Why should people be too "cool" to smile? Later it is suggested that organising ourselves for living together (cooking, cleaning, etc.) would allow us to know each other better.
It was also very difficult to get gender into the manifesto and it still is not appearing everywhere in the text as it should. A proposal is made that the women involved in writing the first manifesto share their experience and reflexions.
There have already been gender seminars in Panama and Bangalore (India). In Europe too we should be having gender seminars. We don't need men fighting for our rights, but learning to be normal human beings!
How difficult it still is to make people realise that they are paternalistic. For example, concerning ways of speaking in groups. In PGA texts there is mention also of the participation of women's groups, but do they really participate? And why then isn't gender more of an issue when decisions are made?
We should ask feminist groups as such to participate.
We are in a sexist culture and it doesn't stop at the door of PGA. If you think feminism is important, you must push it on the agenda.
We are talking about GENDER, not just feminism.
I am shocked that men should react by saying that we should bring more feminist groups into PGA. You are saying that it is OUR problem!
In Chiapas, the first point on the agenda was how the world should be changed for women. This is the way to deal with what happened last night.
We don't ONLY want to change the relations between us, but in the whole world. Its a great contradiction for us. We must have respect for people. If there is not respect, our action will not be effective. We insist, both men and women to be respectful and coherent with what we want to achieve: a society without differences or respectful of differences.
Sexism is also something conditionning each one of us men to sit and only listen to women on what THEY think about this issue. There should be an afternoon or a day at our meetings for this.
We should bring it up each time that we notice patriarchal behavior. This is the first discussion dominated by women, and now women are saying that we should have brought this up before.
We are again hearing that we should prioritise anticapitalism. The practise in the groups is still sexist. For the 5th hallmark, WE had to insist. Feminist groups were there in the beginnning which haven't continued. Also it isn't normal that fundraising should be specifically for women. The men don't make an effort to try and live in a woman's world. For example, like trying to also talk of their feelings towards things. A project of a seminar on gender (ie also masculinity) is proposed. PGA acts against economic structures only. Actions should also be taken against sexual oppression. The men don't see their own involvement. Oppression of women and men starts by a process of construction. Everyone has those structures in him. In the 70's it was necessary for the women to go through a radical phase. But experience shows that men must be also share...
There should be seminars on the 5 PGA principles so that people really understand and practise them. It is not admissible that certain expressions among us make a hierarchy among the different forms of oppression.
We know that sexism is everywhere. We should take the gender issue home and also into the work groups (the communication group for example). And after report on it.
A man was also sexually harassed by the same man last night. He wrote a note about this as he didn't want to be identified.
A proposal is made of women's actions/seminars highlighted in the next days of action such as Genoa, as is being planned for Quebec City.
Proposal is accepted that PGA European convenors ask that Cochabamba start with a plenary on gender issues for everyone to attend. To make gender more central to PGA.
Ya Basta asks for all information about the cases of sexual harassment so they can see how to deal better with this.
It is repeated that it is the general point, NOT the specific incident, that is the real issue. That safety and gender/feminism/sexism issues are not really being dealt with by PGA, and that it must be done.
The group also proposes that a criterion for choosing spokespeople in Cocha be that they be spokeswomen.
Gender group proposal:
The gender group has set up an email address: genderaction@hotmail.com
It is also pointed out that their is discrimination against non-english speakers. Translation is a problem. Maybe it should be done consecutive not simultaneous.
And there is discrimination against people who don't have email? And against animals. What about all the meat in the canteen!
Cochabamba:
The quota for Northern participation (30% of 200 delegates) means approximately 30 people from western europe (this to be discussed still with North American PGA). Participants are chosen by the Convenors committee, which of course generally follows the suggestions of the particular continental convenor (in our case Ya Basta).
It is reminded that gender balance is strongly recommended and will be a criterion for decision!!
It is suggested that groups discuss possible participations between themselves as much as possible at the local and national levels to make things easier for Ya Basta (as thirty only makes about 2 or 3 persons per country on average).
The convenors also accept that there be 30 or 40 "observers" (listening in but without voice in the conference itself, but fully participating in round tables) from the North (Europe and N.America).
The working group on Cochabamba fully supports the idea of a quota (agreeing that the situation in Bangalore, where northerners were to present in the debates simply because so many could pay tickets to come). In order to avoid discrimination between two "classes" of participation it proposes that we ask the convenors to be allowed to eventually change the persons who are delegates from one day to another. The europeans would meet at night to discuss the issues and eventually name different spokespersons (for instance for a particular topic coming up).
There is consensus on this proposal, but discussion continues to clariy how delegates will be chosen, etc., which goes on for a time.
Finally, Joelle says: we don't want to hear any more on this subject we have more important things to discuss! Twenty delegates would be enough. There are maybe better things to do than all of us going on big trips, we can have confidence in the people going for us.
There is consensus on this and we move on to the next workshop. Later however it appears that for some the consensus was on moving on to the next subject. Others thought that there was consensus on sending only 20 (or 30?) delegates... (and so no observers at all)!
The Commmunications group proposes:
The discussion comes back to Cocha:
We shouldn't have more than 30 people in Cochabamba. That's enough. It would be unfair to the South, even if only 30 can speak each day.
We can't go back on what we have said about that now! (the consensus misunderstanding appears)
OK, so if we stop talking about it, that means no decision has been taken.
So will it be 30 or more?
Let's come back to it later...
"Terrorism" group:
Europol and the experiences in Serbia, Greece, Germany were discussed. The European Union would like to generalise the same kind of extremely repressive "anti-terrorism" laws that have recently been passed in Great Britain (which can be applied to practically any kind of radical opposition such as "street violence"). It is essential to profit from their experience and not wait until the laws are passed to organise opposition as in Great Britain.
A Campaign Against State Terrorism (CAST) is proposed. The group is looking for data from other countries. They propose as first step to make "bust" cards (cards with basic rights with respect to the police).
Middle East and Europe group:
There is a big "free" trade program in the ME with the european union. And PGA is only present in Israel. It is obviously not easy for our israeli friends to make the contacts in the ME so help would be important. Spain has heavy stakes in the ME, for example in intensive agriculture techniques - and it is the new president of the EU. The most exploitative jobs are to be exported to the ME.
We should be more in solidarity with the palestinian people against the Israeili state.
Summit protests group:
Four important dates of protests in Europe in June and July!
There should be a common articulation of the four actions.
It is important that Convergence centers open several weeks before each event.
There are important clandestine immigration problems in Genoa, Gothenburg and Barcelona, so space and free medical care for immigrants should be prepared in the convergence centers.
There is a proposal to organise "mobile convergence centers": caravans that would go for example from Barcelona to Genoa, hitting one or two good targets on the way...
The italians propose that we should define Global Citizen's Rights (many people understood "Global Citizen's Riots", I guess it must have been around 1 AM). The italians will have to develop more the proposal. There should be decentralised debates to define them, including several sectors of civil society so as that they can better perceive their rights and themselves. Their would be a possibility of a seminar before Genoa for this in a nearby town.
Someone proposes another meeting before Genoa to continue many debates started here. And with a detailled history and evaluation of the PGA process. On the 20th of September there will be a meeting of the World Bank in Thessaloniki concerning the East European "Stability Pact" which is an important capitalist strategy, for the Balkans among other places. Another good place to protest!
Civil disobedience - violence/non-violence group:
(no report?)
Labor relations group:
The following points are a very brief reflection of the discussion which were fed back to the plenary of the conference, NOT as proposals for a PGA manifesto, but to encourage critical debate on these points within the network.
From Global to Local Action group: (see detailed report of the working group)
The group met twice to discuss how to bring the "stratospheric" victories and energies generated during summits (in big central demonstrations or during decentralised Global Days of Action) back down to earth. How to connect with all the local, particular struggles (against privatisations, restructurations, on agricultural issues, etc.) which are the great mass of the resistance to capital, but from which we are generally quite distant. They heard fascinating and inspiring stories from around Europe concerning the difficulties of this process - but also of the progress starting to be made in different places. It was agreed that global and local are not to be opposed. People may do global stuff because they can't get into local, but global action has also given many the energy and the possibility of starting into the local.
The next WTO summit (Nov 5-9) will take place in the desert of Qatar. That means that there will be no central demonstration. All the energy will be focused on the decentralised Global Day of Action (GDA). A process was agreed upon in the group by which the next GDA could better bridge the gap by linking local issues to WTO and global capitalism.
The idea is that in each locality, people start immediately to discuss which is the local issue(s)- for instance privatisation - that is the most significant, in which they can most contribute and which can readily be linked to WTO and globalisation. We have time to really contact the people facing this issue, work with them and discuss our perspective with them.
At the same time we can make the contacts with all the other places around the world that have chosen to mobilise on this particular issue, creating a "sub-network" of exchanges within the more general network.
The group proposes to creat a "Global to Local" page on Indymedia or the PGA webpage where there would be two things:
European Union group:
Discussed how the European Union is an active agent of the néo-liberal, "free" trade interests, working under the direct influence of the transnationals. A call to action against the European Commission and their policies. The Anti-Maastricht Movement is an example of how this work can be done.
Agriculture group:
A process was defined in the group to work on this issue, taking industrial agriculture, GMOs, etc., as a strategic instrument of modern capitalism. "Resistance is Fertile" campaign. Call to action on the 17 of April by Via Campesina for the International Day of the farmers.
Finally (1H30 AM) we come back a last time on the Cochabamba theme...: The british person who had been holding out against sending more than 30 people explains that he thought that we had been rushing thru decisions.
How to resolve the apparently conflicting consensuses (consensi?). (There are now too few people present to be able to re-discuss and take a third decision.)
One (the first one approving the idea of rotation between delegates and observers) was very clear. The second one (to cut off the debate / or / to only send 20 or 30 people) was not. So it is better to stick with the first, since we can't have the debate again now.
But 50 people going to Cocha with 30 speaking at a time is the same as having 50 delegates.
The debate drags on. Someone says that it seems that there is some kind of a fight going on but that it is not clear what about. Finally it becomes clear that at least the most vocal person's real objection concerns the "support" group. (The support group is composed of about ten people, nearly all europeans, who have been the informal "secretariat" of PGA: taking care of the web page, fund raising, translating, organising seminars and meetings, etc.) For this person one of the major european criticisms of PGA has been of the too large place which the support group has taken more or less by default. The support group will be in Cochabamba anyhow, organising things, and they shouldn't have voice in the meeting. And it is support group persons who have proposed the "rotation" idea.
When this comes out, the information is given that the convenors have already decided that the support group people should have voice, but not concerning decisions.
Someone says that they have a bad feeling about this, since apparently some people think that others were being hypocritical or manipulative about their real reasons.
If Ya Basta has to make the decision now, it will make the problem even worse. We must respect the decision taken by the assembly.
The person opposing rotation says that he didn't think that anyone was being malicious and that we all want as many people as possible to be able to go. That now that the problem has been aired, he is all right with the decision taken.
The last speaker says that in that case, he no longer needs to speak, but that he had a great weekend and really loves everyone there.
...