Los Presidentes en el FSM

De Luis Carlos Díaz

¿Es el Foro Social Mundial un espacio para los movimientos sociales o gobiernos? La respuesta empezó a tener grises cuando en 2005 el Movimiento de los Sin Tierra consideró que invitar al presidente venezolano Hugo Chávez era una forma de apostarle a un gobernante progresista. Han pasado los años y ahora el equipo ha aumentado su tamaño, a este FSM asistieron por invitación cinco presidentes latinoamericanos: Evo Morales, de Bolivia, Fernando Lugo, de Paraguay, el ecuatoriano Rafael Correa, vuelve Hugo Chávez y cerró el jefe de la casa, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. También asistieron mandatarios locales que arrancaron aplausos o abucheos conforme se los nombraba.

El foro con los presidentes requirió una logística distinta en un local apartado de las Universidades donde se realizó el resto de las actividades, la afluencia de más de 10.000 asistentes así lo requirió. De esta forma el Hangar fue testigo de 5 horas de cola y un repleto desbordante que supo a bien atender con pantallas gigantes y parlantes en el exterior de la sede. Los presidentes llegaron cerca de la 7 de lo noche, después de una hora de ritmos y entusiasmo brasileño de primer orden.

Para conservar la estructura de Foro, antes del turno de palabra para mandatarios, tres líderes de movimientos sociales (campesinos, indígenas y urbanos) les presentaron los apoyos, exigencias y ópticas que abrieron la agenda de luchas contemporánea. El tema central de la gran carpa fue el reto de América Latina para afrontar la crisis económica que desde el año pasado azota a los grandes capitales del mundo.

Hubo consenso entre ellos. Evo Morales, quien acaba de pasar la aprobación electoral de la nueva constitución boliviana, con carácter indigenista, indicó a los asistentes que él era la demostración de que los movimientos sociales podían hacer alianzas, luchar y cambiar las cosas en su país llegando al poder. Recordó el estado de exclusión racial que imperaba en Bolivia y los esfuerzos de campesinos cocaleros, aymaras y quéchuas para lograr un cambio. También presentó propuestas de campaña para las bases populares, entre los cuales incluyó la lucha contra el capitalismo, “porque si no lo enterramos, él nos enterrará a nosotros”, y una avanzada ecológica que pueda contrarrestar el daño que se le continúa haciendo al planeta. Propuso que la hoja de Coca fuese el símbolo de esa lucha.

En su turno, el ecuatoriano Rafael Correa habló de la lucha contra el neoliberalismo en su país y el combate desde la presidencia para romper con la vieja clase política y económica. Reconoció en Venezuela un modelo “que llegó primero al continente”, y que impulsó que también en Ecuador, el año pasado, se aprobara una nueva constitución nacional. Sobre el FSM, recordó que al otro lado del mundo se están reuniendo en Davos un grupo de líderes económicos “buscando curas para moribundos”, por eso pidió a la audiencia estar alerta a las acciones que se tomen tras Davos, porque afectarán esta región del mundo.

Fernando Lugo, que fue obispo y ahora es el presidente de Paraguay, empezó sus palabras recordando que en 2003 tomó un bus para llegar al Foro Social a ver lo que ocurría allí. Dijo que los colectivos debían saber que sus propuestas y peticiones son parte de su plan de gobierno: “porque nosotros no hablamos de la pobreza desde las estadísticas, sino de compartir esta vida con ustedes”. Lugo poetizó diciendo que tampoco estaban solos, que no son fenómenos aislados: “ya hay rostros en el norte que están girando la vista para acá, como girasoles, siguiendo la luz que está saliendo por nuestros países”. Se preguntó: “¿Acaso puedo desconfiar yo de un operario de torno que luego fue líder sindical y ahora es presidente? Lula es la demostración de eso. Evo es la demostración de eso”.

El presidente Chávez, en un inusual discurso breve, pudo resumir las adulaciones mutuas de los presidentes diciendo que “cada pueblo pare a sus líderes, y aquí estamos pariendo el mundo nuevo”. Chávez indicó que Venezuela tomó la vanguardia en el continente de la lucha contra el “veneno del neoliberalismo”, ante el que propone el modelo económico socialista para salvar la vida humana. Un socialismo al que no le agregó sustancias, sino apellidos como “bolivariano del siglo XXI”, en el caso venezolano. En materia económica, avizoró que necesitarán ser complementarios entre países de la región, y atender problemas conjuntos aprovechando los organismos como el ALBA, Unasur y la propuesta del Banco del Sur.

Lula tomó el micrófono para hablar mientras caminaba por el escenario. Hizo que el público se parara y coreara a su favor varias veces mientras defendía la propuesta de reelección presidencial de Chávez, la confrontación con los medios de comunicación y el cambio de signo en la economía mundial. “El dios mercado quebró por irresponsable. Wall Street nos calculaba las deudas a nuestros países y ahora le piden auxilio al Estado”, agregó. Lula puso en perspectivas las luchas sociales que dan coherencia al curso de sus gobiernos en la zona: “Guarden esta fotografía. Lo que nosotros conquistamos fue el resultado de las muertes de mucha gente que tomó las armas para derrumbar regímenes autoritarios. Estamos haciendo parte de que aquello que ellos soñaron”.
Rescató que aunque existan diferencias entre algunos mandatarios, como los problemas energéticos entre Brasil, Bolivia y Paraguay, necesitan ponerse de acuerdo y fijarse más bien en los objetivos finales que buscaban. Para Lula, los movimientos populares que los sustentan deben mantenerse guiándolos en el camino.

Fotos de Luis Carlos Díaz

The Future of the Amazon

An article by Mary Colwell (Alliance of Religions and Conservation)

The Amazon basin is undoubtedly one of the most important eco-systems on earth. It regulates the atmosphere, absorbs carbon dioxide, provides 1/3 of all the fresh water entering the oceans and has by far the greatest biodiversity of any region on the planet. And, crucially, all of it sits cradled in the hands of Catholic countries.

The fact that the Amazon is a Catholic issue is largely missed on many people, including many in the Church, but Catholicism is embedded in the communities that live and govern there and therefore I believe this gives the Catholic Church a particular duty of care. Of course there are many Catholics doing extraordinary work, particularly on the issue of land rights, community protection from logging and supporting those who seek to protect the rights of the indigenous peoples who populate many areas of the forest. Some have lost their lives doing it; Sister Dorothy Stang immediately comes to mind, and there are many others. Here I have no doubt the call of the gospel is being proclaimed. But I still have an uneasy feeling about the role of the Church in securing the protection of the rainforest because there are still many questions that need to be addressed in order to promote action.

Protection of the rainforest from the destructive power of loggers, ranchers, mining companies and monoculture will require assertive action on behalf of areas where no people live, and vast areas of the Amazon are uninhabited (by people). And this is where the problem lies, because I believe the Catholic Church – Christianity – has no clear idea of our relationship to nature outside of its connection to people. Of course if people are living in an area the Christian duty to fight for the rights of the poor and dispossessed are clear, and the forest is protected by default. But what about those areas devoid of people? What does Catholicism think about trees and animals when they are not contributing directly to human welfare? If by cutting down a section of rainforest no one loses their home or is killed or made ill, does it matter? Particularly if cutting down the trees provides short-term employment. To put it baldly, does nature have a value in and of itself outside its contribution to human well-being?

To many people, when I have asked that question, the answer is a resounding yes, and it may seem strange that I have posed this question at all. But my experience of talking to all levels of the Catholic Church over the last 4 years has shown that the yes vote lies mainly in the lay community. In my experience the hierarchy of the Church is less likely to be convinced that the Church should act on behalf of that which is not human. And if the hierarchy won’t act then I deeply fear not just for the future of the Amazon but for tundra, ice fields, grasslands, mountains and oceans as well.

The reason I have this impression about the Church is because over the last few years I have been asking a particular question based on a personal experience. About 15 years ago I went to the high Arctic to film a rare species of duck called a Spectacled Eider. This rather bizarre bird lives out its whole life above the Arctic Circle and even over-winters sitting in the middle of the frozen Baring Sea. It is a quite extraordinary and awe-inspiring little bird. I stayed on a remote island and filmed a female brood her clutch of eggs and then the ducklings waddle off into the Arctic Ocean to begin their mysterious lives out of the way of human influence. Very few people see Spectacled Eiders and so this was a great privilege. A few years later I telephoned the man who owned the island to ask how the ducks were doing and his news was deeply shocking. The year after I left he went back again to check on the 4 females that regularly nest on his island. All 4 had been shot sitting on the nest. No one had taken the bodies for food, they hadn’t used the feathers or the eggs; they had been shot simply for being ducks in America. I put the phone down and wept, not just for the wickedness of the people who had carried out this callous act of violence but for the senseless loss of magnificent creatures.

My question to lay Catholics, religious and the Church hierarchy alike is this – If Christ had been walking over that island and found those dead ducks, would he have wept? Not just for the people who had killed animals, but for the loss of the ducks themselves. Overwhelmingly the answer to that question from the lay community is yes, but the hierarchy is split, with many saying no – Christ wouldn’t weep over that which is not human.

This story illustrates my point that there is confusion about our relationship to nature and therefore an unwillingness to put time and resources into the non-human world. It follows that it is unlikely that most of the Amazon Basin will really be the focus of concerted effort by the Church, because it will require it to take up the cause of nature itself. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

This is the year the Church has to act decisively. In November the Copenhagen Cop will bring together 189 major governments to make the next set of decisions about climate change, which will include deals over deforestation and carbon trading. Deforestation accounts for 20% of all greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, more than all forms of transport combined. Simply by stopping cutting down the rainforest we will slash carbon emissions by 1/5. But other forces are at work, huge industry which needs the raw resources provided by rainforest areas; palm oil, beef, mining, ranching, soya and hardwood – and big money has a loud and powerful voice. Will the Church be there at the table championing the environment or industry? Does it feel secure enough in its own theology of creation to make a case for rainforest protection? The Amazon needs the Catholic Church, but will it be there and respond to the cry for help?

In this year leading up to Copenhagen we don’t need more words, what we need is action. If the Pope would say Mass in the middle of the smoking ruins of a cleared area of forest, then he would focus the attention of the world onto that area in an entirely new way. The power of the symbolic gesture that inspires hearts and minds will do more to protect the rainforest than any number of words. This is the year to fire imagination and propel the world into a new era of environmental concern, and the Pope has the power to help that become a reality.

Outro mundo è urgente – Carta do P. Ernesto Cavassa SJ

Publicamos em seguida a carta enviada pelo P. Ernesto Cavassa SJ, Presidente da CPAL, aos Jesuitas e colaboradores reunidos em Belém do Pará pelo Pré-Forum Fé’namazônia e pelo Foro Social Mundial.
Em sua mensagem, o P. Cavassa examina com muita lucidez os efeitos da recente crise financiera mundial, indicando as conseqüências para os países da America Latina e as dificultades que os mais pobres terão que enfrentar. “Para eles essa crise global, a maior depois da recessão de 29, é uma questão de vida ou morte.”
Diante dessa realidade desafiadora, a Companhia de Jesus e seus colaboradores na missão devem trabalhar seriamente e concientes que o “outro mundo ao que aspiramos não é só possível mas urgente”.

OUTRO MUNDO É URGENTE

No final deste mês de janeiro, em Belém do Pará, realizar-se-á o nono Foro Social Mundial, reunindo mais uma vez todos aqueles homens e mulheres de boa vontade, que consideram que “outro mundo é possível”. Durante o pré-foro, seguindo a tradição de encontros anteriores, um “dia inaciano” reunirá aos que participam das diversas redes apostólicas inacianas e que estão contribuindo, a partir de nossa espiritualidade e missão, com uma proposta que vá além do mero protesto. A crise financeira atual, que envolve de um modo ou outro todos os países, está clamando por outro mundo, que não é só possível mas urgente … (continuar a ler aqui)

Os documentos citados:

Pontifício Conselho «Iustitia Et Pax», Nota Da Santa Sé sobre Finanças e Desenvolvimento na Vigília da Conferência da Onu Em Doha
Los Provinciales Latinoamericanos de la Compañía de Jesús, Carta sobre el Neoliberalismo en América Latina (en espanhol)

Para el texto español pulse aquí
Click here to read the statement in English