There is an unmistakeable seduction that works to suck one into the global common good. Chief among the weapons of seduction is the lyricism of international mnemonics, which works like sacred chant and catechism: Porto Alegre, Seattle, Cancun, Mumbai, "another world is possible", "democratise the budget", "ethical globalisation", Miami, Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), World Social Forum, WTO, IMF, World Bank, World Economic Forum, civil society, marginalised groups, "giving a voice to the voiceless", "the indispensable nation", and so on.
There is the thrill of the parallel sessions to the state-sponsored summits, the feelgood oneness of the protest marches, the delightful fringe groups, the right-ofcentrists, the benign Islamists, the occasionally pinko Hindutvavadis, the champagne socialists, the oddities of every flavour and hue. The party is a magnificent one. The euro-dollars flow. The presses clatter. Digital flashes record the moment onto gleaming Sony Memory Sticks'. It is the kandy-koloured kadillac, but now spray-painted with the tones of khaki and khadi. The mission is a globe-spanning one. The need is to create a network of networks and a movement of movements.
It is a valuable idea but there are dangers, which have been made clear by all variety of participants and observers ever since the eruption that was the first World Social Forum in the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre in 2001. Is it all becoming too centralised? Speaking with too homogenous a voice? Being identified with too visible a set of locations? Moving towards a secretariat when all that it opposes also have secretariats, thus becoming the opposite of a network?
That 'other world' is mine