Over the past few years, many networks and groups have been established around Europe to promote campaigns around refugee issues. A pre-ESF conference in September in London brought together 70 people from a large range of migration related networks, including British groups. The European Social Forum (ESF) was seen as one step in the wider process of migration as a social movement, an opportunity to address a new audience. The meeting was designed to bring about more cohesiveness among the Europen networks in the long term, and to discuss joint proposals for seminars and workshops for the official ESF programme as well as for the alternative spaces.
As a result, a second European day of action was launched at the ESF for 2 April 05, claiming freedom of movement and the right to stay as an alternative to the european constitutional process based on exclusion and exploitation. A number of seminars and workshops were held both in the official ESF and the alternative spaces. Speakers from migration related European grassroots groups and migrant self organisations participated, in many panels, discussing work, precariousness, information technologies.
In terms of organising seminars and workshops for the official ESF, migrants and refugee groups or collectives who wanted to participate were referred to the refugee network (RN) that was primarily set up to represent refugee and migrant organisations. It was never made clear who created it. On the one hand, it was claimed that the RN was not part of the ESF organising structure. On the other hand, it was listed as part of an organising ESF sub-group as early as April. Nearly all active participants in RN were related to the SWP, and were either members of trade unions or other national organisations.
While the reality in Europe is that the strength of the movements derives from largely self-organised migrants groups with their own set of demands, supported by some of the more internationalist trade unions, the RN imagined the trade unions as being at the forefront of the social movements. Based on this contradiction, the pre-ESF meeting of autonomous migration related groups ignored the existing RN proposal of themes and suggested speakers for seminars and organised an amazingly broad set of interventions both inside and outside the official ESF programme. Just to name a few: workshop on the IOM campaign was organised by Kein Mensch ist illegal; migration as a social movement was discussed by tavolo dei migranti, Kein Mensch is illegal, Act up/ Paris, or Precarity, Migrants and Social Movement brought together speaker from Spain, France, Britain and Italy, and of course in Middlesex where the two days were packed with issues around migration.
Collaboration between the RN and individual activists, groups and networks struggling on issues of migration proved complicated. RN decisions were made arbitrarily without any effort at consultation. Co-ordination and the setting of priorities was thus in the hands of a few. Minutes of meetings have never been published. As there was no open email list, groups who were not able to participate in one of the rare RN meetings had no opportunity to engage. Therefore, it was almost impossible for autonomous groups and activists to co-ordinate seminars through the RN. The lack of transparency caused constant battles, especially with organisations from outside Britain.
The ESF Organising Committee set the entrance fees for asylum-seekers at the extraordianarily high level of £20. In addition to entrance fees and travel expenses, many migrants had to fork out £70 for a visa. Only British organisations and networks affiliated to the refugee forum could get free entrance tickets. Individual asylum seekers who may have been encouraged to visit the ESF could not do so unless they had the good fortune of having heard of or belonging to one of the affiliated groups. The RN refused to challenge this decision on the basis that it was decided by the Organising Committee. Following furious critique by almost all European migration related groups, the RN raised money from trade unions and other donors in order to buy entrance tickets for asylum seekers or migrants, but again these funds were only available for asylum seekers connected to the RN.
The RN had a fund of £10,000 to be used to outreach to migrants and refugee groups in Britain only. This was challenged at a European ESF meeting in Berlin by Sans Papiers, Kein Mench ist illegal and particularly the No Vox network, an organisation specifically set up to gain access to the ESF for Sans Papiers, migrants, refugees and unemployed as well as low waged people from across the world. In this battle the fund was suddenly reduced to £5,000, and networks from other countries were told to raise their own funds.
To highlight this exclusion of undocumented migrants, refugees and asylum seekers from participating at the ESF, several collectives such as the Sans Papieres Lille and Paris, the Wombles, the Voice and the Noborder network called for a demonstration on the first day of the ESF in Dover, Calais and Waterloo. Certainly, borders cannot be removed for an ESF-event, but in 2004, the ESF Organising Committee raised additional borders which effectively restricted free movement. Consequently, no delegate of the official ESF participated in this action or expressed solidarity.
According to an activist from No Vox, the decision to hold the ESF 2004 in London was a disaster for undocumented migrants and refugees in Europe. He said: “It has lead to their disenfranchisement in the emerging social movement. British migrants and refugees need to know about struggles going on in Europe and to learn from them. The excluded self-organised migrants organisations in Europe can have gained nothing from this year ESF, indeed it may be difficult for them to see why they should participate in the Forums again whereas we know that this is a serious movement about global justice. We know that their full involvement is key."
Demands for the following ESF:
1) Free Entrance to asylum seekers, refugees and undocumented migrants.
2) Financial support for visas, accommodation, travel.
3) To promote inclusiveness in the ESF-process, asylum seekers, refugees and undocumented migrants should be able to become part of the organising process. In order to achieve this, the previous two points should be taken into consideration during the ESF-process.
4) The existing structure to receives translation recorders in exchange with documents should expand to also accept other forms of documents or pay a deposit.
Dagmar Diesner