Report on DSA Participation in the Foro de Sao Paulo, San Salvador, El Salvador, June 22 — June 25, 2016

22 min readJul 25, 2021

I am making this report public at this time — July 2021 — because the Democratic Socialists of America will be considering a resolution calling for joining the Foro de São Paulo at its national convention in August. The report below, of which I was the principal author, is reprinted here in its original form except for the correction of a few typos. Jack Suria Linares wrote a short section of this document as well as a separate report on the youth meetings which is included here. At the time it was submitted, it was accepted by the DSA National Political Committee and the International Committee of which I was a member, without significant debate. An official report prepared by the Foro itself can be found here: https://forodesaopaulo.org/memoria-del-xxii-encuentro-del-foro-de-sao-paulo-san-salvador-el-salvador-2016/

Final version for DSA –NPC, July 10, 2016

The National Political Committee of Democratic Socialists of America sent two DSA members — Jack Suria Linares and Dan La Botz — to the twenty-second São Paulo Forum that took place from June 22 — June 25 in San Salvador, the capital of El Salvador. DSA is not a member of the Forum, but had been invited to attend and sent two observers. This was DSA’ first participation in the Foro. The following document is our observers’ report on the Forum. We present our summary and conclusion first and go on to describe and analyze the Foro and append other reports on the U.S. breakout session and the youth section.

Summary and Conclusion of our Observation

The Foro de Sao Paolo is a conference of governing or former-governing parties in Latin America, as well as some parties aspiring to govern, many with social democratic or Communist political ideologies and practices. While these are important parties, some of which have carried out significant reforms in the past, the Foro overall does not represent the democratic socialist ideals to which Democratic Socialists of America aspire. Several of these parties have while in power imposed austerity policies, engaged in large-scale corruption, and in some cases even created authoritarian regimes.

To take the most important examples: the Brazilian Workers Party (PT), once it came to power, became enmeshed in political alliances with rightwing parties, involved in corrupt political relations both with those parties and with private business interest, and turned from its progressive social agenda, notwithstanding its social welfare policies for the poor. The Venezuelan government of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela has been marked by the domination of the caudillos Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro and by the populist politics of the redistribution of petroleum rents, as well as by undemocratic practices. The Nicaraguan Sandinista government has become an authoritarian, pro-business, conservative, religious, and anti-feminist party. The Cuban Communist Party remains the ruling party of a one- party state without political democracy. The presence as members of many other Communist Parties, some of them still remarkably Stalinist and some of them Eurocommunist, has a significant negative impact on the Foro’s political language, style, and values. Moreover, they strongly influenced the conversation and tone of the Foro on this occasion. Therefore we believe that DSA should not seek membership in the Foro, though we should cooperate with it when it takes up issues affecting Latin America or Latino immigrants where our views coincide,

The FMLN, the current governing party of El Salvador and host of the conference, is both the leading party of El Salvador and an important political organization of Salvadoran immigrants in the United States in places such as the state of Maryland and in cities such as New York, Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles. The FMLN in El Salvador pursues a reform agenda, while in the United States it is engaged in working to organize Salvadoran immigrant communities in social movements and in political action generally within the Democratic Party. Therefore we strongly believe that DSA should cooperate with FMLN leaders in the United States and with organizations in community and political work in the United States where our views coincide. DSA might work with members of the FMLN to support left wing or socialist democrats, independent candidates as well as working with them in community organization and immigrant work.

Background: Foro de Sao Paolo 1990–2016

In 1990 the Workers Party (PT) of Brazil initiated the Foro de Sao Paulo at the beginning of what has been called the “Pink Tide” in Latin America, that is, the period from the early 1990s to 2010s as a series of leftist parties that came to power via elections in several Latin American nations. When it was founded, Cuba was the only country governed by a leftist party, but in the 1990s and 2000s a spate of leftist governments came to power in Latin America: Hugo Chávez and his leftist Fifth Republic Movement in Venezuela; Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva of the PT in Brazil; Evo Morales of the Socialism (MAS), in Bolivia; Michelle Bachelet of the Socialist Party in Chile; Rafael Correa of the Alliance PAIS in Ecuador; Daniel Ortega of the Sandinista Front for National Liberation in Nicaragua; José Mújica of the Broad Front in Uruguay and Ollanta Humala in Peru. These leaders and parties varied greatly in their politics — from the one-party Communist state of Cuba, to the rightwing political alliances of the FSLN Nicaragua, to the social liberalism of Brazil and Chile. Still, taken together they represented a leftward shift in Latin America.

The Foro was an expression of the optimism and of the success of these Latin American parties not only in winning political power via elections in the 1990s and early 2000s, but in holding power, and establishing a progressive agenda of reforms to improve the lives of working people and the poor. The São Paulo Forum thus became a regular conference of leftists parties, led by those in government in Cuba, Brazil, and Venezuela. The conferences were held every year or two in one or another Latin American capital.

Today there are over 100 political parties in the Foro de Sao Paulo. In some cases there are two or more parties from one country participating in the forum. In addition to the Brazilian PT and the Venezuelan United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), which come out of unique national experiences, several Communist Parties of the Soviet and Cuban tradition from several nations participate, as do Social Democratic Parties, and groups coming out of the guerrilla war experiences of Central America. The Communist Party of Spain is a member and the Communist Party of France was present as was the Communist Party of Vietnam,

At its inception, the Foro called for the creation of a new Latin American left based on democracy and human rights and its early conferences advocated the integration of Latin America. The Foro parties saw themselves as defending Latin America against the foreign policy of the United States in the region. At the same time they talked of the development of new socialist thinking and ideals.

Foro 2016 — Latin American Left Beleaguered

Sao Paolo Foro XXII — 2016 takes places in altogether different conditions than any of the previous Foros. A number of developments have weakened the Latin American left and put it on the defensive. Among these are:

o The coup in Honduras in 2009 organized by the Barack Obama administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to oust the left government of Manuel Zelaya.

o The victory in 2015 of conservative Mauricio Macri in Argentina defeating Daniel Scioli of the Justicialista Party, which had been in power under Nestor Kirchner (2003–2007) and then under his wife Crisitina Fernández de Kirchner (2003–15)

o The victory in December 2015 of the rightwing parties over the Unified Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) in the congressional elections in Venezuela accompanied by a deepening economic crisis and food riots.

o In February 2016, voters in Bolivia voted against a fourth term for Evo Morales of the MAS which would have allowed him to stand again for the presidency in 2019.

o The impeachment and suspension from office in May of 2016 of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff of the Workers Party which had held power since 2003 and bringing to power Michel Temer and a group of rightwing parties.

Left of center governments persist in Chile, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, Guyana and El Salvador, as well as a nominally left government in Nicaragua. Public opinion polls across the region show that on a wide range of issue areas Latin Americans in almost every country are significantly to the left of where they were before the pink tide, making it difficult for the new right wing governments in Brazil and Argentina to dismantle (at least in the short to medium term) most of the social programs inaugurated by their left leaning predecessors. Two quite positive developments in Latin America, the rapprochement between Cuba and the United States and the signing of a peace treaty between the government of Colombia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) ending decades of civil war in that country. Nevertheless, left defeats or crises in Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela — three of the largest nations and economies in the region — overshadow other developments represent a tremendous setback for the left.

At the root of these changes in Latin America is the Great Recession of 2008 followed by the fall in petroleum and other commodity prices. Brazil and Venezuela had both pursued an economic policy based largely on producing commodities for the world market: soybeans, minerals, and petroleum, so the fall in commodity prices has been devastating for their economies. As the FSP conference has been taking place in a national referendum the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, throwing in doubt the future of the world economy and no doubt raising more problems for Latin America. (Surprisingly not a word was said about this at the conference.)

Powerful domestic rightwing forces have challenged the Latin American left governments in power. Naturally and correctly they also fear that, as their governments find themselves in crisis, the United States will, in cooperation with the Latin American nations’ rightwing parties, move to recuperate its former economic and political control over their region. Consequently the various parties at FORO XXII 2016 largely attributed their problems to the United States and the domestic right, leaving little room for reflection, honest discussion, or criticism of their own policies.

Who Attended?

As already noted there were 500 delegates and observers from over 100 parties from more than 50 nations. In addition to the Latin American nations and parties such as the Brazilian PT and the Venezuelan United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), the Cuban Communist Party had a large delegation. From Europe, Asia, and Africa the Communist Party of Spain is a member, and the Communist Party of France was present, as was the Communist Party of Vietnam. There were Basque observers who work in a Salvador solidarity committee as well as an observer from the Sortu party of the Basque Country. There was also a representative of just one African country, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) in the Western Sahara.

From North America, Canada, Mexico, and the United States several groups were present. Mexico was represented by the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and by MORENA, while the Canadian observer was from an immigrant group there. The U.S. delegation was made up mostly of FMLN members living in the United States, principally in Maryland and Washington, D.C., but there were also our two DSA observers, a member of the Green Party’s Steering Committee and the co-chair of its. International Committee of the Green Party, who was present unofficially as an individual observer. There was also a representative SEIU 1199 in New York City who has for many years participated in FSP events.

Many of the parties that attended brought their youth sections and some youth groups came on their own, so that there were a significant number of young people present. (See report on youth breakout session below.)

The FMLN had by far the largest delegation. We would estimate that of the 500 delegates present, some 250 came from the Salvadoran FMLN. There were also perhaps another 100 FMLN people working in logistics, protocol, and other tasks, who were present, though they were not delegates.

Equally interesting is who was not invited or did not choose to attend. For example, from Spain came the Communist Party and the Catalan Republican Party, but Podemos was not present. From France came the Communist Party, but the New Anti-Capitalist Party and the Front de Gauche were not present. That is the new left that has arisen in Europe out of the social movements since the crisis of 2008 were not present.

What Was the Agenda?

This is an overview of the agenda:

• The opening plenary titled “School Debate” presented various responses to the conference’s “Basic Document” dealing with the nature of the period from spokespersons from a variety of parties of different nations. The basic document laid out the themes pursued throughout the FSM conference

On the second day there was a special session on El Salvador and a session on unity and integration in the face of the imperial counter-offensive.
Another plenary on the third day deal with the experience of national government in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Uruguay, Bolivia and El Salvador.
The first breakout session had regional meetings from:

o Mesoamérica and the Caribbean
o TheSouthernRegion
o The Andean Region
o Dialogue of the FSP Leadership with the European Left
o Meeting of the Commission of Foundations and Cadre Schools o Meeting of the Communications Network

o Meeting of the Cultural Commission of the FSP
o Meeting of of the Team of the Political Economic Social Project. o Dialogue of the FSP Parties for Environmental Sustainability

• The second breakout session has meetings on a variety of issues:
o Geopolitics and processes of unity and integration in Latin America and the Caribbean
o Ideological struggle and the media in the face of the imperial counteroffensive.
o Cultural and popular power in the construction of hegemony in the face of the imperial counteroffensive.
o Struggles against colonialism and neocolonialism and strategies of imperial domination.
o The new challenges on the migration front and the imperial counter-offensive
o The articulation of popular power, political power, and electoral power to confront the imperial counter-offensive
o An exchange of experiences of electoral strategies
o Work on the Political Economic Social Project of Latin America and the Caribbean

• The third breakout session deal with particular sector of society or areas of work:

o Women’s meeting
o Youth meeting
o Local authorities meeting
o Meeting of legislators
o Meeting of native peoples, peoples of African descent, and indigenous peoples.

In addition to those working meetings there were as mentioned book presentations, ceremonies, and presentations of final reports.

We should note, that while there was one breakout session on environmental issues, the climate change environmental crisis was not a salient issue and did not form a part of the analysis or project of the FSP. While there were one or two environmental activists present, there was not presence of the environmental movement such as one would expect to find at a leftist conference in the United States or Europe. Similarly, while there was a mention of diversity including LGBTQ, there was no presence of an LGBTQ movement. Everything was subsumed in party organizations.

What Was the Goal of the Conference?

The Working Group, which is the executive committee of the conference, brought to FSM XXII 2016 a political analysis and political line that was restated in every session with little opportunity for discussion or debate. Certainly there was no desire to see any amendment to the basic document’s arguments. The principal points were:

o Latin America faces an imperial counter-offensive most manifest in Brazil and Venezuela.

o The offensive takes the form of an economic, political, and media war.
o To meet this counter-offensive the Latin American left must be united.
o TheForo de Sao Paolo should take the leading role inorganizing the counter- offensive.

There were some unspoken assumptions in this analysis and proposal that should also be stated. First, that there is only one imperial power in the world, the United States and its European allies, and that other great powers such as Russia and China are not imperialist. Second, that the unity of the Latin American left as represented by the FSP should not be questioned. Third, that while Latin American governments may have committed some errors, their leaders, parties, and policies should not be criticized because this only strengthens the right. Leaders of the conference made these positions quite clear.

The Political Tone

The political tone of the conference was dominated by the old left: nostalgia for the Soviet Union, support for Cuba, the guerrilla parties of the 1970s and 1980s, and the ghost of Hugo Chávez.

The Inaugural Event, the main ceremonial event of the conference held on the third day in an amphitheater of the convention center and attended not only by the 500 delegates but also by several thousand FMLN members, powerfully asserted the politics of the FSP 2016. Speaking at the conference was not only President Santiago Sánchez Cerén, but also: José Ramón Balaguer Cabrera of the Cuban Communist Party; Adán Chávez, brother of Hugo Chávez, representing the government of Venezuela; a representative of the government of Colombia; and a representative of the Communist Party of Vietnam. And Lula of the Brazilian PT addressed the FSP conference by video. Both President Sánchez and Adán Chávez emphasized the role of Schafik Handal of the Communist Party of El Salvador in his role as a leader in the FMLN. Adán Chávez also argued that the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe had provided a model of courage for the Latin American struggles of the past and of today. All of the speakers called for the “unity of the Latin American left against the empire’s offensive.” With the prominent role of the Communist Parties of Cuba and Vietnam, one might have thought this was a meeting in the early 1970s, not in 2016.

Similarly in the very lightly attended Sunday morning plenary dealing with left parties in government there were presentations by leading figures of the governments of Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, El Salvador, Brazil, and Venezuela. Carlos Fonseca Terán, speaking for the FSLN of Nicaragua — which has become a very authoritarian and conservative government — praised the role of the Soviet Union and Cuba in supporting Nicaragua, and of course later Venezuela. Though on that panel the spokespersons for Uruguay and Chile actually admitted that problems of corruption existed among exiting left governments. The speaker for the Chilean CP which forms part of the very broad and heterogeneous New Majority coalition admitted that members of that coalition had engaged in corrupt practices, though his party members had not. Those were virtually the only critical reflections in any of the plenaries.

There was a special session dedicated to a celebration of the Fidel Castro’s ninetieth birthday.

The Closing Ceremony included an address by video from Cuban head of state Raúl Castro.

Some Impressions

The FSP’s leading parties came to the Foro with an established line and had no interest in any real debate. The various workshops and breakout groups that involved discussion were merely a façade meant to give participants a sense that they had made a contribution. There was in fact little real discussion, dialogue, or exchange of opinions, in large part because of the domination of the FMLN numerically in all of the sessions and workshops, together with other groups such as the Cuban Communist Party, and the Venezuelan PSUV.

As already stated, the Latin American left governments — absolutely correctly — see the United States engaged in a counter-offensive aimed at retaking control of the region. But the Foro parties attribute their problems almost entirely to the United States and the domestic right, leaving little room for reflection, honest discussion, or criticism of any errors of the left. The PT’s austerity policies and corruption are not mentioned, the authoritarian populism of Nicolás Maduro cannot be discussed, and the undemocratic character of the Cuban government has never been up for discussion. The result is an atmosphere that resembles the defense of the Soviet regime in the 1930s or the defense of Cuba since the 1960s: when leftist nations are besieged by the right, those governments cannot be questioned, much less criticized by the left. In such an atmosphere one can expect no new theoretical or practical developments.

Report on the Foro de Sao Paulo — Addenda

Additional Comments — Jack Suria Linares

FMLN members and leaders argued that registering voters and high turnout against Donald Trump served the best interest of those in the United States. Though no one made an official statement, time and time again members outright stated that voting for Hillary represented a strategic decision.

Lesser evil politics was presented without much discussion or debate. Bahram from the Green Party made no case for voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party. There as not much discussion of other options. In other words, though an increase in voter turnout may occur, with what purpose and what kind of politics will new voters believe in? This is perhaps a place that DSA can play in providing political education workshops for new voters in collaboration with FMLN and others in the U.S.

Though the panels and group discussions focused on large-scale analysis, no serious solutions or reforms were presented. Rather it seemed that the Foro served only to legitimize its presence in Latin American politics.

Overall, it seems that only some of the folks living in the U.S., some members of the Mexican Party of the Democratic Revolution, and some sprinkling of other folks present at the Foro did not fully agree to unity without self-criticism. Other than that, leadership completely dominated the political tone and vision without providing a concrete strategy except constantly repeating the necessity to combat U.S. imperialism in a general way through social media.

Report on the Youth Section — Jack Suria Linares

The youth section of the SPF, known as Juventudes, held a four-hour session to discuss the importance of recruiting and politicizing youth in the respective parties. The panelists presented a general analysis of Latin America similar to the political statements in all the previous discussions, though among the youth glimpses of hope of a more innovative Left appeared during the group discussions. Most notably the insistence, nearly universal among the youth, on greater autonomy within the Foro. It is here that there is potential to develop relationships, if they ever begin to organize themselves within their left parties. They wish to not only canvass, but also develop political strategy and interact with the public not merely make statements in solidarity.

Report on the Meeting of the United States Section

On Friday morning both Dan La Botz and Jack Suria Linares joined the breakout session of attendees from the United States. About 25 people attended the session, all but four of them Salvadorans and members of the FMLN who live in the United States, some of whom are attached to the Salvadoran Embassy. They live principally in Maryland and Washington, D.C. (Dan and Jack), Bahram Zandi of the International Committee of the Green Party, and Guillermo Mayora of SEIU 1199 in New York City

Much to our surprise, Blanca Flor Bonilla, a historic leader of the FMLN and one of its representatives in Washington, D.C. asked Bahram Zandi of the Green Party and the two of us to make a presentation on the coyuntura, that is, the overall situation of the United States vis-à-vis Latin America. The Green Party spokesperson spoke briefly, primarily introducing himself, his organization, and offering words of Solidarity. Afterwords, the two of us divided our presentation, taking about seven minutes each to discuss the global picture (Dan) and the domestic picture, principally the elections (Jack). We provide here a written version of our hastily prepared talks based on our notes with comments about the group’s response.

Dan La Botz — On the Global Situation

I began my life as an activist against the Vietnam War in the 1960s, later in work in solidarity with Central America in the 1980s, so we are delighted to be here at a conference dedicated to Latin American solidarity against U.S. imperialism. We stand in solidarity with Latin America.

After World War II, the world divided into two spheres, each controlled by a super- power leading to the Cold War. With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 the situation changed and we returned to a world like that of 1914, a multipolar world of many great powers and many great imperialisms. After all, imperialism is about the struggle among great powers to dominate regions or the world, as well as to dominate weaker nations.

There is not only U.S. imperialism, which most preoccupies those in Latin America, but also European imperialism, which is very active in Africa (especially France), and in the Middle East (England and France). There is also Russian imperialism as seen in its actions in Crimea and Ukraine, a struggle for control between Western Europe and Russia. Then too there is China, which is building islands in the South China Sea, a development that threatens Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. Of course, in Latin America the greatest threat is the United States.

While we should be concerned about the United States is not a magician. It does not control all developments. The world market also affects the situation, as seen in the fall of oil and commodity prices. The bourgeoisies of Latin America do not need the U.S. bourgeoisie to tell them what to do; they are perfectly capable of making their own coups d’état. And the Latin American left bears some responsibility for developments.

While responding to American imperialism, this is also an opportunity for reflection and self-criticism. I was surprised that in afternoon’s panel, there seemed to be no serious discussion of the mistakes made by the Brazilian Workers Party. I am also concerned to know if reports in the left press that the United Socialist Party of Venezuela government had destroyed the headquarters of the Marea Socialista, an independent socialist group in that country.

Regarding the document that was drafted in Washington, D.C. by the several socialist groups involved, including DSA, we are fundamentally in agreement with it. I would like to express, however, my reservations about voting support for particular political leaders and parties, such as Dilma Rousseff and the Workers Party. I would prefer to say that we support the people of Latin America, and we support the democratic processes. In fact this is the position of a Brazilian leftist party, the Party of Socialism and Freedom.

We also believe that it is important for the FSP to denounce the Mexican government for its violent attacks on the teachers’ movement that have led to the death of 8 people, the kidnapping of twenty, and serious injuries to 50.

Response of the Group from the United States

Several people in the room responded to my remarks with questions or expressing their difference of opinion. An important organizer of the conference, Werner Maroquín, suggested that he disagreed with me and said that what was taking place was fundamentally a struggle over the resources of Latin America, as was the case in Venezuela. I replied that I absolutely agreed, and that it was not only a struggle over resources but also over markets and labor. There were some other comments suggesting disagreements without being very specific. Then Blanca Flor Bonilla replied very sternly that she disagreed with my view, stating: 1) The United States is the only real imperial power. 2) The multipolar world, with other powers, was good and was important for small countries; 3) The fall in oil prices was not a result of the market, but rather of connivance between the United States and Saudi Arabia to reduce production. 4) BRICS is an important counterweight to the United States. Bahram of the Green Party stated that he disagreed with me and agreed with the FMLN and FSP.

I thought this was an important debate — one of the very few in the FSP conference — because it showed the FMLN’s fundamental support for “campist” politics, that is, for uncritical unity of all of those countries that stand opposed to the United States. These are the politics of a section of the left in the United States as well that stands with Putin of Russia, Assad of Syria, and with the Ayatollahs of the Iranian government, and which does not support the democratic movements in those countries. Certainly the FMLN and FSP position of support for BRICS and a reluctance to criticize the politics of those nations is not good for such countries as Tibet, Ukraine, or in India for the Muslim people. (Interestingly, later Bahram of the Green Party, who is an Iranian leftist as well, told me that he had tried to explain to the PSUV of Venezuela that the Iranian government killed socialists, but they would not hear it.) Since the conference had only begun, I did not realize when I made these remarks that I was challenging the underlying principles and framework of the FSP analysis.

Jack Suria Linares — On the Situation in the United States.

I am currently the youth representative of Democratic Socialists of America and a member for almost three years. I will first introduce DSA, then Dan will present a global analysis followed by my understanding of the Bernie Sanders phenomena, immigration reform, guest worker programs, and the recent SCOTUS case regarding DAPA/DACA.

Democratic Socialists of America was cofounded by two organizations, the Democratic Socialists Organizing Committee (DSOC) and the New American Movement (NAM). DSOC emerged from the Socialist Party of the United States while NAM emerged from New Left activists of the 1960s. DSA functions as an organizations with multiple chapters. Each chapter works on campaigns that pertain to local concerns, but we also have national campaigns. In terms of electoral politics, we have an inside/outside strategy. What this means is that we support leftwing democrats within the Democratic Party, but we may support independents or third party candidates if we believe there is genuine opportunity to advance the progressive movement.

One of the biggest national campaigns we have been involved with over the last two years has to do with the rise of the Bernie Sanders’ phenomena. Throughout the primaries we have grown exponentially, seen most obvious in the development of organizing committees throughout the United States, particularly in the South, where we believe it will be crucial to growth a left tendency to combat the growth of bigotry without struggling against corporate/liberal democrats. We are very happy to see that Sanders has helped break the barriers of socialism in the United States. In particular we believe this has helped shift the future of the U.S. toward liberal/left tendencies especially with the millennial generation. The major outcome of Sanders is that he has allowed the space for a movement as opposed to another primary campaign.

In terms of our immigration platform, we believe in national immigration reform advocated in congress, but we have disagreements with the militarization and guest workers programs emphasis. We don’t think that guest worker programs help prevent forced global migration in the long run. And as I have experienced, most guest workers who end up as agricultural workers have terrible working conditions, arguably a 21st century slavery.

Finally, yesterday, he Supreme Court reached a 4–4 decision regarding the DAPA/DACA executive order. This result means that the Supreme Court did not overturn the decision of the Texas court in denying DAPA /DACA in Texas. This decision may also lead to the denial of DAPA / DACA in other states. If passing immigration reform is difficult, this case now makes Obama’s executive order weaker. As a result, we believe that a new immigration movement will increase its activity, though we do not know how it will go, since it is currently divided regarding President Obama, many disillusioned with our deporter-in-chief.

Responses of the Group from the United States

Overall the group understood and was happy about the success of Sanders. Some questions included whether this is a real phenomenon and where it will go.

I responded with a description of what occurred at the People’s Summit as well as the rise of state and local leaders running for office (with the example of Debbie Medina). My last example came from the labor movement and the growth of Labor for Bernie, but more importantly, mobilization of union members to challenge their unions.

Some Useful Sources:

Official website of the Foro Sao Paulo:

http://forodesaopaulo.org/

Final Declaration of the FSP 2016

http://forodesaopaulo.org/declaracion-final-del-xxii-encuentro-del-foro-de-sao- paulo-san-salvador-2016/

Wikpedia on Foro de Sao Paulo

Some Press Accounts

http://www.laprensagrafica.com/2016/06/23/claves-para-entender-que-es-el- foro-de-sao-paulo

http://www.telesurtv.net/news/Foro-de-Sao-Paulo-debate-acciones-ante-ofensiva- de-la-derecha-20160623–0021.html

http://www.lapagina.com.sv/nacionales/118931/2016/06/22/FMLN-confirma- asistencia-de-500-delegados-internacionales-a-Foro-de-Sao-Paulo

http://www.hispantv.com/noticias/el-salvador/279876/sanchez-ceren-unidad- izquierda-imperio-foro-sao-paulo

http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2016/06/26/foro-de-sao-paulo-celebra- cumpleanos-90-de-fidel-castro/