Post-ESF 2008: report on the Istanbul EPA - 21-23 Nov. 2008

Report by Barunka

I came to Istanbul on the 20th November in order to attend the EPA from 21st to 22nd November. Unfortunately, I couldnt stay till the 23rd November but I attended two workshops on the 21st November (1pm-3pm education workshop, 4pm-6m- CEE workshop), held my speech on the 22nd November at 12am as the second speaker after the assessment reports presented by the NOC members.

21st November
8 workshops
Interpretation organized by Ali (maybe another report will come soon?J)
I participated pretty passively at the first workshop on education but I contributed to the CEE workshops where delegates from Bielorussia and Russia were talking about the fact that they are not capable of mobilizing more people in their countries as they are afraid to go, because they think that everybody is going to speak only English and French. I have tried to explain again that we want to help with this issue and we are actually helping. The problem is that the representatives of the CEE organisations don t receive enough information about Babels in the first place, but at the same time it is a problem of “mentality” and lack of willingness from the Eastern Europeans to acknowledge that they would like and need to have an interpreter (they prefer not to understand anything rather than admitting that an interpreter would help them a lot)

Evening - rather don’t want to even mention how delicious the Turkish cuisine isJ

22nd November, Saturday

11am- 1pm Malmo assessment

Moderator: Hugo Braun

This session was started with speeches from Annette Nilsson, Tord Bjoerk, Sara… and Sofia Julien.
You can read their reports on the ESF website. I don t want to judge their level of self-criticism (definitely the highest reached in very constructive speeches by Tord Bjoerk) - you can all do it yourself .Nevertheless, the problems with Babels and ALIS were very superficially mentioned and I reacted to them in my speech (see the speech below).
Thanos from ALIS was also present but didn t want to speak. That is why he wrote the paragraph on ALIS and asked me to read it (see the speech below “Technology”) for him. Thanos will also inform us later about the results of negotiations regarding the booths (as mentioned by Annette, the booths apparently can t be used in Turkey because of a “frequency” problem).
I think that I managed to get everybody s attention during the speech. I had the feeling that everybody understood and agreed with what I was saying. The fact that some interpreters haven t been reimbursed yet was definitely not a secret. EVERYBODY KNEW! And almost all speakers mentioned it.
My speech was followed by many others but I will mention only those concerning Babels.

Piero Bernocchi - “translation must be a priority” “if there is no translation there is no social forum”

Sophie Zafari- we have to give more importance to the translation and solve the problem

Tord Bjoerk - “we want to reimburse all interpreters but we still don t know exactly how” (while talking to him during the break he told me, that he can t give me any concrete information but he assured me that the situation was getting calmer and more stabilized and that “we will definitely NOT forget the interpreters)
“I do agree with the criticism made by Babels and I can only say that the same opaque and confusing situation was experienced in many other spheres during the forum.
“individuals will definitely have priority”

Fabrice (Belgian social forum) - takes the floor and demands an immediate solution of the problem and says that his organisation can give 500 Euros and expects others to do so as well. He creates an excell file which can be seen on the screen and writes the sum “donated” by the Belgian social forum.
(talking to Fabrice after the session finished he told me he believes the ESF as a process is dead if they don t manage to solve the issue of reimbursing the interpreters)

This was at the moment when the session was already coming to its end.

As I had to leave for the airport I agreed with Thanos, Ali and Fabrice that
before the end of the day one of them was going to mention it again and would demand a clear response from the other participants. Ali proposed to stop/boycott interpreting if there was no other response from the delegates.

My personals impressions when leaving Istanbul:
1. Everybody is aware of the critical situation regarding the interpreters who have not been reimbursed yet and there is a clear will to solve the problem
2. I believe that the problem will get solved, but we have to keep on putting pressure and make sure this issue is not ”forgotten”
3. I left Istanbul knowing that it was very important that Babels voice was heard at the EPA
4. I do have hope…

… to be continued by Ali and Thanos.

Report by Ali

First about interpretation. We failed to get the number of interpreters necessary for all the workshops fo the first day since most were busy with professional or other occupations. However, it turned out most of the workshops didn’t need any interpretation so we were able to concentrate on those who needed interpretation (3 workshops) . Nur, Irmak helped us part of the day, and then had to leave for activities.

Isıl and myself worked together for 2 workshops where we turned out to be quite usefull, while, Turkan, a non Babelist friend with some consecutiv translation experience, helped in an other. We devised a way to still have someone going round the workshops to make sure things were alright, asking participant to make sumary notes of things that needed to be translated so that we could help if necessary. This gave some sense of psychological support at least. We were a litlle worried about the ECC representatives, but they had been warned there would be no Russian translation and were apparently able to communicate without too much problems. Barunka helped them out at one point.

What we did practically was that while one of our 2 persons team was working for shifts of 40 munites (the accepted AIIC limit) the other would rest for about ten minutes to recuperate and then went round to chack the other workshops to help for about 15-20 minutes if necessary. Then he had another short break and finally returned to sit for the last 10 minutes to get back inot the mood of the workshop. It would have been difficult if all the workshops had needed constant interpretation, but as things were, it went quite smoothly. When our workshop was over, we were able to go and relieve our friend Turkan, who was getting quite tired, after two sessions of consecutive work. The following two days, we had a traditional system, with a french and an English booth, with Tr, Eng. and Fr. We had more than enough interpreters and could switch, except for French, where we were only 2 (1 eng-fr, 1 eng-fr-tr) in the morning but 3 (1 tr-fr, 1 eng-fr, 1 tr-enf-fr) in the afternoon. There were some 4-5 eng-tur intepreters on saturday and 3 or 4 on sunday, with 3 for French (1 Eng-Fr, 2 Eng-Fr-Tr). EPA participants expressed their satisfaction with the translation, which was nice to hear. We had 2 short evaluation meetings after each day where we excchanged our impressions.

Now the main issue:

On saturday barunka made her presentation and I think it was very effective. The next day I made a short rather low key intervention in the name of Barunka, pleading for a clear commitment on the reimbursement issue and saying that we would consider interrupting interpretation if no concrete step was taken, but as I understand, that part of the message didn’t quite get through. So that it was the (usual) pleading tone that took over.

As for the NOC, it appeared transparent and honest. They stated clearly that their doner organisations, mainly one important union (HELO or something like that) had cash flow problems and could not deliver the cash needed as quickly as necessary, but they were determined to do everything they could to make sure all volunteers were all reimbursed, and that they were also giving priority to the individuals (and always had). They had no intention of declaring bankrupcy. On the other hand, unions in Sweden were very weakened and also affected by the crisis, so that they had cash flow problems. However, they would provide funds as they became available.

They also complained that the European process follow up was not transparent and that they did not know who to consult and had trouble obtaining information, in a way passing on the issue to the ESF itself. They suggested that the Babels as well as other volunteers issue should be approached on a wider basis, involving the European process, so as to find a long term and global solution, otherwise it would arise again and again). (Torn Bjorg said the NOC has trouble finding people to set and manage the cultural events scenes, which almost had to be cancelled). I must they they were rather convincing, appearing squashed between their local supporting organisations and the ESF, as Babels was between them and its members.

We had a short talk with the people from the NOC, and decided together with the other volunteers present that I would make a stronger statement the next day, asking both the NOC and the ESF itself (ie. the EPA assembly) to face their responsibility and give us a clear message, a commitment as to what they were going to do about the Babels issue.

In the mean time the Babels issue was raised a few times, by different participants, a sign that the EPA participants were sensitive to the issue. A Belgium unionist member of the Belgian SF even proposed to make a list of potential doners who would help bail out if the Swedish or Scandinavian organisations involved. There was no follow up to this proposition. On the other hand people were beginning to express - off the floor- their wonder about the fact that some of the most powerful unions of one of the most developed country in the world could not raise 15 or 17.000 euros.

The next day, we waited for the last session, the one handling decisions, at the beginning of which, having once more spoken with my fellow interpreters, I took the floor again, and after having explained a few things related to Forum dates and technical as well mobilisation issues(Alis or not, interpreter and earphone avalability during high working season; hollidays blackout), I said loud and clear, really hitting the nail, that we asked both the NOC and the ESF to face their responsibility, and issue a clear commitment about the reimbursement issue. And that if the issue was treated there and then we would cease interpreting until we had an answer, if only in solidarity with our volunteer members still unreimbursed.

This sent a first shock through the audience, but was I think fairly well received. I don’t know how seriously they took this. We had decided with the other interpreters that if speakers would change the subject interpretation would actually stop.

Anyway, the issue was taken up, then Piero, from Italy, started speaking. Although it turned out later that he was actually talking about Babels, his long introduction gave the opposite impression, upon which our interpreter friends stopped interpreting. Yes! we had opted to put our money (sic) where our mouth was and to act, in order to make sure the message got through, all the way! Was it the proper thing to do? the future will tell.

A shock wave that spread through the audience as Yildiz, from the TSF, who moderated the meeting, announced the interpretation had ceased. After a first short commotion, the debate continued in English, with poor Yildiz, from the TSF, having to translate for the turks in the audience - so that the actual people who were penalised were actually the locals, many of whom didn’t speak the ’Imperial language’ par exellence!

I realised later, I should have perhaps switched to Turkish from that point, which should have also been spoken by the others. Then the message would have been much more effective for the npn local listeners instead of the locals, who had nothing to do with the problem... Well you can’t think of everything. And of course one could discuss wether all this was worth it. Anyway we did it. I think we had a right and perhaps a responsibility to do it. We had chosen to do this at the latest possible stage so that the EPA as a whole would not suffer too much from this interruption.

So, once the shock wave had passed, the debate went on - in English. Pierro spoke of what had been done in Italy after Florence, where, amongst other things, they had put moral pressure on the different organisations and unions to raise funds- refering amongst other things to the publicity they had profited from - as has been the case for their swedish equivalents in Malmo.

The NOC said they didn’t think making threats would be the right approach. To which yours truly replied that we were not making threats but putting pressure, reminding all that the credibility of Bables - as well as of the ESF - was at stake.

Then the French representative lady took the floor, and gave a comprehensive answer to the issues raised.

1 It was the national forum of the host country that took responsibility for the Forum and its costs. The ESF could not create a precedent a bail out the host country, taking the risk of turning this into a habit.

2 The ESF follows up the process but does not directly intervene. The national SF is responsible. It could not be envisaged at this point to change the process. In other words the response to the pleas of the NOC for more cooperation were not accepted.

3 It was difficult to understand how some of the most powerful social and union organisations of a highly developed country could not face what must have been a triffle for them (13 or 17.ooo euros)

I suggested to my colleagues that we could resume translation since our issue was being treated, but they were adament to go on the ’strike’, so that the message really got through before it would be forgotten again.

Yildiz, of the TSF, drew the attention of the listeners that what was happening would cause the Turkish civil and labour organisations, who already had some doubts about joining the Forum and its preparational process, to think two more times before getting involved, which would make things even more difficult for the local Forum organisers...

In the mean time, I had tried to cool things down by mentioning the fact that reimboursements had gone some way, and that contact had been reastablished, but that we did need to have the issue taken seriously (or something of the sort). I later told the NOC representatives that the fact that we had a follow up of the reimbursement was a good step (having forgotten to mention it to the audience) and that maintaining communication links and information flow was crucial and that the most painfull thing in the whole issue was beeing left in the dark, not knowing what was happening. _ I didn’t mention the fact that this improvement was due more to Yan’s initiatives and the help of Eileen and Sophie, among other, than to those of the NOC, however...

Finally, the session was closed and the assembly dispursed without any clear decision being taken on the Babels... So I can’t say we came out with anything concrete and positive, unfortunately...

That’s it. Ali