The meeting took place on July 22-23 in Durban, South Africa with approximately 100 persons present. The origins of this meeting was that a few people thought it would be a good idea to discuss some of the strains within the WSF as well as ideas for what should happen at Nairobi. Durban was chosen because, in the last week of July, the World Congress of the International Socio­logical Association was taking place, and it was hoped to piggy back on the fact that various activists in the WSF would be pres­ent. The Center for Civil Society (CCN), Univ. of KwaZulu Natal (UKZN) in Durban, headed by Patrick Bond, offered to be the local co-sponsor along with the Forum on the Global South (FGS). Patrick raised money to bring a number of African participants from outside South Africa. Fewer non-African participants came than originally hoped. The meeting in effect morphed into a discussion of how to increase African participation in WSF, although this remained en­sconced in the larger question of the future directions of the WSF.

The non-South African participants got a wonderful taste of the spirit and energy of South African militants, with frequent inter­spersing of shouts of Amandla (and its various responses) as well as spontaneous singing.

In the opening session, Dennis Brutus, South African poet, acti­vist, and organizer of the sports boycott during the apartheid re­gime, said in the opening session that the WSF is the most promis­ing global structure and the hope of our time. I spoke about the tensions in the WSF between the concept of open space and the de­mands for political action, and suggested some ways of resolving this tension. Nicola Bullard (FGS) spoke of the evolution of the WSF as a structure, arguing that the WSF itself was an experiment in transforming social relations, and said that within that people can set priorities for global issues.

A local Durban activist, Mnizeli Ndabankulu, related recent local struggles, asking where was the WSF when they were being shot, and said the WSF must not work for us, but work with us. Finally, Trevor Ngwane (leader of a major social movement in Soweto) concluded with an as­sessment of the 20th century as the age of revolution that had been only partially successful. He argued that the WSF inherits and builds on these struggles. He talked of the disappointments in South Afri­ca, aspirations that died on the altar of capitalism. He crit­icized Pres. Mbeki, erstwhile Vice-Pres. Zuma, and capitalist boss­es, and said we draw a class line. The WSF should equally draw a class line. The WSF is not a social movement, but a collectivity of move­ments. The WSF should not pretend to speak on behalf of all those who were not there. The WSF must move from rhetoric to action.

In the discussion, Ashwin Desai (South African intellectual and ac­tivist) argued that Mbeki-ism is wrong, that Mbeki is Bush's point man in Africa, and that we should commit ourselves to destroying Mbeki-ism. Although the SACP (So. Af. Communist Party) and COSATU (the trade-unions in So. Af.) have colluded in this, they are now, at least, discussing this issue. By doing this, SACP and COSATU have opened space for the rest of us. He continued that, with Man­dela, we thought there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but it was a pot of shit. We stand for a left progressive culture that will not be co-opted yet again. We must be unreasonable and broa­den local struggles so that we can show the links between na­tional and world struggles. Let us not merely change the riders on the horses, but the direction in which the horses are going. And to do that, we have to discuss both local issues as well as global ones.

The second session focused on the WSF in Africa. There were partici­pants from Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Egypt, Kenya, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, and South Africa. We got reports on the struggles within these countries, the state of social movements, and preparations for Nairobi.

The evening session was co-sponsored by CODESRIA, and was a celebra­tion of ten years for the African Sociological Review, as well as the fifth anniversary of the Center for Civil Society. Speakers included Samir Amin, Jimi Adesina (pres. of the South Af. Sociolog­ical Assn.), Ari Sitas (of UKZN), Fred Hendricks (editor of Af. Soc. Rev.), Raquel Sosa (Mexico), and Ebrima Sall (CODESRIA, which sponsors the Af. Soc. Rev.).

The second day began with a session in which the WSF Charter was out­lined, in English and Zulu, for the benefit of local activists.

This was followed by a session in which Njoki Njoroge Njehu, a key person in the local organization of the Nairobi WSF, gave a report on preparations - the site, hotels, visas, plans for caravans to enable Africans to come. She also explained the structure of the WSF and told everyone that no one is going to organize issues for them and referred people to the WSF website on consultations. She said that Nairobi is planning for an expected arrival of 100,000 persons, and that they were raising a solidarity fund to help par­ticipants who are in need of such help. In general, she gave a very encour­aging picture about the state of preparations.

The next session was on two major, current issues. Salim Vally (of South Africa) discussed the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and Briggs Bemba (activist in Zimbabwe) discussed what has been going on in Zimbabwe. The group created two committees to bring back resolu­tions for later voting.

We then divided into focus groups on the following themes as chosen by those present: South African funding for Nairobi, refugees, hu­man rights, the SMI (Social Movements Indaba, of South Africa), wo­men, and caravans. After the focus groups, each reported to the whole group.

The afternoon began with a major political debate. Samir Amin pre­sented the Bamako Appeal. He said there were three themes in the discussion - nationalism, development, and socialism. He said that the WSF was a forum and that it should remain a forum, but that ac­tivists should also move ahead with plans for action, and that the Bamako Appeal was intended to stimulate such action.

Responding to Amin was the three "autonomists" - Franco Barchiesi (South Africa/USA), Prishani Naidoo (South Africa) and Geoffrey Pleyers (France/England). All three said that the Bamako Appeal was a return to vanguardism and a reversion to the errors of the tra­ditional left. Its talk about the local level was confused, polit­ic­ally irrelevant, and dangerous. They asserted that the WSF was now moving in the wrong direction.

The presentations sparked a strong debate. Helmy Shawari (Egypt) warned that capitalist forces could take over a forum. Lau Kin Chi (China) asked everyone not to dichotomize, but to look for mean­ingful ar­tic­ula­tions between open space and action. Hassan Sunmonu (Nigeria) said it was not a crime to put forward ideas. Angela Miles (UK) seconded Has­san, and said that the feminist movements have shown that one can both strategize/theorize and talk. Another participant argued that there are many Marxisms, and that they should not all be painted with the same Stalinist brush.

At this point, I, and some others had to leave, but the discussion went on. I do not think that Amin and the three autonomists reached any meeting of minds whatsoever, and that the discussion will continue in Nairobi.

In the final session (from which I was absent), resolutions on Leba­non and Zimbabwe were presumably adopted.

The meeting, as the report indicated, was a mixture of great en­thu­siasm and energy and of strong debate. I myself consider the level of debate and positive activism a sign of considerable health of the WSF - in the world and in Africa. The next moment is in Nairo­bi, in the land that lives under Jomo Kenyatta's famous post-inde­pendence slogan of Harambee (which can more or less be translated as, let's get working to complete the job).