TWS Tactics: an NvA Scenario Groundswell #3, March 1983 With all that has happened around the Franklin Blockade, Federal elections, and TWS (Tasmanian Wilderness Society) generally, tactics have been discussed, examined and criticised. The Groundswell Collective has been critical of TWS tactics, particularly the decision to support the ALP at the recent election - we fear this action has diffused the power TWS held as a result of the blockade. This led us to ask, 'Well, how could things have been different?'. It became obvious that, if the whole campaign could be developed using nonviolence principles? if TWS could be organised in a non-hierarchical fashion and adopt a long-term campaign perspective? then perhaps more significant gains could have been made - at present the only victory appears to be the apparent stopping of the Gordon-below-Franklin dam. The rest of the Southwest is still in jeopardy. Four of us who have been involved one way or another with training and/or the blockade came together to nut out our thoughts regarding nonviolent options (this is not to be confused with 'peaceful direct action'). Several hours of discussion with many different people generated many of the ideas contained in this scenario. It has been a valuable exercise for each of us personally and we share the results with Groundswell. We are quick to add here that we are not claiming certain success had these thoughts been utilised, or that they are THE options, but rather we feel the chances of achieving lasting, long-term change in favour of the wilderness would have been much improved. We also felt it would be an excellent opportunity to open it up for feedback from readers. Any criticism or comments on our scenario are most welcome. We think there is a lot that social change groups can learn from the impact TWS has had. If we all share our best thinking, it can only help. A group of wilderness-loving nonviolence activists decided to campaign on the wilderness in a wider context of overall social change. They see wilderness destruction as being a symptom of the same disease characterised by nuclear power, war, aggression, patriarchal violence, macho behaviour, sexism, racism, and other oppressive behaviour. The campaign would put a dent in this mentality and contribute to the process of ecological sensitivity and harmony, and promote peaceful relations between living things. They call themselves "The Wilderness Society". Their vision is the preservation and protection of the Australian wilderness, and they define their goals as follows: * Preservation of Australian wilderness (long-term) * Protect the wilderness of Southwest Tasmania from exploitation (medium range): This must include the restructuring or dismantling of the authority and/or focus of the HEC (Hydro-Electricity Commission) * Save the Franklin River from the Gordon-below-Franklin dam. They began by researching the facts of the issue, investigating alternatives, analysing the sociopolitical situation and interactions between the various groups involved - who has what power? They published material concerning the issue aimed at the community and prepared a self-learning kit to help involve new people. When they sat down to formulate a strategy, they stated the foundation to build upon as the following two guides: * All activities should try to reduce the credibility of the HEC, government, parliament, and tie the issue up to personal lives and feelings (alienation, the mentality that destroys wilderness destroys people). * Encourage empowerment/action in ways consistent with the new mentality (as stated in the first paragraph). They began negotiations with various groups (government, HEC, etc.), informing them of the Society's position. Because of the "privileged" attitude and sense of importance assumed by some negotiators, it was necessary to train negotiators and rotate people in those roles. In order to bring new people into the organisation, discussion groups were organised based on the self-learning/empowerment process. A kit was prepared which clearly tied wilderness into other issues such as nuclear power, suburban isolation, violence, etc.; in other words, the overall mentality we need to change and suggested ways to change it, encouraging the formation of autonomous groups. More information on the issue was provided in a second discussion kit. These local groups were also involved in nonviolence training to ensure democratic group process and clear understanding of campaigning. Further community outreach work was done, both centrally and by local groups (film nights, etc.). The work done on the local and central levels is equally respected, and activists were encouraged to interchange between them to prevent empire building. Centrally, the Society was organised on a collective basis to provide adequate personal support, break down isolationism of activists, and to share skills. The task functions of the various collectives act as a back-up for "in-the-field'' activists and would include * negotiating, e.g. lobbying and liaison * office support which includes finance and shop * publicity material, kits, displays, etc. * research - background information and alternatives * media * community outreach, perhaps support local group activities also run centrally based activities (demos, etc.) * overview - coordinating collectives. Encourage evaluation of strategy, social gatherings of activists, etc. * training - nonviolence training, skill-sharing workshops, initial thinking on direct actions, keep an eye on action dynamics * special projects, e.g. legal actions, HEC boycott campaign, etc. A Direct Action group would be set up. Depending on how strong the focus of this action in the overall campaign, the group may need to begin work as early as eighteen months before the action. All other collectives MUST have an input into the direct action group to ensure the action is placed in context of the overall campaign and so that the necessary skills and knowledge are present throughout the development of the action. Two courses of direct action were taken. One focused on the Gordon-below-Franklin dam and the other on Tasmanian households and mainland support. The goals of the direct action centred around the dam were as follows: * good media coverage to shift community opinion and power * increase public support and, therefore, increase Society bargaining power * slow work on the dam The priorities of the dam action were clear : Nonviolence training first, and logistics second. The direct actions which focused on Tasmanians generally were centred around local group activity. The demands they made were: * dismantle the HEC and * establish two separate authorities: (i) electricity authority (with no dam builders in it; purely administrative) (ii) construction authority * remove energy-intensive, low-employment industry from Tasmania (e.g. Comalco). Actions possible: * boycott using electricity (on certain days?) by Society supporters in Tasmania * non-payment of electricity bills (this money could be put in trust fund to help continue the fight) * work bans by public servants, etc. on business to do with exploiting the Southwest * union black bans * day stoppages by public servants, etc. * pressure Loans Council to refuse money to low-employment, energy- intensive business. Nonviolence training was compulsory for EVERYONE involved in the dam action. This included support people such as legal advisors. It is crucial that everyone understand the dynamics of such an action, that repression is expected and indicates that the action is working. Standing firm is the only option that can work in the face of repression. Training made clear that this nonviolent direct action does not mean that our opponent is nonviolent, only that WE are. Anyone involved must be prepared to suffer hardships and have an absolute commitment to nonviolence discipline. These requirements are more important than numbers. One hundred such people can be more effective than 1,000 untrained or semi-trained people. Training also points up the need for personal support and looking after ourselves. To allow ourselves to burn out is irresponsible. Not many people who are becoming involved in direct action or civil disobedience for the first time will be sufficiently prepared. Roleplays and training can help, but perhaps participation in less critical actions prior to the blockade can be useful experience. Care should be taken that these actions do not encourage early repressive measures which may be detrimental to the effectiveness of the later action. Suitable action could be pickets of tourist authorities or symbolic flag flying or occupation of HEC offices - acts of protest rather than noncooperation or intervention, the heavier methods of nonviolent action. The blockade has begun. Extensive liaison has happened with police, government and HEC leading up to the action and continued throughout; especially attempts to encourage non-cooperation from police and workers. The government made it illegal to set foot on the works areas. The Wilderness Society recognised that this is the first repressive measure and must be fought. Trespass is a seemingly mild penalty, but this hides its true power - because it APPEARS mild, the government will not be seen as being too harsh unless the blockaders clearly demonstrate its repressive nature. The law also effectively prevents blockaders from placing themselves in a position to significantly slow work. A very good tactic all round from the opposition's point of view. So, recognising this, the Wilderness Society resisted the law by acts of civil disobedience in getting arrested and then * refusing bail, not only because of the unwanted condition of not returning to HEC land, but to protest at the law itself, filling the jails, clogging the system, thereby making the repression more obvious and pressuring the government not to arrest any more people for trespass. * mounting a legal campaign against the action * having mass personal noncooperation by the arrestees in protest at the impropriety of their arrest * if and when released, going back to repeat the offense, again showing the repression by the government by the number of people getting heavier and heavier penalties for doing nothing more than being in a National Park. So it became impossible to justify and enforce the trespass law. The blockading then assumed a larger part in the action. Again, it is critical to stand firm. By giving way, either through accepting the trespass law or moving away from bulldozers, the opponent realises repression is effective and will, therefore, apply it even more vigorously. The Society has gained massive public support through the direct actions. Attitudes are polarised. Pressure on governments has increased. A Federal election was announced. The Society was in a powerful position. The Federal ALP had a better policy than the Liberals, but could not be trusted. If they back the ALP * They are giving up their power to the ALP; Society power is then centralised on the Labor Party * The Society are investing the strength and impact resulting from the dam direct action to an election campaign - the direct action will be defused. * Unless the Society is careful to put it to the public clearly as a very short-term step that MAY lead to saving the Southwest, voters may think that Labor in power means "we won" and Society support will drop away. * The Society will need an airtight agreement that all the Southwest will be protected. If not, by saving only the Franklin through supporting the ALP, every other exploitation proposed will have to be dealt with one by one. Wilderness Society negotiators are conscious of their strength and careful to remember that the Franklin is their short-term goal, not their only goal. All of the Southwest cannot be sacrificed for this one area in negotiations. Also clear in their minds as they bargain is the underlying attitude of Wilderness Society strategy - the mentality that destroys wilderness destroys people. After long talks between the Society negotiators and the ALP, it was clear that the Labor Party was not interested in negotiating beyond the Franklin River. They would make no commitment to save the Southwest wilderness from dams, woodchipping, mining or other exploitation. Society time, money and energy would not be well invested in the ALP; the return would be very small indeed. The Wilderness Society has a mass strong public support and the direct action focused on the dam has reached all its stated goals. A clear and open statement is made to all, claiming a successful end to this action, that, in spite of the mass public support, the ALP is still weak on its policy towards wilderness and that the Society will continue to use the pressure of community awareness to strengthen ALP policy and fight for the Southwest and the Franklin River. If the ALP policy remains weak, people will be urged to vote informally - NO DAMS IN THE SOUTHWEST. This scenario is not intended to be blow-by-blow description of how things might happen, but merely a sketch. We would expect setbacks and repression but we would be ready with our alternatives. The day-to-day things will grow and change with our constant re-evaluation of tactics, guided by an underlying philosophy in nonviolence. Through the struggle, we evaluate, build our organisational strength, promote personal growth and support, and are consistent in our "means and end" result. We know this is a long, hard struggle and that we must have structures and methods whereby we can sustain pressure. We know there will be highs and lows for many years, if necessary. Kathy Brouillette Judy Baker Adrian Donkers Michael Lockwood