Warships and the Nonviolent Dynamic Nonviolence Today #6, January 1989 According to Gene Sharp1, nonviolent action is based on a pluralistic conception of the nature of power, that is, power is fragile, shared by all sectors of society and dependent on the replenishment of its sources. According to this analysis, all governments, hierarchical systems, oppression and injustice are ultimately dependent upon the submission and cooperation (or apathy) of the majority of people. It is thus people (and the resources they provide) which sustain injustice; it is the refusal to cooperate which undermines it. To the nonviolent activist, worthwhile social change is the product of a revolution in consciousness and culture. The key to change using this dynamic is thus psychological. Change will be apparent in the transformed self-concept, values, attitudes and beliefs displayed by individuals, and in their modified behaviour. Empowered individuals are capable of choosing to refuse cooperation with mechanisms of exploitation and oppression; disempowered individuals are not. Empowerment occurs largely as a result of participation in grassroots action; and this is why nonviolent activists work primarily at the community level. Community campaigns may or may not be designed from a nonviolent perspective however. For those campaigns designed by nonviolent activists, full advantage can be taken of the invisible dynamics characteristic of nonviolent action. In these cases, astute activists will design tactics which are consistent with the long-term revolutionary strategy. Most campaigns however are not conducted in accordance with the principles of nonviolent action. They are conducted against a background largely devoid of respect for a particular power model, a careful analysis, a clear vision and a strategy based on clearly understood dynamics. They simply recognise that "education and protest" often work, even if they do not know why. Many of these campaigns pay lip-service to "nonviolence" but understand little or nothing about it. There is often no theory to guide the practice. Where there are few nonviolent activists, non-involvement in such campaigns is certainly one option; although perhaps a rather luxurious one. For nonviolent activists who choose to get involved in such campaigns, much of their energy is utilised in encouraging other activists to employ nonviolent principles (perhaps by demonstrating small successes) and in (openly) minimising the negative effects of inferior tactics. Of the many campaigns being conducted in Australia at the moment, an important one is the struggle to transform Australia's security policy. It is a campaign on which nonviolent activists have had little impact so far - largely because there are so few of us. This will change! The campaign has various facets but at the activist level, the major foci have been the struggles against uranium mining, the US bases and the port intrusions by nuclear warships. The rest of this article concentrates on some elements of the recent warships campaign from the perspective of nonviolent politics. It offers brief specific comment on three elements of the campaign: the use of the media, the role of secrecy and the nature of relationships with the police. These were persistent and often divisive issues in the warships campaign. The Media Many protest activities were covered in the mainstream news media, although relatively little attention was focussed on the issues. This reflects the news media's preference for entertainment rather than solid debate of substantive issues. The current affairs programs are more likely to facilitate issue discussion, but gaining time on them is more difficult. Sound nonviolent action is politically effective and most of the warship activities around the country were indeed just that. In the case of the rally in Melbourne, the behaviour of some people was counter-productive. And while some sections of the media no doubt over-emphasised the activities of this few, this is treatment of which revolutionary activists have long been aware. As successful actions undermine the existing power structure, it is inevitable that sections of it respond in ways which aim to discredit and repress us. Responding to this is one aspect of the struggle. Carefully selected actions, creative symbolism and positive alternative images which convey our message independently of mainstream media commentary are thus vital elements to be considered when designing politically effective campaigns. Hence, the careful selection of tactics and an agreement to maintain nonviolent discipline throughout the struggle are important if the nonviolent dynamic is to be utilised fully. While the water actions and many other activities around the country were successful in this regard, the rally in Melbourne clearly was not. Secrecy Designing tactics which do not rely on secrecy, which allow significant participation, which entail a commitment to nonviolent discipline and which encourage open confrontation between new ideas and old, is an ongoing part of the struggle for those keen to utilise the dynamic of nonviolence in the struggle against warships and revolutionary campaigns generally. Eliminating the use of secrecy is highly desirable. From the organisational angle it precludes the need for elites of informed people and complicated communication flows. From the tactical viewpoint it reduces the opponents' fears, it tends to undermine the commitment of state functionaries (such as police officers) to their particular role, and it builds trust between the groups for future actions. From the political perspective, it has the advantages of demonstrating respect for the opponents, of establishing the basis for open dialogue, of portraying positive images of the activists, and most importantly, of building respect for the integrity of the movement because of its honesty, openness and trustworthiness. The value of renouncing secrecy is clearcut to Sharp. Being truthful and frank with the opponent and the public concerning intentions and plans is a corollary of the requirements of fearlessness and nonviolent discipline. It is also consistent with the fundamental mechanism of change inherent in the technique of nonviolent action in which shifts of loyalty and the invisible undermining of the power of the opponent often operate more quickly than dramatic acts which might only be possible through secrecy. The Police It was evident from discussions in Sydney that activist groups were anxious to avoid a confrontation with police which they believed would distract attention from the issue of nuclear warship visits. And although there had been liaison with the police before the actions, the consensus of opinion within the Sydney anti-warships community was that broad outlines other than details of actions should be given to police; this was similar to the consensus in Brisbane and for Melbourne's first water action, but different to the decision adopted in Portland and for the second water action in Melbourne. It is apparent that there is considerable wariness about giving the police too many details of protest actions; in some cases this is based on past experiences which would seem to confirm the wisdom of such a policy. In the case of Brisbane, where a high level of police harassment of protesters engaged in water actions has even led to injury, such a policy seems necessary in order to organise a worthwhile action involving relatively few committed activists. Some nonviolent activists in Brisbane are well aware of the tactical and political disadvantages of secrecy, and yet the public impact of members of activist groups such as the Peace and Environment Fleet, Justice Products and the Catholic Worker (each with varying degrees of commitment to nonviolent philosophy) are testimony to their political relevance and courage in the face of probably the severest police repression in Australia. There is no doubt that reworking the dynamic between activists and the police in some states will be extremely difficult. However, I am totally convinced that it is up to the nonviolent activists participating in political struggles to encourage a move in this direction. It is worthwhile to encourage other activists to understand the dynamics of nonviolent action so that they see the value in reworking relationships with the police and other unsympathetic groups, sometimes including sections of the media. It is pointless expecting our opponents to rework the relationship; it must be our initiative. Commitment to the dynamics of nonviolent action requires us to be open, honest and frank with the public, the media and the police about our intentions. Only in this way will the nonviolent dynamic work fully in our favour. Robert J. Burrowes Footnote: 1. The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Boston, Mass., Porter Sargent, 1973.