Nurrungar - 
Theory in Magnificent Practice

The period of 23 September to 1 October, 1989 saw one of the best coordinated
peace actions against the bases in Australia for years.  The climax and focus
of action was at Nurrungar, situated near Woomera, and spanned five days.  The
Peac Camp at Nurrungar, the actions and reactions of government and police
caused the name of Nurrungar to go not only all over Australia, but all over
the world.  We have been receiving reports and requests for more information
from such diverse places as New York, Denver, Boston, London, Sweden and
Ireland.

The Peace Camp attracted a diverse range of groups as is to be expected in a
coalition; among the groups which came to Nurrungar was the Melbourne
Rainforest Action Group (MRAG),  This group's presence was a cause for joy to
the organizers because environmentalists were making the link between nuclear
war and environmental hazards.  The group's commitment to peace, organization
and process were a cause for admiration.  The splendid research of
international law and Nurrungar's transgression of it were invaluable.  Also
indisputable were MRAG's bravery and willingness to be arrested.  It was
therefore a surprise to read in NVT #11 (Nov/Dec 1989) Robert Burrowes'
slagging off of the whole camp.  The tone of his article is entirely
unfortunate and terribly slanted.

During the camp there was much exasperation about the hours MRAG caused us to
stand in the sun debating.  It would never occur to any of us to dip into a
poisonous attack on MRAG because of that.

Peace groups and other social change groups set themselves a very high agenda.
The reasoning goes like this: "If we are going to have a more peaceful
(environmentally sound) world, the way we must act must be a microcosm of what
the world can be".  In this way, expectations are very high and there is a
tendancy to be overly critical and very demanding.  Maybe this is the reason
for the sharpness and holier-than-thou tone of the Burrowes article.

However, even on this score, the camp at Nurrungar passes with flying colours.
Prior to the Peace Camp, extensive and respectful talks were held with the
traditional owners.  No expenditure of energy was too high in order to meet
and consult the Kokutha people.  Permission and agreement was given to the
camp to walk over the northern border of Nurrungar property.

The rent paid for the one acre of land for five days was $1000, freely and
joyfully given to the Kokutha People Land Council.  One of the most powerful,
if not the most powerful, moments of the camp was when the Kokutha elder, Max
Thomas, interrupted a MRAG action and asked the police if he could inspect his
land.  He was the only person allowed freely onto the prohibited land; he was
more powerful than the MRAG and the rest of us put together.

The microcosm of the Peace Camp society recognized the first step to a new
peaceful world is the preeminence of justice.  In our Australian caes, we have
to right the injustices done to the indigenous people of this country.

In some way, the patriarchal structures of our society were countered by the
way women held the majority of key roles and a separate women's camp was
established and respected.  The three national spokespeople for the Anti-Bases
Coalition are women.

In the same vein, the democratic values were paramount through a system of
affinity groups and large group plenaries.  The coordinating group, so
obtrusive to Burrowes, was on the contrary open and respectful of all the
different groups' wishes and styles of action.  We were anxious to simply
provide a context in which all could feel valued and respected.  The autonomy
of affinity groups was respected.  The hardest test was the proposal by some
to strip near the gate.  The big meeting recommended that the group not do
this, as it would be trivialized by the media, but again acknowledged the
group's and individuals' rights.  The action took place.

The organizers, the coordination group, had this respectful attitude to all
the different streams and traditions present within the Peace Camp.  Imagine
the trade union group tipping over their traditions, which have served them
well, for the AABCC or the MRAG approach, or imagine the Catholic Worker
group, with a fifty year tradition tracing back to Dorothy Day and other
luminaries like the Berrigan brothers, turning their backs on that history for
the MRAG approach.  This is just to mention a few of the different strands
present in the camp.

The resulting decision-making process may look disorganized, but the
appearance was deceptive; far from being disorganized, the coordination group
constructed and facilitated a situation in which many views and traditions
could live peacefully together and work together in a way which maximized
their energy and creativity.  Essential learning, yet to be entered into by
MRAG.

Burrowes lacks tolerance and respect.  The microcosm developed at the Peace
Camp was not perfect, and we the organizers, would be grateful to hear advice
on improvments.  If the MRAG had a way to make a blockade at Nurrungar last
for hours, we would have been delighted to hear about it.  However, there is a
way to enter into dialogue; the most effective way is not to go immediately
into print.  Robert Burrowes, despite his high principles, has broken the
simple rule of respect.

The basic thoeretical flaws in Robert's article, entitled Theoretical
Reflections (eds: Nurrungar - A Theoretical Reflection, NVT #11, Nov/Dec 1989)
are that he assumes he has the understanding of the liturature and the
effective political strategy.  He assumes that effective MRAG work in
Melbourne was/is automatically transferable to Nurrungar.  A suitable, more
humble approach would aid Robert's undoubted gifts in the nonviolence area.

In regard to the literature, Robert must surely recognize that the amount of
material on nonviolence would cover several hundred metres.  His sliver of the
literature is what he feels most at home with.  Saul Alinsky would have an
entirely different perspective, as would Daniel Berrigan.  I am not suggesting
that the Anti-Bases Coalition follows the Alinksy line, but it is a world away
from Robert Burrowes' view of nonviolence.

Alinksy suggests that Gandhi, the great prophet of nonviolence, would have
used guns if appropriate.  "If Gandhi had had the weapons and the people to
use them, this means would not have been so unreservedly rejected as the world
would like to think." (Rules For Radicals p 39)

There is no one way of acting nonviolently and the space allowed for
spontaneity is not a sign of disorganization, but of wisdom.  The Anti-Bases
Coalition Activist Handbook, so airily dismissed by Robert, is the collected
wisdom of the Franklin, Roxby Downs and Pine Gap '87 Handbooks adapted for
Nurrungar.  It is a statement of theory put into good (not perfect) practice.

Politically ineffective?
Burrowes claims that strategies used at Nurrungar made the action politically
ineffective.  How can that be judged in such a cavalier fashion?  Consider the
following - every media outlet had Nurrungar news on it for several days;
debate was gagged in the Senate; a previously yellow-livered ALP "left" sought
an inspection of Nurrungar; Caucus slapped Beazley on the wrist.  Cartoonists
let their creativity run riot; debates raged in letters columns from diverse
papers from Wagga to Whyalla.  The list goes on forever.  Stack that against
Robert's claim of an ineffectual action.

The political agenda of the Anti-Bases Coalition was to first of all make
Nurrungar a household word (achieved).  Secondly, Nurrungar's role is a
difficult concept to get across simply.  The big Sunday papers in most major
centres had the headline "Troops fly in to defend spy base". Not perfect, but
pretty close to the mark!

The Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition has, from time to time, to remind itself of
what it is up against.  Namely the might of the United States Government, big
business and other powerful US interest groups.  These groups are aligned with
similar elements in the Australian establishment.  Powerful opponents who
require clear and precise tactics to compete against.  The Australian
Government's chief tactic is to keep the existence of Nurrungar quiet; many
editorials call it excessive secrecy.

There is no greater evidence for this policy than the behaviour of the two
major political parties in the Senate.  Therefore, every time Nurrungar's name
is mentioned, repeated, explained, etc. is a victory for us.  In other words,
almost "any publicity is good publicity" when it comes to Nurrungar.  The
denigration of "stunts" referred to in the Burrowes' article is unfair and
untrue.

Secrecy and the police
There was a difference of opinion between the MRAG and the rest of the Peace
Camp over secrecy.  Robert falters by assuming he has the complete grasp of
how things should operate.  He quotes the Anti-Bases' Coalition Activist
Handbook as saying "no specific details of arrestable actions will be given to
the police."  However he leaves out an important section which says "the
police will be given information only in hazardous or life threatening
situations in consultation with the coordinating collective".

In regard to the blockade of Thursday, the police were informed about the
blockade, the timing, etc.  I can report this as I was the person who reported
to the police. I remember saying "we don't want any turkeys running over our
people".  The police side of the blockade was handled quite well, I grant them
some recognition.  There was some minor breakdown in communication prior to
the action.  This was explained and accepted by the camp.  To air it again is
pointless.

The police
The police at Nurrungar were not an amorphous mass of unintelligent opponents
awaiting our enlightenment.  They had an agenda of their own.  It is not true
that they were no monitors in the group during the actions. There was an
active police liaison team from our camp and a team of police liaising with
us. I was on the Peace Camp team for some days. The police team were also the
police media liaison team and their policy was quickly evident.

Basically, they approached us in a way to "domesticate" us, to keep us under
control.  They were good at their job and clever tacticians.  We were quite
simply better and more effective.

The police used horses for the first time on Friday.  They appealed for people
to get away from the fence or the horses would remove them.  Many used their
democratic right to refuse and they were moved off by police horses.  As the
police came to the last few people left on the fence (mainly women),
Superintendent Willoughby, in a loud voice and with a red face, shouted: "That
woman has a rock in her hand."  I approached the two horse riders and
explained I was part of the negotiating team.  They backed off a small
distance.  I then approached the woman and said "that policeman says you have
a rock in your hand". She simply held out two open empty hands.

Undeterred, that evening the police media team issued a press release claiming
that a young woman had ground a rock into the chest of a police horse, and
that others among us had thrown rocks.

This illustrates that the police have an agenda too, and they are
sophisticated and dedicated in achieving their own ends.

In that same incident, a spontaneous chant arose of "take the animal off the
horse".  Within seconds a megaphone person said "Look, we agreed not to engage
in personal abuse of police".  There was then instant silence.  The isolated
angry word used at the police can hardly be the enormous breakdown of
discipline Robert Burrowes claims it to be.

In fact, in Theoretical Reflections he says: "There are plenty of historical
examples where disciplined activists, marshals and peacekeeping teams have
been able to contain or isolate politically ineffective behaviour".  This is
exactly what happened as the above illustrates.

In any theoretical reflection, it is imperative that all the variables are
taken into account before some assertion is made.  In regard to police and
protective services, their superiors vastly underestimated the size and
resolve of the Peace Camp.  It is one of the few recent demonstrations where
the police did not outnumber the protesters.  Another reason for the
"shortage" of police was that the exquisite and very astute practitioners of
nonviolence, namely the South Australian Anti-Bases Coalition, picked the
Grand Final weekend for the demonstration.

Bannon, the Premier of South Australia, was facing a State election.  The last
thing he wanted was the accusation of wasting millions on a "bunch of
hippies".  We have no evidence but we have been reliably informed that Bannon
was also "miffed" with Beazley because some defence contracts went to NSW.

The arrival of troops was also a public vote of no confidence in the police
and Australian Protective Services.  Understaffed, embarrassed and
under-resourced, the police were under terrible internal pressure.  The fact
that the police lost discipline on the last day has to be sheeted home to
these factors.  Factors which were very public and easily observable, yet in
Theoretical Reflections, the whole blame is sheeted home to the protesters.

The irony of this "theory" is the place of the police.  While I would never
wish any physical harm to any person, practice and theory combine to show that
the police have a job to do, they are paid to do it and in all probability
enjoy their work.  The rate of conversion of police to protesters must be
worse than to Christianity in Iran.  Why then is so much energy expended in
not upsetting "sensitive" police?

And conversely, why are the practitioners of nonviolent politics so cavalier
about the sensitivities of the organisers of the Nurrungar Peace Camp?  Words
such as "sabotage", "poorly organised", "stunts", "politically ineffective"
are sprinkled through the article.  There is probably much that Robert
Burrowes has to teach the Anti-Bases Coalition and equally there is a
respectful and effective way of doing it.  Dipping into public recriminations
which are hurtful and unfair is not effective.  Basically, Robert and the MRAG
have been disloyal to their friends and allies.  One section of the literature
says "love your enemies"; it certainly does not say "hate your friends".

Sabotage: is that the word?
In regard to property damage, again we have the theoretician out of touch with
reality.  Night after night we are regaled by images of Berliners using picks
on the Wall.  These people are heroes, wonderful expressions of the people's
right to be free and democratic.  Yet, essentially, the removal of the fence
at Nurrungar was objectively the same action as the removal of the Berlin
wall.

They are both about the destruction of a fence, a barrier.  Why is one an
heroic act and the other vandalism, sabotage and property destruction?  It is
worth realising that the Anti-Bases Coalition Activist Handbook says: "If
destruction of property takes place it should be carried out as an element of
a purposeful action -- and not be merely vandalism."

There were several occasions on which the organisers responded to media
questions about this issue.  They are worth reflecting on again.  We expressed
the hope that people could become as excited about the preparation for nuclear
holocaust which Nurrungar represents as they do about rusty wire.  Media angst
and outrage about the fence is pure hypocrisy.

In regard to graffiti, we said: "Graffiti is the media of the people."  In
Australia, media ownership is restricted to several people while the bulk of
people are exposed to little alternative views.  There was discussion of the
issue of property and graffiti and a consensus agreement reached that the area
from the turn-off to the base was the only area to be touched.  In the main,
this agreement was kept.

The media
Since Robert was in the Peace Camp and, I believe, never in our media office
situated at Woomera, acceptance of his allegation that there was no "coherent
media strategy" which "deprived the action of much of the educative publicity
that was possible" takes some leap in faith.

In the Secretariat of the Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, we have
the most extensive set of print media cuttings from every State.  There are
recordings of TV and radio interviews from that time.  Unless Robert Burrowes
or anyone else has undertaken that research, most of his assertions about
media effectiveness at Nurrungar will remain assertions.

Good theory relies on good analysis of the situation.  The bases question in
Australia touches many chords and has done so for twenty-five years.  The bulk
of the media is owned by the pro-bases lobby and the big business interests. 
Despite this, we were able to have almost total media coverage from Perth to
Cairns.  Some media vilified us, for example, the Australian and the Financial
Times.  Other media were fairer.  One columnist compared us to Archbishop
Romero, and one paper the Daily Telegraph carried the following on October 2:
front page headline, a reporting article further on, a supportive editorial, a
supportive cartoon, and an extensive article on the role of Nurrungar. 
Sydneysiders know that the Telegraph ignores peace issues and sometimes even
Palm Sunday marches.  It was a considerable breakthrough.

This media response did not come about by accident.  As mentioned earlier,
there was a media office staffed 24 hours a day in Woomera with an arrangement
for dictation to Adelaide for all press releases and onto fax to all media
outlets.  There were radio interviews almost around the clock and, as the week
progressed, more and more attention was given to our side of the story.  On
the last night, our press release said that Nurrungar had been turned into a
war zone.  This became headlines in the Sydney Morning Herald, the West
Australian and one or two other papers.

The media team at the Nurrungar demonstration was professional, available and
articulate.  No-one who was totally involved within the camp and within
his/her group is in a position to make the sort of assertions Theoretical
Reflections does.

Professionalism
Quite counter to Robert's suggestions, the Australian Anti-Bases Campaign
Coalition and in particular the Anti-Bases Coalition of South Australia
organised and co-ordinated a difficult job with aplomb and panache.

Just look at the difficulties: a tiny budget, hostile environment, no
resources and a huge number of people. The potential for serious health risks
was always present, yet there was no outbreak of infection. Hygiene, water
supply, child care, media, communication, police liaison - all were handled
calmly and competently.  A huge range of ages from babies to eighty year olds.
The child care coordinator has an article in the Anti-Bases Bulletin (Nov/Dec
1989), expressing her admiration for "the way children were accepted in the
demonstration".

This did not happen by accident but because of the generosity of a few who
happily gave their time and energy, either freely or for a very small
pittance.  These are the people who Robert Burrowes and the MRAG so callously
criticise and condemn.  What is more violent - cutting a piece of rusty wire
or putting a verbal "boot" into generous, committed people? Shame on you,
Robert.

The Nurrungar campaign has not ended, the Peace Camp of 27 September to 1
October was a giant, well organised step forward to closing the base.  The
Nurrungar actions of 1989 placed the name of Nurrungar in the minds of
millions of Australians.
Denis Doherty
AABCC Sectretariat Worker