Monkeywrenching and Conflict in NVDA

From what I hear and see of the practice of nonviolence in this country today,
the question of "monkeywrenching" has the potential to either enhance or
seriously damage our movement towards community empowerment for a peaceful,
harmonious planet.

In Nonviolence Today the question seems to be most often debated around issues
of
* Is the destruction of property violent or nonviolent?
* Is secrecy violent or nonviolent?
* What is the impact on public perception?
* Will it cause repression our movement can't withstand?

I suspect that these questions can only ever be answered in particular -
related to concrete issues and proposals as they emerge in real-life
campaigns, under real-life conditions.  And in this sense they are questions
to be left to those activists and participants confronted most immediately by
them.

To this extent I am critical of Robert Burrowes' presentation of nonviolence
as a priori excluding sabotage from consideration, and I find continuing
references to a definitive literature to be elitist and disempowering.  I can
understand the temptation for some activists to score easy points by labeling
adherents of this view as "the Church of Nonviolence".

However, critical as I am of Rob's position, I am horrified by the egoism and
lack of self-discipline shown by some of the "feral" action junkies who assume
that sabotage is the first and most powerful line of defense for Planet Earth.

In this article, I would like to offer some arguments based on specified
observations.

"Project Sunburn"
Some months ago, after long and careful thought, I took a personal position on
"monkeywrenching" in one particular campaign - and I think this position has
some general value.

The issue was a small one, involving the destruction of a few dozen trees at
Griffith University, and the erection of an Expo Sunsail there.  However, as
is the way of such things, the issue was also a large one- the right of a
community to more decisions regarding its development, and the defense of that
right against the arrogant power of elitist technocrats.

It is important to say here that for nine months leading up to the destruction
of the trees, a number of people, myself included, had tried all available
forms of discussion and negotiation to arrive at a better proposal.  In all
cases we had the majority (but not unanimous) support of the University
community.  In all cases our proposals were dismissed without proper and
careful consideration by the power structure.

After the trees were cut down, I felt great grief and anger.  Outrage really. 
I was determined that the perpetrators of this act would never realize the
object of their desires.  (I reasoned that to allow them to do so would only
encourage them to further dawn raids, and further illegitimate exercises of
power).  I determined that if the Sunsail was erected, I would "burn it down",
and I made such statements publicly to the officials responsible.

It is interesting to note two things about these early statements.
* when made orally, it was shocking and offensive to some, but mostly it was
disregarded as either empty words, or simply an expression of anger.
* everybody, myself included, assumed that the action, if taken, would be
secretive, in order to allow it to be carried through at all.

For me though, the statements sprang from a genuine and deeply felt
commitment.  I felt bound to act, and therefore bound to carefully consider my
actions.  As I thought, I arrived at some decisions.
* it would not be a secretive action, but would be done publicly, as a work of
performance art.  A date and time would be announced and invitations issued. I
would stand trial, and go to prison for it if need be.
* the act of destruction would be intensively prepared for through a process
of community discussion and consultation to promote understanding, improve the
action, and win support.
* I would work diligently at a parallel process of trying all available means
to get the University to reverse its own decision, and rehabilitate the
damaged area.

Toward all these ends, I sent a letter to the Chancellor of the University,
setting out my intentions and the reason for them.

The thoughts I would like to offer for general consumption are these:

On determining to make the action public, and to make myself fully accountable
to the processes of law, I felt myself to enter a position of great power.  I
was occupying "the moral high ground" in a way which would compel the
attention of the community I was part of.  I believed my action was just.  I
believed I could demonstrate that justice to any audience.

I also felt myself to be demonstrating the limitations of unjust power.  No
matter how much money, time, legal power, or technical expertise the
University officials had, they could never achieve their goals while even one
person stood firm on principles they were willing to self-sacrifice for.

To me, the essence of this power was the willingness to self-sacrifice.  It
was definitely a very scary feeling to put myself in a position where I might
serve up to seven years imprisonment - but I could see no other way.   Once
the decision was taken, I felt comfortable and confident with it.  It felt
right.

The other illuminating factor was the amazing degree of support I gained from
the faculty staff for my position.  If any reader is a student or staff member
of a University, you will know yourself the "apathy" (or what I prefer to call
powerlessness) of academics today.

Yet these academics did become motivated when they learned of what I was
doing.  One very conservative professor offered support, both financially
towards publication, and as an expert witness at any trial, and networked very
effectively with other faculty members to make the issue a live one with them.
Five academics out of twelve I approached agreed to "form a professional
opinion" about the administrative processes of the University and transmit
that opinion in writing to the Chancellor.

I think this mobilization of the faculty shows that monkeywrenching does not
necessarily alienate members of the general public.  In some circumstances,
where the issues can be made clear and direct, people will understand that
strong actions are necessary. 

The willingness to accept personal responsibility and punishment legitimizes
the action in the hearts and minds of all those who are aware of and involved
in the issue.

The point I am trying to make here is that I believe there is a place for
monkeywrenching, and that it can meet with public affirmation and support,
provided
* the actions are carried out publicly, with those who commit them being
willing to accept trial and punishment
* there is a strong focus on community education and awareness of the issues
involved, including why such actions are necessary
* there is a strong parallel attempt to pursue resolution of the underlying
problem through all available means.

The end result of this particular exercise was in March this year when the
University Council decided to sell the Sunsail, and rehabilitate the area into
a forested theatre.

Fraser Island Actions
I got involved with the Rainforest Action Group in Brisbane when they were
looking for Nonviolence workshops in Brisbane, for some blockade actions to
stop logging on Fraser Island.  The initial workshops were to lead up to an
action camp between 17-20 April.  (There are more to come - workshops and
action camps.)

The issue of monkeywrenching has been raised on three occasions so far.  On
two of them it was raised in ways which were destructive to group process.  I
believe the problem was the sense of "urgency and despair" which is carried by
numbers of direct activists, and the lack of adequate tools and understanding
for dealing with that.

The first time the issue was in the first workshop evening - the main themes
of which were:
* what is violence?
* responses to violence
* anger and prejudice
* what is nonviolence?

Some eighteen people attended the workshop, and the question of
monkeywrenching was raised towards the end of the evening.  It was an issue
all these people had thought about, and they used the workshop as a means of
exploring and clarifying their perspectives and feelings.  To conclude it, we
went around the circle, sharing.

About three quarters of those present thought monkeywrenching was something to
consider, and something they would be willing to carry out - but almost all
who thought so qualified it as "a last resort".

Each time someone said so, the question was posed "last resort for who?" -
with the clear suggestion that in some circumstances, it would be the trees',
or the other beings', last resort who were threatened with destruction, and we
would sometimes be obliged to act on their behalf, to gain time for other
means to work.

The next evening's workshop was meant for roleplay, but the group turned it to
strategy, and planning.  At this evening, there were newcomers to the
workshop, some of whom held a clear, personal preference for some form of
monkeywrenching.

I believe their experience with other actions may have led them to expect
automatic opposition to monkeywrenching - but their way of putting it forward
at this workshop was to insist on it being treated as the issue for first
discussion, and the only viable option for a 'real' action.

In effect, this prevented the continuing group from building on their earlier
understanding, and planning an action they were comfortable with.  I believe
it also interfered with trust-building and solidarity.

Of interest here also is that it was the same group of monkeywrenching
advocates who argued most strongly against the group's right to call for an
"alcohol and drug free camp".  Attempts "to limit people's personal freedoms"
were portrayed as fascism and police thuggery.

The third time the issue was raised was at Hervey Bay on the first
(preparatory) day of the action camp where a number of people had arrived and
prepared as an affinity group, ready and equipped to carry out some
eco-defense actions.

Unfortunately, most others (including myself) were not in a position to create
the space for such affinity groups to operate.  In addition to a whole lot of
information/ideas/preparation (necessary to understand and justify a
monkeywrenching action) being missing, the camp was logistically very
difficult to organise.

The affinity group people did not feel able to remain within the large group
meeting structure - which was spending a lot of time going over what was for
them old ground.  They left to go to the island and carry out
reconnaissance/independent actions.

As they were leaving, the whole group asked for an assurance that
monkeywrenching actions would not be carried out prior to consent.  This
undertaking was given, and carried through - although it meant these people
did not achieve their original aims at any time during the camp.

The large group heaved a sigh of relief when these people left for the island,
simply because their presence required a constant focussing of attention on an
issue of undoubted importance, but one we were incapable of resolving at that
time.

It remains to be seen what happens in the future.

Conclusion
I have a very strong feeling that we must create:
* a means of introducing/continuing a constructive debate on monkeywrenching
at all sites of civil disobedience actions.
* a mechanism for allowing affinity groups to design and carry out
monkeywrenching actions if any vital and/or long term situations seem to
warrant it.
And for this last I would recommend that the agreement we should ask for is
simply "if you won't act openly, willing to do the prison time you'll earn,
don't do the action."

Bryan Law