Gulf Supply Ship Blockaded

As the conflict in the Gulf escalated, with the media reporting increasing
intransigence from all sides of the conflict, members of the Gulf Peace Team
Support Group planned an action which attempted to highlight the obscenity of
world events and Australia's active involvement and support of the win/lose
mentality of militarism.

On the 9th January, particularly given the lack of active opposition to the
impending war in the gulf it was evident that an effective nonviolent action
was essential.  The action involved a blockade of the supply ship, Westralia,
by twenty-seven people, and an act of civil resistance where sixteen people
scaled a fence in an attempt to speak to sailors and were subsequently
arrested.  Whilst in the water, swimmers first of all formed a human peace
sign, in front of the bow of the ship and then physically resisted the ship
moving off, by symbolically placing their hands on the bow.
 
The intention of blockading the supply ship, Westralia, was to actively
intervene in Australia's military involvement in the Gulf conflict.  The three
components of nonviolent action, protest and persuasion, non-cooperation and
active intervention were incorporated in this action.
 
Banners, leaflets, media release and group networking served as an educative
role in raising the profile of the issues, and were therefore, a form of
protest and persuasion.  The act of climbing the fence to speak to sailors was
a form of non-cooperation, particularly given that public access to the area
had been revoked for this event.  The blockade of the ship was a form of
active intervention, in Australia's military activities as it delayed the
departure of the ship for fourteen minutes, YAHOO....
 
The lead up to this action was short, due to the limited notice in the press
of the departure of the ship.  It was early days for the increasing numbers of
groups organising resistance against the war.  This action exemplified the
importance of networking, with active involvement of five different groups,
from metropolitan and country areas.  The short notice of the ships departure
precluded the development of an action within the context of a longer term
strategy.  However, it provides an excellent example of the strength of a
disciplined, focussed action, where the group made a decision to take strong
action and not be deterred by the fear of possible sanctions or difficulties
in completing the action.  There were some doubts expressed in planning as to
whether swimmers would even get in the water.  The clear focus of the group,
i.e., to actively intervene in the ships' departure and in so doing interrupt
a part of Australia's military activity, served to empower group members.  The
determination of activists was pretty clear to all those involved.  Swimmers
were removed from the water and taken back to where they started or out to
sea, their response was to swim back to the ship's bow and attempt to
re-establish the blockade.  There was plenty of opportunity to explain the
purpose of the action to police and naval police, which served a valuable
purpose in deroling these people from their macho, depersonalised roles.  The
persistence of swimmers in returning to the ship also allowed direct
expression of protest to the sailors lined up along the deck of the ship who
responded with various gestures as it departed.
 
On shore the activists who intended climbing the fence to speak to sailors
were successful in focussing their activities; some were subsequently arrested
as they climbed the fence to the guests area.  Only a small number of
activists supplied a support role in this action. The support role proved to
be most difficult, as the group was quickly dispersed.  Once swimmers were in
the water, it was unclear what was happening as the wharf area was effectively
blocked off.  Arrest support was then hampered as there was confusion as to
whether any of those in the water had been arrested.
 
Despite the overall success of this action, there are a number of lessons to
be learnt.  Before swimmers left to enter the water there was insufficient
time to adequately deal with the various activities that had been planned by
the activists.  Activists moved to the public access area and  then attempted
to form a human land based peace sign, run a media conference, don wet suits
and organise a land based action, all within a time frame of thirty five
minutes.  This was confusing for the activists and inflicted undue
responsibility on the land based activists and supporters.
 
Role-plays and hassle lines before the action allowed for a decision from the
whole group to actively speak to sailors.  These role-plays were important
because it was also decided that it would be inappropriate to engage family
and friends in discussions.
 
The action attracted  media coverage from all Melbourne television evening
news services, Melbourne and Geelong daily papers and radio.  The media
coverage of this action was an interesting example of the win/lose mind set of
the dominant 'Western' paradigm.  Generally the coverage of the event
portrayed Australia's increasing militarism, in terms of glorifying
nationalism, patriotism and militarism.  There was a strong focus on the
presence of the first Australian women to go and join in active military
adventures.
 
The most obvious purpose of this action was to stop the supply ship,
Westralia, from departing for the Gulf.  However, the context of this action
was one where there was very little public debate of alternatives to war and
little active opposition to what was happening, and to Australia's
involvement.  At that stage the agenda was changing from Australia's role as a
sort of pseudo 'peace keeping force' enforcing the embargo on exports to Iraq,
arguably, within the UN resolution, which had been passed by the Security
Council, to one of engaging actively in war against the people of Iraq.
 
The overall message portrayed by the media was of  only two options, either
going to war or giving into aggression, in a submissive fashion.  The use of
nonviolent action in relation to the Gulf conflict is then particularly
appropriate, i.e. using a means consistent with the peaceful and nonviolent
resolution conflict.  Interestingly, the powerful message of this sort of
action, was not lost on enlisted people in the military.  Whilst involved in
discussions with military people during a peace camp outside St.Paul's
cathedral in Melbourne, two young men who are in the army, commented on the
action. They were particularly enthusiastic about the people who swam out in
front of 'X' tonnes of naval vessel, to express their outrage!
Sue Casey and Bernadette McCartney