An AIDEX Experience

It has taken me some time to sit down and write this.  The residue of AIDEX
that sat in the pit of my stomach for some weeks has finally dispersed enough
for me to engage again in discussion and debate.  But I feel afraid that what
I write here may be misinterpreted as superfluous criticism of individuals or
their organisations and will lay me open to personal criticism.  It is only
my intention, however, to use "empowering evaluation"; observation and
criticism embedded in respect for the people involved in an attempt to move
in a positive direction.  Primarily, I will consider my own affinity group,
its strengths, its problems, its choice of tactics and its relationship to
the rest of the people and groups at AIDEX.

I attended AIDEX as part of the Perseverance Affinity Group.  We met twice in
Melbourne before going to Canberra but many of us had worked together
previously. Only the first of these meetings was well attended with twenty
people.  At this meeting we did very simple introductions (there were a lot
of new people) and planned an action to be initiated by our group which
included the possibility of anybody joining in. We also made arrangements
quickly and vaguely about food, transport, and other practical requirements
for AIDEX.

Maintenance
As I left AIDEX two weeks later, the thing that consumed me most, and that
was most clear and central to much that happened to our group, was the very
poor regard we had for maintenance of group.  There were many things that
contributed to this but there are never excuses for bad process.  We arrived
at different times in separate isolated (sometimes self-sufficient) cells.
There was never any meeting process just for maintenance issues and thus
action and tactics always consumed gathering time.  We did not have a bus to
travel together which meant that time off at night was available only to
those who happened to be invited to fit in the available cars.  There was no
regular emotional support structure.  We didn't eat together which often
meant that many of us didn't eat at all. 

The affinity group was also very flexible in allowing people to join
meetings.  It had no clear limits as we invited many individuals who were
unattached and needing the support that such a group offers.  This became
very confusing and added to our maintenance problems.

Outline
The following is a basic outline of the parts of AIDEX that I was involved
in: 
* Friday - arrived, set up camp
* Saturday - checked out the camp, the various events etc.  5 p.m. - attended
the North Gate where there were a group of drunken people and some broken
glass (on the road where I presumed a human blockade would take place). 
There were murmurings of large truckloads of equipment arriving soon.  While
four-fifths of the people sat down to make a democratic decision about what
to do next, one fifth decided actually to make the decision and began setting
up barricades of metal junk.  I was afraid of these as I considered their
components as possible projectiles.  At this stage we heard that there was
another gate unstaffed.  Immediately, some members of our affinity group
offered to go and set up a people's blockade of this gate, without
barricades, and at 6 p.m. a group of nineteen women and two(!) men had
decided to put into effect the "star" blockade where activists lay on the
road in clusters of four or five.  The Perseverance Affinity Group had
actually preplanned this action in Melbourne.
* Sunday - "star" blockade continued at the "equestrian event gate" until at
about 6pm the police changed tactics and began to blockade the blockaders for
the first time.  Trucks and other AIDEX workers burst out amidst extreme
police brutality at about 7 p.m.  The large police presence finally
dispersed.
* Monday - blockade of the equestrian gate continued.  I took one of our
group to hospital after she was hit by a truck that swerved into the crowd. 
I returned to find a quarter of our group had been taken to jail and the
others were wandering around stunned.
* Tuesday - our group decided on a "mobile" blockade.  We tried to go beyond
the police lines (which actually moved with us) and tried four or five times
to burst through the police cordon in order to create a star blockade on the
road.  This had varying degrees of non-success.  We received a lot of
physical violence.  After "lunch" we de-roled a bit, surveyed our injuries
and virtually decided not to do more.
* Wednesday - some of us took part in the women's action and were incredibly
revived.  I wasn't unfortunately.
* Thursday - There was an 8 a.m. discussion on nonviolence attended by fifty
to seventy people.  We discussed how people interested in empowering action
can create a space that is controlled by the people who want that space. 
Some guidelines were set.  10 a.m. some of us took part in the FOE action.

Tactics
Despite an emphasis in our thinking on action, the poor maintenance in our
group resulted in poor tactical choices.  We were somewhat constrained
emotionally and psychologically by the needs of the many individuals present
who were wanting to make an empowering impact on AIDEX.  We were constrained
by the apparent urgency of action and didn't maintain a real sense of our
independence. 

The blockade of the gate we initially took control of, however, worked well
considering the difficulties involved. 

The Equestrian Event Gate
There was an equestrian event on at one end of the NATEX grounds and we had a
commitment to allowing access to the people involved with that event.  At the
same time we would not allow people or cars associated with AIDEX.  During
the course of the day we turned away forty to fifty AIDEX-associated cars and
trucks, some of which entered the grounds later that day through other gates
- despite barricades - and through a large gap cut in the fence by police. 
It is a probability that some workers entered this gate early in the morning
in horse-floats but this quickly ceased as we started looking for evidence of
horses! 

Some activists would lie in "star" formation on the road, while others formed
a standing blockade across the gateway.  The stopped car would be checked by
two others.  It was clear that very good communication skills were imperative
in this liaison role as there was always the possibility that an overly
defensive or angry driver would step on the accelerator.  This happened early
on with a large truck which continued to move forward as a frightened
activist yelled at the driver instead of making him aware that there were
people under his wheels.  The commitment and courage of the people lying on
the road was inspiring.  The star blockaders were also endangered by the
continual procession of activists who would come down to this gate to see
what was going on.  They often stood in front of blockaders sitting or lying
on the road thus obstructing the drivers view of them.  Those, who were
actually in danger, were cynically treated by other activists who were
repeatedly asked to keep the road and corners clear.  This sort of
peacekeeping, designed simply to lower the risk of physical harm to
activists, dominated our role at AIDEX and was quickly exhausting. 

For most of the Saturday night and through the long, hot Sunday the dynamics
of actions at this gate were quite different from the other gates.  There was
an excited, cooperative feeling as quite large numbers of people made
decisions together about what to do and how.  People taking the significant
risk of lying in a star got to know each of the members of her or his own
star and we felt the amiable affinity of people doing a good job.  The
organisation and discipline, however, was not consistently good and often I
found myself thinking that it was too dangerous.  It was, however, the most
effective way of stopping access.

On Sunday, Monday and Tuesday mornings we had long affinity group meetings to
review tactics.  These were always hemmed by strategic assumptions that were
not consciously stated or reviewed.  One assumption was that AIDEX itself was
a good anti-militarist focus.  Many of us had come without in-depth
discussion of this.  Another assumption was that our goal should be to "stop
AIDEX".  It became clear that the government and vested interests were
willing to put a lot of resources into making AIDEX happen.  The goal of
stopping AIDEX perhaps was never realistic.  Certainly, after Sunday, the
blockades were basically not effective from this perspective.  It is true
they were disruptive, but they were not reaching the goal of "stopping
AIDEX".  Should our goal have been education, should it have been withdrawal
of companies?  We were having very little or no direct contact with workers,
dealers or traders so conversion as a mechanism of change was inappropriate. 
Because of the poor choice of tactics the police became our focus to the
exclusion of others directly involved with the arms trade.  What were the
short term goals and focuses of our action?   The overwhelming sense of
urgency again swamped any review of these questions as we were drawn in often
in peacekeeping role in the activities of the other people and groups.

Another problem was that each action we undertook had no planned end.  They
were unsustainable, resulting in physical and emotional exhaustion.  We had
expected actions to end with arrest or with the actual completion of the
action.  However, the police had a 'no-arrest' policy and after Monday the
administration was using instead police bodies as human barricades.  The use
of police in this way resulted in much frustration on their behalf, a
reliance on old football techniques and ultimately heightened the violence. 

The Tuesday Actions
The Tuesday mobile 'charge' actions were tactically very frustrating.  At an
early morning meeting we grappled with process, searching futilely for a
creative solution to the massive police presence.  We rejected the tactic of
going somewhere else and changing focus completely; into Canberra to the
aerospace conference for example.  But people were here, and we were
continually swayed by their presence.  They were at AIDEX and they wanted to
do something.  Many had arrived just that morning under the illusion that
AIDEX resistance started only on Tuesday.  So we chose a mobile blockade
action. 

After an unsuccessful attempt at bursting through the police cordon at by
rolling ourselves into a large blob, we involved an increasing number of
people in the design of this action.  We held a large meeting in front of the
police evaluating what we had done.  We aimed : 1) to improve the tactics in
order to actually get past the police line, 2) to reduce the amount of police
violence by reducing the amount of activist abuse and anger, 3) to maintain a
spirit of fun amidst a massive beating.  By the third attempt there were
perhaps 150 people involved in this process and a number of creative
solutions and innovations were added to the action including having a 'front
row' hugging police in an effort to distract them while the back row darted
through 'like gazelles' to form the blockade.  This didn't prevent some
officers from savagely pushing activists to the ground and kicking them.  One
time we counted down from ten together so that police knew exactly when we
were coming.  And another time we chanted "crocodile, crocodile may we cross
your golden river".  

Many, many injuries were suffered in this action.  In hindsight I feel it was
ridiculous and devastating.  And yet the feeling had been overwhelming from
those brave people that that was what they wanted to do.  Were we all
choosing freely?  I don't think so.  Decisions with such consequences as
severe bruising from kicks and pushing, concussion and whip lash need a lot
of fore-thought and emotional preparation.  I noticed that injuries were
sustained most severely by young women and people who perhaps had fewer
skills in de-roleing and communication.  I continually told police that I was
precious, asked them not to use their batons and spent a lot of energy making
contact with them as human beings.  Through all this, though, I forgot that
the most important reason for treating police officers with respect is that
as humans they deserve it. 

Spirituality
Our actions had little or no spiritual element, no fun, no humour.  The
consequences of this occurred to me when the women returned from the women's
action.  They were revived; singing and energetic.  The tactics we chose were
an expression only of our anger and determination but it seems this is not
enough to revitalise our energy sufficiently for such a long event.  The
choice of tactics became limited by our exhaustion - a vicious circle.  For
me it is the spiritual nature of nonviolent action that offers empowerment. 
It is through the recognition of our deep connections with all life that we
can sustain ourselves through hardship.  And alternately it was the
atmosphere of abuse that existed at AIDEX that was very draining.  I got to
the point that if I heard ANY abuse in ANY direction I would burst into
tears. 

Many of these problems were the result of poor tactical choice, of
blockade-oriented thinking.  There are over two hundred tactics documented in
the nonviolent literature and yet we couldn't find processes to broaden our
creativity.   

On the last day, tired of the abuse, with seventy others I chose some
guidelines to mark the space where I wanted to be.  There were four and
included: using open body language, peaceful communication without abuse;
avoiding chanting with the megaphone; using the megaphone only for the
sharing of information and not for giving orders...  The guidelines
unfortunately were expressed to the main group in a very negative way.  This
process of communication, where many people felt they were being told what to
do, created a lot of unnecessary conflict.  Again skilled, creative
communication would have helped greatly.  I felt comfortable, however, that I
wanted to be with a particular group of people, and comfortable to state
openly my agenda of nonviolence.

Diversity
This broke open the simmering issue of 'unity' and 'diversity' within  camp
tactics.  It was claimed by many that the nonviolent group was 'dividing' the
camp.  This in itself became a divisive tool, incensing people who were under
the spell of the 'unity' assumption.  That the group was always a 'united'
mass was a myth perpetuated by people who believe unity of the 'left' is a
necessity for social action organisation.  The International Socialist
Organisation (ISO), a prominent group, actively advocated what they termed
"mass militancy" encouraging everyone to do the same thing in the same place.
"We must appear united", I heard people say and yet it was clear that there
were many different view-points and strategies for change. The AIDEX activist
handbook: "As the activists here have come from a broad range of political
and social backgrounds it is unreasonable to think we're all going to draw
similar conclusions from identical facts". 

The organisers had deliberately arranged no regular meeting time for planning
mass actions intending that AIDEX actions would be organised around a
structure of independent affinity groups.  This was intentionally undermined
by groups such as the ISO.  Our affinity group came to the camp with the
belief that we would be only one group among a number organising their own
creative actions at AIDEX.  While there were a number of different affinity
groups, only a very few had arrived prepared to organise their own actions. 
I spent some time asking individuals whether they were attached to a group
and what the function of that group was.  It was clear that some groups
travelled together, and others ate, camped and travelled; many individuals
had simply come on their own and were not attached to any particular group. 
Some groups took on specific roles such as relaying information between
gates.  The Sydney Peace Squadron planned creative theatre that revived
energy in the camp and gave momentum to actions.  Another group with planned
blockading actions was the Brisbane Catholic Workers.  The central planning
group, the Renegade Activists seemed consumed with a huge range of
maintenance tasks.

There were many gates into the NATEX site.  (In fact nobody ever quite knew
how many!)  This would have been an excellent opportunity for decentralised,
autonomous collectives to  design their own creative actions and together
create mass actions based on the anarchist concept of unity within diversity.
In the months before November there could have been training around
Australia, the building of trust within affinity groups and the planning of
actions.

Future
The effect of a national protest event like AIDEX needs to be carefully
evaluated.  Afterward many of us were on the verge of burn-out.  Was it worth
the energy?  How should we do things differently in the future?  Certainly I
would go in advance to carry out reconnaissance and I would be totally
self-sufficient in media communication, transport and basic maintenance.  How
did AIDEX fit into our long term anti-militarist strategy?  How would we
organise a national event that did fit into our long term strategy?  We
certainly arrived at AIDEX determined "to do our own thing".   How does an
affinity group maintain its independence?  One answer to this, I think, lies
with a commitment to process.  From the beginning we used bad process.  These
are some questions that I hope will be part of ongoing discussion.
Margaret Pestorius