Monkey-Wrenching the Movement

This is a story of how the bolt-cutters, spanners and hammers of the
eco-warriors can sabotage the Web of Life that connects all of us dedicated
to forest protection - even across hemispheres.  Those who believe that we
are fighting a war, and that the ends justify the means, need to understand
that violence against inanimate objects begets violence against people -
somewhere down the line.

On my way to a meeting with Associated Pulp and Paper Mills and the then
Minister for Forests, Tony Rundle, in November last year, I was punched in
the face by a drunk, angry that Tasmania was to host the Native Forest
Network First International Temperate Forest Conference.  For me, what hurt
most was not the physical injury, but the response I received at the
subsequent meeting, when I related the incident and asked Mr. Rundle if he
was prepared to condemn the use of violence against conservationists.  A
section of young timber workers cheered and clapped as Mr. Rundle proceeded
with a tirade against conservationists who prevented "honest citizens from
doing their duty".

From that point on, things deteriorated from bad to worse over the summer's
logging season.  Steve Guest, media mouthpiece for the National Association
of Forest Industries, visited Tasmania, whipping up hysteria over tree
spiking and sabotage, using 'information' he had received from the US Wise
Use Movement; The Forestry Commission manifested a metal spike in a pile of
wood chips used in an action, providing Tony Rundle with a perfect
opportunity to turn up the heat by stating in parliament that
conservationists should be hanged; Police collected and distributed
registration numbers of cars belonging to forest activists, which were then
sent out in daily press releases to the Forest Protection Society and other
'front' organisations by the timber industry; Car tyres were slashed, and one
car (occupied) was attacked by truck drivers wielding pick axe handles; and
the ludicrous conclusion - a home-made bomb placed on a railway line with a
crudely painted banner "Earth First (sic - exclamation mark omitted) Save The
Tarkine".

At the beginning of this 'Long Hot Summer', so aptly - and unfortunately -
named by one major conservation organization, the media lapped up every
industry claim.  By the end, the forest movement had regained its credibility
- by repeating its total commitment to nonviolence - and the industry
campaign fell apart.  But the damage had been done.  These events in Tasmania
convinced many of us who had previously indulged in the eco-defence fantasy
that in the 'battle' for the conscience of Australia, monkey-wrenching - or
even the rumour of monkey-wrenching - was about as useful as a hole in the
head.

As I watch events unfold in North America - US National Forests
'contaminated' with tree spikes sold off and clear-felled in bargain-basement
deals, or media manipulation of flimsy stories of 'eco-terrorism' by
well-paid PR firms in British Columbia - I am more convinced than ever that
we must turn our backs on monkey-wrenching.  Those who continue to use this
tactic are either unaware of the violence they let loose against their
brothers and sisters in struggle - or paid by the industry.
Tim Cadman



A Response

I empathise with Tim Cadman's experience, and his rejection of
monkey-wrenching, or eco-terrorism.  I note his own initial attraction was to
eco-defence.

I wonder though whether he is mistaking symptom for cause, and throwing the
baby out with the bath water.  The real problem, I feel, lies not in the
technology or act of eco-defence - but in the values and attitudes of the
persons performing it.  At the moment, they seem to me mainly cowboys, still
resolving issues with their fathers.

For me, the power of nonviolence is the power of love.  Expressed as joy,
determination, respect, and a clear understanding of why this action's being
done.  There is an explicit and open willingness to take responsibility for
what is happening.  If the act is one of destroying property, then it must be
publicly acknowledged, and the issue taken to trial in a court.  

To carry out such an act, and pay the price, we need to be sure that what
we're doing is right.  Only then will we be able to explain, and convince a
jury of our peers, the media, and all other interested parties of where
justice lies.  I doubt seriously that such actions can be justified by anyone
who is 'just visiting' an area for an umbrella group campaign, or action.  In
my experience serious action is real back-yard stuff, where a bond exists
between me and some land.  

Another concern I have about Tim's article is how it demonises the timber
industry, and by extension, all associated with it.  For me, one of the key
lessons in nonviolence is that we don't have enemies.  We have partners in a
shared conflict.  We can intervene into what they do if we don't like it. 
But we don't hate them.  We respect them.

It may be hard to respect paid agents like Steve Guest, who I'm told whips up
a good fear campaign.  But Steve is a far cry from the cutter or miller and
families, who are often caught in the same economic and social trap we say we
want to change.  Are we to attack them instead of the system?  When we attack
the system, are we to condemn them for reacting in fear to what they see as a
threat to life?  Are we to dismiss their knowledge and love of the forests?

And even with Steve Guest, I ask, "Who has given him the weapon to use?
Conservationists."  Speaking broadly there is little clear understanding of
how nonviolence works at a personal level in 'our movement'.  Most are caught
up in strategies and tactics for purely task reasons and short-term
objectives.  Many separate political action from personal lifestyle.  It is a
'green' version of western materialism... a spiritual desert.  Attitudes of
domination and control are rampant.  Eco-terrorism and eco-fascism occur.

Our first demand (speaking broadly) is that others change their actions to be
more how we want them... NOW.  We are much less certain of how we want to
commit our lives, and the positive programme of building a more balanced self
in community.  It is from this pool of despair and unfocussed commitment that
many of our large, organised actions spring.  The actions of a few are often
able to discredit the many - for a while.

What can we do?  I know what I'm trying.  I work with a conservation
organisation in far north Queensland, and we have the full range of
characters and issues in play across an area we can't do enough in.  I spend
just half my time reacting to disasters.  The other half I spend running a
community education campaign on renewable energy.  In both halves I work with
local community groups, attempting to strengthen a sense of their own power
to bring about change.

Personally, I will only take part in direct actions to which I have a direct
bond, where there is a code of ethics, and an agreement about the form of
nonviolent power to be used.  If one of our issues comes to NvDA, or to
property destruction,  I am confident the action will have credibility.  We
will be proud to claim responsibility, and happy to debate Steve Guest or
anyone else about the issues involved.  Our trust will be in the ability of
most people to see truth when it is shown.

If we're lucky though, problems will be solved by other, more cooperative
means.
Bryan Law