Civil Disobedience and Environmental Action theme group

"My heart is moved by all I cannot save:
So much has been
destroyed
I have to cast my lot with those
who age by age,
perversely,
with no extraordinary power,
reconstitute the
world."
Adrienne Rich

Participants

Stephen Hancock, Melanie Jarman, Ippy (Britain); José Araya, Victoria Caceres (Chile); Konrad Borst,
Wolfgang Hertle, Andreas Speck (Germany); Pepe Perneczky (Hungary); Willem Van Leenhoff (Netherlands); Dragan Berkulijan (Vojvodina).

Aims of the group

• To uncover the environmental concerns of anti-militarists
• To explore the links between militarism and environmental destruction
• To compare methods being used
• To learn from each other as anti-militarists and environmentalists

DAY 1

Exploring the connections between environmental destruction and militarism

• Netherlands - problems of space - the military use large natural areas for
  training and military bases
• English navy destroyed oak forests
• In Germany and France, army says, `we are best protectors of nature'
• War is the biggest destroyer of nature
• Old USSR bases in East Germany are peace and environment concerns
• Noise of war planes / low-flying planes
• In Chile, military considered guardians of nature
• Wealth - but now follow market thinking - everything in terms of buying
  and selling
• Lack of essential value - human beings and environment
• Long-term consequences of arms, eg, chemical and nuclear, old mines, etc
  (Baltic sea still suffering from WWI weapons
• Poisoned soil / ground - civil society can't afford to pay for clean-up
• Civilian nuclear power not possible without military investment and
  research
• Nuclear tests - Murutoa, Bikini, Nevada, etc...
• Sunk nuclear submarines
• Military protect companies which destroy environment (eg, Shell &
  Nigerian military)
• `No blood for oil'
• Military in Latin America support neo-liberalism therefore destruction of
  natural resources
• Same philosophical base / way of seeing the world - master of people or of
  nature, can control laws of nature and submit these to `necessities', disregard
  of basic human necessities of freedom; dictatorship of human mind and of human
  living conditions
• Gender analysis of destruction of environment and of society - if have a
  problem, kill it; `male' way of working
• Both depend on obedient citizens
• If citizens act for own interest against militarism or environmental
  destruction, both are met by the military
• Jobs - in Germany, nuclear establishments and military testing sites are
  both built in areas of high unemployment
• Capitalism means that resources are viewed as commodity, whether nature or
  people
• It is against international law for the military to do something which
  damages the environment in preparing for or carrying out war outside national
  boundaries
• Production of arms is linked with environmental destruction, eg, nuclear
  industry
• Militarism is a cover for an obsession with money
• In Chile, destruction of the environment and militarism are connected with
  the economic ruling power group and their interests; natural resources were
  given to private hands by the dictatorship, this continued in more democratic
  times; military actions have been conducted with total disregard for the
  environment

Identifying relevant questions to bear in mind during our discussions

• Is the essential problem capitalism or patriarchy?
• Is our economic system a form of war?
• When do people see the danger?
• How bad do things have to get?
• How is it possible to alert people early enough?
• How do we get people to see connections between civilian and military
  nuclear power?
• Is the destruction of the environment in Latin America the
  co-responsibility of western industrialised nations?
• How can people be alerted to `invisible' or distant dangers?
• How can movements learn from one another and avoid making the same
  mistakes? (In practical terms and in terms of ideology / philosophy / analysis)
• How can we support one another in other countries?
• Why is this the smallest theme group?
• How do we duplicate the problems within our movement, eg, flying to
  international conferences?
• How can we stand up to military and industrial might
• What strategies should we adopt?
• What are the limits of civil disobedience?
• Are nonviolent strategies in western Europe different to those in Latin
  America?
• Do we have enough alternatives to offer?
• Do we have enough jobs to offer?
• Who / what patterns or methods are responsible for these destructive
  policies?
• How are their priorities different from their declared priorities?
• How do we target common points between environmentalism and militarism?
• Why do people see a division between environmentalism and militarism?
• Why don't people always see a common agenda?
• We need to define where the philosophy creating these problems is coming
  from - it is cross-border. Who is pushing the hand?
• How do we avoid coming up with the same problems / oppressions /
  structures when tackling environmental destruction?

Day 2

• Case study 1 - video and presentation on the campaign against
  nuclear transport in Germany (contact Andreas for further information and
  copies of the video)
• Case study 2 - presentation on Genetix Snowball, a UK campaign
  against genetic engineering (contact Melanie for further information and copies
  of the campaign handbook)

Day 3 (Gender Day)

To
what extent are gender concerns part of your movement/group; and do your ways
of organising attempt to address gender concerns or do they reinforce
these?

José : human rights organisations - majority are women, oblige men to
consider them equals. In environmental organisation - offices held by men,
daily work done by women

Dragan : core consists of men, groups are different - nonviolent is
balanced, environment is mainly women. No influence of gender structure of
society on movement. In society: 90% unemployment means that men's role within
the family is challenged

Willem : Peace group - mainly men but equal rights. Strong women's
peace groups. Environment groups balanced

Victoria : Often leaders are men and work is done by women. In
society women have entered the workforce on all levels which has led to a
change in family roles. In organisations - mothers reinforce gender roles
through education?

Melanie : Gender issues not big on environmental agenda. We are not
very good at handling these issues. Direct action can be quite macho. We are
beginning to address these issues through, for example, a women's newsletter,
and by organising in small, consensus-using groups. Questions around which
issues men and women are interested in within environmental
campaigns...anti-roads tactics linked to physical strength. In genetics
campaigns are more women, why?

Andreas : anti-nuclear movement has no analysis of connections between
patriarchy and nuclear energy. Organising - on big actions, is often a special
women's camp. This year all camps declared `sexism-free' but what does this
mean - token lip service? Public roles dominated by men.

Informal structures - much easier for men to manipulate. Consensus - easier for
women to participate on an equal basis. But men's workaholism still leads to
them dominating roles and strategies.

Wolfgang : Peace - came across gender issues in 70s - same time as
came across the ecological movement. Many things have changed in younger
generation: some older people still hold onto traditions. the problem that I
work on more is ageism. Families and activism can cause problems.

Stephen : ploughshares movement - hardly ever analysed militarism and
patriarchy but peace movement and patriarchy - ploughshares activist as the
`hero with the hammer'. Initially most activists were men, discussions about
this developed tools, eg, emphasis on preparation process and support
activities and value of these. 1996 - first consciously all women ploughshares
group. Today, women are `leaders' in movement. At ploughshares meetings have
gender sessions, men and women's groups, women's actions. Work only in
small-groups with `vibes-watcher', who watches for oppression.

To what extent are gender concerns linked to militarism and environmental
destruction? (discussed simultaneously in a mens group and in a womens group)

Womens group

In
Chile, militarism doesn't consider women as they don't have a `frontline' job -
they have a limited role as, eg, a secretary or chauffeur.

In Chile, destruction of environment is an issue for women in the country
because they work the land and grow food.

There were plans recently to make an electricity plant on Mapuche land. The
building of the plant would involve covering a large amount of land in water.
Generally speaking, men supported the plant because they wanted the jobs it
would bring - they did not see the trees as important because they wanted the
jobs. Women, who generally were the people who worked the land, didn't want
the plant because they saw the land as a priority because it was a source of
food and water.

Mens group

José
: The link between sexism and militarism is obvious. But the link between
environmental destruction is not so obvious or important. The wives of
military men stay at home; the sons become soldiers.

Willem : Traditionally, wars have been fought by men. But since abolition of
conscription, it is difficult to recruit so military is looking for women.
Substantial amount of environmental destruction is done by men. Women
traditionally are more concerned about the environment.

Andreas : Industry, multinationals, governments which cause environmental
destruction are run by men. Also, the ideology that men have to be in control
of self and surroundings leads to oppression of women and to environmental
destruction. We think we can calculate how much we can use nature - just see
nature as a resource, not something with value.

Stephen : treating people and nature as a commodity: patriarchy - women as a
commodity; militarism - people as a commodity; environment - nature as a
commodity. Phrase `mother earth'. Environmental destruction as a rape process
- behind it is a hate of nature, women, the `other'.

Wolfgang : All these `-isms' are different forms of violence. Exploiting the
weaker thing. It's too simple to say men are bad because they destroy more; or
women are good because they are on the side of nature. Too simple, eg, women
contribute educationally to perpetuation of sexist roles. Another example - on
the Castor video it was a woman pressing the button on the water cannon.

Dragan : In Yugoslavia, our active militarism creates killer-men. The majority
of the victims are women and children. Very few women as killers. Women are
working in dangerous factories in equal numbers to men.

Konrad : I think that opening the army to women is a step backwards. Yes,
maybe it is a male characteristic to control, and women have a greater tendency
to protect. Indigenous people's in Latin America refer to `Mother Earth'.

Day 4

General discussion around prompt questions, including the following:

• "Patriarchy is the root cause of both militarism and environmental destruction"
• "We
  do not have time to address sexism within our movements because our ecological
  system is on the verge of collapse"
• "A trade-off between jobs and a healthy ecological system is inevitable"
• "Our economic system is a form of war"
• "Multinational organisations cannot be reformed"
• "Civil disobedience should always be the last resort"

Case study 3 - the campaign against the construction of a cellulose
plant in Chile (contact José for further information)

Day 5

How do nonviolent strategies differ between Western Europe and Chile

• Former Yugoslavia - special circumstances - official statements different
  from reality therefore need for education first to see reality
• Often not good at developing strategies - often reactionary rather than
  strategic approach
• Documentation / conference re analysing what we are doing
• Rarely see documents comparing strategies
• Sceptical at efforts to bring together lots of people because approaches
  can be different - not always culturally appropriate, eg, US / Eastern Europe
• Could instead work on common values - broadly on same ground
• In long-term is process of learning, eg, 60's - never heard about training
  - would do and then reflect after what could be better
• Who works on strategies? people are often only in a movement for a short
  time
• How do we move beyond agreement?
• We don't do enough resistance against ourselves, our cultures and our
  structures. Culture of `actionism' - action junkie. In end is no good - we
  burn out, don't analyse. Counter-productive / revolutionary therefore should
  resist own structures / culture. Ideologically - by being critical of
  over-emphasis on action; and structurally - by creating places where we just
  talk strategically
• Can create alternative blueprint to development which is now in force
• Need for common analysis as first useful step
• Ecological topic destroys political barriers, touches broadly. For
  example, in Chile, atomic explosions in Muratoa created a tremendous movement,
  including young people participating in large numbers. Even schools and
  colleges gave permission for students to go to the demonstration. Women who
  lived nearby in the well-to-do quarters held a protest meeting at the doors of
  the embassy. The only other movement that was able to bring so many people
  into the streets was over Pinochet. 1 million people abstained in the
  Presidential elections; these people did not abstain from the anti-nuclear
  demonstration.

List some useful points for future civil disobedience actions

• In Hungary have preparation committee for actions. The preparation
  committee, as a smaller group, is more effective at taking responsibility and
  members have clear roles
• Use a demonstration manual and checklist before action.
• Use humour, eg, street theatre - the public remember this better.
• In Gorleben the need to prepare people / use training was recognised
• Outline a clear framework for action
• In Germany, the big challenge has been to encourage people to form
  affinity groups, preferably in advance, eg, problem in campaign against
  transport this year when the transport started early and there was no chance to
  set up a good process for the groups taking part
• Need range of possibilities for action, eg, statements for people to sign
  expressing solidarity or willingness to take part
• In Chile effective movements have had different groups with distinct aims
• Movement building, alliances
• Cannot build a movement on civil disobedience alone - sometimes groups
  forget to do lobbying and don't give their reasons to decision-makers

How can we support one another in different countries

• Learn more about what is happening
• Info exchange, eg, writing articles, visiting
• Let people know that you support their struggle, eg, write a letter,
  solidarity action
• Western capital end of chain needs to get attention
• Make sure that channels of communication are being used
• Pressure on media

How can we bring ecological concerns into WRI's work

Members
of the group took on individual commitments: in addition, parts of the group's
recommendations have been incorporated into the WRI Strategic Plan.

Evaluation

Good
stuff: diversity of participants; size of group; the group showed which
way we have to take in the future; level of interaction; so much outcome; that
the group existed; to be able to be together and know the work of others in the
ecological effort; hearing the case studies; good group dynamics.

Bad stuff: not much depth; size of group; didn't have much discussion
about strategy; little information available beforehand.

Could do better: discussion / background paper in advance; get info
out between ourselves; knowledge of case studies in advance to have known
better how to compare them; begin preparation earlier; more assertive
facilitation.

A final word...

From
Dragan and Konrad - they pointed out that our theme group did not mention
animals at any point and that we must not forget the importance of the animal
kingdom in our work.