Aidex - 1
Aidex was an important event for the Left in Australia.
Green Left's coverage of Aidex has been overwhelmingly negative and some articles even argue the violence at Aidex was caused by demonstrators.
Many people at Aidex and on the Left argue the anti-Aidex mobilisation was a success and the violence was caused by the police in an attempt to intimidate the demonstrators from blockading the Aidex site.
When we became sponsors of Green Left Weekly we understood it would be a forum for the much needed discussion and debate amongst the environmental, progressive and left movements.
Far from defending the action at Aidex you have published virtually no material critical of the negative coverage in Green Left. We have been informed such letters and articles have been submitted, in particular by members of the International Socialist Organisation.
We call upon you to publish this material and to open Green Left's columns to a real debate over the lessons of Aidex for the Left.
Vandy Meyer, Barbara Meyer, Dorothy Meyer
Canberra
Noel Hazard
Arthur Murray
Sydney
Nick Ward
Brisbane
Chris Gaffney
Melbourne
Aidex - 2
As a sponsor of GLW I was approached by an activist from the Left on campus at the University of Queensland who was concerned about the coverage of the recent AIDEX action in GLW. It was pointed out that the coverage was overwhelmingly negative despite the feeling of apparently many of the participants that the action had been successful. It was also claimed that a number of letters/articles had been submitted to Green Left expressing an opposing viewpoint, several of which I was shown, and that these had not been printed.
Not having participated at AIDEX I feel it inappropriate to pass opinion on the content of the articles printed in GLW (specifically "Defeat from the jaws of victory? by Chris Hannaford and "Non-violence: theory and practice" by Ron Guignard). The criticism of some aspects of the demonstrations may well be valid. What concerns me is that clearly a sizeable body of people within the Left hold a very different opinion, and these people were not given the opportunity to express this in the pages of GLW. Moreover, it is this latter line of thinking which is the positive one. We in the Left are often hard pressed ake part in direct action, and yet in this case a well attended example of direct action has received unconditional criticism. Could AIDEX have been described instead as a qualified success?
My feeling is that we have our work cut out for us in our present Right dominated world in fighting to change the system. We in the Left must support and encourage each other if we are to achieve this, not create rifts between different elements, be it DSP vs ISO or the feminist movement vs the conservation movement. Debate is healthy, but not abuse.
Nick Ward
Toowong Qld
How green?
I have bought your newspaper for a second time now mainly on the basis of its title which features the word "Green". In the 24 pages of GLW (8/4/92) I found 3 articles on "environmentalism" as I understand that term: two small articles (global warming, forestry in PNG), and a page long article (logging in Thailand). GLW therefore contained on a generous estimate 15% at the most of what I regard as green articles. The other issue I bought (22/1/92) had at most 25% (including the Tasmanian election, and 2 page ozone depletion analysis).
This amount of coverage contrasts with other 100% green publications which are admittedly less frequent.
I also surveyed a small group of green activist on their impressions of GLW. They considered GLW more socialist/political/social commentary than green. One activist suggested you should call your paper "Lean Green".
As important as the issues of socialism/capitalism or male/female sexism or homo/heterophobia or racism are - what do they have in common with green politics? I don't see any particular connection. I think the green principle of "reduce reuse recycle" transcends these other issues. I would only add another concept - experience wilderness - for beauty, health, peace and perspective.
Tom McLoughlin
Waverton NSW
Indonesia
As members of the Indonesia Solidarity Action (AKSI) in Melbourne, we thought Brian Martin's article "How to eliminate the Indonesian threat" raised some good discussion points, but was problematic in a number of ways.
The problems in the article were, first of all, to frame the article around the question of the Indonesian military threat. The question of this threat is part of the xenophobic nonsense circulated by the reactionary sections of our community and as progressive activists, our advocating of a more open, democratic Indonesian society should not be mixed up with us helping to circulate this type of false propaganda. Secondly we disagree that Australian workers and tourists are to blame for any support o the Suharto regime. We don't encourage Australians to boycott travel to Indonesia. On the other hand, we want them to travel to Indonesia with a large degree of awareness of the problems in Indonesia, to see for themselves the reality of life there and to experience the strength and courage of the Indonesian people in the face of hardship.
We in AKSI believe that in Australia we can raise awareness and gather public support for the Indonesian cause by organizing rallies, demonstrations, public meetings, petitions and networking with other groups. Currently we are in the midst of our "Free the Indonesian Students" campaign. For more information about AKSI or the campaign itself, we can be contacted at: PO Box 4345, Melbourne University, Parkville Vic 3052
Vannessa Hearman
Channa Paranavitane
Melbourne
Censorship
The issues of censorship in regard to non-violent pornography and the banned sex information hotline as well as the Fantastic Sex Facts need to be looked at together. Lunatics like Fred Nile and the US bible bashers would dearly love to ban everything ranging from the pill to abortion, sex hotlines and pornography to secular sex education and masturbation not to mention their desire to put homosexuals into psychiatric labour camps.
Banning non-violent porn will inevitably aid those dark age and alley fanatics. The porn industry needs changes and women need to play a far more dominant role in it. Wendy Bacon talks of a "more repressive mood" (GL 8/04/92) towards progressive sex issues in our society. This trend will feed on the porn censorship until the Fantastic Sex Facts won't even be legally available for adults.
Michael Rose-Schwab
Rapid Creek NT
BLF
David Kerin and John Tognolini make good yards against B. Boyd's team of ghosts. The BLF conflict, engineered by the Master Builders, NSW State Lib-Fascist Government, the CIA and the developers, resulted in many casualties.
Several men were blacklisted, one for Life. Workers suffered severe physical injuries. Marriages were broken up; children suffered. There were suicides.
As developers joined in to destroy the green ban, residents were bashed, one "disappeared", streets of worker's housing destroyed, and private armies commenced. The heritage of Sydney's history, built with the blood and sweat of convicts and workers, was reduced to dust on the shoes of the new smarties. I wonder when the next worker Vs worker conflict will commence. And who will think it up?
Den Kevans
Wentworth Falls NSW
Philippines
The shrewd analysis by Peter Sales of the coming Philippines elections rightly draws attention to the attempts of grassroots progressive organisations to concentrate on supporting Senate, gubernatorial and local candidates.
These enable public identification of candidates' policies on a range of issues of direct grassroots impact, such as land reform and human rights.
It has been a regrettable feature of Cory Aquino's presidency that much of the widespread misery of the Philippines has continued, and in some instances intensified.
There has been no real check on the military, which, driven by internal jealousies and rivalries, plus its paranoia about the PLA, has been responsible by acts of omission and commission for widespread abuse of human rights.
Amnesty International has directly approached all candidates in the Philippines elections to state unequivocally their position on the defence of human rights. While the wealthy presidential candidate Danding Cojuangco considers his options of achieving by the bullet what may be denied him by the ballot, the vast majority of the Filipino people face the choice of poverty or protest.
However, in the absence of secure civil rights, even that bleak choice is narrowed to shut up, or be shut up ... or worse. As Amnesty International has made clear, without human rights neither this election nor future ones in the Philippines will have any democratic authority.
Ron Knowles
AI Hawkesbury Branch
Wills - 1
Anne Lawson of the ISO, in Write On April 15, says Bob Lewis' election material for the Wills by election could have been a lot harder on the ALP. Perhaps Bob should have taken a leaf out of the ISO's book and actively campaigned for Labor - that would have shown them!
She claims that historically workers have seen voting for the ALP as the beginnings of class consciousness. Perhaps I, and most workers haven't read the same history books as Anne but I thought class consciousness began in the every day struggle - not at the polling booth. Rather, if she were to lift her head from her theoretical journals, Anne might notice that workers see voting for Labor as many things, including treason to themselves.
Yes, many workers vote ALP when there is no alternative, but as New Zealand (and Wills) has shown, when an alternative is offered, workers desert "traditional" Labor in droves. Is this because they haven't studied their history or because reality has smacked them in the eye? An appeal to tradition against reality is not the way to build the left in this country. Anne says that d voting for the ALP is the only electoral way we have to show we are working class and proud of it" - the ballot box equivalent of the Alamo? Well the voters of Wills have certainly been gritting their teeth under Labor recently. So tell me Anne - what does the Wills result mean?
1. They're not working class and proud?
2. They're working class but not proud?
3. They're working class, proud and smart enough to know who's on their side?
Dan O'Reilly
Melbourne
Wills - 2
The result from the Wills by-election is certainly a welcome outcome and one that should serve the Left in this country with some basic lessons.
Although Phil Cleary is a well known and popular identity in the electorate, he stood for an unambiguous independent left position in opposition to the two major parties. The essence of Cleary's position centered on opposition to the Liberal alternative as represented in the "Fightback Package" and opposition to the economic rationalism of the Government and an anti-privatisation position. Cleary presented a basic, simple and effective alternative to the electorate which was, by and large, obviously fed up with the hypocrisy and opportunism displayed within the arena of "mainstream" politics.
The "organised left" should study this result closely with an objective of forming electoral alliances that are based on a simply understood alternative position that deals with basic and fundamental issues. Where possible, such alliances should incorporate disenchanted elements of the ALP, progressive organisations, unions and trade unionists and individuals. The question of choosing candidates who are well known and active within a given electorate should not be overlooked.
For too long the "left" has bogged itself down in ideological semantics and dogmas in the search for unity at any level, not withstanding the differences of approach that need to be taken in dealing with different forms of unity.
It also seems to be a past practice of once having attempted a form of electoral or political unity, particularly when the results are not earth shattering, that it all of a sudden is taken off the agenda and we all scurry off into our own political holes. If the organised "left" cannot come to terms with these serious deficiencies as practiced in the past, then its irrelevancy to Australian Society will become more entrenched than it presently is and it will become more entrenched than it presently is and it will be the Phil Cleary's of the world, with no disrespect intended, who will fill the vacuum created by this state of affairs.
Dennis White
Adelaide
'Horror'
We are members of the Sydney University SRC's Education Department. We respond in horror to Jorge Jorquera's article (GL April 8) on the 26th March student demonstrations. The pessimism he expresses throughout not only implies that the National Day of Action called by the National Union of Students was a failure, but that the two further National Days of Action ought not go ahead because they are organized by a body which "from its outset played the role of a muffler on student protests".
This may well have been the case in 1988, but at last NUS is being forced to act because of grassroots pressure from Cross Campus Education Networks at the regional level, and Education Action Collectives at the campus level. Rather than a "staged" conspiracy between NUS and the ALP, the Baldwin leakage did not result in the calling off of the National Protest. In addition, Left Alliance Officers within NUS put a considerable amount of work into building the protests. In fact, one of the major reasons why the Sydney demo was so much smaller than in Melbourne was because the NOLS officers who dominate here did so little in comparison. Therefore, in Victoria, because NUS played an active role and because a succession of small demonstrations successfully built up to March 26, NUS and members of Left Alliance, the ISO plus other groups and individual activists were able to mobilise between 2500 and 3000 people (not 1500 as you write) - the most militant mass rally in Melbourne since Vietnam. In our view this is far from constituting a "current demobilisation of the student movement."
Moreover, whilst you slam "ultraleft groups such as the ISO" for their militant "minority actions", and you long for the days of "peaceful mass protests", Resistance and the DSP have been conspicuously absent from the building of the education campaign. For example, at Sydney Uni, Resistance members did nothing to help organize or sustain the Tent City and only turned up to the rally we had organized outside Fisher Library to sell GLW.
You grossly misrepresent the Sydney Demo - so much so that it seems unlikely that you were there. Firstly, once it became obvious that we would be unable to occupy DEET, there were 2 (not 4) proposals, one to move on to Belmore Park in "remorse" and the other to remain at a heavily fortified DEET. The vote was very even, and the Demo was in danger of dividing until the proposition to go to the ALP offices was put forward and resulted in rapid cohesion. Fifteen people managed to occupy, and rather than leading this militancy, less than a quarter of these were ISO members.
Both Jorge and Lynn Wakefield (Letters) are wrong to suggest that students felt "despondent" and "frustrated" after the protests. In Melbourne, a victory march took place through the city and in Sydney the demo inspired a group of students from the University of Western Sydney to set up an Education Action Group. Rather than demoralize and demobilize, the Demos have given momentum to the education campaign with actions planned at the Campus Level before the Easter holidays.
Your opposition to militancy usually springs from a need to appeal to the mainstream media and thereby not alienate middle Australia. However, if GLW continues to comment on demonstrations the way it has recently we may have to begin to include GLW and Resistance in this former category.
Martina Blasco, Jodie Bonner, Kate Cotain, Anna Davis, Ajnect Dhillon, Rachel Dowling, Mark Goudkamp, Ben Hoh, Georgina Kenyon, Karin McLachlain, Heidi Norman, Lesley Penrose, Nick Perkins, Polly Porteous, Dwayne Shultz, Chris Wilson
Sydney