Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:49:32 +1100
Subject: AUT: Some thoughts on Woomera
From: Thiago Oppermann <topp8564-AT-mail.usyd.edu.au>


For those who don't know what this is about, have a look at
www.melbourne.indymedia, which has mountain of articles and pictures of the
recent action at Woomera.

The last 48 hours have brought us some of the most inspiring scenes seen in
Australia for many years, as people tear down the fences erected by the
government and run to meet each other. The Woomera action contains a
symbolism which is truly remarkable: people struggling from both sides of
the fence, to break in and to break out. The images of razor wire walls
falling against the stark desert sky, of people running out screaming ³free
at last², with wide smiles and tears streaming down their faces, of people
skirmishing with the police and APS for a serious purpose,  pictures of
furious solidarity  and raging compassion ­ these images will live with us
for a long time, and hopefully they will encourage more and more people to
take direct action against these monstrosities, these monuments to unfreedom
which Labour and Liberal alike have built.

The actions at Woomera have caught the authorities by surprise. No one in
charge, it seems, foresaw the possibility of hundreds of people overpowering
the security guards and breaking into the camp. The Australian Protective
Services and the South Australian police , far outnumbered, found themselves
in one of those typical conundrums that affect authority when faced by a
wave of popular force: who controlled this area? Whose jurisdiction was it?
Whilst they passed the hot potatoes around, the people, who could not care
less about jurisdictions and invisible lines, stormed in.  All this is
frankly amazing and I find myself deeply moved by these actions, which
without doubt make up one of the most important protests in Australiaıs
history.

To say that the actions at Woomera are immensely significant is not
hyperbole. This event marks a crucial break from the previous strategy of
the antiborders movement: for the past two years the main thrust has been to
build as much solidarity with the inmates as possible, to establish
communications, to attempt to galvanize community opinion, to hold marches
and protests and carry palm fronds. Now a distinct possibility has been
advanced: that the camps ought to be literally destroyed, and the people
therein freed by popular force. Three days ago this would have seemed a mad,
fantastic proposition out of touch with reality. Nothing could be further
from the spirit of Palm Sunday marches  - ³compassion for refugees² ­ than
the material destruction of the fences which in the last analysis
constitute  the difference between us and them.  Nothing like this could
have been foreseen from the pathetic calls  on Palm Sunday by religious
non-entities for ³better leadership² on the issue; the melody of Womera is
in another key entirely.  No leaders, no ultimatum, not even an ideology ­
simply the destruction of the fences and the mutual liberation of those
locked in and those locked out. Not surprisingly, the acolytes of civil
society have promptly denounced the break-in/out  - the unbearably naïve
Democrats claim this will backfire, human rights lawyers complain that
reprisals against the refugees are likely.

The mostly negative response of civil society to the direct action at
Woomera does, however, point to an extremely important issue. If Woomera is
the break I believe it is, then the consequences  deriving from this will
weigh heavily on the people who desire freedom, both those incarcerated in
the camps and those incarcerated out of them. To merely rip a hole in the
fence and set people free for two hours, thereafter returning them to
certain reprisals is completely irresponsible. Destroying fences for the
hell of it is stupid, but this doesnıt mean that fences ought not be
destroyed. Far from it, we should work consistently to destroy them
permanently; we should work to set people free permanently. The gambit has
been made: break the fences and loose the support of the Churches and timid
Democrat youth-fetishists. From here on, either we free everybody or at
least make the possibility of accomplishing this  palpable,  or we will
witness a marginalisation of the movement against borders within the
campaign against the current refugee policy.

No one familiar with the fundamental thrust of antiborder thought should be
surprised by this. The notion of eliminating border controls is extremely
radical and  challenges the very idea that our rights derive from grants
made by a sovereign government; it runs counter to the idea of citizenship
upon which much of the current blather about the camps  is based. One need
only read a small-l liberal rag to see the constant whining about the harm
done to our civic image by the camps ­ although this is often stated with
the best of intentions, this talk often rings an opportunistic tone, as if
the real problem were that we are being humiliated. That is the last item
that ought to be in the agenda. The real issue is unfreedom. Complaining
about our reputation whilst people are incarcerated is the sign of a
pathological narcissism.

Another, more important, dimension in which actions at Woomera simply do not
fit into the spectrum of conservative and liberal policies is that a
fundamental aspect of this campaign is to state that borders and camps
imprison we who are supposedly free on the outside. This is not meant in the
metaphorical sense that if my brother is unfree so am I, although this is
true enough. The meaning is quite literal: that camps are instruments not
only for imprisoning people but also for regulating and controlling the
population in the outside . This happens  in a number of ways, of which the
scapegoating effect is only the most obvious. Having the state determine,
cynically and for political motives as it invariably turns out, that some
people are ³legitimate² is a means  by which reality  can be sculpted to fit
ideology: Afghanistan may be a hellhole, but our guys run it now, so there
is no reason why people ought to seek asylum here anymore. Being immensely
poor, more often than not due to policies we eagerly support, is no excuse
either: our ³reforms² which condemn thousands of Indonesians to poverty and
our sactions which choke Iraqi children are by definition benevolent, those
escaping from them have no excuse , by definition. More fundamentally, the
argument which states that they do in fact have good reasons already buys
into the idea that the state ought to oversee the freedom of movement of
peoples, that you need a good reason to move about, and that, moreover, you
are not the ultimate authority on this matter. All this runs directly
counter to antiborder thought, but not against the thinking of the  deans of
civil society, who are rather intent on proving the statist system can work,
if only nicer people , such as themselves, were in charge.

The ultimate expression of antiborder thought is the demolition of the camps
and the sort of  civil disobedience  which would allow escapees to function
in society with a sufficient degree of freedom. Unfortunately, in this
respect the irritating Democrats do have a point, although it need not be an
argument against the sort of actions recently performed.  That, in our
current state of organization, freed refugees will be returned to their
cells and the fences mended is not only an argument for the danger of
performing such actions, but also a constructive criticism encouraging us to
go further, to develop better ways  of ridding ourselves of the border
controls and camps. What the serious criticisms  emanating from  civil
society mean is not that we should stop, they mean rather that this is the
time when a crucial decision will have to be made  as to how to liberate
ourselves and our imprisoned comrades. One path is conciliation and  polite
criticism. This is not an entirely bleak path: perhaps  over  a long period
of time the camps will be shut, people freed, border controls eased. Perhaps
better men and women will take the reigns of power from the despicable and
miserly Ruddock. But this is not at all assured. It is just as likely, in my
view, that conciliation and polite criticism will lead us to a dreadful
stalemate that benefits only the status quo or worse, that Ruddock will
prevail and Australia will become a model of future regimes of population
control  This is already apparent: our system is widely  referred to as a
model of things to come.

The other path which has been bravely broken at Woomera is to disobey unfair
laws, free the refugees by force if necessary and demolish the camps. If
this is performed in a wide enough scale, if enough people refuse to
cooperate, if enough people help escapees live outside, if the attacks on
the fences are strong enough then maybe, just maybe,  a freedom will be won
which will not have been granted to us by better leaders, but made by
ourselves for ourselves. This is, in my view, a far superior outcome. But
this is also a far riskier procedure:  if it is not successful,  resistance
will prove costly indeed, and the regime at the camps is likely to become
more militarised, borders more strictly enforced, the ideology more rabid,
police brutality more acceptable. Perhaps if the attack on the borders
degenerates into mere vandalism, the word refugee will cease to have any
meaning. Proponents of antiborder ought not to shy away from this: we do
not, after all, believe that the Œwordı refugee has any legitimate  meaning,
since it refers to a set of special considerations graciously given by the
state. If we are serious and wish to disrupt this category figuratively and
materially,  to eliminate  state intervention ­ if we are serious that no
one is illegal ­ then we have to be prepared to face the consequences, which
may be that the category ³refugee² will cease to exist  and with its demise
so too will the safeguards provided by refugee law. This will only be a
desirable a outcome if we create a different social reality for refugees
than the one they face now either as inmates,  escapees or merely waiting
for their visa to run out. It is a big gamble. It ought not to be pursued
unless we have the means of carrying it out. If Woomera means anything, it
means that we ought not to waste time and we should start working this out
immediately.

Thiago Oppermann 30/3/02



Three little post scripts:


Today the Australian Council of Trade Unions issued a statement which,
despite not condoning the break-in/outs, stated in uncompromising terms
their opposition to the policy of mandatory detention.

Roberto Jorquera, a refugee organiser affiliated with the DSP (a trot
outfit) managed to find himself on the right of the ACTU, as he made
gestures about the importance of having peaceful protests so the issues
don't get muddied up. What is unclear about tearing fences down is simply
beyond me. 

Mainstream press coverage has been mostly quite positive. The Sydney Morning
Herald stopped short of vilifying the protesters and carried a picture of a
girl being led away from the camp by a protester with a very neutral caption
- "protesters help escaping refugees". SBS, the "independent" network had a
truly remarkable piece last night which seemed to be suggesting that the
protesters were doing the righteous work of liberation. They followed the
news with a documentary on the Berlin Tunnel, complete with footage of
Stalinists denouncing "people smugglers"....

Thiago 31/3/02




















     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---