Comment by Chris Hannaford
The Aidex arms bazaar last November was the perfect opportunity to argue for cuts in defence expenditure, for radical changes in our foreign policy and for an end to arms sales to Third World countries. Before Aidex, the peace movement had the militarists on the back foot. The ACT government was opposed to the exhibition, and media were starting to listen.
When I arrived at the demonstration on November 23 the gates of Aidex were blockaded and all was relatively peaceful. When I left on Friday the 29th, violence between protesters and police had become the issue rather than Australian militarism. The protest had deteriorated, with little central focus, while the mass media had focussed on the "feral" elements. So how did we "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"?
Back in Adelaide and determined to analyse how the violence started, I viewed a video of the early demonstration. I noticed how several demonstrators taunted the Tactical Response Group. This verbal violence against police continued throughout the demonstration. While the police had difficulty substantiating claims of protester violence, the media had no problem catching a flow of verbal abuse towards the police.
Without doubt, the police at Aidex were extremely violent. But it is our job to be the peace movement and set examples to the police and the community. In this way we can influence public opinion.
We should do everything we can to prevent violence. That does not mean that we should not blockade or use direct action, but we need to do it in a context of non-violence. There is an urgent need for broad agreement on a definition of non-violence.
I think a short definition would start with: no verbal abuse; no violence against people or private property.
Action against militarist property needs to be well thought out, as do other actions that could lead to confrontation. Essentially, we have to outsmart and out-perform militarists and people who promote violence.
At the Nurrungar '89 demonstration there was some confrontation with police. The key difference was that at Nurrungar and previous Pine Gap demonstrations there was a combination of non-violent direct action with well-facilitated meetings, through organisation and police liaison. That kind of discipline and organisation was sorely lacking at Aidex '91.
We also need to ask ourselves if it is worth dealing with groups like the International Socialist Organisation, which argued at Aidex meetings for violence because the "state is violent". I believe that they have set themselves apart from the peace movement.