Debates in the Jabiluka campaign
By Pip Hinman
Over the past few weeks, the Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide Jabiluka Action Groups (JAGs) have been told by the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation (GAC), set up to represent the interests of the Mirrar people, that they are no longer "endorsed". In the case of Melbourne and Sydney, GAC has decided to end its relationship with these campaigning groups.
This move has come in the wake of several months' discussion within JAGs about the most effective form of campaigning group. The discussion was sparked by a GAC document, issued last November, known as New Directions. The document asks JAGs to make a radical shift away from anti-uranium, pro-land rights and pro-environment issues to a single focus on the Mirrar's human rights.
Some JAG activists said New Directions would have no significant bearing on the campaign, and that the JAGs could continue along much the same lines and organise rallies, Westpac pickets and other public actions to raise awareness of the impact of the mine on Mirrar land in World Heritage-listed Kakadu.
Others had a different view. According to Dr Jim Green, a long-term anti-nuclear campaigner and Sydney JAG activist, the push for JAGs to change direction represented a further narrowing down of the anti-Jabiluka campaign, a process which the Gundjehmi had begun last year in a bid to ensure that JAGs ran a pro-Labour federal election campaign.
"GAC and a range of peak environmental groups had convinced themselves that, even though Labor wouldn't commit itself to stopping the mine, if it was elected moral pressure would force it to acquiesce to public opinion.
"But to get the marginal seats campaign going, GAC needed to ensure that all JAG groups fell into line. So it came up with an 'endorsement' scheme: either JAG groups agreed to abide by 'protocols', which required them to seek GAC permission for almost everything they did, or they were not officially part of the anti-Jabiluka alliance."
This moral pressure on the JAGs ensured a great degree of compliance with GAC's pre-election focus, and it was only after the Coalition was re-elected that a new discussion could be begun in the campaign groups about the next steps. By the end of October it was clear that little direction was being given by GAC or the peak environment bodies about what JAGs should be doing.
At a GAC-convened meeting in Melbourne in November attended by representatives from each JAG group, Jacqui Katona, GAC executive officer, and Melbourne-based Aboriginal activist Gary Foley announced that JAG groups should become Mirrar Support Groups, focus on the Mirrar's human rights and provide them with material support. It was from this meeting that the New Directions document was issued.
This prompted some useful discussions in JAGs, with most activists keen to compromise with the Gundjehmi on the question of their group's focus. To this end, most JAGs responded to New Directions along the lines of: We are an anti-uranium, pro-land rights and pro-environment group and that is our strength; we feel that by turning into a Mirrar Support Group we will unnecessarily narrow the group's focus and therefore the number of activists willing to join the campaign; and we want to continue to work in solidarity with the Mirrar's aims to achieve real land rights and stop the mine. Only Melbourne JAG adopted GAC's New Directions proposals.
On a GAC-sponsored telephone hook-up in mid-December, JAG activists were told by Katona that none of their compromise positions, including Adelaide JAG's decision to set up two working groups (on land rights and anti-uranium mining issues) within the broader JAG, were acceptable. Adelaide JAG, which is also campaigning in solidarity with Aboriginal traditional owners in South Australia struggling against uranium mining and for land rights, believed the type of structure they had decided on would strengthen the overall campaign.
GAC's response left many activists even more confused and demoralised, ensuring that some of the mass public actions in December were smaller than they could have been.
A political argument in Melbourne JAG seems to have been the trigger for its dis-endorsement by GAC. Towards the end of 1998, Melbourne JAG decided to initiate a rally on Palm Sunday, a historically significant date for the anti-nuclear movement. Since then, there has been a dispute about the amount of resources that should be devoted to organising a mass public rally or a blockade of Norths Ltd, a shareholder in Energy Resources of Australia.
Despite Melbourne JAG's convening of a separate rally organising group with other forces, including the Uniting Church, a group activists decided to try to make the blockade the main activity on Palm Sunday. However, their simplistic and naive arguments about why the blockade was more important (e.g., only "militant" actions, not "passive", "funereal" "strolls in the city" will force the mine's closure) did not sway the majority of activists.
At a meeting on March 2, Foley, who argued that the rally should be the central focus on Palm Sunday, told Melbourne JAG that it must expel the International Socialist Organisation, and that "this is what Jacqui wants". Amid a range of ridiculous accusations, Foley said that unless Melbourne JAG expelled the ISO, it would be dis-endorsed by GAC (he even called GAC on a mobile phone to confirm it).
"The move to expel particular groups from JAG sets a dangerous precedent", Ray Fulcher, Melbourne JAG activist and Democratic Socialist Party member told Green Left Weekly. "JAG decided that such a move would weaken the group, and that we should remain inclusive and democratic, open to everyone who supports our aims to stop the mine and for real land rights for the Mirrar."
This was communicated to GAC. Soon after, Melbourne JAG was informed that it was dis-endorsed. In her letter, Katona said "GAC will be advising all other solidarity groups to also cease dealing with Melbourne JAG" and demanded that the Melbourne JAG office close down and all its funds be forwarded to the Mirrar.
Just two weeks earlier, Katona had briefed Melbourne JAG on the campaign and requested it send 70% of all its campaign proceed to GAC. The meeting decided to send 50% to GAC (subject to an increase at a later date) and to set up a fundraising committee.
Sydney JAG had asked Katona, who was due in Sydney, whether she would speak at a public meeting. Her initial positive response changed soon after the Melbourne events. Sydney JAG received a letter from GAC, dated February 4, informing it that it too was dis-endorsed. The reason given was the group's "lack of consultation with the Mirrar ... it has been over six months since we last received an action proposals from your group".
This came as a complete surprise to Sydney JAG activists. Green, who is also standing for the Democratic Socialists for the seat of Heffron in the NSW election, told Green Left Weekly, "While we were never endorsed in the first place, as GAC had wanted all the anti-Jabiluka groups in Sydney to coalesce into one and that didn't happen, we were frequently in contact with GAC to let them know of the events we were carrying out, and sending them money.
"We've had, and are having, various debates over strategy — over the blockade, the pro-Labor marginal seats campaign, the role of rallies, pickets and civil disobedience — and this is important for the life of a democratically organised campaign. However, it's clear that the majority of activists are keen that the campaign maintain its broader focus on uranium mining, land rights and environment issues, and maintain a constructive relationship with the Mirrar."
Green added: "1999 is shaping up to be an important year for anti-nuclear activists. Apart from Jabiluka, the traditional owners in South Australia are also asking for out help to stop the uranium mines at Roxby, Beverley and Honeymoon, and the waste dump at Billa Kalina. We also want to stop the new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in NSW.
"With so many challenges ahead, we need to establish good working relationships with a variety of campaigning groups. Such alliances are our main political weapon against a government hell-bent on maintaining Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle."