Timor
On Saturday, March 21, I and a companion flew to Kupang. We intended to go to East Timor for a holiday.
I had spoken to some Indonesians a few weeks before and they had recommended for me to go to East Timor to see what it was really like.
My companion rang up Merpati Airlines to see if East Timor was open to tourists. He was told it was possible to travel to East Timor.
We bought a bus ticket to Dili on the Saturday night. We left early Sunday morning and arrived in Atambua around lunchtime. The bus driver dropped us off at the Kodim military post where our passports were checked. We got on the Dili bus.
We reached Atapupu where there was a police checkpoint. Everyone had to get off the bus and have their papers checked. We two Westerners had our passports checked again and our names and details written down in a book. The next checkpoint was further on close to the border. It was here we were told we couldn't go any further without travel permits. That was the first time we heard that travel permits were necessary.
We were told we would have to go back to Atambua to get these travel permits (surat jalan). We were kept at this checkpoint for a couple of hours and questioned as to why we wanted to go to Dili. Eventually we got a ride back to Atambua.
In Atambua a military man in plain clothes paid us an unexpected visit in our hotel room at about 10 p.m. and advised us to go to the Kodim post in the morning. We went there early the next morning and we were again questioned about our motives for going to Dili. Then they said we would have to go back to Kupang to apply for the surat jalan.
At the post in Kupang we were told we couldn't get a surat jalan for Dili. We asked how soon we would be allowed to go to East Timor. They said maybe in a month's time or more when things settle down. We could enquire at the Indonesian consulate in Darwin.
If East Timor is closed to foreign visitors then why doesn't the Indonesian government say so instead of pretending otherwise?
Martin Day,
Darwin NT
AIDEX Coverage
I'm writing as a supporter of GLW to comment on the paper's coverage of the AIDEX demonstration aftermath.
As Val Plumwood noted in her excellent article (GLW, 25/3), the strategy used in the USA to destroy radical greens is: "to cast the radical elements as 'violent' so that they can be repressed, then push the more conservative parts to the right, which is where the more bureaucratic and image obsessed parts of the movement are headed anyway."
A similar process has begun here, with the Australian Federal Police clearly intent on using the International Socialist Organisation as scapegoats for the AFP's own violence. The ferocity of the AFP attack, at AIDEX and after, seems to have succeeded in scaring off some sections of the demonstrators, and making some turn the blame on the ISO, rather than the AFP.
The AFP were clearly humiliated by the fact that some of their attempts to suppress the protest were rebuffed by the intensity and creativity of the demonstrators. The AFP-Canberra Times line being run in the lead-up to trials of those arrested at AIDEX has been that the entire action was a "sinister" conspiracy by organised revolutionaries and (according to Jeff Brown, AFP Secretary) "a bunch of violent trash". The AFP-Canberra Times specifically target the ISO.
The simple facts of the AIDEX action were that it was notably non-violent, from the demonstrators' side, and remarkably successful in the pressure it placed on the organisers and arms traders. It also generated a level of grass roots political involvement like few other actions in recent times. I was not there but have spoken to many people and seen a good deal of film of the action. From all I've heard and read I pay full credit to organisers and the democratic process that was used to develop each day's action.
In such a big action, though, it's hardly surprising that some people would be disappointed that their particular view on tactics didn't always win out. It appears that no one group or faction consistently got its own way.
What is disturbing is that one section of disgruntled activists have been given the opportunity to attack the ISO in GLW, and the ISO has not been given a chance to respond. Particularly in view of the concurrent AFP attacks on the ISO I suggest this is not right.
The articles of Ron Guignard and Chris Hannaford expressed similar, petulant frustration that their own view of NVA tactics didn't win out at AIDEX. They went further, to suggest that other demonstrators were somehow responsible for the gross AFP violence, by such things as "verbal taunts".
Both articles, directly and indirectly, attacked the ISO's role in the action yet, I'm told, GLW has refused all ISO attempts to respond. However the articles by Ron Guignard and Chris Hannaford have compounded the diversionary tactic of the AFP, who were the first to wrongly scapegoat the ISO (ISO members comprised only a small fraction of the demonstrators), and I believe GLW should allow the ISO to respond.
The situation is made worse by some of the invective in the above articles. If Ron Guignard seriously suggests that he will "arrange for (the) arrest" of other demonstrators he disagrees with, then I suggest the movement should consider excluding him from future actions, not the ISO.
Barring such potential saboteurs or police agents, I don't believe any section of the left or green movements should be excluded from any such actions, or access to GLW, if they are prepared to cooperate with other sections and abide by a collective decision making process.
Tim Anderson
Glebe NSW
[A letter by David Pope of the printed in last week's issue. — Ed.]
Tokenism
David Pope (ISO) in Write On April 1 believes that focussing on the blockade at Aidex "snatched effective political action from the jaws of tokenism". Is this so? Or is it simply another form of tokenism David speaks of? The ISO's continuing fetish for "closing things down", "confronting", "disrupting" and "smashing" (ie David's "effective political action") is nothing more, in today's Australia, than the flip side of the liberalism (lobbying) he deplores.
If Aidex to the ISO is "one of the most inspiring protests for more than a decade", where does that leave the Gulf War demos — were they less inspiring because there were many thousands involved, or because there was less opportunity to battle the police?
Effective political action means getting the political message across to as many people as possible, winning them over and drawing them into action — it doesn't mean small groups having running street battles with the cops.
There are no short cuts to the masses, no matter how impatient you are. The ultraleftists with all their "militant" rhetoric and posturing will in the end achieve about as much as those who restrict themselves to lobbying (although their adrenalin levels will be higher).Ray Fulcher
Melbourne
Open Letter to NUS
I wish to express my concern regarding the recent student rally held at the city square. I was absolutely appalled by the lack of organisation that prevailed at the rally. It was well supported by students who were united in their condemnation of the Loans proposal but this support was not respected by the organisers. The confusion and violence that followed I believe was due to the absence of clear objectives as to why we were there and what we were there to do.
Why was there no P.A? I couldn't hear a single speaker. Surely gatherings such as these are the perfect opportunities to educate and inform its supporters and encourage ongoing support. Lack of a sound system immediately alienated a great deal of people who had to rely on hearsay as to what was going on.
Were we there to disrupt the traffic? While this is a valid action I think this happened by default and we therefore failed to inform the public as to why we chose to take this action.
Why were there no marshals to guide the rally? I have never witnessed the confusion as to what to do next or where to go as I did on Thursday.
Predictably, members of your executive have been keen to level the blame at various left groups who, it is suggested, "took over". It is your responsibility to ensure that individuals, no matter who they are, are not able to set the agenda of a large action such as this. It was the dismal failure and frustrating lack of organisation on your part that enabled some individuals to incite destructive behaviour. In conclusion I am left feeling despondent and angry following yesterday's rally. I think it has reflected badly on the student movement and I know that many people will choose not to participate in mass action again. I feel very strongly about the plight of education in this country and believe strong and urgent action needs to be taken. However mass campaigns need to be handled with care and precision and Thursday's rally made a mockery of the seriousness of the issues facing students in Australia today. I now feel reluctant to participate in any further action organised by NUS.
Lynn Wakefield
Carlton South
Police crackdown
We are absolutely appalled by the announcement that the Victorian Police to plan to establish a special investigation unit aimed at "cracking" the left. We are particularly disgusted at the treacherous role played by the bureaucrats who head the National Union of Students. Their disgraceful comments distancing themselves from the militant defence against police violence at the student demonstration last Thursday signaled to the state that as far as the NUS leadership is concerned it is "open season" on the left.
Reports in the Sunday Herald Sun make it clear that it is the ISO and Resistance that the police plan to target first, but we know that without a doubt it is the entire revolutionary left they aim to either destroy or render ineffective through a campaign of fear and isolation. And if they can tame the revolutionary left through a campaign of systematic harassment the right to demonstrate of those campaigning for even the most moderate list of reforms will be undermined.
We believe a campaign centering on our right to dissent must be initiated urgently and we pledge our ongoing support to a campaign defending all those targeted as a result of the Melbourne National Day of Action student demonstration.
This threat calls for the formation of a powerful united front. Clearly we must all unite to build a strong, broad and unequivocal campaign defending our right to be radical. Without a doubt there is a wide diversity of views about the most appropriate tactics to use at demonstrations but when the left under attack we need to close ranks regardless of the demo tactics we support.
Alison Thorne
Freedom Socialist Party
Debbie Brennan
Melbourne Radical Women
Promiscuity
Once again a distinction is made between promiscuous and non-promiscuous gay men. This time by Stephen Hammond in this article "Who needs protection from whom?" in GLW (#50). We gay men have no need of a defense on the basis of us not being promiscuous (at least not "the vast majority". His wording implies that the promiscuous minority (?) should be targeted.)
Promiscuity is not the issue when speaking of HIV/AIDS. Whether a person has one fuck in a lifetime or fifty fucks in one day has no bearing on whether he/she will be infected or not. Safe sex and the correct use of condoms does.
Promiscuity needs to be defended openly!
Monogamy, multiple partners, promiscuity ... all these are (or should l choice. On the other hand the advocacy of monogamy as a policy is a deadly right wing agenda.
Deadly not only because it is an attempt at reverting to church and state control of sexuality and sexual practices (with the accompanying extolling of the virtues of marriage and family).
It is also, and especially, deadly because of the implications regarding infection.
First of all it implies that a person who is in a monogamous relation cannot be infected. How does one know whether the other partner did not get infected from a previous sexual experience with someone else? Or through sharing a needle? To be sure, both partners would need to be together, completely monogamous, for one whole year, and test regularly over that period of time. If both turn out negative at the last blood test then they can have unprotected sex.
Of course the other problem is — how can one be sure of one's partner's fidelity? Automatically attributing safety from infection to monogamy gives people a false sense of security.
In the case of promiscuity, no such assumptions are made. The dangers are known. Among most gay men this gives us the reason, the incentive, to practise safe sex always. We prefer not to play Russian roulette with HIV.
So please, let's see some more responsibility from people who write about HIV/AIDS and its related politics.
Michael Schembri
Surry Hills NSW
Open letter to Paul Keating
The Nuclear Free Garden Island Committee, which comprises citizens living in the suburbs adjacent to Garden Island, is concerned that the coming Coral Sea Anniversary celebrations may be the occasion for another visit to Sydney Harbour of nuclear armed warships.
The Committee regards this occasion as a suitable time for foreign governments to stop sending nuclear-armed vessels into Sydney Harbour.
As Cold War tensions have been reduced, it would seem appropriate that, for the thousands of residents, and the businesses, schools and hospitals located near Garden Island, fears of possible nuclear accidents from visiting vessels could also be reduced bringing only nuclear-free vessels into port for the celebrations. Then the people in the nearby suburbs and, indeed, Sydney as a whole, could welcome the vessels wholeheartedly.
The US Government has recently shown it can be flexible on these questions. It has told the NZ Government that, under certain conditions, it can guarantee that US warships, if allowed to re-enter NZ ports, would carry no nuclear arms. The fact that those conditions are still unacceptable to most New Zealanders, and would be unacceptable to us, is beside the point — which is that changed rules can apply in a changing world.
We ask the Australian Government, as a matter of urgency, to convey the suggestion to foreign governments whose vessels have been invited to take part in the celebrations, that those vessels be oms
for the Committee