By William Thomas
As Energy Resources Australia (ERA) prepares to mine uranium at Jabiluka in the World Heritage-listed Kakadu National Park, violating Aboriginal land rights, producing waste that remains radioactive for 250,000 years and fuelling the world's arsenal of nuclear weapons, a nationwide movement is mobilising to stop it.
If ERA and the federal government succeed in opening the Jabiluka mine, they will also be opening the door to 26 other uranium mines.
Two major campaign events are currently under way. A blockade of the mine site, beginning on March 23, will involve activists from across Australia in unity with the Mirrar traditional owners of the mine area. The second event is a national day of action on April 4-5, with rallies and marches in most major cities.
These activities indicate that a movement capable of stopping the mine is beginning to develop. But, as historical examples of movements that have won their demands show, there is still some way to go.
In the late 1970s, a movement that brought tens of thousands of people into the streets forced the Labor Party to adopt an anti-uranium position while in opposition, and limited the number of mines Labor could allow once in government. That movement won strong support from some trade unions.
In the early 1980s, another mass campaign stopped the damming of the Franklin River in Tasmania. Countrywide marches mobilised tens of thousands people in support of a blockade at the dam site. The blockade, involving smaller, but still significant, numbers of people, became a focus for the movement.
The key to the success of these campaigns was their ability to involve large numbers. The relative decline of the anti-uranium movement in the later 1980s, in a negative way, confirms this.
Activists made the mistake of relying on Labor politicians, creating illusions in the ALP government. Most supporters of the movement were relegated to passive roles. The result was that the Hawke government betrayed the ALP "no mines" policy, presenting the "three mines" policy as a compromise.
It is worth recalling these lessons because in a number of Jabiluka action groups, reservations have been expressed about the merits of the national day of action, or having marches, rallies and speeches. One argument raised is that building city actions would take energy from building the blockade.
While a blockade can be a symbolic focus for a movement, there is an objective limit to how many people can participate in it. Many people have jobs, families, cash-flow problems, Centrelink case managers or numerous other reasons why relocating to a remote wilderness blockade site is not possible.
To draw on the energy of everyone opposed to uranium mining, the Jabiluka movement must also have actions in major population centres.
Of course, a nationally built blockade, even in a remote location, can involve enough people to be a powerful force in galvanising a campaign. The Franklin Dam experience proves this. But the Franklin blockade was successful because it inspired a mass Australia-wide movement.
Without a mass movement, a blockade can become like numerous forest actions in which a small number of people get the crap thrashed out them and arrested by the police, while a logging operation goes ahead, and very few people ever find out it happened. The issues around Jabiluka are too important to allow that to happen.
Another argument is that rallies, marches and political speeches are too "confrontational". Marching through city streets, with banners, placards, songs and loud chants is not only non-violent, but unlikely to result in anyone getting hurt. Bolting oneself to a bulldozer is also non-violent but is quite likely to result in a violent reaction from police or contractors.
It has also been said that marches, chants and angry speeches are "negative" and will turn away people who want something "positive". What will motivate people to attend Jabiluka actions is their belief that what ERA and the government want to do is extremely negative. Opposing it, and succeeding, is very positive!
Watching the destruction of the Mirrar lands, the irradiation of Kakadu and the fuelling of the nuclear arms race creates feelings of despair.
Joining with thousands of others to show opposition; hearing speeches about the blockade, the Mirrar people's struggle, anti-nuclear struggles around the world; confronting what must be confronted and doing so together with large numbers of like-minded activists: these are empowering because all who take part realise that, contrary to what the media say, people are not alone in their efforts to stop uranium mining.
Music, poetry, face-painting, food and balloons are just a few of the things that can help build and enliven marches and rallies. What particular activities take place should be worked out according to what is likely to attract the most people.
The peaceful, angry, articulate protests that are being organised for the "Stop Jabiluka National Day of Action" are going to be inspiring events. For those active in the movement, drawing in new activists will be source of fresh energy.
The potential exists for many people not yet active to be empowered enough to want to get involved.