Green Terrorism ?

The recent front page article in the Guardian newspaper (27th March 1996) reports an alleged attempt by various chiefs of police to request that the anti-terrorist branch starts monitoring green activists. While this may come as a surprise to some (both ‘why monitor us we’re not terrorists’ and ‘are we not being monitored already?’) it is only the latest in along line of articles that are trying to push green/direct action and animal liberation activities into the category of terrorism. One purpose of these articles is to try and disrupt our increasingly effective and popular movement by trying to split us into factions along lines that the state sets, in the case of this article, and others before it, between activists that have differing views on violence as a tactic of resistance.

While this article, like others before it, has produced widespread criticism (see for example The Guardian letters column, 30th March 1996) this criticism is not something that we, as radical ecologists, should be joining in with. Our response should not be to play into their hands by denouncing the people in our movement that argue that there is a place for violent resistance in some circumstances nor should it be to lie, as some have, and say that everybody in the green movement is committed to non-violence in every scenario. This article, however, is not to debate the validity of various forms of resistance but to suggest what our response should be to the increasing surveillance and repression that our movement is attracting.

We suggest that our response should be twofold. Firstly, as said earlier, we should not be denouncing people in the movement purely because of different opinions on which tactics to use in defence of the natural world, there is room in this movement for all responses to ecological devastation and we must not divide ourselves on small issues when we agree on nearly everything else. To do otherwise is to play directly into the hands of those that seek to destroy the entire movement. While we should obviously not welcome this increased repression and surveillance we must realise that we are attracting it because we are becoming increasingly effective and popular. If we were ever to evolve beyond a relatively small number of people with comparatively little influence into a mass movement it was inevitable that we were going to attract this type of response from those that put profits before life. In reacting to this increased attention we must not deny our potential as a force for real and lasting change but instead to embrace it and draw up the battle lines between ourselves and those that want to destroy us.

Our second response to these developments should be a reappraisal of our personal and group security. If anybody is any doubt over the lengths that the state will go to destroy radical groups they should look at recent history in the United States and the way that groups such as the Black Panthers, The American Indian Movement, MOVE and Earth First! have been treated over there.

At the very least our response should be to assume routine interception of mail, tapping of our phones and investigation by state agencies or private detective firms into individual activists and groups. The most simple measures can make life harder for them. One measure that people can and often take is covering up their faces on actions and demonstrations when cameras are present (for example there were four Special Branch photographers at the Whatley quarry action in December last year). In some cases this is a sensible thing to do but be aware that it can look intimidating and can alienate many people that may otherwise get involved with us. One measure that everybody should be taking is to be far more careful about what is said over or even near a phone. In addition to this people should be trying to use a secure address as a postal contact point. A few simple measures can make it harder to identify activists and to work out where that next action of yours is going to be.

In becoming more aware of our security we need to be careful that we do not fall into the traps of firstly becoming so paranoid that we become inactive and secondly, but equally importantly, we need to make sure that our increased awareness over security matters does not lead to people falsely accusing others of being state infiltrators, either of these things will lead to mistrust between people and internal disputes in groups, in which case we will have done the work of those that want to destroy us.

Further reading on the states response to radical groups and how we can protect ourselves:

COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBIs secret war against dissent in the United States by Ward Churchill and Vander Wall

(South End Press: Boston)

Do or Die: voices from Earth First! (number 5) ‘Police raid Green Anarchists’ article by Oxford Green Anarchists

Ecodefence: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching (Third Edition)

edited by Dave Foreman and Bill Haywood (Abbzug Press: California) 1993 - especially chapter 9 on security.

Turning up the Heat: MI5 after the Cold War by Larry O’Hara (Phoenix Press: London) 1994

War at Home: Covert action against US activists and what we can do about it by Brian Glick (South End Press: Boston) 1989

Without a Trace (anonymous)    ,

Most of these texts are available from AK press or DS4@ distribution (apart from Do or Die which is obtainable from South Downs Earth First!) For a more comprehensive list of titles that are available dealing with state repression of groups and how to counter it write to the Earth First! Action Update enclosing a SAE.