Decentralization and Democratization of the Solidarity Movement to Close the SOA: A Response to the Barricada Collective's Reporting on the November Protests

by Solstice

Dear Barricada Collective,

Early last summer I was invited by SOA Watch to help plan and train for the November protest at Ft. Benning, Georgia. As a witness to, and participant in, both the planning process and the actual weekend events, I feel it is necessary for me to respond to the Barricada's article on the subject. Although I am sure the article was well-intended (for I had the pleasure of meeting and working with Barricada collective members in Ft. Benning), it is full of inaccuracies and false assumptions, which I hope to clear up for both the Barricada collective and for readers of the publication. I am requesting that the collective publish this response.

First of all the assertion that "SOA Watch has not developed any sort of criticism of the SOA beyond opposition to it on moral and religious ground," is further from the truth now more than ever. One only needs to read the literature SOA Watch has produced this past year to know that they are making critically important steps in linking issues of US military policy to the larger picture of corporate globalization(1). I encourage the reader to get a hold of a copy of SOA Watch's most recent video "Guns and Greed", which is specifically about the SOA's role in enforcing neoliberal economic policies dictated by the IMF and World Bank. For further research, Jack Nelson Pallmeyer's book "School of Assassins" makes the case that the SOA is not a military excess or mistake, but rather it is an integral part of US imperialistic policy. This book has been one of the most used educational tools within the movement to close the SOA since it was published in 1997. So plainly, if SOA Watch's critique of the SOA was ever limited strictly to "moral and religious ground", it certainly hasn't been for quite some time.

Last April I had the opportunity to brief a cluster of SOA Watch affinity groups who took part in the A16 mobilization against the IMF/World Bank. The SOA Watch T-shirts for A16 read, "...the economic rape of the poor, that accompanies globalization couldn't stand without the military apparatus that brutalizes people who rise up to resist..." In the "brief history of the SOA Watch movement" it reads, "We are grateful to our sisters and brothers of Latin America for their inspiration and invitation to accompany them in their struggle for peace and justice." This text runs next to a picture of a Zapatista woman, masked with a gun on her back and a masked child on her side. SOA Watch affinity groups also participated in R2K and are planning for the FTAA protests in Quebec City.

SOA Watch is one of a few groups in the US that is in the position to effectively link US militarism to corporate globalization, and to forge and strengthen alliances between the peace movement and the growing anti-globalization movement. This is fundamentally revolutionary work, and SOA Watch should be commended for the changes it has made, and continues to make, to accommodate these alliances (which I'll expound on shortly).

Until this past year, one of my biggest criticisms of SOA Watch has always been the non-participatory nature of their mass protests. This criticism is certainly applicable to many groups and movements. Generally a small group of people plan a protest and then advertise for bodies to join their already-determined action. Under this common scenario the protester is an attendee rather than a participant; their mind is not needed, only their body; and as a result the action is often disempowering, particularly to young people. Over the past year many of us have witnessed or participated in a drastically different model of organizing for mass actions; a more engaging, empowering and democratic model. An organizing collective puts out a call and does the groundwork for creating a framework for coordination between autonomous affinity groups. These affinity groups are then responsible for creating and carrying out their portion of the action. This organizing model needs some refining, and will always need to be adaptable to particular situations, but all in all it is a monumental improvement from the traditional non-participatory model.

Many SOA Watchers who took part in A16 were impressed by this model, and they determined to make the struggle to close the SOA more participatory and less stagnant. In my opinion they have made great progress in a relatively short time. Specifically they invited me and a few other young people (whom they knew and associated with anti-globalization protests) to take part in a planning session with their advisory group this past summer in Chicago. Our input was truly sought out and incorporated into the planning. It was decided that in addition to the traditional funeral procession which (every year) crosses the line onto the military base, there would be a second procession of affinity groups which would plan their own coordinated autonomous actions (keeping with the action guidelines). Affinity groups could also carry out actions at other locations around the base. It was also decided that planning and preparation tasks leading up to the November protests would be decentralized into several working groups. It was consensed upon that a spokesperson from each of these working groups, and from the spokescouncil of affinity groups, would be responsible for any on-the-spot emergency decision-making--a role which had previously been limited to the SOA Watch advisory group.

In short the decision-making processes of the SOA Watch movement were radically decentralized and democratized this past year. This is always a great challenge within any group, and I believe SOA Watch has demonstrated impressive skill in leaving no one behind.

The Barricada mistakenly reported that "Once inside, the [affinity groups] decided not to respect the pre-established procession route and crossed the median dividing the 'in' road to the SOA buildings from the 'out' road." Had the Barricada collective participated in the affinity groups' spokescouncil they would have known that crossing the median was precisely the consensed upon plan of the affinity groups. They weren't defying any "pre-established procession route", and in fact their moving to the other road was designed to give the traditional funeral procession some space. The idea behind granting some space was to accommodate those who were accustomed to the solemn tone of the traditional procession, and who may have been uneasy about the addition of a second procession and about the general structural changes within the movement. SOA Watch could have said, "Change is coming, sink or swim!", but as I already stated, I believe SOA Watch has demonstrated impressive skill in leaving no one behind.

The Barricada harshly asserts that "All in all, the entire weekend was a festival of reformism and first world privilege." Yes, we who live in first world nations are unarguably privileged, but the events in Fort Benning this past November were certainly not a celebration of this fact. Rather they were a recognition of the responsibility that comes with this undeserved privilege, and a stand of solidarity with those around the world who are robbed, tortured and killed in order to deliver this privilege to our door. In that crowd of ten thousand people I saw many familiar faces; my friends from the Catholic Worker movement who live in voluntary poverty and work full time without pay for peace and justice; friends from the Plowshares movement who have done hard time for their cause of nuclear disarmament; friends from high school for whom the issue of the SOA is serving as a sort of gateway into a holistic radical critique.

Yes, many of these folks are pacifists. Many aren't. So what? Protests organized by SOA Watch will probably always be explicitly non-violent(2). This is a political reality, so why divide ourselves debating it? If the action guidelines are too strict to bear, then there are 363 other days of the year in which anyone can visit Ft. Benning using whatever means they like.

It is historically inaccurate that "most of the struggles [suppressed by Latin American militaries] took the form of guerilla warfare...". Most of the 200,000 murdered indigenous people in Guatemala were civilians. The strategy of counterinsurgency warfare is to bust possible resistance BEFORE opposition groups (armed or not) occur. The targets are union-organizers, educators, student-activists, etc. That's what the notorious torture manuals (used at the SOA) are all about--the enemy targets for advocated interrogation techniques such as torture, execution, and blackmail, according to these manuals, were people who: "[pass out] propaganda in the favor of the interests of workers", "[do] union organizing or recruiting", "sympathize with demonstrations or strikes", and "[make] accusations that the government has failed....to meet the basic needs of the people." Counterinsurgency is civilian-targeted warfare. But of course SOA Watch acknowledges that SOA soldiers also fight against armed guerilla groups.

The Barricada points out "Those who died at the hands of US backed military dictatorships were by and large not pacifists. At no time was this ever mentioned." Why does it need to be mentioned? The Barricada way over-exaggerates the magnitude of this eternal means-and-ends debate if it is inferring that those who gathered at Ft. Benning would not stand in solidarity with SOA victims simply because they weren't pacifists. Is the Barricada unfamiliar with the likes of Dave Dellinger, Phil Berrigan and many other nonviolent revolutionaries who stand in solidarity with all oppressed peoples, and who absolutely refuse to condemn oppressed peoples when they choose armed struggle? I contest that this omission is a "whitewashing of history" and a "hijack[ing of] the legacy of Latin American struggles", because I think it's inappropriate to discuss tactics at all during a mass public rally--especially other peoples' tactics.

While I was talking with the black bloc on the day of the action, I gave a rushed history of SOA Watch and of the changes over the past year. So I take some responsibility for the inaccuracies in the Barricada's reporting. I tried to communicate that the police and media were attempting to incite fear and division by playing the game of "good protester, bad protester", warning of "violent elements from the outside". Barricada's article reads, "several people associated with SOA Watch publicly distanc[ed] themselves from possible 'violent elements from the outside'." I believe that this misinformation stemmed from a simple misunderstanding, but it's important to clear up. The media team actually held lengthy discussions about how to counter this police/media strategy, and I estimate that they were successful.

All in all the weekend was a festival of solidarity. Ten thousand people weathered freezing cold rain, many of whom risked arrest. If I could single-handedly mobilize ten thousand people to do whatever I wanted down at the US Army School of the Americas, sure, it would have probably looked a lot different. But I can't, so I work with whoever comes, and I start where they're at. Good change is a long process that takes a load of patience. I encourage the Barricada to, first of all, get accurate information, and secondly, lose the harsh edge. Critique is a tool for building, but if it isn't used carefully it divides.

The Barricada Collective and the black bloc were a welcomed presence at this past year's SOA protest (yes, the action guidelines are lengthy, but no, there is no dress code!), and I hope to see y'all there again next year, and in-between. I suspect that the actions will become increasingly creative as the SOA Watch movement becomes more familiar with the affinity group model.

Love, rage and struggle,
Solstice

P.S. SOA Watch didn't run the parking lots and didn't negotiate anything with the MPs.

Footnotes:

(1) "SOA, IMF, World Bank -- Partners in intimidation, torture and murder", "SOA: the Ultimate Union Buster"

(2) Property destruction is not forbidden in the action guidelines, and has actually been utilized on multiple occasions in protests against the SOA.