kim kaos

In 2005 the Australian Defence Force (ADF) commissioned an environmental report into the effects of military training exercises Talisman-Sabre 2007 (TS07), in the Shoalwater Bay Training Area (SWBTA) just north of Yeppoon. While the Maunsell Public Environment Report (PER) gave the military the greenwash they were probably looking for, it overlooked issues of the known toxicity of military chemicals and important social justice issues not addressed anywhere else. For the more cautious of us it also provided a valuable insight into the natural values at risk by war games in that area.

The military would ike to convince us that practicing for war can be environmentally friendly. They would have us believe that thousands of troops, hundreds of tanks and vehicles, nuclear power warships, weapons testing, land and sea bombing and live firing can leave nothing but footprints and tank tracks.

However, war and the practicing for it, have grave environmental health implications that are well known. Agenda 21, the international covenant on sustainability, says in principle 24 that “Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development”. Practice for war, the testing of weapons and military training exercises use the same tools as real war. Toxic chemical pollution, unexploded shells, heavy vehicles and ships, and the waste of maintaining that equipment and the almost 30,000 Australian and United States troops using it at TS07 - all have effects on the environment and the communities they interact with. Military bases and war games put at risk our rights to a clean, safe and just environment to live in and the preservation of that environment for future generations. And they increase the public acceptance of violence and force as a means to an end.

What’s at risk?

The SWBTA is a 454,500 hectare area with 300km of coastline, listed under the Ramsar, Jamba and Camba treaties to protect birds and wetlands, is part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and adjacent to the Byfield National Park. It is of vital importance to many endangered species and habitats. The SWBTA is used by various military groups for about 300 days of the year as well as major events such as TS07.

*Ramsar listed wetlands* The Ramsar convention protects wetland of international significance for their environmental benefits accrued to clean water. Not only is the habitat value of this wetland threatened by military activities, from Waterpark Creek, which flows from within the SWBTA, arises the water catchment for the town of Yeppoon. The source of Waterpark Creek is in the Dismal sector of SWBTA, where most of the live firing occurs.

*Endangered species habitat* Shoalwater seagrass meadows form one of the remaining food habitats for the endangered dugong. The dugong is suffering from population decline in many parts of its range, numbers halved between 1990 and 2000. The remaining 4000 Australian dugong are the world’s biggest population. The UN 2002 Report on Dugong recommends that remaining dugong habitats in Australia be protected.

Shoal water Bay is absolutely vital breeding habitat for the endangered green turtle: it has the highest concentration in the world of this declining species, this is their premier breeding habitat. The population of green turtles is thought to be declining worldwide.

Shoalwater Bay is home to many species of fish and its protected situation and extensive mangrove ecosystem makes it an excellent fish refugia and breeding habitat. The seagrass meadows are also the breeding place for economically important species such as rock lobsters, blue swimmer crab and 20 species of prawns. Other endangered species such as the logger head turtles and Humpback Whales also visit Shoalwater Bay. In fact the Maunsell TS07 Public Environment Report lists 38 endangered and vulnerable species in Shoalwater Bay alone, and over 100 endangered and vulnerable species in the combined training areas proposed for use in TS07.

*Sonar and sea life* Sonar is known to effect cetaceans, and dugongs, turtles and fish also respond to sonar. Sonar is thought to cause whale and dolphin beachings, cause brain hemorrhages and ‘the bends’. Sonar and ocean noise has also been found to injure and kill fish by vibrating their swim bladders, reducing catches and affecting the viability of eggs. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority cite, “detonations of explosives, the use of live munitions and the use of active sonar” as threats to marine life in the area.

Can we trust the armed forces to protect the environment?

Although the PER says “No nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological munitions will be used during TS07”, in reality all military vehicles and munitions use toxic chemicals and heavy metals with the potential to harm the environment. The toxicity of chemicals used in munitions was never considered in any part of the PER.

The commitment of the US and Australian forces to “protect the environment, conserve biodiversity, and protect and preserve heritage… for future generations” (Maunsell PER Final 2007) is a hollow one given their environmental track records.

Environmental Track record of the armed forces

The United States Department of Defence (U.S. DoD) have been described as the world’s biggest industrial polluters, given the toxic legacy that their bases and facilities have created worldwide. Project Censored estimates that “the U.S. military generates 750,000 tons of toxic waste material annually, more than the five largest chemical companies in the U.S. combined.” The U.S. DoD has sought exemptions from many important environmental laws in the U.S. including the Migratory Bird Treaties Act, the Wildlife Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Hardly the actions of good environmental stewards.

Wherever U.S. DoD activities have been carried out, dangerous toxins used in the testing and use of munitions, fuelling and maintenance of vehicles, use of nuclear materials have contaminated the environment. These include: Heavy metals, dioxins, PCBs, nuclear materials including depleted uranium, rocket fuels including perchlorate (primary ingredient in rocket fuel, a thyroid toxicant causing birth defects and newborn development which has been found contaminating groundwater in 20 U.S. States), RDX (an explosive compound and neurotoxicant), and TNT (an explosive compound linked to anemia and altered liver function), white phosophorus (found to have decimated Alaskan fish grounds for two decades) are amongst some of the worst. The U.S. Have over 2000 bases worldwide and no community has ever been compensated for their pollution.

In addition the U.S still use weapons that are banned by the U.N, (depleted uranium and cluster bombs which have long lasting effects and cause many non-target deaths), while the ADF does not use these weapons, it does not ban the use of the latter. The U.S have the world’s biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons on hair trigger alert. Without going into the issue of nuclear threats here, suffice to say the nuclear industry is perhaps the single greatest chemical threat to environmental health and justice worldwide.

The Australian army often boasts of their great environmental record, but they were complicit in the massive areas of radiation contamination in South Australia, and have dumped at sea of chemical warfare agents such as mustard gas, decommissioned boats, other chemicals, ammunition and day to day naval waste. There are also air pollution effects around military airbases. And most of our military equipment is U.S. made and hence has the same pollution issues that U.S. DoD does.

Social Justice & War Games

The effects of certain weapons on people’s health are so widespread as to constitute a global health issue. Social risks posed by military presence include: increased crimes, rapes and violence.

*Increased crime and sexual assaults* Off duty US servicemen engage in drug dealing, prostitution, sexual assault, rape and even kill locals. They often get off without prosecution. During the 2005 Talisman Sabre games US personnel were arrested for drug offences. In 2005 there were 2, 374 reported sexual assaults in the U.S involving military personnel.

Sexual assault is a problem where ever troops are posted. Women in the US army are so afraid of sexual assault by their peers that several serving in Iraq in 2006 actually died of dehydration because they were afraid to drink late in the day in case they would need to use latrines late at night. The army tried to cover it up. There have been over 500 reports of sexual assault amongst troops in Iraq since 2002, the true figure probably much higher. Drink spiking and sexual harassment are also a problem within the ADF.

Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that the rates of sexual harassment and assault of civilian women increases in Rockhampton during war games, although there are no hard statistics and it is recognised that many women do not report to police. As far as we know, no action to combat sexual harassment of the locals has been considered by the ADF or US DoD.

*Indigneous land rights* The land on which the SWBTA is sited in the traditional land of the Durrumbal people. The fact is the traditional landowners are beholden to the military for access to their own land and thus not at liberty to speak their minds on this issue.

In April 2007 Maunsell released their revised Public Environment Report for the SWBTA. It did not consider the toxins in munitions, nor many social justice issues mentioned here.

After receiving hundreds of submissions from concerned citizens, they concluded that the general public

had to “take the time to understand the commitments Defence is making to ensure environmental sustainability “. We understand them very well as an elaborate and superficial green washing exercise that

fails to take into consideration many serious environmental and social effects of war games. Because the ADF sees Shoalwater as “Australia’s single most important area for the conduct of amphibious and combined arms exercises” any other conclusion would be surprising.

The ADF commissioned Public Environment Report is online [here] (pdf file)

More info on the protest camp at Peace Convergence

The Peace Convergence is a nonviolent gathering in the Shoalwater region on 18 to 24 June 2007. The peak period of the Convergence will be on the weekend: Friday 22 June to Sunday 24 June.

Last week us BASTARDS had a discussion over a links sent to our organising list. Although that link was not pornographic, it has sparked a discussion on the issue and the interpersonal dynamics associated with porn viewing. Please join in!

Although not pornographic, the website in question (suicide girls) does bring up for me what I have been made to think is essentiallly “my problem with pornography”. I’m hoping we can have a productive discussion about it. I’m hoping we can do this without the men involved in this group getting defensive or thinking I’m accusing them of being sexist.

I see pornography in that uncomfortable space between sexual freedom, and capitalist exploitation - in that it can occupy either and soemtimes both. Certainly it has been defended as such (eg. “An Anarchist Defense of Pornography” ). It has even been promoted as a revolutionary act for the simple fact that puritanical religious nuts want to censor it.

I am women whose been brought up in a society that aims to make me feel inadequate to exploit me for cheap labour and to sell me stuff. So I have hang-ups. All women do. It’s hard to rise above the onslaught of advertising telling you your body is not thin enough, your skin not smooth enough or that you have on of the “seven signs” of bad hair (to quote an ad). Add pornography into the mix and you’ve could have some seriously neurotic women in the world. I’m not saying men aren’t also victims of the impossible standards of beauty and sexiness that advertisng and pornography represent. Of course they are.

Freedom of sexual expression: in the case of pornography, defenders will say that nothing should stand in the way of them and thier sexual satisfaction. In a free world, we should all be free to ogle, desire or sleep with whomever we wish (and as anarchists that would mean the free association consenting partners). When we view porn are we not just enjoying one of the mutlitude of sexual titillation we might engage in? In one sense yes, in another, we are just cogs in the market that reduces all human interaction to financial transaction.

When we view porn, we are viewing the bodies of women (predominately) who have willingly (yes), for money, performed sexual acts for filming. As anarchists we might also say that, because the sexual act was financial transaction, it was not necessarily an act of free choice/free association (it was market driven, by the actors need to live). Certainly the partners in pornography are not given the choice of whom they are having sex with, just as we cannot choose who we work with. And, typically (but not exclusively), the partners in pornography are largely dictated by their appearances, as young big boobed barbies and well endowed kens (age not so important here) are more likely to get the jobs, except in the case of fetish porn. I guess it is possible that some of the women in porn film/photography are genuinely enjoying themselves, not just acting. Just as we might enjoy a job that has the added advantage of fulfilling some personal need outside money. As a woman who is intimately aware of her own body, I can tell you that of the porn I have seen, very few if any of the women I have seen are genuinely sexually aroused.

There is an aspect of porn that in my opinion is pure domination and not about mutual satisfaction as we would expect a sex act to be for ourselves. the ‘action’ is always over when the man comes. Female orgasms in porn are not common or expected. The womens purpose in conventional porn is the service the needs of the often anoymous penis. This is perhaps a necessity in the cinematography of a finacial transaction between people with no emotional connections. The focus on genitalia over whole body sex (such as that expressed by erotica) reduces sex is a mere biological function. After looking at a lot of porn, although intially interesting and even amusing, I eventually began to feel like a scientist objectively studying body parts, without a view to the whole person. some say that porn is also violent and degrading to women, but this hasn’t been my experience, even though i am aware it does exist.

So in indulging our sexual freedom to view porn, we are also teaching ourselves to prefer a certain type of body and view our own bodies as inadequate insofar as they don’t match those we see in porn. Women, already obsessed with their looks and weight, can now add to that probems with the look of their pussies and how they perform in bed, men certainly will feel (if even just subconciously) that their penises are not big enough and that may not be able to satisfy the sexual voracity of women like that.

I have been in relationships where my partners viewed porn surreptitiously. My feelings on discovering the fact have always been the same: inadequacy in both appearance and sexual performance that leads to increased self-hatred and depression, and a deep feeling of betrayal. I often wonder if the effect of viewing porn WITH a partner would lessen this ill effect and I’m sure it would. However, the existence of non-exploitative pornography would be the only case in which I could feel I was not exploiting another person and betraying women-kind by doing so. I know for a fact that in at least one of those relationships, the effect on my partner was for him to be constantly comparing me to the clean-shaven wafer-thin young things he liked to watch, to my detriment: he told me in so. This was from a left-leaning social justice activist and vegan extremist who should have known better.

I’m keen to hear others views on this issue. originally published at brisbaneanarchy.org

Some reading you might be interested in:

“Pornography: Liberation or Enslavement?” “Where Are The Revolutionary Men?”

From the SMH

Sydney Morning Herald reports on porn research by La Trobe University:

“An increasing number of men appear to be hooked, and the women in their lives are flailing about in unhappiness, self-doubt and self-blame.

Michael Flood, a research fellow in gender studies at La Trobe University and co-author of the 2003 report Youth and Pornography in Australia, says: “This is not about couples going to the porn store to spice up their sex lives. Men in growing numbers are using porn in ways that are that are secret, shameful and damaging. It is having a damaging impact on intimacy and sexuality.

The same themes emerged over and over. The men spent hours online, searching for progressively more hard core images. Family time or couple time was the first casualty. Then sex lives floundered and withered away as men lost interest.

Men became, in the words of Dr Margaret Redelman, the president of the Australian Society of Sex Educators, Researchers and Therapists, “lazy lovers”. In the end they could not be bothered with real-life sex. In other cases, sex lives became porn-like, male-focused, extreme and lacking in intimacy.

Women’s self-esteem nose-dived. They felt they could not compete with the nymphs on screen. They did not measure up to the bodies or sexual performance of the women their men were watching. Connie, a 50-year-old graphics designer, whose former partner looked at pornography constantly, says: “After a while I started to feel worthless.” Karen 44, whose eight-year marriage broke up over her husband’s porn obsession, agonised over “why he preferred that to me”.
(SMH May 26, 2007).
http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/how-porn-is-wrecking-relationships/2007/05/25/1180205083232.html

Murris, friends and supporters of the first Australians were joined by people from all over the country, including a big contingent from the Sydney Koori community and Lex Wotton, the man charged with inciting the 2004 riot on Palm Island.

The crowd shouted a whoop of joy when the Doomagee’s lawyer, Andrew Boe, announced that the Queensland Attorney Generals department had announced that morning to charge Senior Sargent Chris Hurley with manslaughter over the 2004 death of Mulrinji Doomagee, who was found dead in the Palm Island watch house, his liver split in two. Doomagee’s death sparked a riot that culminated in the burning down of the Palm Island police station.

Boe warned that it was important now for commentators on the case not to prejudice the outcome by making strong statements of conjecture about the guilt or otherwise of Hurley.

The Attorney General’s department has come to this decision after calls for justice from the Palm Island community and nationally. It comes in the wake of the Department’s previous decision not to charge Hurley, Director of Public Prosecution Leanne Clare saying his death was “a terrible accident”.

The local indigenous community had rejected a second inquiry which they felt would not result in widespread justice for indigenous people as a whole. However, Sir Laurence Street found there was enough evidence to charge Sen-Sgt Chris Hurley over the death. At an earlier inquest, deputy state coroner Christine Clements had found Hurley responsible for Doomagee’s death.

One speaker said that the mark of justice in Queensland would be determined if there was even one indigenous person on the jury that decides Hurley’s fate.

The Invasion Day rally marched to police headquarters and then to Musgrave Park where a commemorative festival was held. Some attendees were treated for heat exhaustion.

Police did not attend the Invasion Day rally, but were two rows deep outside police headquarters.

On January 27th the police union announced it would consider mass strikes over the decision to charge Hurley. The strike threat has been called “utterly childish” by Australian Council for Civil Liberties president Terry O’Gorman who says it is further evidence of the crisis in Aboriginal-police relations.

I don’t know what the police are thinking, as long as any suspicion of Hurley exists, isn’t it better to thrash it out in court than allow his existence to forment further anger in the indigenous community?

Lex Wooton is running for mayor on Palm Island. Good luck to him I say. It was right to be angry about what happened and he should be admired for standing up for what is right and just.

There’s some pictures I posted on Melbourne Indymedia
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/01/137879.php