[matilda] On letters and direct action

[dan at aktivix.org]

Hia,

Will scribble loads later, but just one quick point for now.  H says - 

"Matilda was initially set up as a convergence centre for those opposing the G8
in Sheffield -- do people really think that we would have had more impact if we
had sent them letters compared with defying the bans and protesting on the
streets?"

Protesting on the streets - defiant attitude/opposition?  Letter-writing -
useless waste of time?

Depends.  I personally think direct action has become fetishised.  The
government expects it and contains it.  It's still absolutely necessary - to
give up that ground would mean losing a right long fought for, mostly by people
willing to risk a lot more than I or most of us westerners ever would.

But on letter-writing: an example of where one person's work may have done more
than direct action achieved. (Dunno if that person agrees with this
characterisation, but it's certainly possible...) 

Dsei went ahead again this year.  A friend of mine carried out a simple
letter-writing campaign, based on careful targetting of the company that
organises the conference, Elsevier.  They also publish a lot of academic
journals, including the medical journal, the Lancet. The Lancet have since come
out very strongly against their publisher's position, and press from all over
the world have started harrassing the owners - 

"The Lancet letter, and the accompanying editorial got good coverage: The New
York Times, Today programme, ABC (Aus), Ottawa Sun (Ca), Pravda (Ru), The
Australian, The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Times, The Independent, BBC News
Online, The Statesman, The Times, Vancouver Sun, Associated Press Newswires and
The Guardian (that i know of)"

Elsevier then closed their press office. 

Full details at www.idiolect.org.uk and
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/london/2005/09/322871.html

and I've pasted the Lancet's editorial below.

Which did more to raise global awareness and effect the possibility of Dsei
happening again next year - the direct action (which just about made it on to
the BBC) or this letter-writing?

I'm not saying that's always going to be true - my point is that action can take
a lot of forms, and the thing that makes *any* action work, whether it be a
march or letter-writing, is knowing where the pressure-points are.  Or, in this
case, finding a tipping point where things can change.

Just some food for thought.

Dan
---

Prof Gene Feder and colleagues claim in this week's issue that The Lancet finds
“itself connected to the profits of the global arms trade”, a situation that,
they say, is “incompatible with The Lancet's guiding principles”. During Sept
13–16, 2005, Spearhead Exhibitions—a part of Reed Elsevier, The Lancet's
current publishers—is hosting one of the largest military exhibitions in the
world, the Defence Systems and Equipment international (DSEi). The Lancet has a
long record of drawing attention to the adverse health consequences of war and
violence. We reject completely any perceived connection between the journal and
the arms trade, no matter how tangential it might be. The Lancet is an entirely
independent publication, editorially and financially. It is not subsidised by
profits from any other part of Reed Elsevier.

DSEi takes place in association with the UK's Ministry of Defence. Over 1000
companies will exhibit their weapons and related systems at the arms fair in
London's Docklands. In their promotional literature, our owners emphasise the
“selling process” at DSEi, which is cited as a “key event for the total supply
chain” of arms. At the last DSEi, held in 2003, this “selling process” included
technologies such as cluster bombs, which are widely deplored by UN agencies
and human rights organisations.

It would be grossly naive for The Lancet to argue that nations do not need
responsible and well-managed defence industries as a means to protect
themselves from security threats. Without security, health systems would be
neither stable nor sustainable. But it would be equally naive to argue that the
legality of a weapon somehow absolves a country, manufacturer, or even an
exhibitions company from a judgment about the weapon's use, sale, or
promotion.

More reasonably, one would expect the world's largest medical publisher to align
its business values with the professional values of the majority of those it
serves. Values of harm reduction and science-based decision-making are the core
of public-health practice. Certain military technologies that Reed Elsevier has
allowed to be showcased at DSEi are contrary to these values. In 2003, Reed
Elsevier allowed INSYS, Israeli Military Industries, and Raytheon (all cluster
bomb manufacturers) to exhibit at DSEi. The Campaign Against the Arms Trade
estimates that there will be at least 15 cluster bomb producers at DSEi in
2005. Cluster bombs have high failure rates, creating de-facto minefields.
Their effects do not discriminate between military targets and civilian
populations. They are the worst kind of weapon.

The UN Mine Action Strategy specifically includes unexploded cluster bombs in
its vision of a mine-free world. UNICEF reported that over 1000 children were
injured by unexploded ordnance, including cluster bombs, after the Iraq war in
2003. Human Rights Watch has called for a moratorium on the use of cluster
bombs until their civilian effects have been resolved. The Lancet has
consistently opposed the use of cluster bombs. It will be incomprehensible to
the journal's readers that our owners are engaged in a business that so clearly
undermines not only principles of public-health practice, but also the policies
of intergovernmental agencies.

Reed Elsevier's response is that the sale of military equipment is legal,
government supported, and tightly regulated. However, The Lancet's
collaborations in child survival and health-systems strengthening, for example,
risk being tainted by Reed Elsevier's promotion of the “selling process” of
arms. The arms industry draws vital investment away from the health budgets of
low-income nations. In 2004, 59% of arms sales were to developing countries, at
a total cost to their economies of US$22 billion.

Reed Elsevier has provided enormous material support to The Lancet during the
past decade. It has never wavered in backing the journal's editorial
independence, as proven by the publication of this leader comment. We cannot
believe that Reed Elsevier wishes to jeopardise that commitment by its presence
in a business that so self-evidently damages its reputation as a health-science
publisher.

The Lancet's editors and the journal's International Advisory Board were unaware
of Reed Elsevier's involvement with DSEi until a few weeks ago. We are deeply
troubled by this connection to the arms trade. On behalf of our readers and
contributors, we respectfully ask Reed Elsevier to divest itself of all
business interests that threaten human, and especially civilian, health and
well-being.