The direct action dividend
As they emphasize links to domestic problems, antiwar activists have begun laying the groundwork for a broader social justice coalition that will be key if there is to be a U.S. regime change in 2004.

By Rachel Brahinsky

NINE PEOPLE DRIFT through the Financial District with chalk-white, dazed faces. It's lunchtime, and their clothing is torn and doused in fake blood. They aren't actors or stuntmen. Part of an ongoing antiwar statement, these grim figures are protesters trying to bring stark images of Iraqi deaths home to San Francisco's streets.

The country hasn't seen such widespread direct action protests in many years. Demonstrators have shut down corporate lobbies, performed sidewalk political theater, and put their bodies in the middle of streets to draw attention to their cause.

The wave of direct action protests – which are done without permits, unlike typical mass marches – has sparked harsh criticism locally from elected officials and the San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Examiner, which have emphasized in numerous stories that blocking traffic drains the city treasury. Other critics say they don't understand direct action, arguing that there's no way such tactics – like physically barring ChevronTexaco Corp. or Bechtel Corp. employees from working – could stop a war.

But now, just as the invasion of Iraq is becoming the occupation of Iraq, there are signs that direct action is actually beginning to change the way people think, talk, and even act.

The sheer volume of protest has forced increased press coverage, and corporate entities that most people have never heard of – such as the Carlyle Group and Autonomy Corp. – are now slipping into the public eye. On the ground the movement has coalesced remarkably quickly and has been able to shift tactics nimbly, in large part because of the Internet.

Whereas a few weeks ago the rhetoric sharply focused on Iraq, now organizers are turning their assessments inward and making connections between the war abroad and the wars at home – over economic equity, environmental justice, and racism.

It's a move that's essential if the left is to build strong coalitions that could transcend the Iraq war and could help generate momentum for a regime change at home in 2004.

Burning up Iraqi crude

In the dark, early hours of the morning April 14, demonstrators drove an old station wagon to the main entrance of ChevronTexaco headquarters in suburban San Ramon. They slashed all four tires and formed a human chain, with arms linked through the car with PVC pipe, barring the main entrance to the sprawling compound.

Accusing the massive oil conglomerate of "toxic terrorism," demonstrators took on a company whose refineries have been polluting the low-income city of Richmond for years. When they learned that ChevronTexaco has been refining millions of gallons of Iraqi crude in that city, organizers smelled an opportunity to publicly emphasize the connections between the company's involvement in the Middle East and its Richmond pollution.

Carla Perez, with the Oakland-based Communities for a Better Environment, said the ChevronTexaco action naturally fit into her organizing work. "Our members are mostly low-income people of color. They know this war," Perez said. "They live this war everyday. They don't have to think twice about war with Iraq."

Yet their concerns about poisoned East Bay air have been largely left out of local news of late. "When the media and the government conspire to fixate on one issue," she said, referring to the long media buildup to the Iraq invasion, "they are successful at taking attention from injustices back home."

The demonstration was a good example of how activists are using the surge of political involvement sparked by the war to raise awareness of local concerns. Long after the bombing ends in Iraq, the oil issue will linger, and Richmond residents will likely still have to deal with the environmental fallout from accidents and fires at the refinery.

Meanwhile, ChevronTexaco and the rest of big oil will keep pressing U.S. leaders to force open the Middle East oil economy. The bonds formed between Richmond environmental justice activists and antiwar organizers are key and could become the glue that holds together a new, broader social justice effort.

As they blocked the gates of California's largest corporation, Perez and company took a page from an old book. Street agitation was a cornerstone of the civil rights movement, and even earlier, won Americans the right to an eight-hour workday. The current wave of direct action – married with recent worldwide mass protests, Internet-centered social change lobbying campaigns like MoveOn.org, and more aggressive activity by Black Bloc-type activist groups – is a foundational part of the new peace and justice movement.

Regime change for the White House

Already the rhetoric of the peace movement has begun to slip into the national parlance. In an April 2 speech to New Hampshire Democrats, Massachusetts senator John Kerry – who did not oppose the war – took a political risk by echoing a call that has become popular among peace activists. "What we need now is not just a regime change for Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States," said Kerry, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president.

Such moments, when mainstream Democrats are pulled to the left – even if it's simply rhetorical – inspire organizers, many of whom tell us they've felt an unusual surge of motivation lately. Part of that comes from seeing that direct action works because of the movement's unique structure: a decentralized coalition of community-based affinity groups. The affinity group form (named for the nonhierarchical anarchist affinity groups active during the Spanish civil war) was picked up by feminists and antinuclear activists in the 1970s and has been used since for lower-profile yet persistent activity – notably by antimilitarism groups and radical environmental organizations like Earth First!

"The way we organize reflects a new form of politics within the long tradition of nonviolent direct action," protest veteran David Solnit told us. "We're looking for shifts in consciousness. We're looking for people to become self-organized" rather than being led by a Central Command.

Dozens of collectives have sprung up. Many are named to make a point (like the Global Intifada or Freedom Uprising); others are more free spirited (such as Guerrilla Gardening or the Dot.commies). Each group has its own goals and makes its own decisions but can also join others for specific actions or campaigns. Many send representatives to a regular "spokescouncil" meeting of the umbrella coalition Direct Action to Stop the War. There they offer support for each other's actions and plan collaborative events, such as the March 20 shutdown of the Financial District.

There are also possibly dozens more that function independently. "We're amazed all the time at actions going on that we don't know about," said Patrick Reinsborough, part of the DASW media group.

Many hope each cluster will foster new leaders who will stay committed and will turn their energies toward pushing for real leadership change in next year's national elections, while building local power over community concerns.

Looking ahead

In the coming months, there's some work to be done to broaden and strengthen the peace coalition. Case in point: the April 7 demonstration at the Port of Oakland, which was marked by extreme police violence (see "Not by the Book," page 15). Direct action organizers called for the shutdown of the docks used by Stevedoring Services of America, which won the contract to manage the port in Um Qasr, Iraq.

Unfortunately, they demonstrated on a day when there weren't any ships to block, according to Steve Stallone, spokesperson for the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, which represents dockworkers.

Because of that, "it was always only going to be symbolic," Stallone told us. "Their real idea was to highlight that these companies are making money off the war. Certainly they did that. But it's not a substitute for the real work of organizing the workers to stop work and really shut down the war."

In terms of the power and threat of direct action, the United States lags behind countries like Italy and Greece, where workers have organized national strikes against the war.

There's still work to be done on the media front as well. "These actions have lead to greater public attention of corporations with ties to Iraq," Reinsborough said. "But the media hasn't picked up that it's an overall trend of corporate power" rather just a few bad actors.

Emphasizing that trend will be an essential bridge to postwar activism, says Frida Berrigan, a peace activist on the board of the War Resisters League. "We have to make the jump to when the war is over," said Berrigan, who is also a researcher at the World Policy Institute in New York. "We need to ask: Who will profit from the reconstruction? That sort of analysis transcends the war."

Also key: outing the architects of the current conflict. Gabriel Demombynes was part of the April 8 demonstration at the San Francisco offices of Autonomy Corp., which sells spying technologies used by the U.S. and other governments. A member of the People Against Empire affinity group, Demombynes told us, "The way we make the next war less likely is to focus on reducing the power of those who brought this one to us."

Matthew Hirsch contributed to this story. E-mail Rachel Brahinsky at rachel@sfbg.com.