Deterrent
Nonviolence -
The case of the Norwegian struggle
against gas power
By
Jørgen
Johansen
TFF Board
Member
Ise, Norway -November 18,
2004
The best-prepared and most
successful large-scale civil disobedience action in
Scandinavian history never took place. Johansen tells the
remarkable story that could inspire many
others.
The
background
In 1996 the Norwegian Parliament
decided to build two large power stations to produce
electricity from natural gas. With a company ready to
build and a decision made by the authorities, it seemed
almost impossible to prevent it. Natural gas had for
years been presented as "clean" and "friendly to nature."
To promote the project the company behind the plans took
the name "Naturkraft" (The Power of Nature). Who could
protest "The Power of Nature?"
For many years, Norway has produced
and consumed more electricity per capita than any other
country in the world, except Canada. Most of the
electricity comes from waterfalls with enormous
destruction to nature, culture, fauna and flora.
Opposition to high energy consumption and environmental
destruction dates to the beginning of last century. Since
1969 several actions of civil disobedience have taken
place to prevent the construction of dams, roads and
pipelines connected with these gigantic energy systems.
In the late seventies civil disobedience prevented the
first nuclear power stations from being built in Norway.
Norway also enjoys a unique
situation with many informal networks of NGOs, political
parties, trade unions, farmer's and women's organizations
and environmental groups. These networks were created
when the first referendum on membership in European
Economic Community took place in 1972 - leading to an
unexpected defeat for EEC membership. That same network
was mobilized again when the European Union referendum
took place in 1994 - resulting in another victory. The
traditions for organizing nonviolent resistance are
broad-based and well known, but this time organizing
seemed to start too late.
But activists from the radical
youth organization Natur og Ungdom (NU) took the
initiative and began a campaign against the new power
stations. In mid-February 1997 the first meeting took
place in secrecy. Initially, the idea was to have a
surprising and well-organized press conference to
announce the structure, aims, means, and main arguments
of the campaign against the power stations. The planned
campaign would have on two pillars: first, educating
politicians and the public about CO2 emissions and the
consequences for the greenhouse effect; second, preparing
large-scale civil disobedience. The group adopted the
name Fellesaksjonen mot Gasskraftverk or FAG (The Common
Action Against Gas Power Stations).
With members from NU, elderly
activists and local people from the planned sites FAG was
launched and the struggle begun. The Kyoto-protocol was
finalized in those days, so environmental discussions in
media were focused on the greenhouse effect of C02 and
other gases. FAG developed a small number of arguments
around this issue that they used at every opportunity.
They trained their members to reply to any journalist's
question that the "dirty and old fashioned power stations
polluted as much as 700,000 private cars." Eventually,
almost every politician and journalist referred to "dirty
and old fashioned power stations" and used the example of
seven hundred thousand private cars. Those who wanted to
sign the Kyoto protocol and take the greenhouse effect
seriously could not accept the power stations.
The campaign's other pillar was
preparation for nonviolent resistance done in a very
public way. First, FAG created a small group of
experienced activists to develop a strategic plan,
prepare training, and organize the actions. The leading
strategy was collecting signatures of people who promised
to participate in any necessary actions. Presented as a
pledge for resistance, the names represented more than a
list of supporters - those who signed knew what was
expected. They knew that the lists would be made public
and that would prepare for any necessary actions. In
addition to the "normal" young activists, FAG made a
special effort to get famous people to sign. FAG wanted
to show how seriously these people viewed the power
stations and how broad-based the movement was.
The number and names on the list
became a regular media topic. When some members of
Parliament signed the list, it made headlines, of course.
Then some priests and bishops signed and again it made
the news. When leaders of trade unions signed, the media
reacted in the same way. But when Grandmas against Gas
Power Stations began to knit socks and collect warm
clothes to the activists the media made headlines out of
that too. When the number of signers passed one thousand,
the media made a big thing out of it. They did the same
when the number passed two thousand and three
thousand.
FAG realized at an early stage that
they needed some financial support to carry out the work
they had taken on. Initially they received modest support
from NU, but soon they began to organize their own
fundraising efforts. Volunteers did most of FAG's work,
but regular press work and campaign coordination required
a paid staff person. They received sufficient income from
a system of "chain-letters" to set up an office and
employ a person part-time. Even if the main office was in
Oslo, FAG decided to hire a women living close to the
site for the first planned power station. That decision
was based on her skills and the need to give the local
resistance a face. FAG activists knew they had to avoid
being seen as professional troublemakers, coming from the
capital, and telling the local people what to
think.
Just as FAG put lots of energy into
mobilizing people all over the country, they also sought
to build alliances with local people at the planned sites
for the power stations. Well aware of previous
experiences with a hostile local population, they
contacted people from the areas around the proposed power
stations at an early stage and invited them to become
part of the leadership of FAG. Inspired by the Gandhian
idea of constructive work, FAG organized a summer camp
close to one of the building sites and helped the
residents with cleaning the beaches, painting the local
church and repairing some of the buildings used by
fishermen. The effect was double. First, they were seen
as serious and hard working individuals, rather than a
bunch of trouble-making activists. Then, many new
friendships were built between "the guests" and people
from the neighborhood. Because of these good relations
with people in the area, FAG picked up lots of
information and rumors about what was happening in the
district - including preparations for the start of
construction, training by the police to arrest hundreds
of demonstrators, and the local authorities' perspective
on the situation.
Mobilisation
continues, task by task - momentum
The next task was to convince the
government that these people did not sign the list for
fun. An action committee prepared for massive civil
disobedience. Week-long training camps took place in
several parts of the country while activists mapped the
areas of planned actions in public view. Meetings with
local people and the local police were also held
publicly. Almost all the preparations became media events
with TV teams reporting on the activists' preparation for
all eventualities.
Tent camp exercises took place
night and day to anticipate any surprise "attacks" by the
police. FAG hoped to show the political parties and the
power station company that they would have to face
thousands of well-trained and prepared activists if they
started construction work. This action was not going to
be a symbolic blockade. Before any construction could
take place, the government would have to mobilize huge
police forces and arrest thousands of environmentally
concerned citizens. Since nearly all the political
parties competed for "green" voters, they found
themselves in a dilemma.
The Social Democratic government
faced opposition among its own members. The party's youth
organization even took part in the campaign against the
"dirty old fashioned power stations." Some of the
opposition in the parliament had their own reasons to
criticize the government, but most tried to act
responsibly, making "green"-environmental and
future-oriented arguments. The liberal center parties and
the Socialist Party talked about the greenhouse effect,
the Kyoto protocol and the need to think of future
generations. Increased CO2 emissions do not fit into such
a framework.
Becoming
an election issue - and the government
resigns!
Because of intense professional
lobbying and media work, the gas power question became
one of the most discussed issues in the upcoming election
campaign. When FAG called a meeting, all parties had to
send their leaders or other prominent representatives or
face criticism not taking environmental questions
seriously. FAG representatives had easy access to
newspapers, radio and television. At the May Day
demonstrations, FAG printed thousands of small handheld
posters to be carried on sticks and dominated the whole
demonstration. Any meaningful picture from that day
showed a large number of posters saying "No to Gas
Power".
As the elections approached,
opinion polls showed a majority of people supported FAG
and their struggle. All candidates were asked their
position on gas power so the voters would know when they
went to the polls. Then prime minister Mr. Jagland
decided to delay the necessary "go ahead" from the
government until after the election - in a vain attempt
to prevent the debate about gas power from dominating the
elections completely.
Not surprisingly, a coalition of
liberal parties opposing the "dirty and old fashioned"
gas power station got enough votes to form the new
government. They did not have a majority by themselves,
but hoped to survive with support from other parties on
individual issues and no other coalition could agree to
form a government. In the coalition's first declaration
to the Parliament, they promised to oppose the two
planned power stations. When asked if the planned
campaign of civil disobedience influenced their decision
they did not acknowledge its importance, but everyone
knew that it was the main reason. Publicly they said the
decision was merely a part of their environmentally
friendly policy.
FAG expressed hope but did not
trust that the battle was won. They continued with
preparation for massive civil disobedience. Large numbers
of activists took part in practical training with the
expressed aim of preventing construction with massive
blockades. The Norwegian winter weather on the west coast
is extremely hard with temperatures of minus 20°
degrees Celsius for days and hard wind and snow. Sitting
in a blockade outdoors for hours or days with few
possibilities for moving demanded careful preparation.
People on the lists took courses on how to dress and what
sort of food to bring while supporters across the country
took part in a campaign to collect the needed equipment.
At central squares in the main cities FAG set up tents to
collect tools, cooking equipment, tents, sleeping bags,
warm clothes and other gear for a long winter camp with
civil disobedience.
Those who accepted more
responsibility for the actions took special training in
decision-making, consensus, first aid (specifically for
frostbite and exposure), working with the media, and the
history of nonviolence. Activists who had taken part in
the earlier civil disobedience actions from 1969 onwards
helped with training, strategic planning and tactical
decisions. All agreed that never in the history of
nonviolent struggle in Scandinavia had actions been so
well prepared, planned, and public.
The pressure on the newly elected
government mounted from two directions. FAG demanded a
clear decision to stop the plans for the two power
stations, while Naturkraft (the company who planned to
build them) argued that there was no way it could be
stopped - saying that all the legal agreements were in
place. The newly elected government needed to find a way
out. Knowing that Parliament had accepted the plans and
that formal laws offered little support for stopping
construction, the government introduced a change in the
interpretation of the environmental law. The main change
in the law was to define CO2 as a pollutant that would
require a special permit before it could be released into
the atmosphere. Thus, environmental authorities could
stop the planned construction. The power company had to
submit an application for the emission of CO2 and was
required to use "the best available technology" to reduce
CO2 emissions. Not surprisingly, the demands on the
company turned out to be so strict that they appealed
this interpretation of the law, stating publicly that
they could not make a profit under these
conditions.
Leading social democrats and
right-wing parties joined with the industrialists saying
that the process was a set-up to win political points.
They pledged to pressure the government through the
majority in Parliament to force the government to reverse
its decision. They also criticized the government for
giving in to activists. In the end, the Social Democrats
pushed the government to accept the power stations or
resign. They built a large enough majority in the
Parliament in favor of ordering the government to give
the "go ahead" to the power plants. And the government
resigned!
By that time, the owners of
Naturkraft became doubtful about potential profits from
the project. New environmental technologies were being
tested and the cost of CO2-emmissions would grow in the
years to come. Awareness of dangers of the greenhouse
effect continued to grow. And the two power stations
never came into existence.
Summary
and conclusion
In retrospect, the FAG campaign was
an example of successful deterrent nonviolence. Even if
no politicians would confess that the planned civil
disobedience made the difference, it is obvious to
everyone that without FAG the power stations would be up
and running today. The combination of a good media
strategy, serious preparation for the largest civil
disobedience actions in Norway in the last 50 years,
discussion of "climate change" on the international
agenda, high electricity consumption and many committed
people made this campaign victorious. NU had a critical
impact on FAG. Many of their earliest leaders took on
important roles in FAG. Their skills and commitment
cannot be underestimated. Most of them were experienced
nonviolent activists who were also familiar with how to
"treat" media. In addition, NU used their whole
organization, including their financial strength and
local groups, to support and work with FAG.
Another influential factor is that
traditions of civil disobedience in Norway go back
several hundred years. Awareness of the history of
nonviolent resistance has grown in recent years. The
environmental movement is well aware of their four-decade
experience with radical actions, but the role of civil
disobedience in the struggle for democratic freedoms and
rights in Norway-dating to the Middle Age-is receiving
new attention.
When representatives from the
church, trade unions, political parties, universities,
and other parts of the civil society regularly and openly
supported the arguments and strategy opposing the power
stations, FAG received a strength that few campaigns in
Norway had ever enjoyed. Time also worked in favor of the
movement. Every delay of the startup made alternatives
appear more realistic and convincing. That the government
resigned over the question of the gas power stations
shows the force in this campaign.
In the end, about 3,500 people
signed the pledge of resistance - less than one per one
thousand of Norway's population. Why should the
government care about a campaign that never came close to
a majority of the people? They knew a large number of
people willing to use civil disobedience to stop
construction of the plants, the number of people who
opposed the plans must be many times higher, a fact also
reflected in opinion polls.
Can we draw any general conclusion
from the struggle against the power stations? In any
situation, a number of variables are at work including
the country's political situation, its media, culture,
and development of civil society organizations. In Norway
in this case, these came together in a unique way.
Nevertheless, the history of FAG tells us that the
combination of well planned strategy, serious preparation
for large scale civil disobedience, good relations with
the local community, openness about the plans for action,
convincing arguments and sufficient human and financial
resources can make a different.
If construction started and the
blockades had been put into place, it is impossible to
predict what might have happened. Few believe that FAG
could resist the power of the state and police for very
long. Still, the political cost of arresting thousands of
Norwegians committed to "save the planet from greenhouse
effect" would have been very high.
The long-term impact on social
change movements is also impossible to predict. Thousands
of individuals in the environmental movement experienced
a sense of empowerment through this effort and their
trust in the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance grew
immensely - two factors that may ripple across
Scandinavia's political life in years to come.
©
TFF & the author 2004
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|