Last week saw 300 people gather for a long weekend near the border of Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria , on the Bulgarian side. The camp was situated on the edge of the small village of Siva Reka. From a distance, the camp looked like a mini festival scene. I don’t suppose the village had ever played host to such a thing. The people of the village were extremely positive to our presence, but there is still something slightly comical about 300 folks descending on them. It looked like the circus had come to town.
NoBorder Camp Bulgaria brought together people from across Europe for 5 days of discussions and demos. The main actions of the camp included talks and film screenings with local communities; a protest in the nearby town of Svilengrad, where the Border Police HQ is; carnivalesque protests at the border points of Turkey and Greece and a demo outside the detention centre in the nearby town of Ljubimec.
The location of the camp was partly a symbolic one. Situated 4 km from the border with Greece, and 11 km from the border with Turkey, Bulgaria (along with Romania) is soon to become the new frontier of the eastern-most Schengen zone. But the camp was also practical, aiming to make connections with the locals who’s lives will be affected by the changes. For the local people who visited the camp, they talked of their vulnerability in the face of decisions that essentially remain hidden from them. There was a sense of confusion; that their region could become the focus of huge flows of sans papiers, but also that little had changed so far. They know that change is coming, but so far it is hard to see, and this creates fear. No information, to consent, no power.
On a wider scale, with Bulgaria and Romania entering Schengen next year, the new imperialism of the militarised European border regime takes another step outwards; another zone is created from which Frontex attempts its dehumanising border crack down the name of bureaucracy and efficiency drives; another space from which Europe can project oppression through the discourse of protection and security. For people trying to enter Europe and who have to do so clandestinely however, the extension of Schengen is both an oppression and also a new opportunity.
There have been a number of accounts of what happened during the camp, and you can read them here. What I want to focus on are some of the themes that arose from camp discussions; some reflections on what the camp created that perhaps will last and enrich the movement. These reflections are based on a conversation between myself and a friend at the camp. They are only our thoughts and cannot be representative of the camp, but perhaps they offer up a little of the feeling of the camp.
Me: When I think about NoBorder camp Bulgaria, I feel that the camp itself was anarchist- it was DIY and it was people working through their ideologies together - but the actions of the camp weren’t. Actually it feels pretty unimportant to make this distinction, since the camp created an autonomous space. Ideologies didn’t matter in and of themselves. At least this is how I think it was by the end.
Them: I was trying to think about whether you can designate an action as explicitly anarchist or not. On the one hand you could look at the kinds of things anarchist generally do and say ‘OK, well they do these direct actions; they fight cops; they’re black block’. Then you could look at the camp and say that it didn’t do those things therefore it’s not anarchist. But I feel there’s something wrong about this way of seeing it. I think what’s missing is an appreciation of the context in which those actions are done.
The idea of being an anarchist, I think, is to bring about anarchism, or to make an environment more anarchist. So you want to push for some change that might be far down the road. And just because the ‘end’ might be anarchist doesn’t mean that everything that leads to that point is also obviously identifiable as anarchist. Sometimes the definition of anarchist isn’t important.
Me: I can’t help feeling that a lot of what we achieved was very reformist and symbolic though. And I think that many people had a problem with that. Demonstrating outside the border police. Is such an act more than just symbolism? Perhaps the biggest and most positive outcome from our actions was the outreach to the local community and the positive press response. Perhaps this is the foundation for a movement in Bulgaria. That is something to be proud of. But much of the camp was symbolic. Its location was mainly symbolic too, in light of the fact that the changes that will affect the area have not yet come into full force.
Them: I still think the context needs to be understood. The fact that those organisers with local knowledge were saying that nothing like this had ever happened in Bulgaria before, even an action others might feel was ‘fluffy’, you could tell that the authorities were very nervous. There is no movement in Bulgaria. This makes it like special circumstances. A lot of it comes down to risk. If we had done something more radical and had been violently repressed, it could have gone in a way that would have undermined the possibility of establishing a movement in Bulgaria at all.
Me: The aims of the NoBorder network are incredibly broad though. There is a huge variety of understandings about how we should go about achieving a world free of borders. It makes for a lot of conflict within the movement when it comes together. It makes for some very long meetings!
For example, there was this conflict between those who wanted more individual autonomy to decide over actions and the wishes of the camp organisers to stick to actions that had limited chances of antagonising. I guess it came down to a divide between individual autonomy versus collective action, but also a tension in how collective actions can reflect the wishes and ideologies of 300 people. There were many who were not happy with the protests we made and were disappointed the camp didn’t create a space for more, radical, creative actions. At the beginning there were accusations of a break of trust. What do you think about this?
Them: I thought that people were missing the point. In these discussions it was pointed out that it was not trust we had lost. Rather a lack of clarity about where people were coming from; different perspectives. Because everybody seems to come to these things with the idea that everybody must have the ‘right’ and same idea immediately. People don’t give each other the benefit of the doubt. And it can quite easily and quickly escalate into a conflict. We don’t give each other the benefit of the doubt. We are not gentle with each other as a movement!
There’s something going on here about lifestyle anarchism and the idea that you can just go to another country, a different context where you don’t speak the language, and you just have to do your thing, which often becomes a kind of acting out of how you see your identity. To me this is saying ‘this is about me’ and it’s not about looking far down the road and thinking ‘what’s it gonna be like here in a years time or 10 years time?’ There were things about the protests I didn’t like. But because of the location and context, we were limited to actions that were public relations exercises. This was a spectacle, but perhaps one with some lasting effects.
Me: I think many of these issues would have been solved simply if the camp had been longer. We were beginning to generate a flow. And then it ended! So many of the conflicts in the camp existed because we didn’t yet know each other, so there was this strange lack of trust between people. A kind of ‘why don’t you already talk in a language that I fully understand?’ If we had spent more time together I think we would have had the opportunity to develop a much greater understanding and solidarity between each other. And this gives me hope for the future. I don’t think we should be negative on this point, because I think there was a learning process throughout the camp. I certainly learned a lot about my own flexibility and understanding of the diversity in the network. You can come out of those conflicts aware of how to do things differently and better the next time.
Them: I have had lots of experience where anarchists are not forgiving and are judgemental. Will people continue to make these mistakes. I think there’s something in the mentality of anarchism that lends itself to judgement like we saw at the camp.
Me: I have great memories from our action outside the detention centre, when we were communicating with the people inside the centre.
Them: Yeah there was a moment when someone shouted – in French – if anyone inside spoke French, and a guy replied ‘Oui’! and everyone roared a cheer. It was a connection.
Me: During that action all the cops were invisible really. They were simply standing there between a conversation they were not welcome to participate in.
Maybe we need to have more realistic expectations about what can be achieved in a camp. For me, the most useful thing is the chance to meet and share ideas with other people. To learn from each other. To make a temporary autonomous zone! For some this is not the point of the camp, but we are a diverse network. A NoBorder camp doesn’t exist in isolation. It exists as one type of strategic action in a whole series of actions by people connected to different networks. Perhaps there are scenarios where the local context, and the political situation and the targets exist in a way that means that other things are possible at a camp. For me Brussels was an example of when being so close to decision making powers was a perfect opportunity to really show our power. We were violently repressed but even that is a sign that we hit them where it hurt! In the context of Brussels, more antagonistic actions made sense. In somewhere like the border region of Bulgaria, there’s not those decision making powers. It’s site where decisions are acted, but not made, so the type of action in the context is different.
A large proportion of the camp came from western Europe. I think this generates a very specific way of conducting politics and making decision. A specific way of valuing, of keeping watch over racism and sexism that had a very distinct character to it. I think that if you already understood this way and were familiar with it, you would could feel very included within the camp, but if you weren’t familiar with it, it could have been very easy to have felt like an outsider in the camp, like you were doing it wrong.
Them: We also had the conversation about it being a privilege to go to a NoBorder camp and this is true in a lot of cases. But I definitely see the value in doing activism inside the borders. That’s where a lot of the power is. And then means that many people will be excluded. But I don’t necessarily think that this makes it a bad or valueless thing to do, because these camps are a part of a diversity of tactics. NoBorder camps are an opportunity to use our privilege. Some camps have been in the places of migrants and have generated a lot of solidarity. This location did not allow for that, but it was an opportunity for us to use our privilege to do something. Being aware that it is a privileged thing is important, but it is only one type of thing.
Me: OK, so we had some difficult conversations and pissed each other off a little, but in the end, a lot more was learnt and shared. What I love about camps like this is that, for a few days, everything you do is self-organised. From the showers to the dinners to the action of the camp, everything is DIY, collectively run and collectively agreed. Being a part of it is an experience which makes me feel that little bit more powerful. That little bit more positive about the future. Bring on the camp(s) in 2012!
