The Militarization of US Government Response to COVID-19 and What We Can Do About It

This statement was written by Drake Logan, a civilian ally to About Face: Veterans Against the War, with input on content by About Face members (post 9/11 military veterans) including Lisa Ling, Krystal Two Bulls, Maggie Martin, Erica Manley, Shawn Fischer, Jovanni Reyes, Matt W. Howard, Derek S. Matthews, Ramon Mejía, and Brittany DeBarros. Editorial guidance was provided by Clare Bayard, civilian ally to About Face. Authorship is always collective.

Media inquiries please contact us at press@aboutfaceveterans.org or call Drake Logan at: +1 (415) 513–6974.

Overview

This document outlines six broad areas of current political need and opportunity as the US government ramps up the militarization of its response to the coronavirus epidemic.

About Face: Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War) is a grassroots organization made up of post-9/11 military veterans advocating for an end to the wars in which many of them participated, along with the use of military tactics, weapons and values in communities across the United States.

We present this statement in order to generate further conversation on these points both within and beyond our organization, as well as to enter the national media conversation on coronavirus response. Our intention is to continue to revise and update this statement as the situation and our analysis evolves. Please reach out to About Face if you are a member or civilian who would like to be involved in media work on these issues, or if you would like to help create further independent media.

We need to begin by tackling these six areas of political need and opportunity in the time of coronavirus:

  1. We need to engage in and spread the practice of community-based defense instead of militarized security.
  2. We need to draw careful lines between what is acceptable military response and what is categorically unacceptable.
  3. We need to put coronavirus in context with the Global War on Terror (GWoT) and domestic militarism.
  4. We need to resist and reject Coronavirus Capitalism.
  5. We need to demand that the Department of Defense adequately protect Active, Guard, and Reserve military personnel from contracting coronavirus.
  6. We need to act in solidarity with international communities.

We hold that moments of crisis like this one expose the faulty logic of a system that conflates violence with power, authoritarianism with safety, and productivity with value. When exposed for their weaknesses, systems of oppression often grasp for reinforcement through the aggressive projection of force and control. We are witnessing this dynamic before our eyes and it’s important we contextualize it as such.

READ THE FULL STATEMENT

Pagan: “We love our island. We don’t want to give it up. This proposal is going to turn it into a wasteland.”

 

 

“We love our island. We don’t want to give it up,” says Jerome Aldan, the mayor of the Northern Mariana Islands. “This proposal is going to turn it into a wasteland.” (David Cloud, Los Angeles Times)

The Navy’s plan to conduct live fire training on Tinian and Pagan islands in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) is another recent manifestation of President Obama’s so-called Pacific Pivot (now rebranded the “rebalance to Asia”). Meeting fierce anti-bases protests in Okinawa since the 1995 rape of a 12 year old schoolgirl by US Marines, the US and Japan have tried to relocate the Futenma MCAS to Henoko, Okinawa. This plan has been completely rejected by the vast majority of Okinawans and is now approaching a breaking point with regular civil disobedience on land and sea to protect the coral reef and seagrass habitats favored by the endangered northern Dugong.

Another element of the realignment plan involved moving up to 8000 marines plus their dependents to Guam, the US colony in the Mariana chain.  But strong opposition to the proposal, budget constraints in Congress and inadequate infrastructure on Guam have caused the US to recalibrate its plans. They are now looking at approximately 4000 marines going to Guam, 2500 to Australia on a rotating basis, and 2700 to Hawaiʻi. Additionally, the original plan to build a live fire range in Pagat point in Guam, an important ancient Chamorro cultural site, was blocked by legal and political pressure from the community. So the navy looked north to the CNMI, which is in a semi-colonial status under the U.S. The latest environmental impact statement just released looks at establishing enhanced live fire training on Tinian as well as taking over the northern island of Pagan.

Whereas the CNMI government had been more accepting of military plans in the past, this new proposal has sparked vociferous opposition. Check out the testimony from one of the public hearings.

The struggle there has finally gotten some wider media coverage, such as this piece in the Los Angeles Times “Island of Pagan opposes plan to use it for Marine invasion training” (5/17/2015):

“We love our island. We don’t want to give it up,” said Jerome Aldan, the 40-year-old elected mayor of the Northern Mariana Islands. “This proposal is going to turn it into a wasteland.”

The islanders were relocated to Saipan years ago when the volcano erupted, but now they want to return home.

Pagan is a gem of biodiversity. Biologists have been concerned about rumors that the military wanted to take over the island. Several years ago some UH researchers created a website to draw attention to the ecological resources that would be endangered by military occupation of the island.

The Alternative Zero Coalition is one group fighting the proposed plan.

Our Islands Are Sacred is a group on Facebook based in Guam that is also in solidarity with efforts to protect Tinian and Pagan.

 

Turbulence and Zombie Militarism: When a deadly aircraft crash is just a “hard landing”

 

Photo: Ken Quinata/KHON

Planet Earth seems to be experiencing a period of geophysical turbulence. Molten magma on the move. Earthquake clusters near the crater of Kilauea. The lava lake of Halemaʻumaʻu exploding and overflowing its banks, then subsiding. Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions at tectonic hotspots around the worlds including Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Japan, and the terribly deadly swarm of quakes that killed thousands in Nepal.

The turbulence is also social and political. From #Blacklivesmatter demonstrations in Baltimore and other U.S. cities, to the worldwide #kukiaimauna #wearemaunakea protests against the Thirty Meter Telescope on sacred Mauna Kea, from kayaktivists blockading the Shell oil platform in Puget Sound, to Okinawans protesting on land and sea against the massive new reef-destroying Marine Corps base in Henoko, Okinawa, social relations are churning.

And now turbulence of the fluid dynamic sort, it seems, may have brought down a Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft in a deadly crash in Waimānalo, Hawaiʻi that killed one two marines and injured 20 others. Watch this cellphone video of the crash:

 

Hawaii News Now – KGMB and KHNL

In the video, a large cloud of dust is kicked up by the powerful rotors. You can see the Osprey descending quickly, apparently with enough speed that the cameraperson expresses alarm. The aircraft hits the ground in the dust cloud and pieces can be seen flying off. Then flames and thick black smoke envelope the airplane followed by a fireball.

The Marines called it a “hard landing” rather than a crash, and the media has continued to parrot that terminology. The spin machine kicked in to minimize the severity of the incident, then to reaffirm the safety of the aircraft. The Marine Corps has an interest minimizing the danger of the Osprey because it has been plagued by deadly accidents and ballooning costs. Despite several attempts by the Pentagon to kill the expensive program, the Marines have been able to bring it back from the dead—zombie militarism—mindless pursuit of the objective despite the costs.

But they cannot bring back the dozens of lives lost in Osprey crashes.

The thing is, the Pentagon  has known about the hazards of the Osprey for more than ten years. The report V-22 Osprey: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker? (2006) by Lee Gaillard of the Center for Defense Information states, “They warned us. But no one is listening.”

One of the main problems is what is called a “vortex ring state” (VRS), an aerodynamic conundrum inherent to its dual flight mode design:

We are not talking here about “glitches,” or subcomponent quality control issues, or assembly line carelessness problems. It is an aerodynamic enigma involving highly complex turbulence conditions beyond the analytic capabilities of our most advanced computational fluid dynamics simulations.

Given that the V-22’s dual-mode flight capability (as either helicopter or airplane) requires significant aerodynamic design compromises in its prop blades in an attempt to maximize their efficiency in both flight modes, the blades’ stiff, high-twist (47 degrees) design necessary for the higher speed horizontal flight mode poses severe danger when employed in rapid vertical descent situations likely to be faced in combat. This is, therefore, an essentially irreconcilable design conundrum that unfortunately cannot be ‘resolved.’ (14-15)

The report continues, citing an Operational Testing (OT) report:

As the OT-IIG report states, “When descending at a high rate with low forward speed, the rotor can become enveloped in its own downwash, which can result in a substantial loss of lift. … Should one rotor enter VRS and lose more lift than the other rotor, a sudden roll can result, which quickly couples into a[n inverted] nose-down pitch”17—i.e., an upsidedown nose-first crash. Such a maneuver at low altitude during high rate of descent into a hot landing zone would therefore result in catastrophic loss of the aircraft and all aboard.

This appears to describe what happened in videos of the crash.

osprey-crash

The news of the crash has gone international. In Japan and Okinawa in particular, there is intense interest in the danger of the Osprey. A hundred thousand people protested against the stationing of 24 Ospreys in Okinawa. The crash in Hawaiʻi will surely rekindle the opposition.

Several years ago, when the stationing of Osprey in Hawaiʻi was first announced, there was opposition from Kanaka Maoli who did not want an ancient Hawaiian fishing village site to be destroyed by the expanded Osprey hangar, and from neighbors of the Marine Corps Base Hawaii – Kaneohe Bay who feared the noise and safety impacts of the Osprey.

This crash may spark renewed opposition to the Osprey in particular, but also to the military occupation of Hawaiian “ceded” (i.e. stolen Hawaiian Kingdom lands) in Waimānalo. In the late 1990s, the Air Force conducted a series of hearings to discuss the possible closure and transfer of the Bellows Air Force Base land that was deemed “underutilized” after the end of the Cold War. Hawaiian community members wanted that the land be returned. But the Marine Corps wanted the land for its training. And the Commander of the Pacific Command, Admiral Macke (the same person who suggested that the US Marines who raped a 12 year old Okinawan school girl in 1995 should have paid for a prostitute instead) threatened to reduce the military presence in Hawaiʻi if the military didn’t get its way. So the Marines took over most of Bellows and use it for amphibious landing training as well as Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) training in a mock Afghan village. They even hired and flew in Afghan Americans from California to play Afghan villagers.

The crash coincides with the gathering in Hawaiʻi of military leaders from around the Asia-Pacific region to discuss amphibious combat skills.  It’s not clear that the Osprey flights were related to the conference.

UH President Greenwood renews the UARC contract without public review or input

Guerilla theater at UH UARC meeting - "I (heart) secrecy"

Exemplifying the secrecy and lack of accountability of the University of Hawaiʻi administration, outgoing President M.R.C. Greenwood renewed the Navy sponsored Applied Research Laboratory – UH (ARL-UH), also known as a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC), without public review or input.  When the Board of Regents initially approved the UARC in 2008, one condition was that the UARC would be reviewed after several years.  No report has been released. Despite diligent efforts by Beverly Keever to request public information from the Navy and UH, the University and the Navy have given her the runaround. With this “stealth” renewal, the Greenwood administration seems to  have thumbed its nose at all the concerned faculty, students and community members who have sought transparency and accountability for this classified navy research facility embedded within the university system.

Alia Wong of Civil Beat has been digging deeper into the UARC issue. She writes:

The release explains that the Navy last March threatened not to extend the agreement because the university wasn’t demonstrating a strong enough commitment to the contract. So UH last September hired a retired Navy admiral, Mike Vitale, to direct the lab.

The lab has conducted $7.9 million in unclassified research since the first contract was finalized in 2008, according to the press release. Just $196,000 of that research was sponsored by the Navy, suggesting that most of the research was conducted by other military agencies that under the contract can also utilize the lab.

The university has yet to explain those other studies.

It is worth revisiting the purpose of UARCs. During World War II, the government felt that it needed to enlist the essential competencies of several research universities to provide research to the government.  By establishing a “trusted relationship” with a university through these specially insulated laboratories, the government would be able to order research tasks of the UARC.  The research product was “owned” by the government and covered by the UARC’s blanket security classification.  Research conducted by the lab would not be peer reviewed because of its classified nature.  In exchange, the university received a steady flow of sole source (i.e. no-bid) contracts.  This is why there are so few UARCs such as Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) such as Sandia Labs.

UARCs are not supposed to be mere contracting vehicles to circumvent the normal competitive procurement process. Yet, the driving impetus behind Project Kai e‘e and the ARL-UH was the quest for a sole source, open ended funding arrangement for military research programs in Hawai‘i.  As Mun Won Chang (Fenton) stated in 2001 “fast/efficient streamlined contracting for DoD customers…IS THE MOST IMPORTANT CORE COMPETENCE…”[1] This idea was echoed by UH President McClain in January 2007: “the UARC contract is simply a master agreement….”[2]

Irregularities in the procedures for establishment of the UARC have raised concerns about the Navy’s failure to follow established federal acquisition regulations for the procurement of the UARC to UH.[3]  Neither the UH administration nor the Navy have provided a satisfactory explanation nor justification why the sole source procurement of the UARC to UH deviated from normal competition requirements for federal contracts.  Public notice of the UARC procurement came after two years of negotiations and planning had already taken place between UH, ONR and NAVSEA.

At the recommendation of RADM Cohen, Chief of Naval Research, in May 2003, NAVSEA conducted a Review and Justification for Establishing a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) at University of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM), which concluded in May 2004.   Based on this document, on May 21, 2004, Gregg Hagedorn, the Acting Executive Director of NAVSEA recommended the establishment of the UARC with the concurrence of John Young, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition) on June 5, 2004.[4]

A string of congratulatory emails followed.  One message that appears to be from Hagedorn stated: “Excellent news. I hope [Director of Defense Research and Engineering] approval is soon… We are on a sucess [sic] oriented schedule to award the UARC contract.  Gregg”. Admiral Cohen, who was also copied on the message replied “Good, tks, pls let me know IF you need my help. Jay”[5]

In a letter dated July 8, 2004, Ronald Sega, Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) wrote “I approve the request to designate the University of Hawaii at Manoa Applied Research Laboratory (UHM-ARL) as a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC).”[6]

A congressional notification memo addressed to Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka and Representative Abercrombie was prepared in anticipation of Sega’s approval.[7]  But according to Pete Brown at NAVSEA, Lieutenant Commander Leda Chong, from the Navy Office of Legislative Affairs made personal phone calls to the Hawaii Congressional delegation rather than send the letter. Brown wrote, “CDR Leda Chong had spoken with SEN Inouye’s staff on 12, July 04.”[8]

Procurement Irregularities

Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) require full and open competition for most types of federal procurement actions. This is to ensure the fairness, quality and cost effectiveness of goods and services acquired by the government.

The law allows for some exceptions to full and open competition when there is a compelling need or extenuating circumstances.  Federal law 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c)(3)(B) permits “other than full and open competition” when “it is necessary to award the contract to a particular source or sources in order …to establish or maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an educational or other nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and development center”.  However, the procedures for establishing this type of relationship with the government usually require exhaustive steps to justify the need for and to select a sole source provider of “essential engineering, research, or development capability”.

University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs) and their closely related cousins, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) are considered “trusted agents” of the federal government that have access to privileged information and receive sole source research grants and contracts within their designated “core competencies”.   Because of their uniquely close relationship to the federal government and access to information and funds, UARCs and FFRDCs also must observe strict guidelines to avoid organizational conflicts of interest.

In the mid-1990s, inappropriate contracting activity involving existing UARCs and FFRDCs led to a review of these programs and tighter restrictions.[9]  To prevent the abuse of sole source funding through UARCs and FFRDCs, the Department of Defense (DoD) promulgated its own rules for management of UARCs.[10] A “Discussion Paper” from the Directorate for Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) that was distributed by UH administrators to researchers at UH Manoa clearly laid out the guidelines and requirements for the establishment of a new UARC:

Sponsorship comes first, driven by Defense program needs…. The determination to establish a new UARC is therefore internal to DoD, independent of a University’s potential desire to establish a UARC.

On the process of establishing a new UARC, the “Discussion Paper” stated:

The sponsor(s) must define the long-term requirement (with funding expected to exceed $10 M annually), in the context of the core capabilities to be maintained by the UARC. These required capabilities must be approved through the Service Acquisition Executive (SAE) and forwarded to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) for final approval to establish a new UARC. The sponsors should then solicit proposals from all interested Universities for establishing a new UARC to meet the approved core capability requirements. The selection process should follow established procurement procedures.[11]  [emphasis added]

Basically, a DoD sponsor of a new UARC must clearly define why it needs a UARC and what work (core competencies) will be required of the UARC. Then the sponsor should follow competitive procurement practices, soliciting proposals from all qualified and interested Universities, before awarding the UARC contract.  This is logical since once the UARC is established it would enjoy access to an indefinite amount of non-competed funding.

However, NAVSEA did not follow these guidelines or processes for procuring the UARC to UH.   Perhaps because the UH UARC was the first new UARC to be considered by the Navy in 60 years, reviewers of the proposal seemed to be making up the procedures.   In fact on the “coordination page” of the Review and Justification for Establishing a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) at University of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM), a hand written note by Sophie Krasik, Assistant General Counsel dated June 4, 2004 stated:

Note: I haven’t been able to find any guidance on establishment of UARC’s (vice FFRDCs, for example) but the criteria used here are reasonable ones.[12]

The public has gotten contradictory accounts of the procurement process for the UARC.  In a hearing before the State Senate Committee on Higher Education in 2005, Syrmos testified that there had been a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), a widely distributed competitive procurement announcement, for the UARC.  But when an audience member pointed out that there was no BAA, Syrmos corrected himself and said that it was a Request for Proposals (RFP) that was issued on September 24, 2004.  But this was also a false statement.

There was no competitive solicitation of any kind. After Sega approved the designation of UH Manoa – Applied Research Laboratory as a UARC, NAVSEA issued a Presolicitation Notice N00024-05-R-6234 dated September 24, 2004, which stated:

The Naval Sea System Command intends to award a sole source contract for up to 315 work years to establish and further solidify a strategic relationship for essential Engineering, Research, and Development capabilities at the Applied Research Laboratory, University of Hawaii at Manoa (ARL/UHM), 2500 Campus Road, Honolulu, HI 96822. [emphasis added]

In a public meeting on April 7, 2005, it was pointed out to UH administrators that other federal sponsors, including the Army and NASA used full and open competition in procurement of new UARCs.  Syrmos blithely dismissed the information: “The Navy runs the UARC office differently than the Army.”

According to Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart 6.3, federal sponsors seeking to use one of the listed exceptions to full and open competition are required to conduct a rigorous written justification. The FAR spells out at least twelve elements that must be part of a justification.

Obtained through FOIA, the May 2004 Review and Justification for Establishing a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) at the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM) produced by NAVSEA and transmitted to the Director, Defense Research and Engineering on May 21, 2004, only addressed the question of whether or not NAVSEA had a legitimate need for a UARC at UH.  While it is debatable whether the document fulfilled even this requirement, the Review and Justification did not address the justification required under FAR for a non-competitive procurement.

In one set of the correspondences obtained through FOIA, NAVSEA officials apparently had difficulty mustering enough interest in a UARC at UH from other military branches.


[1].       Mun-Won Chang, A proposed concept for Pacific Research Laboratory (PRL), Federally Funded Research Laboratory, A Subsidiary of RCUH/University of HI and University of Alaska, August 30, 2001.

[2].   David McClain, “In the Hot Seat”, Honolulu Advertiser, January 25, 2007.

[3].       Eric Szarmes, “Re: Requirement for a Broad Agency Announcement for the NAVSEA Applied Research Laboratory UARC procurement”, Letter to Peter Englert with attachments. April 12, 2005. Eric Szarmes. “Re: Procurement for New UARCs”, Letter to Peter Englert with attachments. May 13, 2005.  Eric Seitz. Letter to Walter Kirimitsu, UH counsel.  April 25, 2005.

[4].  Gregg Hagedorn, Acting Executive Director, NAVSEA, “Recommendation for Establishing a University Affilitated Research Center at the University of Hawaii at Manoa”, letter to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, via Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition), May 21, 2004, with attached Review and Justification for Establishing a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) at University of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM), Naval Sea Systems Command University Affiliated Research Center Management Office (NAVSEA 106), May 2004.

[5].  “Recommendation for UARC at UHM”, a string of emails dated June 8 – 9, 2004, produced through FOIA request to NAVSEA from the computer of Antonia Stine.

[6].   Ronald M. Sega, “Subject: Designating the University of Hawaii at Manoa Applied Research Laboratory (UHM-ARL) as a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC)”, Memorandum for Executive Director, Naval Sea Systems Command, July 8, 2004.

[7].      Leda Chong, “Subj.: Establishment of University Affiliated Research Center”, Memorandum for Interested Members of Congress, unsent congressional notification memo.

[8].       Pete Brown, “RE: Recommendation for UARC at UHM – Status of Notifications”, email to Michael Mcgrath, August 19, 2004.

[9].       Government Accounting Office’s August 1996 Report on Issues Relating to the Management of Federally Funded R&D Centers, GAO/NSIAD-96-112, notes that “[the] DOD’s internal advisory group decided to include university-affiliated research centers [in May 1995] when reviewing FFRDCs due to the similar manner in which the organizations function.”

[10].       See Department of Defense University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) Management Plan, 1996.  Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command, University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) Memorandum, June 24, 2002.

[11].       U.S. Department of Defense, Directorate for Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) Discussion Paper, undated.

[12].       Gregg Hagedorn, Acting Executive Director, NAVSEA, “Recommendation for Establishing a University Affilitated Research Center at the University of Hawaii at Manoa”, letter to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, via Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition), May 21, 2004, with attached Review and Justification for Establishing a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) at University of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM), Naval Sea Systems Command University Affiliated Research Center Management Office (NAVSEA 106), May 2004.

 

Stop the secret renewal of UH classified naval research center!

The University of Hawaiʻi is poised to renew a contract with the Navy to operate a controversial Navy sponsored University of Hawaiʻi Applied Research Laboratory, otherwise known as a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC).

The UARC was approved in 2008 despite fierce opposition and a civil disobedience campaign that culminated in a week-long occupation of the UH President McClain’s office. The UARC was intended to be a no-bid contracting pipeline for UH to receive military research contracts through the classified research center.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

1. CONTACT UH PRESIDENT GREENWOOD ASAP and urge that she not renew the Applied Research Laboratory contract. Request that she instead refer the matter back to the Board of Regents and allow them to review a full accounting of the program and have a public discussion of its risks and liabilities.

2. SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS BY WED. JULY 17th:

3. TESTIFY IN PERSON AT THE BOARD OF REGENTS MEETING ON THURSDAY, JULY 18th,

  • Date: Thursday, July 18, 2013
  • Time: 9:00 a.m.
  • Place: University of Hawaiʻi Cancer Center Sullivan Conference Center 701 Ilalo Street Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
  • Public Comment Period (3rd item on the agenda): Individuals may orally testify on items on this agenda during the Public Comment Period. Please call the Board office prior to the meeting or notify the Secretary of the Board at the meeting site. Written testimony is also accepted. Testifiers are requested to limit their testimony to three (3) minutes.

BACKGROUND:

Anticipating the expiration of the UARC contract, Keever sought out information about the contract and all task orders performed by UH for the Navy under the UARC through public information requests.  All she got was the runaround. In articles published in the Civil Beat and Hawaii Independent:

Not since the Vietnam War and other protests of 40 years ago had the Manoa campus seen anything like the furor that erupted in opposition to establishing a military research laboratory at the University of Hawaii.

Students and faculty sounded off with blowhorns at assemblies, hung banners from rooftops, held nighttime vigils at the UH President’s mansion and petitioned the Board of Regents at a marathon, six-hour hearing.  With backpacks and sleeping rolls, they swooped up the stairs of Bachman Hall, invaded the president’s office, and settled in for a six-day sit-in and sleep-in that garnered negative headlines around the globe and lured the nation’s leading academic newspaper to send its own staff reporter to the scene.

“The last time the U.S. Navy built a laboratory on a university campus, Franklin D. Roosevelt was president and the United States was a war with Axis powers,” Kelly Field reported to the Chronicle of Higher Education. “Sixty years later, as the nation battles terrorism and an insurgency in Iraq, the Navy is encountering fierce resistance at home over its plans to develop a laboratory here at the University of Hawaii-Manoa.”

When the UARC was proposed in 2004, there was strong opposition to the UARC led by a dynamic coalition of students, faculty and community that raised awareness, mobilized creative actions and occupied the UH President McClain’s office for a week. Kanaka Maoli students and faculty were at the head of efforts to oppose the UARC citing the threat this classified naval research lab posed to UH as a “Hawaiian place of learning”.   The UH Mānoa Faculty Senate, UH Mānoa undergraduate student association, and even the UH Mānoa Chancellor opposed the UARC.  But the UARC, intended to be a no-bid contracting pipeline to funnel military research funds to Hawaiʻi and military research facilities at the Pacific Missile Range Facility, was moved from the UH Mānoa Campus to the UH System level and eventually approved by the Board of Regents in 2008.

GENEALOGY OF THE UARC

The UARC originated with an earlier secretive contract named “Project Kai eʻe”, which means tsunami in Hawaiian. Project Kai eʻe involved UH researchers, the Research Corporation of the University of Hawaiʻi (RCUH), the Office of Naval Research, several admirals and Senator Inouye.  It became the focus of a scandalous Naval Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS) investigation of possible fraud, abuse, and conflicts of interest.

Project Kai eʻe was intended to be a $50 million multi-faceted military research project awarded to RCUH to conduct military research based at the Pacific Missile Range Facility.  As RCUH Executive Director Harold Masumoto reported to the RCUH Board in October 4, 2001:

This may become a major project – about $50 million if funding comes through. As more of these types of projects become reality, there may be a need for a separate entity to manage them because of their focused objectives.

On December 4, 2001, Masumoto reported to the RCUH Board of Directors that:

RCUH was asked to submit a proposal and has done so for an ONR project with a potential price tag of $48 million over four years…A Phase 2 proposal may also be submitted. This project is basically in support of the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai.

At the June 6, 2002 RCUH Board of Directors meeting, Masumoto reported:

Project Kaiee – We are still awaiting award of the contract. In the meantime, we will receive $800k of funding to get started (hiring an Executive Director and a Technical Director as well as some other support/technical personnel). The project will be incubated by RCUH. Plans at this time include evolving it into a UARC (University Affiliated Research Center).

RCUH was involved in providing services for the Navy funding agency as well as using this privileged information to submit the Project Kai eʻe bid.  This raised flags about conflicts of interest issues.   As a result Harold Masumoto moved several “services” contracts to the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research, a quasi-public corporation with historical ties to UH where he also held an executive position.

The NCIS reported that an Office of Naval Research program manager Mun Won Chang-Fenton and Admiral Paul Schultz:

planned to benefit from their NAVSAIRSYSCOM affiliation by orchestrating the award of a proposed contract, N00421-02-D-3151, to a company [they] were developing, Pacific Research Institute (PRI), also referred to as PROJECT KAIE’E’.

Project Kai eʻe or Pacific Research Institute (PRI) was awarded to RCUH at a reduced dollar amount.  It appears that the Executive Director position for the PRI was intended to be filled by Admiral Paul Schultz when he retired.  With the contract in hand, Masumoto posted a job announcement for the Executive Director of the PRI on the RCUH bulletin board for all of ten minutes. Schultz was the only applicant for the PRI Executive Director position.  He was offered the position but stopped short of accepting it.  Masumoto abruptly and inexplicably terminated the contract for the Pacific Research Institute/Project Kai eʻe and returned the money.  Why?
The minutes of the September 27, 2002 RCUH Board of Directors meeting contained only a terse and vague statement about its cancellation:
ONR Project – The proposal for Project Kaiee was withdrawn due to circumstances beyond our control. RCUH will pursue other avenues of funding for these types of projects.
It seems that the NCIS investigation was closing in and Masumoto and Schultz may have been tipped off.  Had Schultz accepted the job, it may have triggered more serious criminal charges. The NCIS investigation led to some disciplinary actions and setbacks for key players, but as one informant noted, “The Navy couldn’t prosecute Schultz and Fenton without implicating 4 Admirals and a State Senator.”
After the demise of PRI/Project Kai eʻe, Masumoto began in earnest to pitch the idea of a UARC to UH Administrators. On October 22, 2002, he reported to the RCUH Board of Directors:

UARC – We are also looking into the establishment of a University Affiliated Research Center and have discussed the matter with President Dobelle and UHM Chancellor Englert.

In a report to the RCUH Board of Directors on March 6, 2003, Vassilis Syrmos, who at the time was a UH professor of electrical engineering as well as RCUH’s Interim Director of Science and Technology, reported:

University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) – The proposal is 99% complete and the UHM approvals are in place to take it to next step which is for Admiral Cohen (Chief of Naval Research) to send it to NAVSEA to designate UHM as a UARC. It is hoped that the UARC will be in place by this summer. Because a UARC functions as a trusted agent of the government, it operates under sole source, multi-task delivery of contracts to perform work primarily for Navy sponsors…. Until UH changes its policy on classified research, such an activity has to be run through an organization like RCUH. Creating a separate 501(c)(3) type organization is another alternative.

The UARC first came to public attention in 2004, when UH faculty raised strong objections to classified military research at UH.  After several years of strong opposition the UH Board of Regents approved a five year contract with a commitment that no classified research would occur on the Mānoa campus and that there would be no classified research in the first three years of the contract.  Keever writes:

Now, fast-forwarding to five years later, Senator Inouye has passed on and on July 14, the UH’s contract expires with the U.S. Navy’s Sea Systems Command, its war-fighting, weapons-development arm.

Without discussion by or disclosure to the public, UH is set to sign a new contract with the Navy. “Because there are no planned changes to the contract other than the timeframe, this modification would be signed by the Vice President for Research with the approval of the President,” according to the response to my e-mail made by a representative of Lynne T. Waters, UH’s associate vice president for external affairs and university relations. UH is now selecting replacements for both the Vice President for Research and for the President.

Before UH administrators sign the new contract, however, the Board of Regents has been urged to have a designated UH administrator explain fully the amount, scope, costs, revenues, locations, outcomes of UH’s ARL-conducted research and the kinds of censorship placed on dissemination of all research results. The Board is scheduled to meet on July 18 at the UH Cancer Center in Kakaʻako.

Alia Wong of the Civil Beat wrote a follow up article exploring the secrecy surrounding the renewal of the UARC contract:

Kitty Lagareta, who chaired the Board of Regents between 2005 and 2007, said she and other regents approved the plan on strict conditions, including that none of the initial research be classified, and after long-drawn-out consultations with stakeholders.

She said regents also called for a review of the lab’s research after a few years.

“An agreement’s an agreement,” she said. “The university ohana as well as the public are probably deserving of some sort of a recap.”

Ian Lind writes:

The secret Navy laboratory set up by the University of Hawaii five years ago, which was sold as a way to tap into a lucrative stream of defense-related contracts, has instead turned into a money pit draining resources from the rest of the UH system.

Lind points out that with both the UH and the Navy failing to respond substantively to Keever’s public information requests amounts to another example of UH’s lack of transparency:

Does Hawaii’s public records law allow the university to fail to respond to a request for public records and instead punt to a third-party, especially when the third party then delays because it kicks the whole request back to UH? At best, it’s unclear.

At worst, it feels like this is another in a long series of examples of UH miserably failing the to live up to standards of transparency mouthed in public by the president and other top administrators.

Keever’s reporting suggests another question. If this secret lab failed to land significant amounts of work while Senator Inouye was alive and pushing for it, what are its odds of turning that around in the absence of his seniority and political clout? And that’s sidestepping the continued opposition on the Manoa campus to the whole project.

In any case, the UH administration really should be providing a relatively full accounting before committing resources for another contract period.

Both Keever and Wong have been unable to confirm whether the UARC would be discussed by the Board of Regents at its July 18 meeting.  The agenda does not list the UARC as a discussion item, but since the contract renewal is a delegated authority to UH President Greenwood, she could have it signed without going to any public discussion or Board decision-making. The public has a right to know the full accounting of the UARC.  Greenwood could refer the UARC renewal back to the Board of Regents for a full review and public hearing.  This seems to be the most ethical and politically wise option for her in order to avoid being saddled with another controversy at the end of her tenure, and to let the Board of Regents take the heat for whatever the fallout may be.

 

 

World Conservation Congress convenes in Jeju amid protests, deportations, and repression, while the state of Hawaiʻi aims to host the event in 2016

There has been a raging political struggle between the villagers of Gangjeong village on Jeju Island, South Korea and the Korean government over the construction of a naval base that is destroying pristine coast line, sacred sites and cultural treasures.  The conflict has intensified with the World Conservation Congress taking place this week in Jeju which will draw tens of thousands of environmentalists, scientists, and government officials from around the world, including a 39-person, $200,000 delegation sponsored by the State of Hawaiʻi.  The Honolulu Star Advertiser reported last week that “State aims to bring global event here” (August 31, 2012):

A Hawaii committee seeking to host a large international nature conservation gathering in 2016 will spend about $220,000 of private and public funds to market the state at this year’s event in South Korea.

The delegation, which includes Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz and 39 other leaders in education, government, meetings, tourism, culture and conservation, is traveling to South Korea next week to participate in the Sept. 6-15 event in what is shaping up to be the state’s most significant post-Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation campaign.

But you wouldn’t know from reading the Star Advertiser article that there was a major environmental controversy a few minutes away from the Congress.   Apparently, the state sponsored delegates have been instructed to not express their support of the Jeju struggle. Could it be that they fear the South Korean government will not allow entry for anyone sympathetic to the Jeju islanders?  It is certainly a possiblity.   Imok Cha, a California physician and leader in an international Jeju solidarity network, was forcibly deported after arriving in Incheon. To date, 16 international supporters of the Jeju people have been denied entry to Korea.

But another reason for the silence from the Hawaiʻi delegation may be that the State of Hawaiʻi wants to downplay the contradictory role of the U.S. military as one of the worst polluters in Hawaiʻi.  This attention would be especially embarrassing for the state since the South Korean government has been touting Hawaiʻi’s “harmonious” relationship between militarization and conservation as a model for the Jeju base construction.  Hereʻs my response to the comparison of militarization of Jeju and Hawaiʻi.

Meanwhile, Jeju islanders and their international allies have rallied tremendous support and visibility to call on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to declare its support for the Gangjeong villagers and to include their voices in the conference. A beautiful and informative new website has come online:  savejejunow.org.   However, the IUCN blocked the Jeju villagers from having an informational table at the event.  (See the international statement to the IUCN below)  The most recent Jeju solidarity newsletter can be found here.

And Robert Redford had this to say to the attendees of the WCC:

From:    Robert Redford
To:     All of your people
Subject:    Tell Environmentalists: No Base on Paradise Jeju Island


Dear friends of Jeju Island,

From September 6-15, some 10,000 environmentalists will converge on Jeju Island to attend the World Conservation Congress (WCC) organized by the oldest environmental organization, the International Union of the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The IUCN’s slogan is that it promotes “a just world that values and conserves nature.” If recent actions are any indication, nothing could be further from the truth.

The WCC will take place only a few minutes away from Gangjeong where the construction of a naval base is threatening one of the planet’s most spectacular soft coral forests and other coastal treasures, assaulting numerous endangered species and destroying a 400-year old sustainable community of local farmers and fishers.

Unfortunately, the IUCN leadership has ignored or whitewashed the naval base.

Instead of condemning the South Korean government’s actions, IUCN Director-General Julia Marton-Lafevre praised its seriously flawed “Environmental Impact Assessment” (EIA) for the base project, which ignored critically endangered species, missed crucial impacts upon 40 species of soft coral, including nine that are seriously endangered, and five that are already protected by CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). This naval base is being built just 0.13 miles from a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, Tiger Island.

Take action now and sign this petition to the IUCN Director-General, Julia Marton-Lefevre http://signon.org/sign/iucn-stop-environmental?source=s.icn.em.cr&r_by=484613&mailing_id=5784 urging the IUCN to condemn the base construction.

While Gangjeong villagers trying to protect their treasured natural resources are subjected to daily police beatings and arrests, the IUCN has still failed to acknowledge the environmental or human-rights violations. One can’t help but wonder if this is because the WCC convention is partly financed by the very corporations building the military base, notably Samsung. Learn more about how you can help support an independent EIA and the villagers’ struggle at http://www.savejejunow.org.

Instead of inviting dialogue, the IUCN conference organizers have suppressed it. In an official letter from IUCN leadership – with no explanation — it blocked the villagers from even having a small information booth at the conference.

You can help give voice to the Gangjeong villagers who have been beaten and silenced by their own government, and now kept out by the world’s largest environmental organization. Add your name to this letter to IUCN Director-General, Julia Marton-Lefevre, to be hand delivered by Gangjeong village Mayor Kang Dong-kyun at the IUCN Congress.

For peace and protection of our planet,

Robert Redford

Actor, Director and Environmental Activist

P.S. Gangjeong village Mayor Kang Dong-kyun needs thousands with him when he delivers the petition to the IUCN Director General. Take one minute now and stand with him and the villagers fighting for the endangered species, coral reefs and their 400-year ecologically sustainable village! http://signon.org/sign/iucn-stop-environmental?source=s.icn.em.cr&r_by=484613&mailing_id=5784

Here is the open letter to the IUCN from the Emergency Action Committee to Save Jeju Island:

UPDATE: IUCN OFFICIALLY BLOCKS PARTICIPATION BY JEJU VILLAGERS WHO OPPOSE NAVAL BASE CONSTRUCTION NEAR CONVENTION

OPEN LETTER #3.

TO: IUCN Leadership, Participants, and Global Environmental Organizations.

FROM:Emergency Action Committee to Save Jeju Island

***********

UPDATE:

IUCN OFFICIALLY BLOCKS PARTICIPATION BY JEJU VILLAGERS WHO OPPOSE NAVAL BASE CONSTRUCTION NEAR CONVENTION

IUCN leadership still refuses to criticize Korea’s destructive naval base, though construction work is killing rare soft corals, numerous endangered species (including from IUCN’s Red List), and destroying indigenous communities and livelihoods. This stance from IUCN defies its traditional mission, conserving nature and a “just world.”

NEW RESOLUTIONS ARE NEEDED FOR EMERGENCY VOTE OF ALL IUCN MEMBERS

********************************

Police crack down on Gangjeong villagers protesting navy base construction a few minutes from the IUCN convention site.

ABOUT A MONTH AGO, this committee was joined by dozens of co-signers from around the world, in circulating open letters to the leadership of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and its associated members. The statements were remarking on recent actions of IUCN that directly conflict with its important historical mandates.

While continuing to proclaim its devotion to protecting Nature, including the planet’s endangered places and species, IUCN leadership has ignored or whitewashed projects that are assaulting these wonders, and undermining human rights and sustainable livelihoods. For example, the organization inexplicably planned its giant September convention only a few minutes’ bus ride from one of the world’s great current outrages—the construction of a large new naval base near the village of Gangjeong, on Jeju Island, the “jewel” of South Korea. The naval base project, meant to become home-port for Korean and U.S. missile-carrying warships 300 miles from China, is threatening one of the planet’s last great soft coral reefs, and other coastal treasures, killing numerous endangered species (including one on IUCN’s famous Red List), and destroying centuries-old sustainable communities of local farmers and fishers. The Gangjeong villagers have been protesting the base project for years, and are being met with daily police brutality. Such activities represent all that IUCN has traditionally opposed.

Then, a few days ago (August 22), an official letter arrived from IUCN leadership informing the indigenous villagers that their application to host a small Information Booth at the convention was denied, though dozens have been granted for corporations and other groups. No explanation was offered. (More details below.)

In our earlier communiques we referred to public statements from IUCN Director-General, Julia Marton-Lefevre, supporting the Korean government’s environmental policies, including its decisions vis-à-vis the military base and the infamous Four Rivers Project (also discussed below.)

Navy base construction is destroying habitats of numerous endangered species, including Kaloula borealis, the Boreal Digging Frog.

Her praise encompassed the government’s seriously flawed “Environmental Impact Assessment” (EIA) for the base project. This, despite that the EIA ignored three of the most critically endangered species at Gangjeong, the Red-footed Crab, Sesarma intermedium; the Jeju Freshwater Shrimp Caridina denticulata keunbaei), endemic to Jeju Island, and the Boreal Digging Frog pictured here (an IUCN Red-List species.) It also ignored effects upon Korea’s only pod of Indo-Pacific Bottle-nosed Dolphins which swim regularly through the area. Neither did it explore crucial impacts upon 40 species of soft coral, including nine that are seriously endangered, and five that are already protected by CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). This activity takes place only 250 meters from a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, Tiger Island.

A vast array of rare, highly threatened corals are being killed to make way for the navy base. Most were ignored by the government’s EIA.

(In an upcoming letter we will report on a far more authoritative environmental impact statement now being conducted, secretly, by a team of well-known, non-governmental volunteer scientists from several countries—some with prominent IUCN member organizations. They have already documented a spectacular enormous coral garden, 7.4 hectares large, within a mile of where the destruction is now advancing. The only other place in the world where there may exist a soft-coral forest of this magnitude is in the Red Sea. (The divers are operating secretly because the government deported several prior researchers.)

On a related matter, the Director General has praised the government’s “Four Rivers Restoration.” Alas, however, this is not “restoration.” As the Korean environmental community has made clear, it’s a re-routing of Korea’s four great wild, winding rivers into straight-line channels, partly encased in concrete, combined with extensive dam building, and dredging, to make them more business-friendly. The effects on riparian communities are devastating. In four years the population of Korea’s migratory birds, such as white-naped cranes, has been reduced by two-thirds and in many areas, the rivers have become algae-infested cesspools. At the recent Ramsar Convention in Bucharest (July, 2012), the World Wetlands Network announced a “Grey Globe Award” to the Four Rivers project, ranking it among the five worst wetlands projects in the world. The IUCN community should publicly denounce it, too.

Throughout the run-up to the Convention, neither Director-General Marton-Lefevre, nor President Ashok Khosla, has expressed any disapproval of the above ongoing assaults on Nature. Neither have they made mention of the police beatings and arrests of the indigenous protestors from Gangjeong village who are trying, every day, to protect Nature’s treasures from being destroyed—activities that the IUCN was actually created to protect.

90% AGREEMENT

The response to our earlier e-mailers was enormous, with at least 90% of respondents supporting our positions—including many from mid-level IUCN leadership. In a brief burst of democratic openness, the IUCN’s web-page reprinted our letters, while responding with generalities about its great concern for Nature, and democratic process, and it opened the page for public comments. But after the first 20 comments appeared, all of them critical of IUCN’s position, the responses were erased off the page. On the other hand, the Korean government’s manifesto on its dubious “green” development policies continues to be displayed. So much for democracy.

IUCN also announced that it will propose that attendees pass a proclamation (“Nature+”) concerning the glories of Nature, but which still does not mention what’s going on ten minutes away, and while also denying permission for the local community to formally state their views in the Congress meetings. Up to this moment, the leadership of IUCN continues to avoid any expression of concern or even awareness of the impacts on Nature and community, just down the street, though such concerns are central to the organization’s mandate.

Why is IUCN leadership remaining so silent? For the leadership, it may be more of a financial and political matter than one of conservation or social justice, which is what IUCN was supposed to be about. There is also an underlying reality: A large percentage of the cost of this WCC convention in Jeju is being covered by the very people building the military base. Those would be the Korean government, and several giant global corporations, notably Samsung.

Having accepted the funding, it is difficult to criticize the funders.

IUCN’s top leadership has apparently determined its best course now is to avert its gaze while the government kills the shrimps and the frogs, destroys the corals, and jails the protesting local farmers. Meanwhile, IUCN can freely proceed with its great meeting next door to save Nature.

But the organization has gone still further. IUCN has granted the Korean government (the “Korean Organizing Committee of the 2012 WCC,” the chair of which, is Lee Hongkoo, the former Prime Minister of Korea, a supporter of the base) approval-power over any South Korean organizations wanting to present alternative views. These include whether to grant permission to speak on the issues at the meeting, even when they are invited to do so by bona-fide IUCN member organizations, or merely to host an information table at the event. (See #2 below.) IUCN has also agreed to partner with its Korean financial sponsor in constructing and presenting the formal program of the Convention. So now, the government, eager to advertise its green initiatives, will be represented on every one of the five “prime-time” plenary panels of the convention, either by government or corporate officials. It is the only country in the world to be so privileged. None of those panels will focus on the Gangjeong military base construction, or the Four Rivers fiasco.

Finally, the questions become these: Whose IUCN is this? Does the complicity of IUCN leadership truly represent IUCN membership? Can anything useful still be achieved at the WCC in Jeju? On the latter point, we actually think YES, there still is. We call upon the IUCN participants to use the occasion to take stands on the following:

FOUR STEPS TO CHALLENGE MILITARY BASE DESTRUCTION & TO RE-ESTABLISH IUCN’S HISTORIC MISSION TO PROTECT NATURE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

#1. Assembly Resolutions: Shut the Base; Make a New EIA; Stop the Four Rivers Project.

Since our prior letters, our committee has become aware of the great work of several independent groups of environmental attorneys, representing IUCN-member organizations. They are working toward a series of Draft Resolutions to be presented at the WCC Assemblies, including all members. Among them are these:

Shut the Base. The first Resolution will demand that Korea end its military base construction, and that all ravaged lands be restored to their former condition. The Resolution will speak in behalf of the endangered species, the rare soft corals, the sacred sites, and the local villagers who are putting their lives on the line to protect these treasures.

The once-celebrated southern Jeju coastline is now being covered in concrete, thanks to the Korean government, Samsung corporation, and the silence of IUCN.

It will also describe the many IUCN rules and prior decisions that have been violated. These include, for example, the important principles of the Earth Charter passed by the 2004 Congress, as well as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Heritage Convention, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, among many others.

New Environmental Impact Assessment. A second Resolution may demand preparation and acceptance of a new Environmental Impact Assessment of the naval base construction near Gangjeong—free of government control and censorship—that will include a truly accurate assessment of the dredging and other impacts on the soft coral reefs, and the killing of rare species that are all absent from the government’s document. (As indicated above, a new independent EIA is already being prepared by several outraged IUCN scientists.)

End The Four Rivers Project. A third Resolution will demand that Korea immediately discontinue its notorious Four Rivers Restoration project, and begin to actually restore the great rivers to their prior condition.

There is one potential complication. Unsurprisingly, the attorneys were told by some IUCN management not to bother with these motions. They will be “too late,” past deadline, they were told. And yet, the historical record of IUCN offers many examples of last minute submissions. They have always been permitted if they raise new, urgent, unforeseen issues, and if at least ten IUCN members co-sponsor the request. There are already more than ten willing IUCN co-sponsors. And they certainly qualify as urgent new matters for IUCN. If we don’t stop this destruction now, by the time IUCN meets again in four years, the corals, the Boreal Digging Frogs and other species, and many local people will be dead. We must not let that happen.

#2. Let the Gangjeong People Speak.

Information Booth Crisis. As briefly mentioned above, the Gangjeong villagers, working to save habitats, biodiversity, and the Red-List species from the military’s destruction, applied a few months ago through official IUCN channels for permission to set up one “information booth” among the dozens of others that have been okayed within the convention center throughout the meeting. That would seem a benign enough request, but a runaround ensued. Instead of routinely okaying the application, the IUCN passed it to the Korean government (the KOC, mentioned above) which is heavily invested in silencing any and all opposition to the base or the Four Rivers project. Korean newspapers have also been silenced on these matters. Repeated efforts over recent weeks to confirm permission for the information table were ignored. Finally, a few days ago, they received an official letter from the Director of IUCN’s Constituency Support Group, Enrique Lahmann. He said this: “Unfortunately, we are not able to accommodate your request for an exhibition booth at the WCC.” That’s it. No reason was given. And no explanation of how this fullfills official IUCN proclamations of democracy and inclusiveness.

No Protest Allowed Within Two Kilometers. Meanwhile, the Korean government announced that it would not permit any demonstrations or even picketing within two kilometers of the Convention. So, no information table inside. No demonstrations outside. Where are we again? Isn’t South Korea supposed to be a democracy?

During the upcoming Assemblies, IUCN leaders must at last denounce the government for these appalling moves, and permit the villagers, who are actually doing IUCN’s work, to not only have their information table inside the convention, but if they so choose, to go ahead and demonstrate freely outside, just as if this were a democratic society.

Addressing the Full Assembly. All of the above is not enough. The Gangjeong community should be permitted —-no, invited by IUCN leadership—to address the opening and/or closing plenary of the IUCN convention, to provide the full story of this local disaster and what they are going through. If the government resists, the IUCN leadership should insist. We all need to hear from the indigenous local farmers and fisher-people, and the custodians of the sacred sites, about what they have seen and experienced. Everyone needs to hear this. After all, we are meeting on their indigenous soil, on their island, on the coast that has nurtured them for thousands of years. So, our own group inquired as to the possibility of the villagers speaking at the assembly, but we were told by IUCN officials, as above, that all South Korean presenters have to be approved by the government.

Here’s some good news. Several IUCN member groups have already (quietly) invited local leaders to participate in some of the groups’ own scheduled workshop panel time to tell the Gangjeong story. (In our next letter, we will brief you on who is speaking and at what time. By delaying this announcement, we hope to avoid government crackdowns against the groups.)

#3. Go Visit the Destruction Sites, and the Sacred Sites

Members of our committee, and our Korean colleagues, will be arranging tours of Gangjeong village, the sacred sites that are threatened, and the front-lines of the ongoing confrontation between the villagers and the police at the construction site. It is horrifying and inspiring. (If you want to join those outings, please respond to: gangjeongintl@gmail.com.) It’s very easy to get there—ten minutes by local bus.

#4 Institutional Self-Examination.

Finally, we suggest that all IUCN members take this moment to assess what is happening in Jeju, and to initiate a process of institutional self-examination, questioning and re-organization. None of us can afford to lose the moral and ethical leadership of one of the world’s greatest organizations. We need to do whatever is necessary to assure that IUCN will revive its historical mandate to place Nature first, and to protect social justice.

Thank you for your attention.

Please let us know if you want to see the proposed resolutions; we will forward you the final texts when they are complete. We can also forward you the new independent Environmental Impact Assessment, when it is completed. And you can sign up for a visit and tour of Gangjeong Village and the military construction site. (OUR EMAIL ADDRESS IS BELOW.)

EMERGENCY ACTION TO SAVE JEJU ISLAND

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE:

savejejunow@gmail.com

Christine Ahn, Global Fund for Women; Korea Policy Institute

Imok Cha, M.D., SaveJejuNow.org

Jerry Mander, Foundation for Deep Ecology; International Forum on Globalization

Koohan Paik, Kauai Alliance for Peace and Social Justice

INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT GROUP:

Maude Barlow, Food and Water Watch, Council of Canadians (Canada)

John Cavanagh, Institute for Policy Studies (U.S.)

Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., Navdanya Research Organization for Science, Technology and Ecology (India)

Douglas Tompkins, Conservation Land Trust, Foundation for Deep Ecology (Chile)

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Tebtebba Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education (Philippines)

Anuradha Mittal, Oakland Institute (U.S.)

Meena Raman, Third World Network (Malaysia)

Walden Bello, Member, House of Representatives (Philippines)

Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher, Environmental Protection Authority (Ethiopia)

Lagi Toribau, Greenpeace-East Asia

Mario Damato, Ph.D.,Greenpeace-East Asia

Debbie Barker, Center for Food Safety (U.S.)

Pierre Fidenci, Endangered Species International (U.S.)

John Knox, Earth Island Institute (U.S.)

David Phillips, Int’l Marine Mammal Project, Earth Island Institute (U.S.)

David Suzuki, The David Suzuki Foundation (Canada)

Robert Redford. Actor, founder of Sundance Institute (U.S.)

Mary Jo Rice, Int’l Marine Mammal Project, Earth Island Institute (U.S.)

Bill Twist, Pachamama Alliance (U.S.)

Jon Osorio, Ph.D.,Chair, Hawaiian Studies, Univ. of Hawaii (U.S.)

Sue Edwards, Institute for Sustainable Development (Ethiopia)

Galina Angarova, Pacific Environment (Russia)

Bruce Gagnon, Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space (Int’l)

Andrew Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety (U.S.)

Jack Santa Barbara, Sustainable Scale Project (New Zealand)

Gloria Steinem, Author, Women’s Media Center (U.S.)

Medea Benjamin, Code Pink, Global Exchange (U.S.)

Randy Hayes, Foundation Earth (U.S.)

Noam Chomsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (U.S.)

Renie Wong, Hawaii Peace and Justice (Hawaii)

Kyle Kajihiro, Hawaii Peace and Justice and DMZ-Hawaii (Hawaii)

Terri Keko’olani, Hawai’i Peace and Justice and International Women’s Network Against Militarism (Hawaii)

Wayne Tanaka, Marine Law Fellow, Dept. of Land & Natural Resources (U.S.) (signing independently)

Tony Clarke, Polaris Institute (Canada)

Sara Larrain, Sustainable Chile Project (Chile)

John Feffer, Foreign Policy in Focus (U.S.)

Victor Menotti, International Forum on Globalization (U.S.)

Arnie Saiki, Moana Nui Action Alliance (U.S.)

Nikhil Aziz, Grassroots International (U.S.)

Lisa Linda Natividad, Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice (Guam)

Rebecca Tarbotton, Rainforest Action Network (U.S.)

Kavita Ramdas, Visiting Scholar, Stanford U., Global Fund for Women (India)

Raj Patel, Institute for Food and Development Policy/Food First (U.S.)

Alexis Dudden, Author, Professor of History, Connecticut University (U.S.)

Timothy Mason, Pastor, Calvary by the Sea, Honolulu (U.S.)

Katherine Muzik, Ph.D., Marine Biologist, Kulu Wai, Kauai (U.S.)

Claire Hope Cummings, Author, Environmental attorney (U.S.)

Ann Wright, U.S. Army Colonel, Ret., Former U.S. Diplomat (U.S.)

Buffy Sainte-Marie, Ph.D., Educator, Singer-Songwriter (U.S.)

Yong Soon Min, Professor, University of California, Irvine (U.S.)

Eugeni Capella Roca, Grup d’Estudi I Protecció d’Ecosostemes de Catalunya (Spain)

Jonathan P. Terdiman, M.D., University of California, San Francisco (U.S.)

Evelyn Arce, International Funders for Indigenous Peoples (U.S.)

Brihananna Morgan, The Borneo Project (Borneo)

Frank Magnota, Ph.D., Physicist (U.S.)

Delia Menozzi, M.D., Physician (Italy)

Aaron Berez, M.D., Physician (U.S.)

Begoña Caparros, Foundation in Movement: Art for Social Change (Uganda)

Antonio Sanz, Photographer (Spain)

Cindy Wiesner, Grassroots Global Justice (U.S.)

Gregory Elich, Author, “Strange Liberators” (U.S.)

Joseph Gerson, Ph.D., American Friends Service Committee (U.S.)

Piljoo Kim, Ph.D., Agglobe Services International (U.S.)

Peter Rasmussen, He-Shan World Fund (U.S.)

Wei Zhang, He-Shan World Fund (U.S.)

Harold Sunoo, Sunoo Korea Peace Foundation (U.S.)

Soo Sun Choe, National Campaign to End the Korean War (U.S.)

Angie Zelter, Trident Ploughshares, (UK)

Ramsay Liem, Visiting Scholar, Center for Human Rights, Boston College (U.S.)

Kerry Kriger, PhD, Save The Frogs (U.S.)

Marianne Eguey, Jade Associates, (France)

Claire Greensfelder, INOCHI-Plutonium Free Future (U.S.-Japan)

Laura Frost, Ph.D., The New School (U.S.)

Chris Bregler, Ph.D., New York University (U.S.)

David Vine, Assistant Professor, American University (U.S.)

Simone Chun, Assistant Prof., Gov’t Department, Suffolk U., Boston (U.S.)

Matt Rothschild, Editor, The Progressive magazine (U.S.)

Henry Em, Professor, East Asian Studies, NYU (U.S.)

Eric Holt-Gimenez, Institute for Food and Development Policy (U.S.)

Maivan Clech Lam, Professor Emerita of Int’l Law, CUNY (U.S.)

Mari Matsuda, Professor of Law, Richardson Law School, Univ. of Hawaii (U.S.)

Beth Burrows, The Edmonds Institute (U.S.)

Aileen Mioko Smith, Green Action (Japan)

Susan George, Ph.D., Transnational Institute (The Netherlands)

Marianne Manilov, The Engage Network (U.S.)

S. Faizi, Institute for Societal Advancement, Kerala (India)

Syed Ashraf ul Islam, Ministry of Food & Disaster Management (Bangladesh)

Manaparambi Koru Prasad, Kerala Local Self Government Department (India)

Hernán Torres, Director, Torres Asociados Ltda. (Chile)

Carlo Modonesi, Environmental Biologist, Parma University (Italy)

Andrej Kranjc, Secretary-General, Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Slovenia)

Ning Labbish Chao, Bio-Amazonia Conservation International (U.S.)

Perumal Vivekanandan, SEVA (India)

David Newsome, Environmental Science and Ecotourism, Murdoch University, Perth (Australia)

And:

Korean Federation for Environmental Movement and

Citizen Institute for Environmental Studies (South Korea)

 

Military “pivot” in the Pacific, “Shadow wars” in Africa, “Lily Pads” and Drones

Last year, U.S. Congress required that a study of the basing options be done before any further funding for the Guam military buildup would be authorized.  The Center for Strategic and International Studies [CSIS] was hired to produce the study.  They released their findings this week. The Pacific News Center reported “Unclassified Portions of CSIS Report Released” (7.27,2912).   READ the unclassified portions of the CSIS report HERE.

What will this mean for Hawaiʻi?  William Cole of the Honolulu Star Advertiser reports “Pearl Harbor seen as site for new ships” (7.31.2012):

A new study on U.S. military forces in the Pacific recommends placing another three-ship amphibious ready group in the region — possibly in Hawaii — in addition to the 2,700 extra Marines already moving here.

The report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, commissioned by the Pentagon, also calls for more submarines in Guam and additional ballistic missile defenses there and in Japan and possibly South Korea.

The study released last week includes recommendations as well as alternatives that would increase U.S. capabilities in the region. Among the latter is the suggestion to add at Pearl Harbor an amphibious ready group — consisting of a carrierlike amphibious assault ship, a transport dock ship and a dock landing ship that together can transport 2,200 Marines, helicopters and Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft to trouble spots.

 

 

 

The entire pivot has been likened to the commencement of a new “cold war”.  “The Imperial ‘Pivot’ to Asia-Pacific and the New Cold War” (7.31.2012)

The Pentagon document on Strategic Guidance entitled, “Sustaining Global Leadership: Priorities for Twenty First Century” released in January 2012 has inaugurated a new cold war. If the theatre of the ‘old’ Cold War was Europe, the new theatre is the Asia-Pacific. The document affirms that the US will of necessity rebalance towards Asia-Pacific region. ‘Rebalance’ seems to have replaced the earlier term ‘pivot’. The document maps the region as “the arc extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia”.

The increasing focus on Asia reflects rebalancing in several ways: Change in the balance of US concentration from the Middle East to Asia after the ebbing of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; a change in the balance of forces within Asia from a Northeast Asia focus to a broader reach emphasizing more flexible deployments, rotation and operation and a change in the balance of tools of soft power and hard power moving to the latter.

Arnie Saiki, who was a key organizer of the Moana Nui 2011 conference writes in “Sea lanes: TPP, Globalization and Empire” (7.26.2012) that the military containment of China is integrally tied to the Trans Pacific Partnership free trade agreement that President Obama pushed during the Honolulu APEC summit in November 2011:

Although the vision of a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) originally included China, and the proclamation of an FTAAP was the driving force behind the TPP, the meteoric rise of China’s economic influence has also shaped how the TPP is being used to contain China’s economic future.  The militarization of South Korea’s Jeju island, the heightened tensions between the Philippines and China, as well as Vietnam and China, are directly aimed at curtailing China’s access to its normal shipping lanes for the purpose of controlling China’s access to resources and its manufacturing role in the global supply chain. Although tensions over the disputed Spratly Islands have existed for some time, the resumed tensions coincide with both Aquino’s administration seeking further economic cooperation with TPP, and Vietnam’s inclusion as a partner in TPP negotiations.

 

The U.S. military pivot to the Pacific coincides with a restructuring of foreign bases and a quiet intensification of military activity in Africa.  Nick Turse writes in Tom Dispatch:

Obama’s Scramble for Africa
Secret Wars, Secret Bases, and the Pentagon’s “New Spice Route” in Africa
By Nick Turse

They call it the New Spice Route, an homage to the medieval trade network that connected Europe, Africa, and Asia, even if today’s “spice road” has nothing to do with cinnamon, cloves, or silks.  Instead, it’s a superpower’s superhighway, on which trucks and ships shuttle fuel, food, and military equipment through a growing maritime and ground transportation infrastructure to a network of supply depots, tiny camps, and airfields meant to service a fast-growing U.S. military presence in Africa.

Few in the U.S. know about this superhighway, or about the dozens of training missions and joint military exercises being carried out in nations that most Americans couldn’t locate on a map.  Even fewer have any idea that military officials are invoking the names of Marco Polo and the Queen of Sheba as they build a bigger military footprint in Africa.  It’s all happening in the shadows of what in a previous imperial age was known as “the Dark Continent.”

In the introduction to the article Tom Englehardt wrote:

Putting together the pieces on Africa isn’t easy.  For instance, only the other day it was revealed that three U.S. Army commandos in a Toyota Land Cruiser had skidded off a bridge in Mali in April.  They died, all three, along with three women identified as “Moroccan prostitutes.”  This is how we know that U.S. special operations forces were operating in chaotic, previously democratic Mali after a coup by a U.S.-trained captain accelerated the unraveling of the country, leading more recently to its virtual dismemberment by Tuareg rebels and Islamist insurgents.

Apparently these articles on the “shadow wars” in Africa hit a nerve, prompting Col. Tom Davis, Director, U.S. Africa Command Office of Public Affairs, to respond. Turse then writes a rebuttal.  Read their debate:  The Nature of the U.S. Military Presence in Africa: An Exchange between Colonel Tom Davis and Nick Turse” (7.26.2012)

In “The Lily Pad Strategy” (7.15.2012) David Vine writes that these shadow wars parallel the rise of new military base structures:

Since the “Black Hawk Down” deaths in Somalia almost 20 years ago, we’ve heard little, if anything, about American military casualties in Africa (other than a strange report last week about three special operations commandos killed, along with three women identified by U.S. military sources as “Moroccan prostitutes,” in a mysterious car accident in Mali). The growing number of patients arriving at Ramstein from Africa pulls back a curtain on a significant transformation in twenty-first-century U.S. military strategy.

These casualties are likely to be the vanguard of growing numbers of wounded troops coming from places far removed from Afghanistan or Iraq. They reflect the increased use of relatively small bases like Camp Lemonnier, which military planners see as a model for future U.S. bases “scattered,” as one academic explains, “across regions in which the United States has previously not maintained a military presence.”

Disappearing are the days when Ramstein was the signature U.S. base, an American-town-sized behemoth filled with thousands or tens of thousands of Americans, PXs, Pizza Huts, and other amenities of home. But don’t for a second think that the Pentagon is packing up, downsizing its global mission, and heading home. In fact, based on developments in recent years, the opposite may be true. While the collection of Cold War-era giant bases around the world is shrinking, the global infrastructure of bases overseas has exploded in size and scope.

Unknown to most Americans, Washington’s garrisoning of the planet is on the rise, thanks to a new generation of bases the military calls “lily pads” (as in a frog jumping across a pond toward its prey). These are small, secretive, inaccessible facilities with limited numbers of troops, spartan amenities, and prepositioned weaponry and supplies.

The new “lily pad” base strategy goes along with the intensive use of special forces and drones.  Ann Wright recently spoke in Honolulu about the increasing use of drones and the RIMPAC exercises in Hawaiʻi and wrote in Op Ed News Green-Washing War, Sinking Ships, Drones from Submarines — Largest International War Games around Hawaii (7.25.2012).

And if you were fooled by the greenwashing of the military, take a look at the logo below and the powerpoint presentation for the drone command. Grim reaper, indeed. The necropolitics of U.S. empire.

 

 

 

We appeal to you to Join an International Action Week For No Naval Base

Appeal to International Society

We appeal to you to Join an International Action Week For No Naval Base

2-9 September 2012

We appeal to the people of the world who are opposing warfare and are concerned with making the world peaceful and sustainable community.

Please take part in an International Solidarity Action (2-9 September 2012) during the World Conservation Congress 2012 which will be held in Jeju Island.

The 2012 World Conservation Congress, which is an environmental conference held every 4 years by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), is to take place from 6-15 September in Seogwipo city, Jeju Island. Jeju Island is located in the southern part of South Korea, adjacent to China, Taiwan, and Japan.

However, in Gangjeong village, which is only 7 km far from the congress site, construction to build a massive naval base is being enforced. The total size of the naval base is 490,000 square meters and it will not only harm the environment but also ignite military tensions despite the opposition of a great number of villagers.

Gangjeong village in Jeju blessed with a natural environment should be preserved for the future of mankind.

Gangjeong village is a coastal town with a sacred environment and high value preservation not only in Jeju Island, but also in the world.

The Sea of Gangjeong village is designated as a national cultural treasure (natural memorial No. 442) by the Korean Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea and is adjacent to Beom Island, a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Gangjeong village is God’s blessing natural heritage. The sea of Gangjeong is one of the major habitats of the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins, one of the species listed by the IUCN. It is estimated that there are only 114 Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins in Korea.

Gangjeong village is located between the two biggest creeks in Jeju Island and has the biggest freshwater fish habitat on the island. It provides 70–80% of drinking water to southern residents in the island. As Jeju Island lacks water due to its porous basaltic land, this uncommon village is nicknamed as ‘Il-Gangjeong’ which means the best Gangjeong village. Due to this character, it has been the ‘heartland of agriculture’ from ancient times. Artifacts from prehistoric times showing the transformation of housing culture have been also discovered in Gangjeong. For such reasons, Gangjeong was appointed as a limited
development district until the Jeju naval base construction plan was drafted.

Gureombi rock, located at the Jeju naval base construction site, is a broad flat rock with 1.2 km in length and 250m in width and it forms a greatly peculiar bedrock wetland where spring water comes upward. As Gureombi rock is a part of absolute preservation area by Jeju local government, it is home to the Government designated endangered species such as sesarma intermedium, small round frogs, Jeju saebaengi (native freshwater shrimp of Jeju Island), and clithon retropietus v. martens.

However, the Government is unilaterally enforcing the construction of the naval base without appropriate evaluation and even by easing regulations expediently or ignoring them illegally. It is clear that the naval base will not only destroy the environment of the sea of Gangjeong village, but also cause the serious destruction of the environment of UNESCO Biosphere Reserve located just 2 km away from the construction site.

There is no doubt that this construction is entirely contrary to the principals of the World Conservation Congress. The efforts of the South Korean government and Jeju local government to promote Jeju island as a world environmental city, while unilaterally enforcing the construction of the naval base, is deceiving global citizens.

Actions Suggested:

  1. Please choose at least one day during the International Action Week (2-9 September 2012) and organize any individual or collective actions to oppose the Jeju naval base.
  2. Please inform the world that the construction of the naval base in Jeju is fully contrary to the principal of 2012 World Conservation Congress. Please make calls to the World Conservation Congress member organizations and member states to express concerns about the Jeju naval base construction.
  3. Please ask the South Korean government and Jeju local government to stop building the military base, revoke the naval base project, and make Jeju Island develop intact as an island of world peace.
  4. It is hypocritical for Samsung, the main contractor of the naval base project, to support financially the largest environmental event in the world. Please urge Samsung C&T and Daerim, two main contractors, to stop constructing naval base in Jeju.
  5. To spread this amazing event widely, please send your endorsement (with your organization’s name) and your action plans to the Gangjeong international team (gangjeongintl@gmail.com) in advance. After your actions, please kindly send your photos and videos with a simple explanation to the team as well.
  6.  There are many events being planned in Jeju Gangjeong village during the international action week (2-9 September 2012). If possible, please come to the village and be part of our nonviolent struggle which has continued over the last 6 years.

We greatly appreciate for your solidarity.

The following groups endorse the action:

National Groups

  • Gangjeong Village Association
  • Jeju Pan-Island Committee for Stop of Military Base and for Realization of Peace Island (26 organizations)
  • Korea Environment NGO Network (36 Korean environmental NGOs)
  • National Network of Korean Civil Society for Opposing to the Naval Base in Jeju Island (125 Korean civil society organizations)

International Groups

Please send your endorsement (organization’s name) and send it to gangjeongintl@gmail.com. We will collect all international groups’ endorsement and list your names here.

Background

Jeju Island should remain an Island of World Peace, not an outpost of war

In 2005, the South Korean Government declared Jeju Island an Island of World Peace. At that time, the Government explained that the purpose was to succeed the spirit of historical summits for diplomacy during the post-Cold war era – the previous chief secretary of the Soviet union, Gorbachev’s visit in Jeju island (1991), the establishment of diplomatic relations between South Korea and Russia (1991), the establishment of diplomatic relations between South Korea and China (1992) and afterward the first visit
of Jiang Zemin, the previous chief secretary of the People’s Republic of China, to Jeju island (1995), and cabinet-level talks between North and South Korea–and to contribute to world peace. Furthermore, in the Declaration for the Island of World Peace, two proposals were included. The first was to inherit the three traditions of Jeju Island (no beggar, no thief, and no gate) and the second was to recognize the tragic historical 4.3 massacre, which more than one-eighth of Jeju islanders were massacred in the name of red-hunting,

However, the current naval base construction enforced by the South Korean Government to militarize Jeju and the East China Sea in the name of naval security plays a part to threaten peace and prosperity in the areas. Over the last few years the South Korean government and its Navy have called themselves sub-partners of the Northeast Naval Strategy led by the US administration and strengthened the military cooperation among South Korea, the US, and Japan. The naval base in Jeju will function as an outpost of this plan. In this naval base, US nuclear-powered submarine, nuclear aircraft carrier as well as Aegis missile-carrying warships may berth.

The reason to name Jeju Island as an Island of World Peace is to make the island a hub of exchange and cooperation in Northeast Asia and convert the East China Sea into sea of peace and co-existence. The construction of the naval base is fundamentally contrary to these visions. Thus, it is crucial to protect the island from becoming an outpost of warfare. Jeju Island should be developed as a world peace island.

For more information, please visit:

http://savejejunow.org/
http://www.savejeju.org/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/nonavalbase/
https://www.facebook.com/SaveJeju
http://cafe.daum.net/peacekj (Korean/ English/ Chinese/ Japanese)

Korean groups statement about Jeju to IUCN and World Conservation Congress

http://cafe.daum.net/peacekj/I51g/391

July 10, 2012

Statement to the IUCN and the World Conservation Congress

We, civic environmental groups in South Korea, denounce the IUCN and the World Conservation Congress that have overlooked and misrepresented environmental and social conflicts in South Korea 

1. In September 2012, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) will organize the World Conservation Congress (WCC) at ICC JEJU in Jeju Island, which is expected to be attended by more than 10,000 people from over 1,100 organizations in 180 countries.

We, civic environmental groups in South Korea, have a high regard for the international cooperation projects executed by the IUCN, which endeavor to help develop and implement policies that contribute to protecting the environment. We also recognize that IUCN is globally influential; the organization carries significant weight over the registration of UNESCO World Heritage Sites, sets criteria regarding internationally endangered species and develops conservation plans.

We also respect the milestones achieved by the IUCN, including the Ramsar Convention in 1971; the World Conservation Strategy in 1978, which proposed the concept of “sustainable development”; the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992, and the Resolution on Biodiversity, passed at the 1996 World Conservation Congress in Montreal. In addition, we recognize that it was the IUCN which enabled numerous technological advancements which are currently in use in the field to protect biological ecosystems, such as the Technical Guidelines on the Management of Ex-situ populations for Conservation.

2. Meanwhile, the Lee Myung-Bak administration has destroyed four major rivers, continues to blindly pursue nuclear power, and continues to forcefully construct a naval base at Gangjeong village on Jeju Island, despite fierce opposition, both locally and nationally.

Against this backdrop, civic environmental groups and activists in South Korea continue to denounce the administration and are taking action against its destructive projects. We call for the South Korean government to halt its construction work at the four rivers and allow nature to reclaim it. We also oppose the Lee administration’s policy of promoting nuclear power under the guise of Green Growth and exporting it to the Third World. Furthermore, we are vehemently against the government’s execution of a plan to build a naval base on Jeju Island, which is destroying biodiversity and brutally violating human rights in the name of national security.

Given the above, civic environmental groups in South Korea state the following to the IUCN, the organizer of the World Conservation Congress (WCC) in 2012, and its Organizing Committee:

3. The World Conservation Congress will be held this year in South Korea, yet the Congress gravely neglects or misrepresents environmental and social conflicts in the host country. Because the Congress is financed by the Lee Myung-Bak administration and sponsored by industrial conglomerates, there is growing public concern that the WCC is promoting policies of the Lee administration without examining whether they are truly designed to preserve the environment.

This year – 2012 – is the fifth, and last, year of President Lee’s tenure, in which his administration is taking advantage of the WCC to justify his poor environmental, peace, and labor policies. The South Korean government is using the convention to advocate for its questionable “Low Carbon Green Growth” campaign, its appalling Four Major Rivers Restoration Project, as well as its policy of prioritizing nuclear power and favoring corporate construction conglomerates.

We are concerned that the IUCN Secretariat is not addressing any of the current environmental issues in South Korea among the themes for the upcoming WCC. Rather, Director General Julia Marton-Lefevre of IUCN faithfully endorses the Korean government and its dubious policies.

The Director General said “Korea’s green growth policies and Four Major Rivers Restoration Project are the results of the efforts to ensure nature conservation and sustainable development” during a meeting with President Lee on June 4. In an interview with a Korean reporter, she described the rivers project as “reasonable.”

4. We civic environmental groups of South Korea raise this question: Are members of the IUCN and its Director General aware of the grave implications of the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project?

Under the Lee administration, South Korean society has endured tremendous social tensions and environmental conflicts. The government has prioritized development at the expense of wreaking havoc on the environment and the health of its citizens.

For example, in 2008, the 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Wetlands was held in Korea. At that meeting, President Lee publicly declared to withdraw a plan to build a “Grand Canal” in Korea, only to re-allocate its budget to execute the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project, which has devastated the nation’s four crucial rivers. Sixteen dams were built at the rivers, destroying habitats for endangered species, critical biological diversity, and nearby wetlands. The rivers project violated several national laws, such as the National Budget Law, the River Law and the Environmental Impact Assessment Law. Construction contracts for the rivers project are reported to total around $900 million.

Before its Director General asserted that the Four Rivers project was “reasonable,” the IUCN should have conducted an on-the-ground assessment of the project, which would have shown how it is, in fact, undermining the organization’s hard work of preserving biological diversity. In December 2002, the Technical Guidelines on the Management of Ex-situ populations for Conservation were approved at the 14th Meeting of the Programme Committee of Council, in Gland, Switzerland. Nonetheless, the South Korean government’s Four Major Rivers Restoration Project has been committing gross violations of IUCN guidelines, by decimating the habitats of several endangered species, including the Danyang aster (Aster altaicus var. uchiyamae). Does the IUCN, the international environmental steward, recognize that the rivers project has utterly destroyed a haven for migratory birds’ – the Haepyeong wetland located at Gumi City, Kyeongsangbuk-do province in a flagrant breach of the Ramsar Convention? Is the IUCN aware that organic farmers in Paldang, Dumulmeori, continue to defend their farmlands against forced evictions by the Lee Administration?

5. We respectfully ask for the position of IUCN on these critical matters. Is the IUCN aware that 3,000 university professors and five leading religious groups in South Korea oppose this project? The environmental organizations in South Korea are united in opposition to this project, demanding punishment of those responsible, the removal of the dam, and the restoration of the rivers. We respectfully ask for your official position on this dire situation.

We, the civil environmental organizations of the South Korea, challenge the IUCN Director General’s position on the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project and therefore request the IUCN to clarify its position.

6. In addition, we express deep concern with the IUCN’s support of the construction of a naval base in Gangjeong village, Jeju Island. Last April, based on false information provided by the South Korean government, the IUCN issued an official position stating that “construction of the naval base in Gangjeong is valid according to legitimate processes.” It is questionable whether the IUCN put any effort into verifying the credibility of the data provided by the South Korean government.

The IUCN’s statement on the Gangjeong naval base contradicts its earlier resolutions regarding the negative impacts of military bases on the environment. At the General Assembly in 2008, the IUCN adopted “the Recommendation for protection of dugongs in Henoko, Okinawa, Japan” and at the General Assembly in Buenos Aires in 1994, passed a resolution addressing the relationship of “military base to conservation area.” The IUCN’s objective to protect global ecosystems cannot coexist with the goals of increasing militarization at the regional or global scale. We oppose the IUCN’s position regarding the naval base project in Gangjeong village, on Jeju Island.

7. The civil environmental organizations of South Korea, which seek peaceful coexistence on the Korean peninsula and with all our Northeast Asia neighbors, urge IUCN to express its clear position. Specifically regarding the naval base project in Gangjeong, we would like you to clarify whether the IUCN is aware of the serious violations of environmental laws, which have led to the destruction of species which are assigned as “endangered” by the Korean government. These endangered species include the red-footed crab (Sesarma intermedium) and Clithon retropietus V. Martens. We ask you to clarify how the IUCN arrived at its conclusion that the naval base construction “is valid according to legitimate processes.”

Just to clarify, the naval base is being built at a UNESCO Biosphere Conservation Area (designated in 2002), and was designated a Cultural Protection Zone by the South Korean government in 2000 and 2004. In 2002 the government’s Ministry of Land designated it a Marine Ecosystem Conservation Area; in 2006, the government of Jeju Island designated it a Marine Provincial Park; in 2006, the Ministry of Environment designated it an “Ecological Excellent Village”; in 2007, the Jeju Island government designated it an Absolute Retention Coastal Area; and in 2008, the Ministry of Environment designated it a Natural Park. We ask you to please clarify how the IUCN would consider a project as “legitimate,” when the government mobilizes both public and private police forces against residents who have committed no crime other than to object to the project’s desecration of this precious conservation area.

Gangjeong village in Jeju is an area that must be conserved in accordance with the values of the IUCN. That would mean that the military base construction must be blocked. The IUCN must actively seek to halt the naval base construction at Gangjeong and to restore and preserve the area’s natural ecosystems through a resolution at the WCC General Assembly.

8. We, in the spirit of peace on our Korean peninsula, are besieged by the South Korean government’s arbitrary administration of law in regard to the environment, and its dictatorial push for national projects for whom only the nation’s largest corporations benefit. Since President Lee took office, his administration has expressly weakened laws which had protected South Korea’s environment.

South Korea environmentalists are gravely concerned that the government will take advantage of the WCC General Assembly proceeding this September in Jeju to advance its illegitimate national projects. We therefore demand a clear explanation of the IUCN’s position regarding the Four Rivers Restoration Project and the Gangjeong Naval Base project. We formally request the IUCN and the 2012 WCC Organizing Committee’s clear position and response, which will be a central factor to the position taken by the Korean civil environmental organizations at the WCC General Assembly.

9. In keeping with the IUCN’s prodigious achievements toward preserving the biodiversity of the planet, we expect the IUCN and the WCC Organizing Committee to show significant efforts to resolve environmental disputes and related social conflicts in the Republic of Korea, the host nation of the WCC.

As funicular cable cars on the sacred mountains of Jiri-san and Seorak-san threaten Asiatic Black Bears; as sustainable farmers from Gangwon province struggle with the seizure of their land to build a golf course; as tidal power plants at Incheon Bay and Garolim Bay threaten the livelihoods of local fishermen; as residents battle nuclear power plants in Gori, Youngduk and Samcheok; as the farmers and fisherpeople of Jeju Island cope with the destruction of their reef and farmland in order to build a navy base; as country folk struggle to exist after their villages were subsumed by water to construct dams on Mt. Jiri and Youngju; as laborers strike against brutal working conditions at SSangyoung Motors– As these manifold violations take place, we shall, with our partners in the international community, take actions to expose the daily brutality levied upon the environment and the people of South Korea, and to correct the wrong doings of the Lee Myung-Bak regime.

We wish for a peaceful resolution to these many environmental and social conflicts, and request that the IUCN and the WCC Organizing Committee clarify their position on these issues as soon as possible.

Support Committee

National Network of Korean Civil Society for Restoration of Four Major Rivers, Provincial Civil Committee against Golf Courses in Gangwon Province, Gangjeong Village Association, Jeju Islanders in the Mainland Caring for Gangjeong, National Network of Korean Civil Society for Opposing to cable car in National Park, Military Bases Peace Network(Gunsan US Military Airbase Retake Civil Movement, Counseling Office of U.S. Base Victims in Gunsan, The National Campaign for Eradication of Crime by U.S. Troops in Korea, Pyeongtaek Peace Center, Peace Nomad, Green Korea United), NANUM MUNHWA, Cultural Action, Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, Life Peace Fellowship, Seoul Human Rights Film Festival, Civil Society Organization Network in Korea, Center ‘Dle’ for Human Rights Education, Korea Human Rights Foundation, Jeju Council of Social Issue, Jeju Pan-Island Committee for Stop of Military Base and for Realization of Peace Island, National Network of Korean Civil Society for Opposing to the Naval Base in Jeju Island, Jirisan Action Network, Jirisan Netwoks, Institute for Sustainable Society, People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, Pastoral committee of Environment in Seoul Diocese, Catholic Human Rights Committee, Korea Culture Heritage Policy Research Institute, Korea Institute For Peace Future, Korea Wetland NGO Network, Korea Alliance for Progressive Movement, The National Network of Environmental Organisation of Korea(Green Korea Gongju, Green Korea Kwangju, Nation Park Conservation Network, KCEMS Korean Christian Environmental Movement Solidarity, Korean Network for Green Transport, Green Future, Green Korea United, Green Korea Daegu, Green Korea Daejeon, Green Korea Busan, Citizens Alliance for Bundang Ecosystem, Buddhist Environmental Solidarity, Forest for Life, Korean Ecoclub, Eco-Horizon Institute, Suwon Eco Center, Energy Peace, Eco Buddha, Korean Women`s Environmental Network, Good Friends of Nature – Korea, Cheonji Boeun Environmental Group of Won Buddhism, Green Korea Wonju, Indramang Life Community, Green Korea Incheon, Back to Farm National Movement Headquarters, Jeju Solidarity for Participatory Self-government and Environmental Preservation, Nature Trail-For the Beauty of This Earth, The National Council of YMCA‘s of Korea, National Young Women’s Christian Association of Korea, Korea Resource Recycling Federation, Environment and Pollution Research Group, Korean Teacher’s Organization For Ecological Education And Action, Pastoral committee of Environment in Seoul Diocese, Korea Federation for Environmental Movement, Citizens’ Movement for Environmental Justice)

……………………………………………………………………

The translated version is based on the Korean civic groups’ statement on June 12, 2012.  The statement was sent to the IUCN leadership members on July 10, 2012. You can see the Korean version here:  http://cafe.daum.net/peacekj/49kU/1798