Category: Uncategorized

Another post on the movement in Vicenza, Itlay by Stephanie Westbrook [steph@webfabbrica.com]:

See below an informal report on the recent lobbying trip from Vicenza to DC.

Bests,

Stephanie

For more on Vicenza, see: http://www.peaceandjustice.it/vicenza/

Vicenza-DC Trip Report

Marching on the Pentagon, Interrupting a Hearing and Meeting with Congress

On March 20, I accompanied a delegation from Vicenza, Italy, involved in the struggle against a new U.S. military base at Dal Molin, to Washington DC. The focus of the trip was to lobby Congress to block funding on the project that is strongly opposed by the local population. You can also hear a radio interview on our trip on CodePink’s new weekly show, Pink Talk: http://pinktalkradio.org/

The dates of the trip allowed us to participate the day after our arrival in the national protest march organized by ANSWER on the occasion of the 6th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq (http://www.pentagonmarch.org/). The principal slogan of the march was “Occupation is a Crime – From Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Palestine.” We were invited to speak from the stage, surprising a few Italians who were in the crowd. Cheers rang out as Cinzia Bottene, Vicenza City Council member and one of the leaders of the No Dal Molin movement, reminded demonstrators that the first troops to parachute into Iraq deployed from Vicenza, troops are just returning from Afghanistan and Vicenza was just recently named command for ground troops for Africom. “Your struggle is our struggle. And only working together will we ever achieve peace!”

Two of the main organizers of the march, James Circello and Eric Murillo, had both been stationed in Vicenza at the existing base of Ederle. James, in fact, went AWOL from Ederle in 2007, and after turning himself in later that year at Fort Know, he was released from service. Both are now part of Iraq Veterans Against the War and we were particularly pleased to march
with them.

The march started near the Lincoln memorial and proceeded to the Pentagon and on to the weapons manufacturers in Crystal City – including the offices of Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing – ending at the DC headquarters of former Halliburton subsidiary KBR. One hundred flag
draped coffins representing the victims from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine as well as the U.S. were left at the entrance to the building.

The police presence was alarming, including sharpshooters on the roofs of buildings, but the singing of the women of CodePink helped diffuse the tension. According to the organizers, 10,000 people participated in this first anti-war demonstration of the Obama Administration.

That Monday began a week of meetings with Congress. We had initially set two appointments with Pentagon officials, however after being asked for our personal data for the security clearance, both appointments were canceled with no reason given. So we were doubly pleased to march on the
Pentagon!

And on Tuesday, we got an unexpected chance to make ourselves heard to Pentagon officials. At midnight on Monday, we learned that there would be a hearing of the full Armed Services committee the following day. Testifying would be none other than General Craddock, Commander of the U.S. Military’s European Command. The citizens of Vicenza had tried repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, to arrange a meeting with Gen. Craddock. So we decided to attend the hearing, and interrupted the General with chants of “No new base in Vicenza, Italy.” See Video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcHHJzx7CM0 We learned later from the coverage on C-Span, that the General went on to recognize the opposition in Vicenza later in the hearing, referring to us as a small group who “thinks” there are problems but are mistaken. It was these “supposed” problems, including environmental risks – the site for the new base lies above a major ground water source – and the Italian government’s refusal to perform an environmental impact study, as well as the fact that Vicenza already hosts 6 U.S. military installations, that led to widespread popular opposition against the base, even causing a major political shift in the city last year. And that was the message that we tried to drive home to Congress.

As with our first lobbying trip to Washington in May 2007 (http://www.peaceandjustice.it/vicenza-dc.php), we focused on the two subcommittees most directly involved in the question of military bases, Readiness under Armed Services and Military Construction under Appropriations. We met with the Chairs and members of these committees on both the House and Senate sides.

Many members with whom we met were sympathetic to our cause. Rep. Sam Farr of California was unaware of the situation in Vicenza, but commented, “I represent a district with a similarly sized city, Salinas. If the U.S. military had plans to build a base in my city, I’d be doing the same thing you are.” He assured us he would talk with his colleagues and “ask tough questions” in the subcommittee hearings.

Civil Rights Movement leader and Congressman from Georgia, John Lewis, was also very supportive. He was well aware of the issue of foreign bases thanks to the work of the Raging Grannies in Atlanta.

We were surprised to find support from Rep. Solomon Ortiz from Texas, Chair of the Readiness Subcommittee. Ortiz had experienced a similar situation, albeit from the other side of the coin. The people of his district in southeast Texas had struggled against the federal government and
Pentagon to maintain a base set for closure. He had been in Vicenza in 2007, however had only met with Italian government and U.S. military officials. When shown the photo of the site for the new base, in a residential neighborhood completely surrounded by houses and just one mile from the historic center of this UNESCO World Heritage site, he noted, “That’s some serious encroachment.” He was disappointed to learn that the Pentagon had canceled our meetings and assured us he would look into it.

On this trip, we also turned our attention to the Oversight Committee, meeting with the Chair of the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Rep. John Tierney of Massachusetts. Oversight is the principal investigative committee of Congress; therefore there was a distinctly different feel to this meeting. He informed us that the committee already had plans for an investigation on the network of foreign bases. Tierney has already done much work on Africom, holding hearings last year and was interested to know about the new command in Vicenza.

As during the trip in 2007, our best ally in Congress was Rep. Dennis Kucinich who remarked, “This is absurd, and it must be stopped. The only way we are going to have peace is treat others with mutual respect.” He questioned the need for the new base, as well as existing bases. “If Italy felt under threat of attack, you’d call us for help, right? You’d send us a text message, wouldn’t you?”

On the Senate side, as was to be expected, there was less support and more realism. We did learn a few things. For one, Sen. Tim Johnson’s office, confirmed concerns that the U.S. military has big plans for Vicenza, saying it would become a major hub. And Sen. Evan Bayh’s office noted that the opposition is quite well known. “You have quite a good Internet presence.” He also told us that President Obama’s defense budget will slip into May following the Congressional version of spring break.

In a meeting with Speaker Pelosi’s office, we talked about her recent trip to Italy in which she repeatedly thanked Italy for hosting U.S. troops. We asked, “Is insisting on the new base despite widespread popular opposition the best way to express gratitude?”

One of the most common comments we heard throughout the week was that this is very difficult to stop at this point, that funding for the project has already been approved in two parts. “You’re too late on this.” It’s interesting to note that Congress approved the first funds June 2006, just one month after the citizens of Vicenza learned about this project that had been kept secret, even from some City Council members! In any event, the people of Vicenza have known all along what they were up against, and that certainly never stopped them.

One of the most heartening aspects of the trip was learning that the issue of U.S. bases on foreign soil is ever more present in the discourse of activists, as well as members of Congress and the media. At the march on the Pentagon, several other speakers mentioned the issue in their speeches. And unlike our first trip to DC, many more members of Congress and their staff were also aware of the opposition in Vicenza and the issue of bases. References to the issue are even showing up in the mainstream media. The Washington Post recently published an article (http://tinyurl.com/cscrda) suggesting that cuts to military spending look also at the network of foreign bases, as proposed by yet another recent article on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (http://tinyurl.com/aqq4zu). And Republican Congressman Ron Paul’s recent article, Imagine an Occupied America (http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=14377) caused a bit of a stir.

This newfound attention to foreign bases in the U.S. is in part thanks to the No Bases conference held in Washington just a couple of weeks before our trip, which was attended by Enzo Ciscato of Vicenza and included a Congressional lobbying day. And I can’t help but think that the very successful, vibrant, active movement in Vicenza has also helped put the spotlight on the issue.

While we did receive some support from members of Congress, we all know they won’t move without pressure from constituents. If your representative or senators are on the committees that count, or even if they’re not, please contact them letting them know you stand with the people of Vicenza in opposing the new U.S. base at Dal Molin.

House Readiness Subcommittee (Armed Services) http://www.house.gov/hasc/subcommittee.shtml

House Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies (Appropriations) http://appropriations.house.gov/Subcommittees/sub_mivet.shtml

Senate Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support http://armed-services.senate.gov/scmembrs.htm#subrm

Senate Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies http://appropriations.senate.gov/military.cfm

Stephanie Westbrook

PS: As with 2007, the best part of our trip was staying at the CodePink house. The house is now open to activists staying in DC, so if you need a place to stay, this is the best in the district! (http://codepinkalert.org/form.php?modin=74) And drop by for the Wednesday potluck if you are in the area. For more on CodePink, see their web site (http://codepinkalert.org) as well as this article on The Nation on the eve of the inauguration, naming CodePink Most Valuable Progressives: http://tinyurl.com/ddzlg8

This article was posted to the nobases listserve by Stephanie Westbrook [steph@webfabbrica.com]:

See below a rough translation of an interview with Rep. Loretta Sanchez appearing yesterday on the Vicenza newspaper. She was apparently in Venice on holiday and met with Dal Molin Special Commissioner Paolo Costa. She talks about the importance of Vicenza for Africom.

The original is at: http://www.ilgiornaledivicenza.it/stories/Home/199501/

Vicenza and the base at Dal Molin

“Here’s why Obama wants it”

THE INTERVIEW. Vice-President of the “National Security” Committee visits Commissioner Costa in Venice. Loretta Sanchez: “These are options that have been voted by U.S. Congress, and it’s not a coincidence that Defense Secretary Gates was reconfirmed. There will be no second thoughts”

Venice. “The military policy of the United States is passed by Congress. That is why the position of the U.S. has not changed in the transition between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. ” In the words of Loretta Sanchez, Democratic from California, key player on the Military Strategies subcommittee of Armed Forces. Congresswoman Sanchez met yesterday in Venice with the special commissioner for the Dal Molin project, Paolo Costa. Closely linked to Hillary Clinton (she had supported her candidacy for the presidency) Sanchez was indicated by Nancy Pelosi for the position of vice president of the Committee on National Security. Sanchez is officially in the Vcenice area on holiday, though it is not the first time that Costa has met with her and is not the first time that Costa has given her an update on the status of the major U.S. construction project.. Dal Molin will also be discussed at the G8 that will be held at Maddalena (Sardinia, Italy) next summer, and is one of the main issues. “But all the decisions have already been made.”

Why does even President Barack Obama believes in the Dal Molin project? Why hasn’t there been, as expected by opponents of the project, any changes in the plans?

“We’re working on a plan,” replied Sanchez agreeing to answer some questions from reporters, “to consolidate the presence of our troops in the world, to be ready to intervene in sensitive areas such as Africa, the Middle East, the former Soviet republics in Asia. We believe that to give an effective response to these issues, to be closer to the places of possible tensions and conflicts, it is essential to reinforce our troops in Italy. For this reason we have chosen to unite the 173rd Brigade in Vicenza. There will be no second thoughts. All decisions have been made by the two governments. The plan and the allocation of the budget were voted by the Congress. It is no coincidence that Obama has confirmed the Secretary of Defense appointed by the Bush administration, that is Robert Gates.”

Why is the role of Italy so important in the eyes of Americans, in the international arena?

“First, because Italy is geographically located close to areas most at risk, between Africa and the Middle East. And because Italy has been our longtime ally. The U.S. shares the same value system and lifestyle. We can count upon the Italian government, which from Prodi to Berlusconi has done everything that was needed to promote the alliance and the plan of consolidation of our troops at Dal Molin.”

What type of military installation will be? “I can guarantee that the project follows the most stringent environmental regulations.”

“There are no better military structures than those planned at Dal Molin in the world in terms of respecting the ecological balance,” echoed Commissioner Costa.

“There will be no artillery, no aircraft” continued Sanchez. ” This will simply be a place where paratroopers will stay with lighter equipment and their families.”

Does the transformation of American command stationed at Camp Ederle to Africom signify a change to the military targets of the Pentagon?

“No, it is the demonstration of an emphasis on the African continent. I spoke with Obama about it. Africa needs help, even if operations are guided by a military command, the objectives are not primarily military. My hope is that the military strategies can be enhanced while investing fewer dollars. I believe a lot in diplomacy and dialogue as President Obama.

Friday, April 10, 2009 | Modified: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 12:00am

Hawaii taxpayers could pay $40M Superferry bill

Pacific Business News (Honolulu) – by Chad Blair

Hawaii taxpayers could end up paying for most of the $40 million in harbor improvements carried out to accommodate Hawaii Superferry, which removed its ship, the Alakai, from Hawaiian waters on March 28.

It also is possible that Hawaii Superferry will be held responsible for reimbursing the state. The state Department of Transportation and the Attorney General’s Office are reviewing the enforceability of the state’s operating agreement with Superferry.

The state spent the $40 million, using general obligation reimbursable bonds, to construct barges with ramps at harbors in Honolulu, Kahului on Maui, and Kawaihae on the Big Island. A ramp also was built for Kauai’s Nawiliwili Harbor.

Under terms of the agreement, Hawaii Superferry was to reimburse the state for the $40 million. A fee schedule between the D.O.T. and Superferry called for minimum monthly payments of $191,667, or 1 percent of gross receipts, “less certain adjustments,” for the first three years.

The payments began Dec. 13, 2007, when Superferry resumed its Honolulu-Kahului sailings following a court-ordered suspension. Superferry had paid the state $2.6 million when it halted service March 19. Service stopped after the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that a state law exempting Superferry from an environmental impact statement was unconstitutional.

“A lot depends on future events that are currently unknown,” said Mike Formby, the D.O.T.’s deputy director of harbors. “We don’t know how long Superferry will be out of the state, or how long the Chapter 343 review will take. So we have not come up with a final analysis or assessment.”

Formby was referring to Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 343, which calls for an environmental impact statement under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act.

“Our basic position is that, although Superferry has left the market, we reserve all rights as to the enforceability of the operating agreement,” he said. “We are not conceding that it is void or unenforceable.”

The $40 million was used up faster than expected because of repairs made to the Kahului barge, battered by rough winter seas in 2007 and 2008.

The Kawaihae barge was rendered inoperable following the October 2006 Big Island earthquake and towed to the protected waters of Honolulu Harbor. The Kahului barge is expected to join it shortly.

Only Superferry can use the barges, which were made specially for the Alakai. Also, they are “foreign hulled,” meaning they do not qualify under the federal Jones Act for use by vessels sailing directly between U.S. ports, Formby said.

It was the harbor improvements that triggered the court-ordered environmental impact statement.

Belt Collins, which has a $1.3 million contract to conduct the EIS, has halted work until the D.O.T. can assess what is now required under Chapter 343 and state procurement law.

Formby said he expects the EIS to be completed within three to six months.

“That $40 million will be satisfied over time,” said Gary North, chairman of the Hawaii Harbor Users Group, adding that his members understand “everybody pays” for use of harbors.

Some lawmakers say they were worried all along about getting stuck with the $40 million tab.

“Neighbor Island senators especially asked Superferry, blatantly, what happens if it fails?” said Sen. Kalani English, D-E. Maui-Molokai-Lanai. “We were told, ‘Oh, we’ll pay it back, it’s all going to pay off.’ Those weren’t the exact words, but that was the general sense. And now this has happened and the state has to pay for it.”

English, now chairman of the Senate’s transportation committee, supports interisland ferries but opposed the Legislature’s decision to exempt Superferry from state law.

“If Superferry does get a military contract, which we know they are pursuing, then the taxpayers of Hawaii have subsidized their proof-of-concept experiment,” English said. “That’s what this was, to figure out all the bugs and fix it.”

Hawaii Superferry officials had little to say about the rest of the $40 million or about the future of its operations in Hawaii.

“[There is] no clarity on those issues at this time,” Hawaii Superferry President and CEO Tom Fargo said through a spokeswoman.

cblair@bizjournals.com | 955-8036

Source: http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2009/04/13/story3.html?b=1239595200^1809947

Ferry tale

There’s plenty of blame to go around, but Hawaii court rights ship in end

By Michael Leidemann / Special to the Star-Bulletin

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Apr 05, 2009

The Hawaii Superferry is gone, probably for good, but the political, legal, financial and ethical stink it leaves behind is going to cling to the islands for a long time. You might as well get used to it, and if you’re still trying to figure out who’s responsible, this book might help.

The Hawaii Supreme Court effectively shut the company down last month, ruling that the special law that it was operating under was unconstitutional. With that, the company announced that it was closing down operations, laying off workers and looking for a new home for its $350 million first ship. “We’re taking our beach ball and looking for a new ocean to toss it in,” Adm. Thomas Fargo, the company’s chief executive office, practically told Hawaii after the ruling came out.

“Good riddance,” some people said.

“See, anti-business,” the old guard said.

“Dang, I wish I’d ridden it at least once before it left,” the rest of us whispered, but not loud enough to be heard.

The court’s ruling that the state cannot set up a special law to accommodate one company, no matter how much money it was bringing into the state, especially if it was done by circumventing our treasured environmental laws, was the right thing and a long time in the making.

Only most of us didn’t see it coming. Were we silent conspirators, blinded by our own desire for a cheap interisland travel alternative, or did we have the wool pulled over our eyes by a high-flying group of investors who found friends in high places at the Legislature and Governor’s Office?

Clearly, the authors of this book think it’s the latter.

“We don’t hate ferries. Actually, we quite love ferries,” the authors say near the end of this collection of pieces that gives an almost fair but hardly balanced view of the ferry fiasco. “We even had a positive reaction to the idea when we first heard about the Superferry. But then, we learned the rest of the story.”

The story they tell is one of greed, manipulation, militarization, political ambition, absentee owners, a near riot and a cast of characters that includes Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, a former secretary of the Navy, a governor in bed with big business, as well as some local “heroes” who never stopped believing that Hawaii and its courts would ultimately do the right thing and make the ferry operations comply with all state laws, not just the one written especially for its benefit.

The book gives a lot of space to those little people who one way or another helped expose the ferry, and perhaps its ulterior motive of using Hawaii waters as a testing ground for a new type of military transport ship. It’s a little less fair to the thousands of people who genuinely wanted to see the ferry company succeed out of the belief that the Hawaii archipelago would be well served with a new kind of transportation. You’ll have to wade through a lot of stuff here to reach your own conclusions about who is really to blame.

Remember the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car?” which was making the rounds a few years ago? The film told the story of a highly successful electric car manufactured by General Motors, which suddenly and inexplicably pulled the product from the market. In the film, the directors leave the question of blame open-ended: big oil, the car companies, state bureaucrats, even consumers who did not buy enough of the cars end up sharing responsibility.

It’s a lot like that here. Sure, the Superferry company cut corners and is now paying a big price. Sure, the Legislature and the governor gave it their best (and, as it turns out, illegal) shot at salvaging the project. Sure, all of us who sat idly by and only prayed that it would all work out peacefully deserve some of the blame, too.

If there are any real heroes here, it’s the justices of the state Supreme Court. As they’ve done on a handful of memorable occasions before, the justices swiftly and quickly stood up for the law, and that means all of us, without any taint of the greed and politics that made this such an otherwise sordid tale.

This story’s probably over, but if it turns out that there’s a new chapter, or a new Superferry, somewhere in Hawaii’s future, we could all do worse than spending a little time with the book to figure out whose side we’re going to be on the next time we have to make a choice.
“The Superferry Chronicles: Hawaii’s Uprising Against Militarism, Commercialism and the Desecration of the Earth”

By Koohan Paik and Jerry Mander

(Koa Books)

320 pages, $20

Source: http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090405_ferry_tale.html

Today’s Honolulu Star Bulletin reported:   “The Alakai went home yesterday looking for work.”

Maybe it was a slip, but it was accurate.  The Superferry’s home is, and always has been somewhere else.  It was never a homegrown interisland transportation system to ship pineapples or allow grandma on Maui to visit her grandkids on O’ahu.   It was always about powerful outside interests using Hawai’i to further their business plans and spread the risk to tax payers.  That’s why the business plan for the Superferry never made sense, and why the company was so eager to pack up and ship out once it had gotten everything it needed from Hawai’i and a convenient out.   Where the Superferry ends up will reveal a lot about its real business plans.