Air Force Wiping Out Rare Wildlife Of Guam

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 5, 2009
11:33 AM

CONTACT: PEER
Luke Eshleman (202) 265-7337

Air Force Wiping Out Rare Wildlife Of Guam

Rampant Poaching, Beach Paving and Human Intrusion Ruins Island Habitat

WASHINGTON – March 5 – The U.S. Air Force base on Guam is contributing to the loss of the highly endangered wildlife it is supposed to protect, according to a whistleblower disclosure filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Air Force officials are turning a blind eye to poaching by base “volunteers” and are sponsoring questionable construction projects that are harming rare bats, birds and sea turtles, among other native species.

The formal disclosure by Nancy Mitton, the Natural Resources Specialist at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam since September 2006, requests that the Department of Defense Inspector General undertake an immediate review of widespread environmental violations at the base and the complicity of base command. Among the problems cited by Mitton are –

* Rampant poaching by base Volunteer Conservation Officers, including illegal trapping of coconut crabs and resale of trophy deer;

* Half of the endangered fruit bats (a local delicacy) on the base have recently disappeared. A flock of extremely rare Mariana crows has been virtually wiped out by hunters. Yet, in both cases base command refused to take recommended protective steps; and

* Paving beaches and stripping vegetation used for nesting by endangered hawksbill turtles and threatened green sea turtles. Among the questionable shoreline projects pushed by base officers are dog trails to allow their pets to run unleashed on sensitive wildlife tracts.

“The Air Force program for protecting Guam’s natural resources has utterly broken down” stated PEER Senior Counsel Paula Dinerstein, who today filed Mitton’s complaint with the Defense Inspector General. “Officers are treating sensitive wildlife habitat like their personal beach resort.”

Many of the issues identified by Mitton involve unrestricted hunting by local volunteers who are allowed to enter and leave the Air Force base without their vehicles being searched, in violation of security rules. In addition, the disclosure describes a variety of unsafe ordnance detonation practices.

Andersen AFB occupies the northern end of the island of Guam and hosts the 36th Wing of the Pacific Air Forces. It is one of four Bomber Forward Operating Locations in the Air Force which support bomber crews deploying overseas. Plans are underway for the U.S. Navy to take over Anderson AFB.

“Andersen is so remote that there is a feeling of invulnerability reported by staff about the command – a sense that rules do not apply on the island,” Dinerstein added. “Until our Defense agencies start holding officers to account for environmental violations, the vast trove of vital natural resources in military custody can never be secure.”

###

Read the disclosure of problems (March 5, 2009)

See a summary of problems at Andersen AFB (March 5, 2009)

Look at other recent Pentagon eco-problems

###

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is a national alliance of local state and federal resource professionals. PEER’s environmental work is solely directed by the needs of its members. As a consequence, we have the distinct honor of serving resource professionals who daily cast profiles in courage in cubicles across the country.

Chamoru Protest at Governor’s Mansion Against Military Expansion

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION OUTSIDE THE GOVERNOR’S MANSION

Hagatna, Guam

February 19, 2009
Members of Nasion Chamoru gathered outside the Government House in Tutuhan, also known as Agana Heights to demonstrate the right of assembly and the freedom of speech, greeting members of the Congressional Delegation (CODEL) on Monday, February 16, 2009 from 5:00pm to 9:00pm. The peaceful demonstration and protest was necessary because of the agenda to relocate 8,000 U.S. Marines and their dependents as well as the additional 40,000 service members in all other branches of the U.S. Military. While Secretary of State, Madame Hillary Clinton signed the Guam International Treaty, members of Congress gathered at the Governor’s House for a reception paid for by Guam Tax payer dollars. Large member’s of Guam’s elite were invited for attendance, including members of the Guam Chamber of Commerce and other off island corporate executives who never file taxes on Guam.

Members of the CODEL team purposely evaded elected officials, including members of the Guam Legislature. Instead, members of CODEL chose to meet with the Guam Chamber of Commerce and other off island corporate executives. The lack of respect given to the people of Guam and their elected officials causes worry amongst grassroots organizations such as Nasion.

After leaving Guam, Wednesday February 18, 2009, members of the CODEL team emphasized how important their “field trip” to Guam was and how this military expansion will happen whether we like it or not. In order to address the long standing racist policy against Oceanic peoples, namely the Chamoru people, and the People of Guam, social action, such as peaceful demonstrations, must take place to obtain attention to Guam’s plight. Peaceful Demonstrations are a fabric to American Democracy.

Members of Nasion protested with signs and with cultural music, but most of all, Nasion protested based on love, devotion and respect for our island, for elected officials, and with a sense of clarity of purpose that we are a political force that must be reckoned with on our island homeland. Although some proponents against Nasion Chamoru might say that the military build up is a good thing because of economics, it also means the annihilation to the inalieanable right to self-determination for the Chamoru people who have lived on these islands for more than 4,000 years. History tells of a people who have been decimated due to the influx of Westernization since the 16th century. People who have made Guam their home are also invited to join Nasion because Chamorus have always been forced to welcome our guests and we are a welcoming people. However, it is time that everyone on Guam stand with the Chamoru people to do what is right once and for all.

In the coming months, Nasion Chamoru plans to continue its freedom to demonstrate on our island community until the wrongs of the past are corrected, teaching once again the next generation to never be afraid to stand up for your beliefs. Fanoghe Chamoru!


si Debbie Quinata
I Nasion Chamoru
P.O. Box 6132
Merizo, Guam 96916
(671) 828-2957

Guam Landowners oppose US troop build up

Guam Landowners oppose US troop build up

By Online Editor

10:59 am GMT+12, 19/02/2009, Guam

Guam Landowners Association says it is opposed to United States plans for a military buildup in the territory, reports Radio New Zealand International.

The U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Japan’s Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone signed a deal in Tokyo this week to transfer 8000 U.S. Marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam by 2014.

Association’s representatives Antony Sablan said the people of Guam haven’t been asked if they support an influx of soldiers into the territory, which would boost the island’s population by about 10 percent.

Mr Sablan believes Guam would not only lose land but part of its identity.

“We are a foster child of a foster parent, where our resources are getting raped by our foster parent. Somebody has to step up to the plate and take the step to say ‘ hey, you can’t take advantage of this small group of innocent people’.”

Mr Sablan said the international community should step in and protect the people of Guam.

Meanwhile, Guam’s Chamber of Commerce is looking forward to what a planned military buildup will mean for the US territory’s economy.

“The United States and Japan signed a deal Tuesday to relocate 8000 U.S. Marines from Okinawa in Japan to Guam.”

The bulk of the relocation costs are to be covered by the US and Japan, but Guam will have to meet some of expenses arising from an infrastructure upgrade.

Guam’s Chamber’s chairman Frank Campillo said the relocation would bring many economic opportunities.

“We’ll see a huge amount of construction activity: we need to improve our island infrastructure, the streets, the waterways, the distribution of electricity, we need to build new housing. We understand there’ll be between 8 and 10 billion dollars of construction activity.”

Mr Campillo said there would also be long term benefits for the people, such as better health and education services and improved infrastructure
SOURCE: RNZI/PACNEWS

Gitmo in the Pacifik?

CNMI can host Gitmo detainees

Wednesday, 28 January 2009 00:00

By Emmanuel T. Erediano – Variety News Staff

DUE to the bad economy, the commonwealth cannot afford to be too choosy about opportunities that knock on its door – even if it means becoming the “new Guantanamo Bay.”

Rep. Ray N. Yumul, R-Saipan and an Army Reservist, brought up this idea during yesterday’s discussion in the House chamber about the implementation of the federal immigration system this year.

Yumul said the federal government is now considering the transfer of the “Gitmo” detainees from Cuba.

“We need to encourage the military planners to consider the NMI,” he said.

Some states like Pennsylvania have already expressed interest in hosting the Guantanamo Bay detainees, he added.

Hundreds of terror suspects are being detained in Guantanamo, which President Obama wants to shut down.

Yumul said the CNMI was on the shortlist when the military was considering places where suspected terrorists could be detained.

Tinian, Yumul said, can be an ideal place since 2/3 of its land is leased to the U.S. military.

“We need to sit down as a community and look at our options,” Yumul said. “It’s something that we definitely need to consider.”

Aside from the creation of jobs, new infrastructure and business opportunities, hosting the Gitmo detainees can give the CNMI people the chance “to show their patriotism.”

He recalled that in the past, boat people from Vietnam who made their way to the Pacific were brought to Tinian after they were denied entry to Guam.

Asked about the possible terrorist threats to the CNMI, Yumul said “the U.S. has a very high standard of maintaining security, so it will not be a problem.”

Navy destroyers from Hawai’i deploy to west Pacific, Middle East

January 21, 2009

Navy destroyers from Hawaii deploy to west Pacific, Middle East

1 ship escorting strike group while 2 others increase presence in region

By William Cole
Advertiser Military Writer

PEARL HARBOR – Three Hawai’i-based destroyers and more than 1,000 sailors set sail for the western Pacific yesterday – one ship as an escort for a strike group headed to the Middle East and the other two as part of a policy change for U.S. Pacific Fleet sending Hawai’i ships west instead of to Southern California for training.

The “Mid-Pacific Surface Combatant Operational Employment” policy takes advantage of Hawai’i’s forward location to combine training and a real-world presence in the western Pacific, the Navy said.

The Pearl Harbor destroyer Chung-Hoon is heading west with the San Diego-based USS Boxer Expeditionary Strike Group. The aircraft carrier-like Boxer, which has helicopters and Harrier jump jets, spent several days in Hawai’i for sonar and land-based training at Pohakuloa Training Area on the Big Island.

The Boxer strike group is headed to the Middle East. The destroyers Hopper and Paul Hamilton, meanwhile, left Hawai’i for the “operational employment” training, the Navy said.

“It’s a more efficient use of time. It ends up being less time away from home for training purposes,” said Capt. William A. Kearns, commodore of Destroyer Squadron 31. “They can do training and do deployed missions – operate with allied navies, (and) do port visits out in the western Pacific during the time that they would have in the past operated in Southern California.”

The operational employment policy was put in place by U.S. Pacific Fleet in May 2008, officials said. Destroyers have a crew of about 350. The USS Chafee, another destroyer based at Pearl Harbor, is scheduled to deploy in the coming weeks.

The Hopper is expected to be out about 3 1/2 months. The relatively short deployment – at least by military standards – didn’t provide encouragement for Vicky Andries, who was on Bravo pier waving goodbye to her husband, 33-year-old sonar technician Matthew Andries.

Vicky Andries is 6 1/2-months pregnant, meaning Matthew will miss the birth of their first child. She tried to hold back the tears yesterday behind black-framed sunglasses.

The Hopper will link up with the George Washington or John C. Stennis aircraft carrier strike groups in the western Pacific and will visit Okinawa, officials said. The Hopper’s training deployment is about half the six months carrier strike groups spend at sea if they sail to the Middle East.

Culinary specialist Jeff Norman, 22, yesterday said it doesn’t make much difference to him where the destroyer has duty.

“When I go out I’m on a big ship that nobody’s going to mess with, so it doesn’t matter either way if I’m in the Persian Gulf or western Pacific,” he said.

Source: HonoluluAdvertiser.com

Japanese citizens Open Letter to President Elect Obama

Concerned Japanese citizens send an open letter to President Obama

“Are you reviewing and changing Bush-Rumsfeld military posture?”

Dear friends of peace in the United States,

January 16, 2009

We, concerned citizens from the Japanese archipelago, are sending an open letter to Mr. Barak Obama on the occasion of his inauguration as President of the United States, asking him to clarify whether and how far he is going to “change” the Bush administration’s military posture and strategy toward East Asia and the Pacific. More than 100 citizens, many from peace and other social movement groups, have signed it. More are signing now. (The open letter is annexed.)

As we state in our letter, we understand that his promise of “change” is a commitment not only to American citizens but also to people all over the world who suffered under the Bush administration’s destructive actions. In concrete, we are eager to know whether Mr. Obama will fundamentally review and retract the Bush-Rumsfeld’s global military strategy, the so-called Defense Transformation Program, particularly its East Asia and Pacific version centering on the Japan-U.S. military alliance.

The U.S. military presence in East Asia and Pacific region has been drastically reinforced and the Japanese remilitarization accelerated to serve the purposes of Bush’s global and permanent “war on terror” and spurring the Japanese rightists’ drive to glorify the imperial Japanese past and revise the pacifist constitution. What has been done in the past eight years in this respect serves only to destabilize this region and lead to new arms race among the countries involved. The U.S.-Japan military buildup program is met by vigorous and sustained protests of citizens, particularly in areas affected by reinforcement of U.S. bases such as Okinawa, Iwakuni, Yokosuka, Zama and Yokota. Time is ripe for the United States to fundamentally review its military posture and presence in East Asia and the Pacific as well as in the rest of the world.

We have great respect to the wisdom of U.S. citizens who opted for change by electing Mr. Obama President. We hope that you will share our concern, endorse this open letter, and circulate it widely among the change-aspiring American people who voted for Mr. Obama. Our hope is to build a bridge of peace and demilitarization across the Pacific so that a real change will come.

Hikaru Kasahara,
For the steering committee of People’s Plan Study Group (PPSG)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Contacts for your responses and endorsements to the open letter to President Obama
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
People’s Plan Study Group (PPSG), Tokyo
Shinseido Bldg.2F, Sekiguchi 1-44-3,
Bunkyoku, Tokyo 112-0014
Tel: +81-3-6424-5748 Fax:+81-3-6424-5749
Email: ppsg@jca.apc.org
URL: http://www.peoples-plan.org/
English Media: http://www.ppjaponesia.org/
………………………………………

For details of U.S.-Japan military arrangements made under the Bush administration, please refer:

“Japan’s Willing Military Annexation by the United States — ‘Alliance for the Future’ and Grassroots Resistance” (by Muto Ichiyo) http://www.ppjaponesia.org/
“Okinawa Disagree — A Historic Turning Point in the Struggle for Peace and Dignity” (by Yui Akiko) in /Japonesia Review No.2/, December 2006, published by PPSG
“Okinawa’s Resistance Reaches a New Height on Falsification of History and U.S. Bases” (by Yui Akiko) in /Japonesia Review No.4/, March 2008, published by PPSG
“From Okinawa — Breaking the Imposed Myth: Permanence of U.S. Bases in Okinawa” (by Yui Akiko) http://www.ppjaponesia.org/
“People of Yokosuka Resists U.S. Nuclear Carrier” (by Yamaguchi Hibiki) in /Japonesia Review No.5/, October 2008, published by PPSG
“Rural People Resist U.S. Military Encroachment — From Takae, Okinawa” (by Hikaru Kasahara) in /Japonesia Review No.5/, October 2008, published by PPPSG

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
An Open Letter to U.S. President Barack Obama

The “Change” You Promised Should Include the Official Dismantling
of the Bush-Rumsfeld Neoconservative Military Strategy
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington D.C. 20500

January 16, 2009

Dear Mr. President:

First, we would like to extend our congratulations on your election as President of the United States of America.

The Bush administration, by conducting wars forbidden under international law, and by taking other unilateralist actions during its eight years in office, has brought immense suffering to the people of the world. We welcome your election as President, as you clearly promised to change what had been done by your predecessor and his administration. We believe that your call for change won the hearts and minds of the American people, particularly the young, inspired them with hope, and rekindled idealism, undoubtedly a great virtue of the American citizenry, beyond color, gender, class and other differences. We heartily welcome your victory.

We nevertheless feel it urgent, as residents of the Japanese archipelago, to remind you, Mr. President, that your promise of “change” should be a commitment not only to American citizens but also to people all over the world who suffered under the Bush administration’s destructive unilateralist actions. We, as people who long to be liberated from the endless war situation created by the Bush administration, are eager to know how you plan to change the global military strategy that it formulated and implemented. In particular, we are carefully watching whether you will dismantle the Bush-Rumsfeld military strategy, centering on the so-called Defense Transformation Program, which bears the indelible hallmark of neoconservatism, and will introduce instead more modest and decent U.S. foreign and defense policies.

We would like to know whether you intend to embark on a fundamental review of the U.S. military strategy along this line.

Specifically, as peace loving citizens of the Japanese archipelago, we expect and request you to bring a fundamental change to the U.S. military strategy in East Asia and the Pacific region.

Under the Bush administration, Japan has been fully integrated into the U.S. global military strategy which is dedicated to the goal of U.S. global domination and serves exclusively the military, political, and economic interests of the United States as defined by the then neocon rulers. In other words, the strategy that Japan was integrated into has nothing to do with Japan’s defense or peace in Asia. Through a series of bilateral arrangements signed from 2005 through 2006, Japan’s Self-Defense Forces, a military force which exists in violation of the Japanese constitution, were placed directly under the U.S. command as auxiliary units to serve Bush’s wars, under the plausible slogan of a “mature alliance.” Under the new agreements, the Japanese and U.S. governments are forcing the construction of new military facilities in Okinawa, and these attempts are being fiercely contested by local people. U.S. military bases are also being reinforced in Japanese mainland cities and towns such as Iwakuni, Yokosuka, Zama and Yokota, but again, local residents are struggling against these moves. By pressing Japan’s rapid militarization and its incorporation into the U.S. global strategy, and thus forcing Japan to revise its pacifist constitution, the U.S. government under President Bush has been blatantly interfering in Japanese domestic affairs. The U.S. has also attempted to turn Guam into a huge U.S. military complex as a cornerstone for the U.S. forces’ global strategic deployment, using Japanese tax money.

The military arrangement thus introduced by the Bush administration is counterproductive, as it not only will fail to bring about peace and security to Asia and the Pacific region, but may lead to an aggravated arms race with China and usher in a new Cold War situation in Asia.

We therefore request that you seriously consider and adopt the concrete proposals articulated below. We believe that the “change” you promised will not be substantiated unless these are met.

  1. Fundamentally review and abolish the bilateral arrangement contained in the “U.S.-Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future” agreed on October 29, 2005 and the related subsequent military arrangements between the U.S. and Japan, and freeze the ongoing construction of military facilities and the transformation of military forces based on the arrangements.
  2. Review and stop the expansion of military facilities in Okinawa and review the presence of U.S. forces in Okinawa with a view to eventually withdrawing them completely.
  3. Abandon the plan for the construction of new U.S. military bases in Guam.
  4. Cease to demand or pressure Japan to revise Article 9 of its constitution. Opt for regional multilateral arrangements for peace in Northeast Asia in the perspective of the withdrawal of the U.S. forces and Japan’s demilitarization and promote a Northeast Asia Nuclear-Free Zone as a first step.

We eagerly await your response to the above proposals.

Sincerely,
signed by:

Hokkaido Peace Network
Kansai District Collective Action Network
Study Group on the United Nation and Japanese Constitution
Forum for Human Rights, Justice and Solidarity for Peace
Solidarity with Anti-War Military Personnel
Buddhists No War Group, Fukuoka
Group to Substantiate the Fukuoka Court Ruling on Unconstitutionality of Prime Ministers’ visits to Yasukuni Shrine
Action Committee against US-Japan Security Pact
No! to Nukes and Missile Defense Campaign
EcPeaceClub
SPACE ALLIES
Asian Pace Alliance (APA) Japan
People’s Plan Study Group (PPSG)

Myoukei Nakata, Kentaro Nakata, Tsuneo Takeichi, Megumi Ishibashi, Kenji Kunitomi, Kitarou Wada, , Kazuhiro Nishii, Hideaki Nishiya, Hidenori Ao, Hideyuki Kuroda, Makoto Sakai, Sachiko Kunimitsu, Shizue Hirota, Teramachi Ayumu, Kolin Kobayashi, Shigeki Konno, Yoshikazu Makishi, Hiroshi Kajino, Mitsumasa Ohta, Naoya Arakawa, Yoko Yamaguchi, Yumi Honda, Takashi Ozawa, Fumitaka Miyahara, Makiko Sato, Kaori Suzuki, Koichi Bessho, Asita mo hare – Seiko Ohki, Sachiko Taba, Yukio Kurihara, Masahide Tsuruta, Shutaro Hosono, Yuuko Nakamura, Akiko Inari, Hiroko Taguti, Kiyokazu Koshida, Yukinobu Aoyagi, Yuko Inoue, Mitsue Sugiyama, Hideaki Kuno, Kenji Ago, Kazumasa Igata, Kazuhiro Katou, Tomoko Miyahara, Takao Watahiki, Yuko Inui, Hisashi Senba, Mutsuo Usami, Setsuko Usami, Yumi Kikuchi, Kamiya Fusako, Takako Morimoto, Hiroshi Yoshikawa, Akemi Ishii, Yasuo Kuwano, Kouitirou Toyosima, Yuuichi Aoki, Kenichi Hanamura, Keiko Tanaka, Marie Nakajima, Kimio Oda, Takashi Sano, Hatuko Sano, Tetsuo Matumura, Morioka shingo, Tosiko Kamakura, Toshimasa Sakakura, Keiko Doi, Yasushi Furuya , Keiko Kimura, Masao Kimura, Rosan Daido, Yuzuru Nakazawa, Mieko Iwasaki, Toshiaki Ikeo, Shiro Saka, Kiyoshi Owa, Isamu Nagano, Junko Yamaguchi, Koji Sugihara, Terumi Terao, Noriko Kyogoku, Yasue Tanaka, Ayako Nakanishi, Shu-ichi Satoh, Hikaru Kanesaki, Seiko Miyake, Junko Okura, Sojun Taira (as of January 13, 2009)

New Book: The Bases of Empire


The Bases of Empire
The Global Struggle against US Military Posts
Catherine Lutz (Editor)
December 2008

Abstract
This book examines US military bases across the globe including those in Latin America, Europe, and Asia. It documents the massive political, economic and environmental impacts that these outposts have and studies the movements and campaigns against them. US Military bases form a huge global system but are poorly understood by those not directly involved in their operation. The Pentagon is currently relocating many bases to fit with the strategies of pre-emption and resource control and this has intensified existing conflicts between the military and local people.The authors of this volume show how these seemingly local disputes are crucial to the success and failure of the American imperial project, and attempt to bring together the geographically scattered opposition movements to form a coherent campaign against the harmful effects of bases. A key title for students of anthropology and politics, this collection will also open the eyes of US citizens to the damage the American empire causes in allied countries as well as in its war zones.

Bibliographic information
Pluto Books / TNI
ISBN 978 0 7453 2832 4

Mission Creep

Mother Jones devoted an entire issue to the many facets of the Empire of US military bases. They created an interactive map that shows US troop numbers through several decades. The main problem with the map is that it fails to provide information about the many small islands that “host” major military bases.

Mission Creep

NEWS: Bush and Rumsfeld may be history, but America’s new global footprint lives on.

By Michael Mechanic

August 22, 2008

In August 2004, with the Iraq War raging and his reelection months away, President Bush announced the most radical overhaul of overseas military basing since the end of the Cold War. The purpose of this so-called Global Posture Review: to enable the lean, mean fighting machine long envisioned by then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld-a flexible force that can fight up to four wars at once and respond quickly to crises, wherever they may arise.

The plan slashes conventional military bases in places like Western Europe-the so-called “little Americas” with their schools, streets, and malls-and shunts troops into bare-bones forward bases in far-flung locations, closer to the action and without the family amenities, places like Romania, Bulgaria, and Kyrgyzstan, frail democracies (or not), many with NATO aspirations and lax environmental laws. All this reshuffling isn’t cheap: An expert panel convened by Congress to assess the overseas basing realignment put the cost at $20 billion, counting indirect expenses overlooked by the Pentagon, which had initially budgeted one-fifth that amount.

In Africa, where the military is establishing a new command called AFRICOM, the Pentagon is busy planting lily pads, officially “Cooperative Security Locations.” US troops can use these low-key outposts to stash weapons and supplies, and to train local forces. In a crisis, boom! They can convert to a real wartime base.

Given the rapid changes in America’s global military stance, Mother Jones embarked on a project to determine what our men and women in uniform are up to, country by country. We mapped a strategy, recruited a research team, and then divided and conquered. The result: an interactive map that lets you zoom in to almost any place on the planet to learn something about US involvement there. To this we added commentary and reportage, and in the coming weeks we’ll be rolling out reflections from more than a dozen military scholars and thinkers related to the topics covered. These will appear at motherjones.com and be archived on the project home page.

Among the things an armchair analyst may glean from this package is that, despite its price tag, the Pentagon’s shift has paid a few strategic dividends. It has helped US troops quietly penetrate new territory at a time when America’s vast base network has run into fierce public opposition around the globe, a situation Chalmers Johnson examines in “America’s Unwelcome Advances.” And, as Herbert Docena demonstrates in “US Troops Retake the Dragon’s Lair”, the new tactics have allowed the Pentagon to rebuild a major strategic hub in the Philippines, whose senators sent US troops packing in 1991.

Lest leapfrogging around the map leave readers feeling untethered, here are a few points to put things into perspective. First, the Pentagon’s numbers, which we use here for consistency’s sake, often feel arbitrary. They cite US installations in just 39 foreign countries and territories, and show suspiciously low troop counts for countries we know are abuzz with American military activity, like Jordan, Pakistan, and the Philippines.

In fact, our research shows there are relatively few places on the planet where the US military isn’t active in some way. American soldiers regularly rotate in and out of key locations on humanitarian and training missions. From weapons to cash to attendance at US military conferences, from researching tropical diseases to extending host-nation runways to building ports, the Pentagon is there to help-in exchange for a little help from our friends: overflight and basing rights, port privileges, and legal immunity for the troops. (See “How to Stay in Iraq for 1,000 Years.”)

Where the US military doesn’t tread, it funds. Indeed, humanitarian and military aid from the United States have proved most useful in coaxing foreign countries to give us what we ask for. It’s no accident that 22 percent of US foreign aid, as Joshua Kurlantzick reports in our September/October issue, now flows directly through the Pentagon. Conversely, the US Agency for International Development funds military training in a number of countries.

And while America’s military dealings abroad are most often framed in the context of fighting terror, the true mission is often less about terror and more about gaining the obeisance of strategically located and resource-rich governments. While indeed some of our efforts are undertaken to quell truly bad guys and keep old foes in check-sometimes those efforts fail, as we saw in Georgia this month-many are geared to safeguard future energy supplies and to contain China, which the Pentagon identified as a potential future military rival as far back as 1998.

It was the 9/11 attacks, of course, that enabled the Pentagon’s push into new territory, and provided the blank check needed to reward cooperative foreign politicians with military assistance and help quashing their own internal rebellions. But with America’s post-9/11 political capital spent, it’s unclear where all of this will lead. Even as Russia reasserts itself and China grows, the US government borrows heavily to cover its off-the-charts defense spending-$587 billion this year. At the very least, as former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski points out in this package, the next president (and just as important, our pork-crippled Congress) will need to reassess what America really needs for its security, and how much security we can continue to afford.

Michael Mechanic is a senior editor at Mother Jones.

The new US invasion of Guam

This is an old article from a pro-military perspective. Notice how Chamoru opposition to the military expansion is diminished and how local politicians are falling over themselves to get to the trough.

Guam’s Return to Prominence

Sea Power | Richard R. Burgess | January 25, 2007

The 2006 agreement between the United States and Japan to shift 8,000 U.S. Marines from bases in Japan to the island of Guam by 2014 is likely to have more far-reaching implications than just a change of address for some units of the Marine Corps’ III Marine Expeditionary Force (III MEF). The move is accelerating the return to prominence of Guam in the U.S. defense posture and fostering a higher level of cooperation among the U.S. armed forces in the Pacific region.

Rear Adm. Gary A. Engle, former commander of the Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, said the advent of the Marines creates the opportunity for forces on Guam “to be a model of jointness in how we operate.”

Guam has been the hub of joint military exercises in recent years, including Exercise Valiant Shield 2006 in June, which included three aircraft carrier strike groups operating together, along with other Navy ships and aircraft, Coast Guard units, and Air Force and Marine Corps aircraft. Exercise Resultant Fury in December 2004 involved joint sea strike exercises with Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy aircraft.

Guam, which is located 3,500 miles west of Hawaii and 1,300 miles southeast of Japan, is the largest and southernmost island of the Marianas Island chain. With a population of 160,000, Guam hosts more than 12,000 military personnel and their family members. The island supports two major facilities: Naval Base Guam, home to three attack submarines and a submarine tender, and Anderson Air Force Base, home to a Navy helicopter squadron and rotating deployments of Air Force bombers and tankers.

The other islands in the Marianas chain form the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, which has an agreement with the United States for training facilities and hosting one of the Military Sealift Command’s three Maritime Prepositioning Force squadrons. One of the islands, Farallon de Medinilla, is an uninhabited 200-acre island leased in 1976 for 100 years and is the Pacific Fleet’s only U.S.-controlled range available for live-fire training for forward-deployed naval forces.

Acquired from Spain in 1898 as a result of the Spanish-American War, Guam became a territory of the United States and emerged as an important refueling station. Captured by Japan in 1941, it was retaken by U.S. forces in a bitter battle in 1944 and was an important logistics base for the remainder of the Pacific campaign.

During the Cold War, Guam was a base for ballistic-missile submarines and patrol planes to counter Soviet submarines. During the Vietnam War, it was the launching point for B-52 bombers on long-range strikes on Vietnam. In the 1990s, the post-Cold War drawdown left U.S. force levels on Guam at low ebb.

U.S. forces began building up in Guam in 2002 when the Navy moved the first of three attack submarines to the naval base, placing them closer to deployment regions, saving time in transit and freeing more time for operations. The Navy expects to move two more submarines there. The Air Force has begun rotational deployments of B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers to Guam.

“Guam has several advantages, including its position in the Western Pacific,” said Air Force Lt. Gen. Dan Leaf, deputy commander of the U.S. Pacific Command and the military’s point man on the build-up in Guam. “The fact that there’s an existing [Department of Defense] infrastructure is another advantage because of the significant amount of land” held by DoD.

U.S. sovereignty over the island is another advantage, making use of forces more flexible and free from host-country political considerations regarding foreign policy, deployments and status-of-forces agreements.

The move of 8,000 Marines and an estimated 9,000 family members — mostly from Okinawa — is driven not by military strategy but the result of negotiations between the United States and Japan to reduce the social tension and environmental impact of large numbers of U.S. troops and aircraft on the small island. Moving the Marines to Guam places them more than 1,000 miles further from the Far East and potential flashpoints such as the Korean peninsula and the Taiwan Straits.

“There’s no free lunch to putting forces inward,” Leaf said, noting that Guam is an “excellent choice for that rebasing. Normally, forces based in the Pacific are also global forces and may be needed outside our area of responsibility. Guam will provide a good location for that kind of response as well.”

“To be able to sustain our posture in the Western Pacific more efficiently and effectively, we need to restructure our basing and operating posture throughout the region, and Guam can make a huge contribution to that,” said Tom Donnelly, senior advisor in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“There’s some value in distance in that you are out of immediate strike range of China’s power-projection capabilities,” he said. Guam “could certainly serve as an excellent patrol base and important inter-theater staging base, and relatively secure rear area in event of a crisis or conflict, particularly one extending over a period of time.”

The Air Force plans to stage Global Hawk long-range surveillance unmanned aerial vehicles at Andersen beginning in April 2007, bolstering plans to make Guam “a hub for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and strike operations — a good composite capability to provide forces for the Pacific region,” Leaf said.

“The agreement reached between Japan and the United States [on May 1] represents the strength of our alliance and adjusting that alliance to current conditions and to the needs and desires of both nations,” he said.

The relocation agreement includes a commitment by the government of Japan to pay approximately $6.9 billion of the anticipated $10.3 billion cost to move Marines and their families to Guam.

The Marines have not yet determined which units of the III MEF will move to Guam, and the specifics of the restructuring of bases in Okinawa are still being worked out between the United States and Japan.

Engle foresees requirements for new barracks and family housing, plus improvements to the airfield, schools, commissaries and exchanges, as well as new utility systems, roads and waste facilities. Improvements already are in the works or were recently completed to accommodate an increased Air Force and Navy presence, including a new hangar, medical facility, fitness complex, high school, middle school and an upgrade to a water treatment facility.

Plans for the Northern Marianas are less defined, but the Navy, stressing the importance of working closely with the commonwealth, is looking at the possibility of increasing training facilities on the islands. One island, Tinian, has been used by Marine Corps units for training.

Pacific Command and the Navy are coordinating closely with the government of Guam and the island localities regarding anticipated construction on the island. In September, Leaf met with government officials, town mayors, contractor associations and the Chamber of Commerce to discuss the basing plans.

Guam’s representative in Congress, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, said the build-up will “provide an economic boost to the island with opportunities for new jobs, increased tax revenues for the government, increased utilization of Guam’s hotels, businesses, restaurants and the like and other corollary positive impacts.”

“The governor and Guam’s local leaders are working toward partnering arrangements in all places possible,” she said. “Further, we can predict now that increased revenue that will come in to the government of Guam can provide new opportunities to be dedicated to improving Guam’s aging infrastructure.”

“Bordallo has also strongly encouraged the Department of Defense to use environmentally friendly technologies in their development, such as developing green housing or pursuing renewable power projects,” said her spokesman, Joseph Duenas. “Specific warfighting training facilities, such as small arms weapons ranges, will have to meet the stringent requirements of federal law in order to minimize risk to the local environment and habitat.”

Congress authorized $193 million in military construction funds for Guam in the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, a $31 million increase over 2006 funding.

“Guam is likely to see between $400 million and $1 billion in military construction in military construction each year for a period of six to 10 years,” Bordallo said.

She also noted the potential of a North Korean ballistic-missile threat to Guam, which is within striking distance of North Korean missiles under development.

“Guam’s residents recognize and fully value the protection provided by the missile defense capabilities of the U.S. military, including sea-based Aegis systems in the Pacific, Duenas said. “Further, Congresswoman Bordallo has encouraged the Pacific Command to expedite future plans to station a Patriot missile battery on Guam, something not expected until approximately 2012.”

Some elements of Guam’s indigenous Chamorro population — which comprises about 37 percent of the island’s people — oppose the build-up, claiming that the Chamorro suffer under U.S. “colonialization” and “militarization.”

On Oct. 4, self-described human rights activist Julian Aguon, of the Chamorro Cultural Development and Research Institute, addressed the Special Political and Decolonialization Committee of the U.N. general assembly, criticizing the status of Guam as a U.S. territory and declaring that U.S. “militarization” would result in volatile and irreversible consequences for the Chamorro culture and population.

Aguon urged the U.N. committee “to pass a resolution condemning this massive transfer and build-up of Guam as a grave breach of duty.”

The overwhelming majority of Guam’s residents are in favor of the build-up, Bordallo said, citing both the economic benefits and increased security.

A survey commissioned in August by the Pacific Daily News, a newspaper published in Guam, indicated that 61 percent of Guamanians — including 56 percent of Chamorros — rated the military expansion of Guam as “a good thing.”
Copyright 2008 Sea Power. All opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.

Source: http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,123418,00.html

The Storm of US Militarization Hits Guam

The Storm of US Militarization hits Guam

Seventh Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues – April 2008 – New York, NY

Item # 6
Topic: Pacific
Presenter: Julian Aguon

Collective Intervention of the Chamoru Nation and Affiliated Indigenous Chamoru Organizations; Society for Threatened Peoples International (ECOSOC); CORE (ECOSOC); Western Shoshone Defense Project; Flying Eagle Woman Fund (ECOSOC); Mohawk Nation at Kahmawake; Cultural Development and Research Institute; Famoksaiyan; Organization of People for Indigenous Rights; Colonized Chamoru Coalition; Chamoru Landowners Association; Chamoru Language Teachers Association; Guahan Indigenous Collective; Hurao, Inc.; Landowners United; Chamoru Veterans Association; Fuetsan Famaloan

Ati addeng-miyo your Excellencies. My name is Julian Aguon and I appear before you with the full support and blessings of my elders. I address you on behalf of the indigenous Chamoru people of Guam, an endangered people now being rushed toward full-blown extinction.

In 2008, the indigenous Chamoru people of Guam brace ourselves for a storm of U.S. militarization so enormous in scope, so volatile in nature, so irreversible in consequence. U.S. military realignment in the Asia-Pacific region seeks to homeport sixty percent of its Pacific Fleet in and around our ancient archipelago. With no input from the indigenous Chamoru people and over our deepening dissent, the US plans to flood Guam, its Colony in Perpetuity, with upwards of 50,000 people, which includes the 8,000 U.S. Marines and their 9,000 dependents being ousted by Okinawa and an outside labor force estimated upwards of 20,000 workers on construction contracts. In addition, six nuclear submarines will be added to the three already stationed in Guam as well as a monstrous Global Strike Force, a strike and intelligence surveillance reconnaissance hub at Andersen Air Force Base.

This buildup only complements the impressive Air Force and Navy show of force occupying 1/3 of our 212 square mile island already. This massive military expansionism exacts devastating consequences on my people, who make up only 37% of the 170,000 people living in Guam and who already suffer the signature maladies of a colonial condition.

The military buildup of Guam endangers our fundamental and inalienable human right to self-determination, the exercise of which our Administering Power, the United States, has strategically denied us-in glaring betrayal of its international obligations under the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN General Assembly Resolution 1514, to name but some.

The unilateral decision to hyper-militarize our homeland is the latest in a long line of covenant breaches on the part of our Administering Power to guide Guam toward self-governance. It was made totally without consulting the indigenous Chamoru people. No public education campaign regarding the social, cultural, and political consequences of this hyper-militarization has been seriously undertaken or even contemplated.

Of the 10.3 billion dollars settled upon by the U.S. and Japan for the transfer of U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam, nothing has been said as to whether or not this money will be used to improve our flailing infrastructure. Recently, the largest joint military exercise in recent history conducted what were casually called war games off Guam waters. 22,000 US military personnel, 30 ships, and 280 aircraft partook in “Valiant Shield.” That weekend, water was cut off to a number of local villages on the Navy water line. The local people of those villages went some thirty days without running water. Across the military-constructed fence, the tap flowed freely for the U.S. military population. The suggestion of late is that Guam is expected to foot the bill of this re-occupation. Meetings with defense officials have proved empty. Military officers we have met with inform us only of their inability to commit to anything. In effect, they repeat that they have no working plans to spend money on civilian projects. Dollars tied to this transfer have been allocated to development only within the bases. Money for education in the territory will again be allocated to schools for children of U.S. military personnel and not ours. Meanwhile, virtually every public sector in Guam is being threatened with privatization.

There is talk of plans to condemn more of our land to accommodate its accelerated military needs. In contrast, there is no talk of plans to clean up radioactive contaminations (strontium, in particular) of Guam from toxins leftover from the U.S.’ World War II activities and its intense nuclear bombing campaign of the Marshall Islands only 1200 miles from Guam. Indeed, the indigenous Chamoru people of Guam suffer extraordinarily high rates of cancer and dementia-related illness due to the U.S.’ widespread toxic contamination of Guam. For example, Chamorus suffer from nasopharynx cancer at a rate 1,999% higher than the U.S. average (per 100,000). To boot, Guam has 19 Superfund sites, most of which are associated with U.S. military base activities as in the case of Andersen Air Force Base and the former Naval Air Station. Nineteen sites is a significant number in consideration of the island’s small size of 212 square meters.
There is also no word on whether or not the U.S. plans to pay war reparations due to us since it forgave Japan its World War II war crimes committed against the Chamorus.
Like an awful re-run of World War II, when the U.S. unilaterally forgave Japan its horrific war crimes on our people, the US is back at the table negotiating away our human rights including our right to self-determination. Beyond the B-2 bombers in our skies, the ships playing war games in our waters, the added weapons of mass destruction, and the contamination that has robbed us of so many loved ones by way of our extraordinarily high rates of cancers and dementia-related illnesses, there is a growing desperation back home. A desperate lethargy in the wind. A realization that if the UN remains unable to slow the manic speed of US militarization, Chamorus as a people will pass.

In 2005 and 2006, we appeared before the UN Special Political and Decolonization Committee, alerting the UN organ of these two frightening facts: 1) it was recently discovered that the U.S. Department of Interior purposefully killed a presidential directive handed down in 1975, which ordered that Guam be given a commonwealth status no less favorable than the one the U.S. was negotiating with the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands at that time; and 2) a campaign of the Guam Chamber of Commerce (primarily consisting of U.S. Statesiders) to privatize every one of Guam’s public resources (the island’s only water provider, only power provider, only local telephone provider, public schools, and its only port, on an island that imports 85-90% of its food and where private monopolies of public goods would truly make us captive to the forces of the market) is undermining our ancient indigenous civilization with violent speed. Eating us whole.
Not much has changed since we last were here in New York. Our power provider has been privatized, our telecommunications sold. Our only water provider and one port are under relentless attack. The meager, questionable victories we have had to stay this mass privatization are only the result of indigenous Chamoru grassroots activists who, on their own-with no financial, institutional, or strategic support-holding both their hands up, holding the line as best they can. At great personal cost.

Your Excellencies: Know this-the indigenous Chamoru people of Guam are neither informed nor unified around this military buildup despite dominant media representations. For all intents and purposes, there is no free press in Guam. Local media only makes noise of the re-occupation, not sense of it. The Pacific Daily News-the American subsidiary newspaper that dominates the discourse-has cut off the oxygen supply to indigenous resistance movement. Rather than debating this buildup’s enormous sociopolitical, environmental and cultural consequences, it has framed the conversation around how best to ask the U.S. (politely) for de facto consideration of our concerns. Without appearing un-American.

We are not Americans. We are Chamorus. We are heirs to a matrilineal, indigenous civilization born two thousand years before Jesus. And we are being disappeared. Off your radar.
All this, and only two years until the end of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. And no midterm review by the Special Committee on Decolonization. No designation of any expert to track Guam’s progress, or lack thereof, toward progressing off the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Not one UN visiting mission to Guam.

It is a sad commentary that the Administering Power year after year abstains or votes against UN resolutions addressing the “Question of Guam” and resolutions reflecting the work of the UN on decolonization including the resolution on the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism and the very recent Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. With this non-support by Guam’s Administering Power, it is no wonder that the list of the Non-Self-Governing Territories under the administration of the United States has turned half a century old with little progress.

We Chamorus come to New York year after year, appealing to the UN decolonization committee to follow through with its mandate. Indeed, the UN has collected almost thirty years of our testimony, with nothing to show for it. I represent today the third generation of Chamoru activists to appear before the UN, desperately trying to safeguard our inalienable, still unrealized, human right to self-determination.

The failure of the U.S. to honor its international obligations to Guam and her native people, the non-responsiveness of the UN Special Committee on Decolonization to our rapid deterioration, and the overall non-performance of relevant U.S. and UN Decolonization organs and officials combine to carry our small chance of survival to its final coffin.

All this combines to elevate the human rights situation in Guam as a matter not only of decolonization, but ethnic cleansing.

Indeed, when future generations look upon these days, they might label Guam not merely a U.S. colony, but rather, a UN colony.

To date the Forum has deferred to the Special Committee. The time has come for the Forum to take the lead. To this end we request the Forum take the following action:

Sponsor an expert seminar in conjunction with the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Special Committee on Decolonization to examine the impact of the UN decolonization process regarding the indigenous peoples of the NSGTs-now and previously listed on the UN list of NSGTs. This seminar must be under the auspices of the Forum due to existing problems with the Secretariat of the Special Committee. We request that Independent Expert Carlyle G. Corbin be included in the seminar as well as the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples.

Utilize the Inter-Agency Support Group to begin to implement the Program of Implementation (POI) with UN Agencies, UNDP, UNEP and other agencies and specialized bodies as directed by the General Assembly; and

Communicate its concern for the human rights of indigenous peoples and all peoples in the NSGTs to the UN Human Rights Council and request that the Council designate a Special Rapporteur on the Situation of the Peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories.

In Solidarity and Urgency,
The Chamoru Nation and Indigenous Chamoru Organizations of Guam, with support of the above-listed organizations.

Source: http://www.geocities.com/minagahet/pakyofinamilitat