Missile test off Kaua’i fails at the ‘very end’

November 20, 2008

By William Cole
Advertiser Military Writer

A missile fired by the Japanese destroyer Chokai yesterday failed to intercept a ballistic missile target off Kaua’i in a second test of Japan’s ship-based Aegis ballistic missile defense system.

The $55 million exercise paid for by Japan was intended to knock down a simulated ballistic missile in which the warhead separated from the booster.

But Rear Adm. Brad Hicks, the Aegis system program manager for the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, said an “anomaly” occurred in the fourth stage of flight by the Standard Missile-3 Block 1A seeker missile.

A kinetic warhead released by the missile found and tracked the simulated ballistic missile, but in the last few seconds it “lost track” of the target, Hicks said.

“The missile, until the very end of flight, had excellent performance,” Hicks said.

Hicks said an investigation will determine “if it was just that individual missile, or something that we need to take a look at.”

The Aegis ballistic missile defense system has been successful in 16 of 20 attempts.

Hicks said the same type of missile, fired by the Pearl Harbor cruiser Lake Erie, was used to successfully shoot down a failing U.S. spy satellite in February.

“This system works,” said Hicks, adding the success rate is good compared to other U.S. missiles.

On Dec. 17 off Kaua’i, the Japanese destroyer Kongo shot down a ballistic missile target, marking the first time that an allied naval ship successfully intercepted a target with the sea-based Aegis weapons system.

That target was a nonseparating simulated ballistic missile. Officials said yesterday’s target separated from a booster, making it harder to discriminate.

At 4:21 p.m., the ballistic missile target was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility. The Japanese destroyer Chokai detected and tracked the target using an advanced on-board radar, according to the Missile Defense Agency.

The Pearl Harbor-based destroyer Paul Hamilton also participated in the test.

The Aegis Weapon System developed a fire-control solution, and at 4:24 p.m., a single SM-3 Block IA was launched. The Chokai was about 250 miles off Barking Sands in Kaua’i, and the intercept was to occur about 100 nautical miles above earth in the mid-course phase of the ballistic missile’s trajectory.

Approximately two minutes later, the SM-3 failed to intercept the target. The Chokai crew performance was “excellent” in executing the mission, according to the Missile Defense Agency.

The Japanese ship will stop in Pearl Harbor before returning to Japan with additional SM-3 Block 1A missiles.

Hicks said Aegis ballistic missile defense is a certified and deployed system in the U.S. Navy, and certified and operational in Japan’s navy.

Eighteen U.S. cruisers and destroyers and four Japanese ships are being outfitted with the Aegis ballistic missile defense capability.

On Nov. 1, during the exercise “Pacific Blitz,” the Hawai’i-based destroyers Hamilton and Hopper fired SM-3 missiles at separate targets launched from Kaua’i.

Hamilton scored a direct hit, while the missile fired by the Hopper missed its target, the Navy said.

Hicks yesterday said the missiles fired from the ships were older rounds going out of service, and the Navy took the opportunity to use them as training rounds “knowing that they carried a higher probability of failure.”

Source: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081120/NEWS08/811200342/1001/localnewsfront

Henry A. Giroux | Against the Militarized Academy

http://www.truthout.org/112008J

Against the Militarized Academy
Thursday 20 November 2008
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has announced an effort to increase the militarization of higher education.
While there is an ongoing discussion about what shape the military-industrial complex will take under an Obama presidency, what is often left out of this analysis is the intrusion of the military into higher education. One example of the increasingly intensified and expansive symbiosis between the military-industrial complex and academia was on full display when Robert Gates, the secretary of defense, announced the creation of what he calls a new “Minerva Consortium,” ironically named after the goddess of wisdom, whose purpose is to fund various universities to “carry out social-sciences research relevant to national security.”(1) Gates’s desire to turn universities into militarized knowledge factories producing knowledge, research and personnel in the interest of the Homeland (In)Security State should be of special concern for intellectuals, artists, academics and others who believe that the university should oppose such interests and alignments. At the very least, the emerg ence of the Minerva Consortium raises a larger set of concerns about the ongoing militarization of higher education in the United States.
In a post-9/11 world, with its all-embracing war on terror and a culture of fear, the increasing spread of the discourse and values of militarization throughout the social order is intensifying the shift from the promise of a liberal democracy to the reality of a militarized society. Militarization suggests more than simply a militaristic ideal – with its celebration of war as the truest measure of the health of the nation and the soldier-warrior as the most noble expression of the merging of masculinity and unquestioning patriotism – but an intensification and expansion of the underlying values, practices, ideologies, social relations and cultural representations associated with military culture. What appears new about the amplified militarization of the post-9/11 world is that it has become normalized, serving as a powerful educational force that shapes our lives, memories and daily experiences. As an educational force, military power produces identities, goods, institutions, knowledge, modes of communication and affective investments – in short, it now bears down on all aspects of social life and the social order. As Michael Geyer points out, what is distinctive about the militarization of the social order is that civil society not only “organizes itself for the production of violence,”(2) but increasingly spurs a gradual erosion of civil liberties. Military power and policies are expanded to address not only matters of defense and security, but also problems associated with the entire health and social life of the nation, which are now measured by military spending, discipline and loyalty, as well as hierarchical modes of authority.
As citizens increasingly assume the roles of informer, soldier and consumer willing to enlist in or be conscripted by the totalizing war on terror, we see the very idea of the university as a site of critical thinking, public service and socially responsible research being usurped by a manic jingoism and a market-driven fundamentalism that enshrine the entrepreneurial spirit and military aggression as means to dominate and control society. This should not surprise us, since, as William G. Martin, a professor of sociology at Binghamton University, indicates, “universities, colleges and schools have been targeted precisely because they are charged with both socializing youth and producing knowledge of peoples and cultures beyond the borders of Anglo-America.”(3) But rather than be lulled into complacency by the insidious spread of corporate and military power, we need to be prepared to reclaim institutions such as the university that have historically served as vital democratic spheres protecting and serving the interests of social justice and equality. What I want to suggest is that such a struggle is not only political, but also pedagogical in nature.
Over 17 million students pass through the hallowed halls of academe, and it is crucial that they be educated in ways that enable them to recognize creeping militarization and its effects throughout American society, particularly in terms of how these effects threaten “democratic government at home just as they menace the independence and sovereignty of other countries.”(4) But students must also recognize how such anti-democratic forces work in attempting to dismantle the university itself as a place to learn how to think critically and participate in public debate and civic engagement.(5) In part, this means giving them the tools to fight for the demilitarization of knowledge on college campuses – to resist complicity with the production of knowledge, information and technologies in classrooms and research labs that contribute to militarized goals and violence.
Even so, there is more at stake than simply educating students to be alert to the dangers of militarization and the way in which it is redefining the very mission of higher education. Chalmers Johnson, in his continuing critique of the threat that the politics of empire presents to democracy at home and abroad, argues that if the United States is not to degenerate into a military dictatorship, in spite of Obama’s election, a grass-roots movement will have to occupy center stage in opposing militarization, government secrecy and imperial power, while reclaiming the basic principles of democracy.(6) Such a task may seem daunting, but there is a crucial need for faculty, students, administrators and concerned citizens to develop alliances for long-term organizations and social movements to resist the growing ties among higher education, on the one hand, and the armed forces, intelligence agencies and war industries on the other – ties that play a crucial role in reproducing mili tarized knowledge.
Opposing militarization as part of a broader pedagogical strategy in and out of the classroom also raises the question of what kinds of competencies, skills and knowledge might be crucial to such a task. One possibility is to develop critical educational theories and practices that define the space of learning not only through the critical consumption of knowledge but also through its production for peaceful and socially just ends. In the fight against militarization and “armed intellectuals,” educators need a language of critique, but they also need a language that embraces a sense of hope and collective struggle. This means elaborating the meaning of politics through a concerted effort to expand the space of politics by reclaiming “the public character of spaces, relations, and institutions regarded as private” on the other.(7) We live at a time when matters of life and death are central to political governance. While registering the shift in power toward the large-scale pr oduction of death, disposability and exclusion, a new understanding of the meaning and purpose of higher education must also point to notions of agency, power and responsibility that operate in the service of life, democratic struggles and the expansion of human rights.
Finally, if higher education is to come to grips with the multilayered pathologies produced by militarization, it will have to rethink not merely the space of the university as a democratic public sphere, but also the global space in which intellectuals, educators, students, artists, labor unions and other social actors and movements can form transnational alliances to oppose the death-dealing ideology of militarization and its effects on the world – including violence, pollution, massive poverty, racism, the arms trade, growth of privatized armies, civil conflict, child slavery and the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the Bush regime comes to an end, it is time for educators and students to take a stand and develop global organizations that can be mobilized in the effort to supplant a culture of war with a culture of peace, whose elemental principles must be grounded in relations of economic, political, cultural and social democracy and the desire to sustain human life.
(1). Brainard, Jeffrey. (April 16, 2008) “U.S. Defense Secretary Asks Universities for New Cooperation,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, online at http://chronicle.com/news/article/4316/us-defense-secretary-asks-universities-for-new-cooperation.
(2). Michael Geyer, “The Militarization of Europe, 1914-1945,” in The Militarization of the Western World, ed. John Gillis (Rutgers University Press, 1989), p. 79.
(3). William G. Martin, “Manufacturing the Homeland Security Campus and Cadre,” ACAS Bulletin 70 (Spring 2005), p. 1.
(4). Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004). p. 291.
(5). See Cary Nelson, “The National Security State,” Cultural Studies 4:3 (2004), pp. 357-361.
(6). Chalmers Johnson, “Empire v. Democracy,” TomDispatch.com (January 31, 2007), available online at http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views07/0131-27.htm
(7). Jacques Rancière, “Democracy, Republic, Representation,” Constellations 13:3 (2006), p. 299.
»

Henry A. Giroux currently holds the Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department. His most recent books include “The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex” (2007) and “Against the Terror of Neoliberalism” (2008). His primary research areas are: cultural studies, youth studies, critical pedagogy, popular culture, media studies, social theory, and the politics of higher and public education.

Army settles Hawaii culture lawsuit

The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Nov 18, 2008 6:09:54 EST

HONOLULU — The Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Army announced Monday that they have settled an OHA lawsuit filed in 2006 over the establishment of a Stryker brigade and its impact on Native Hawaiian cultural resources.

OHA representatives and a neutral archaeologist accompanied by Army representatives will survey certain Army training areas, the announcement said. Continue reading “Army settles Hawaii culture lawsuit”

Mauna Kea plan blasted

The University of Hawai’i (UH) has overdeveloped Mauna Kea in violation of previous management plans and Kanaka Maoli religious beliefs.  Now it seeks to build the Pan-STARRS, an Air Force telescope, and a giant Thirty Meter Telescope.  Furthermore, UH is seeking to become the managing entity for Mauna Kea, which would be the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.

The Hawaii Tribune Herald reported on recent  hearings.  Here’s an excerpt:

“The state may not give the university something the university is not authorized to do,” said Kealoha Pisciotta, president of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, one of the plaintiffs in the outrigger telescope case. She struck out at a proposal to manage public access to the mountain.

“Mauna Kea is a temple. It’s created by Akua for the people,” Pisciotta said. “The university may not close the doors to the temple. You are not in control. We are not in control. Akua is in control. And quite frankly, I am totally opposed to that. How dare you. Would you close the doors to a church? No. You may not do that to Mauna Kea either. And who does the university think they are to make people go to classes? The public is not the problem on Mauna Kea. Overdevelopment is, and you are the developer (a reference to the university).”

The article also quotes Moanikeala Akaka:

“Mauna Kea belongs to the people of Hawaii,” said Moanikeala Akaka, a former Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee. “It does not belong to UH or Ku’iwalu to use, abuse or control.”

“As the court has ruled, there has already been negligence, environmentally and culturally, on the summit of Mauna Kea,” she said.

DoD wants to limit the number of Kanaka Maoli groups it consult with

The Department of Defense has been meeting with Kanaka Maoli organizations over several years to develop a protocol for handling cultural issues that impact Kanaka Maoli.   This is really a process to LIMIT Kanaka Maoli input into military decision making by designating “legitimate” Kanaka Maoli organizations that must be consulted.  Of course, we can anticipate that the approved Kanaka Maoli organizations will be domesticated and obedient to their American masters, rather than the unruly and rebellious groups at the grassroots.

According to an article in the Hawaii Tribune Herald, “Native Hawaiians are being asked to comment on a U.S. Department of Defense proposal aimed at increasing the military’s sensitivity toward cultural practices, sacred sites and natural resources.”

Predictably, some Native Hawaiian groups that have gotten special preferences in military contracts, such as the Council for Native Hawaiiian Advancement, are lauding the consultation:

Robin Danner, president and CEO of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, called the proposal “great” and one that has left her group “encouraged.”

“These kinds of policies and protocols are long overdue,” said Danner, a Hawaiian and homesteader who would like to see a similar agreement established for state agencies.

According to its Web site, the CNHA is a nonprofit organization founded in 2001 and “dedicated to capacity building and community development programming in native communities in Hawaii and the Pacific.” It claims to be “one of the largest national organizations serving Native Hawaiians headquartered in Hawaii,” with a membership of more than 150 organizations and agencies.

Marines seek expansion in Pohakuloa

The Hawaii Tribune Herald reports that the Marine Corps seeks expanded training facilities in Pohakuloa:

The proposed upgrades are designed to simulate conditions that Marines face in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other trouble spots around the world.

A draft environmental assessment set for release Sunday, prepared by the Marine Corps, proposes that the Marines develop a 6.2-mile long convoy live-fire range, complete with simulated roadside bombs and pop-up moving targets. This range would be located on the slopes of Mauna Loa, near the southern edge of Pohakuloa.

A “modular military operations in urban terrain” training facility would simulate urban combat. The Marines would place modified shipping containers on a 19-acre site around Pu’u Lehue, near the northern boundary of PTA. Seven clusters of containers would simulate various urban settings, including marketplaces, residential areas and town squares. This facility would involve the use of “flash-bang” explosives and simulated ammunition, but no live fire.

Settlement lets OHA access some Stryker training areas

November 18, 2008

Settlement lets OHA access some Stryker training areas

Deal with Army aims to ensure protection of cultural resources

By William Cole
Advertiser Military Writer

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Army have settled OHA’s 2006 federal lawsuit claiming the Army failed to protect Native Hawaiian cultural resources when it brought the Stryker brigade to the state.

OHA representatives, along with an archaeologist, will be able to survey certain Stryker training areas at Schofield Barracks, Kahuku and Pohakuloa as a result of the agreement, the state agency announced yesterday.

Through the surveys, OHA said it and Army representatives “aim to ensure the appropriate identification and treatment of cultural and historic resources located in Lihu’e, the traditional name for the Schofield Barracks region,” as well as other parts of Hawai’i.

The settlement means the Army can put behind it another legal case involving the $1.5 billion Stryker brigade of 4,000 soldiers and about 328 of the armored eight-wheeled vehicles.

The unit is deployed to Iraq. The soldiers and vehicles are expected back in Hawai’i in February or March.

“This agreement will afford OHA the opportunity to have a firsthand look at important cultural resources that would not otherwise be accessible to the general public, and to determine whether they were fully addressed in the Army’s prior surveys of areas affected by Stryker activities,” OHA chairwoman Haunani Apoliona said in a statement yesterday.

Col. Matthew T. Margotta, commander of U.S. Army Garrison, Hawai’i, said the Army values the “spirit of cooperation and communication with OHA.”

Margotta added that the agreement will “build upon our existing robust programs to identify and care for these cultural and historical resources, while balancing the need for soldier training.”

When it filed the lawsuit, OHA said cultural monitors had been partly responsible for the discovery of historically significant sites and burial grounds that were overlooked by the military’s archaeologists.

On July 22, 2006, an unexploded-ordnance removal crew bulldozed across a buffer protecting Hale’au’au heiau at Schofield, according to cultural monitors hired by the Army.

OHA also said there were other incidents involving displacement and damage of petroglyphs, the filling of a streambed known to contain Native Hawaiian sites and the construction of a road over burial grounds.

The Army in 2001 decided to base a Stryker unit in Hawai’i, and started about $700 million in construction projects.

Based on a separate federal lawsuit, a federal appeals court ruled in 2006 that the Army had not adequately examined alternative locations outside Hawai’i for the fast-strike unit, and ordered the Army to do so.

The decision temporarily halted one of the biggest Army projects in the Islands since World War II.

The end of that lawsuit brought the resumption of about six construction projects related to the Stryker brigade. Work is projected to continue through 2017.

Source: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081118/NEWS01/811180360/1001

Anti-Bases Coalition Pushes U.S. Military Base out of Ecuador

Anti-Bases Coalition Pushes U.S. Military Base out of Ecuador

By Helga Serrano

November 5, 2008

Translated from: Coalición No Bases logra la salida de Base Militar de EEUU de Ecuador
Translated by: Annette Ramos

Note:

The following is Helga Serrano’s report about the case of Ecuador presented at the Second Encounter for the Demilitarization of the Americas on Oct. 4, 2008 in La Esperanza, Honduras. It is of interest because it describes the grassroots organizational process that led to President Rafael Correa’s decision to announce that the U.S. military must leave the base at Manta as of 2009. The president’s decision was important, but it was the constant pressure from grassroots networks that led to this triumph for all who seek a demilitarized continent, with peace and full respect for sovereignty.

The achievements of the peace and anti-bases movements in the country also are revealed in Article 5 of the new Constitution of Ecuador which prohibits locating foreign military bases on Ecuadorean soil, to wit: “Ecuador is a peaceful territory. The establishment of foreign military bases and foreign facilities with military purposes is not allowed.” Following is the system by which this experience came about, providing an example for the whole continent.

Friends, partners,

Warm greetings in solidarity from Ecuador, on behalf of the Christian Youth Association-YMCA of Ecuador, the Anti-Bases Coalition of Ecuador, and the Global Anti-Bases Network.

I am happy to be here in La Esperanza to share with you two victories that bring hope. The first is the success of the referendum and the new constitution, and the other is that U.S. forces have been officially notified that they must leave the Manta Military Base in 2009.

We would like to share the following points with you:

The strategy of imperialist domination based on militarism and neoliberal economic globalization.

The Base at Manta

The Constitution

The Multinational Network

Challenges facing the Latin American and Caribbean Anti-Bases Network

Imperialist Domination: Militarization and Neoliberal Globalization

To begin with, it is important to underscore that to protect its interests and military and commercial investments globally, the United States seeks global political control grounded in two strategies: global militarization and neoliberal capitalist globalization. In this manner, the military forces of the empire act as a “global police,” with the goal of maintaining security for the global market. So, it is clear that on the one hand it aims to keep military control and supremacy, and on the other control over markets and resources.

The United States military presence is made more evident when it invades a country, such as in the instance of Iraq in 2003. But it is also present on a daily basis in foreign military bases, military exercises, training schools, and even in so-called “peace operations.”
During the last decade, the United States consolidated its military bases system into a new global imperial system. According to Pentagon data, there are more than 735 U.S. military bases in 130 countries. This constitutes a global strategy of expansion and control of nations, natural resources, and human beings. If we include the so-called cooperation agreements signed with countries such as Ecuador as to the Manta Base, the military empire has more than 1,000 U.S. bases in other countries.1

Foreign bases have five missions:

1. maintain absolute military supremacy in the world
2. interfere with communications
3. attempt to control the largest number possible of petroleum sources
4. provide work and income for the military industrial complex, and
5. make sure that the military and their families live comfortably.

As well as military bases and other forms of military presence, the U.S. has the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, which includes European countries. The United States needs to have access to and control of the world’s natural resources: oil, natural gas, mining, water, forest resources. And of course, it needs to protect its transnational corporations. For all this it also controls international organizations: the G8, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations Security Council.

In the end, all these organizations are at the service of the large transnational corporations that operate as a planetary government. In these organizations, northern countries define what needs to be done to protect the economic interests of their transnationals. The powerful have divided the globe into an economic map, driving an accumulation model that takes over markets by mergers, acquisitions, patents-at the cost of smaller national capitals. In many cases, the actions of large transnationals increase their value without producing real wealth, based only on financial speculation. Neoliberal globalization is maintained due to the misery of many, and for that reason, this model is not sustainable. Not all of us can get by with the wasted resources of life in some of the northern countries.

What is Happening in Latin America and the Caribbean?

Now let’s turn to what is going on in Latin America and the Caribbean. If we recall the United States intervention in the region we cannot ignore the 75,000 dead in the war in El Salvador, nor the 200,000 dead in Guatemala, whose governments received support from the United States.

Similarly the United States invaded Panama, used Vieques in Puerto Rico to run impoverished uranium tests, and Panama for experiments with chemical weapons. Now we see how they are using the base at Guantanamo, Cuba as a jail where there is no law or justice.

To maintain regional hegemony, the strategy of the U.S. government establishes an economic, political, and military nexus as a means of control. At the economic level, the United States is looking for new markets for its transnational companies through the signing of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). This makes any development in our countries truly impossible. At the political level, the United States requires agreements with local elites, and this has been complicated by the new governments in Latin America, such as Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

The free trade area projects complement the Hemispheric Cooperative Security plan, which wants the armed forces of Latin America to adopt as priorities the war on drugs and terrorism. In that manner, the items on the U.S. agenda become priorities for the region, when the truth is that our problems are foreign debt, unequal distribution of wealth, and inequalities.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, the United States maintains a complex network of military facilities and operations, which include:

17 sites with radar facilities, mainly in Colombia and Peru

2 military bases, one in Guantanamo, Cuba and the other in Soto Cano/Palmerola in Honduras; and

4 Cooperative Security Locations in Comalapa, El Salvador; Reina Beatriz in Aruba; Hato Rey in Curazao; and Manta in Ecuador. Tres Esquinas in Colombia plays a crucial role in the implementation of Plan Colombia.

U.S. military strategy is controlled from Southern Command based in Key West, Florida. According to Uruguayan researcher Raúl Zibechi, “Some analysts believe that the Southern Command has turned into the main source of dialogue with the governments of Latin America as well as the organism that expresses U.S. foreign and defense policy in the region. The Southern Command has more employees working on Latin America than the Departments of State, Agriculture, Commerce, Treasury, and Defense combined.”

This direct military presence in the region increased once Panama’s Base Howard was closed in 1999. Following this, the United States established four Cooperative Advance Centers, today known as Cooperative Security Locations, which are really military bases, with the pretext of the war on drugs. They also have the additional goals of dealing with migration and terrorism.

Through military bases, the United States also controls guerrilla activities. In Colombia it has a force of 1,600 between troops and private contractors that engage in activities within the parameters of Plan Colombia. This Plan was launched principally in the Amazon departments of Caquetá and Putumayo and Nariño in the South, on the border with Ecuador. Since 1999, U.S. agencies share intelligence in “real time” with the Armed Forces of Colombia. Another fundamental component of Plan Colombia has to do with the glyphosate sprayings that have been undertaken in Colombia and in the border areas with Ecuador. These sprayings affect everything: family gardens, food crops, water, the environment, and, above all, the health and life of the population, including innocent children. Since February of this year sprayings ceased following demands from the Ecuadorean government, which will lodge a lawsuit at the International Tribunal at The Hague so that the affected population can be compensated.

Manta Military Base

In 1999, the United States signed an agreement with Ecuador for the use of the Manta Base until 2009. This turned into an illegal and illegitimate U.S. military enclave enjoying immunity, whose actions infringe on the country’s national sovereignty. The Ex-Commander himself of the U.S. Advanced Security Operations Site at the Manta Base, Javier Delucca, stated, “The Manta Base is very important within Plan Colombia. We are very well situated to operate in this area.”

After seven years at the Manta Base, it has been determined that the main activities of the U.S. military are geared to migration control and providing logistical support for the war in Colombia. Since the Manta Base opened, several conflicts have unfolded: an increase in sex workers, the eviction of peasant families, the sinking of fishing boats, the interdiction of vessels transporting migrants, limits on fishing work for “security” reasons, and the risk to population settlements near firing ranges.

This is only a reflection of what has happened in other countries where U.S. military bases have been established. In those places there are problems related to sovereignty, democracy, the displacement of indigenous populations, environmental dangers, effects on health, crime and impunity, sexual crimes, and prostitution.

In Ecuador, the struggle against the base began upon its establishment, with complaints being lodged as to its unconstitutionality. Later, forums, meetings, and demonstrations took place. The Anti-Bases Coalition of Ecuador was formed demanding that the agreement with the United States for the use of the Manta Base not be renewed, which we have now achieved. Undoubtedly, it was very important to hold the World Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases in 1997 in Ecuador. The Ecuadorian Ministry of State has already officially notified the U.S. government that its military must leave. CELEBRATIONS WILL BE HELD IN 2009 IN ECUADOR!!

The Constitution and the Bases

For now there is much significance in the articles approved for the constitution and ratified in the referendum with 64% of the votes, relative to sovereignty and the ban on foreign military bases, as stated in Article 5: “Ecuador is a peaceful territory. The establishment of foreign military bases and foreign facilities with military purposes is not allowed. Conveying national military bases to foreign armed or security forces is prohibited.” Ecuador, moreover, defines itself as a country that promotes peace, universal disarmament; it condemns development and the use of weapons of mass destruction, and the imposition of bases or facilities with military purposes of certain states in the territory of others (Article 416, 4). This constitutes a victory not only for Ecuadorian organizations, but for networks at the continental and global level that fight for the abolition of foreign military bases.

The constitution also happens to include a series of progressive elements that will allow for overcoming inequality, discrimination, and injustice in Ecuador, such as the following: the regime of living well (sumak kawsay), which implies living in harmony with oneself, society, and nature; the rights of nature to assure “the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes”; multi-nationality and collective rights; the human right to water, as well as prohibition on privatizing it; food sovereignty and the right to secure and permanent access to food; communication rights and access to frequencies for public, private, and community media.

The International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases

We have a very large ally in our struggle in the International Anti-Bases Network that was formed in March of 2007 at the Conference in Ecuador, with the aim of developing a global and local str

ategy for the closing of all foreign military bases. It was concluded that if the empire is global, resistance must also be global. And this network is precisely part of the movement for global justice, which unites us all here. We are currently in the process of consolidating as a network, but also of joining other networks and movements worldwide. Closing a base is a blow to imperial strategy, and that is why we call for the abolition of military bases in the world.

The ideological and political base of the Anti-Bases Network, affirmed in the Final Declaration, constitutes a central and unifying element that will allow the network to advance strongly in its development. The Anti-Bases Network is clearly positioned in the framework of movements that fight for justice, peace, self-determination of peoples, and ecological sustainability. It also recognizes that foreign military bases constitute instruments of war that strengthen militarization, colonialism, imperial strategy, patriarchy, and racism.

The Network affirms that foreign military bases and the infrastructure used for wars of aggression, violate human rights, oppress peoples, particularly the indigenous, those of African descent, women, girls, and boys, and destroy communities and the environment. For these reasons, the Network demands the abolition of all foreign military bases. And this implies questioning militarism and the structural axis of this system of bases-that is, the U.S. empire. The Network denounces the principal responsibility of the United States in the proliferation of foreign military bases, and also recognizes the role of NATO, the European Union, and other countries.

The work of the International Network is growing stronger in different regions-in Europe and Southeast Asia, and the Pacific. At the European Social Forum in Malmo, a well-attended event was organized and now it’s our turn here in Latin America.

Lessons and Challenges for Latin America and the Caribbean

Some lessons learned in the struggle against the U.S. military at the Manta Base are:

Have a clear objective.

Organize and build coalitions. In Ecuador’s case we joined the Anti-Bases Coalition made up of 20 social change organizations.

Multiple strategies, including mobilization, communication, legal action, events, and forums.

Maintain relationships with other social change organizations and movements, so as to have the base issue incorporated into their agendas, as well as relating it to the struggle against the Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

Internationalization of the struggle, from the local to the global and from the global to the local, and toward that end the support of the International Anti-Bases Network was important.

Turn the struggle into a constitutional article, which implies electing good representatives, a participatory process, and including the prohibition on building foreign military bases, which was picked up from the proposal put forth by the Anti-Bases Coalition.

We are also part of networks in Latin America that work in the same struggles:

CADA: focused on the exit of foreign troops from Haiti.

Triple Border Social Forum: struggle against the presence of military forces in the border area between Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina, where there are large deposits and currents of water.

SOA Watch: so that governments don’t send their soldiers for “training” at Fort Benning, Georgia, in what used to be known as the School of the Americas, where they were taught to torture and violate human rights.

Guantanamo: there has been a worldwide condemnation of the torture and violation of human rights at that base turned jail. Many voices say: “Shut down Guantanamo!”

HSA: The Hemispheric Social Alliance developed the “No FTAA” and important mobilizations in the continent.

World Social Forum and Americas Social Forum: they were important spaces to bring together various networks to plan joint actions against FTAs.

But there are fundamental challenges that we need to confront, starting from the recognition that there are no individual exits from neoliberalism, militarization, and imperialism. Exits are collective and organized.

We don’t want the U.S. forces to leave Manta only to land in Peru or Colombia. Nor do we want the IV Fleet patrolling the Pacific. Therefore, it is fundamental that we develop a regional joint strategy to prevent this from happening.

Building on the articles of Ecuador’s Constitution, other national instruments, and allies in Latin American governments, we can begin a campaign directed at the United Nations to achieve a treaty for the abolition of foreign military bases.

We need to strengthen the exchange of experiences and systematize the experiences of struggle and share achievements … as well as failures.

Strengthen our Latin American and Caribbean Anti-Bases Network. We hope to meet soon with several organizations toward this end. This will also allow strengthening the International Anti-Bases Network.

Establish strong relations with the U.S. Anti-Bases Network, because that is where pressure needs to be put on the government and Senators to change their militaristic and warmongering policies. Solidarity visits and informational forums would be interesting.

We need to strengthen alliances with the social movements of the region, so that the demilitarization agenda is included in their struggles.

As Francisco Morazán said, there are two homelands. In Ecuador we are defeating the homeland of the oligarchy, of the minorities, of inequality, of party rule, and the homeland of the majority, of sovereignty, dignity, and peace, is winning.

End Notes

Chalmers Johnson, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (Metropolitan Books, 2007).

Translated for the Americas Policy Program by Annette Ramos.

Helga Serrano is a member of the International Anti-Bases Network, Anti-Bases Coalition Ecuador, and ACJ/YMCA Ecuador, and a collaborator with the Americas Policy Program at www.americaspolicy.org.

For More Information

Change Triumphs in Ecuador’s Constitutional Referendum
http://www.americas.irc-online.org/am/5571

United States Announces IV Fleet Resumes Operations Amid South American Suspicions
http://www.americas.irc-online.org/am/5362

Hundreds Gather to Confront Militarization of the Americas
http://www.americasmexico.blogspot.com/2008/10/hundreds-gather-to-confront.html

Coalición Anti-bases
Encuentro Desmilitarización 2008

This article was re posted on www.opednews.com with permission from CIP Americas Policy Program or the Center for International Policy. Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Anti-Bases-Coalition-Pushe-by-By-Helga-Serrano-081114-721.html

Full Moon Over Okinawa

http://www.counterpunch.org/lummis11042008.html November 4, 2008

Nuchi du Takara

Full Moon Over Okinawa

By DOUG LUMMIS

The Tenth Annual Okinawa Full Moon Festival will be held at Sedake Beach, northern Okinawa, November 8 and 9.  This is a festival of traditional, folk, and rock music in protest of – or better, in celebration of the opposition to – the construction of a new US Marine Corps helipad nearby.

The helipad, designed to be home to the Marines’ accident-prone Osprey, is to be built by filling in a part of the pristine Oura Bay which is, among other things, the northernmost habitat for the endangered mammal, the Dugong.

The local fisherfolks, with some outside help, have carried on a continuous protest sit-in officially since 2004, and in fact from some time before that.  They have also been going out day after day in sea-kayaks and small boats, getting in the way of survey boats and divers, and doing whatever they (legally) can to interfere with and slow down the process.  The strategy has been exhausting and dangerous, but effective: construction is way behind schedule.

The annual festival is held on full moon night partly to overcome the isolation of this Okinawan movement.  The full moon, the sponsors say, happens everywhere.  So people in any country, in any hemisphere, can participate in the festival.

They would like to ask you to step outside your door one of those evenings – if with a few friends, better yet! – look at the moon, think about the music festival going on in Okinawa, think about Okinawa’s long, hard history, and the people’s belief in the principle, Nuchi du Takara: Life is the Treasure.

And if you think you are likely to do that, they would appreciate it very much if you send them a message of solidarity in advance.  They already have promises from South Korea, the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam, and a number of cities in mainland Japan.  If you send a message to them, they will probably read it out at the Festival.

TEL/FAX:  +81-98-055-8587
Home Page:  http://mangetsumatsuri.ti-da.net/
e-mail; claphands2@yahoo.co.jp

Doug Lummis

The Militarization of the University of Hawai’i continues

Homeland security center opens on campus

By: Kris DeRego

Posted: 10/16/08

As funding for higher education continues to fall, the University of Hawai’i hopes that a recently launched Department of Homeland Security research center will bolster the college’s bottom line.

The National Center for Island, Maritime and Extreme Environment Security, which officially opened on Oct. 7, is one of five “centers of excellence” created by DHS to study border security, explosives detection, port security and emergency management. UH Mānoa was one of 11 universities selected in February to host a portion of one of the research centers.

“Investments in long-term, basic research are vital for the future of homeland security,” said DHS Undersecretary for Science and Technology Jay M. Cohen, who was present at the institute’s opening ceremony. “These colleges and universities will provide scientific expertise, high-quality resources and independent thought, all of which are valuable to securing America.”

Under an agreement reached between the DHS and university officials, UH Mānoa is eligible to receive a grant of up to $2 million per year over the next four to six years, for a potential windfall of $12 million.

In partnership with scientists at the University of Alaska, the University of Puerto Rico and New Jersey’s National Center for Secure and Resilient Maritime Commerce and Coastal Environments, the homeland security center’s researchers will consider ways to safeguard infrastructure located in island and extreme environmental conditions against natural and man-made emergencies, according to research director Roy Wilkens.

“The basic scientific investigations that the National Center for Island, Maritime and Extreme Environment Security will be performing are a natural complement to existing earth science and engineering programs at UH Mānoa,” Wilkens said. “These studies will eventually provide critical data to first responders in times of emergency and enhance our general understanding of the ocean and atmospheric environment around the Hawaiian Islands, Puerto Rico and Alaska.”

Six faculty members from UH’s Department of Engineering and School of Ocean and Earth Science Technology will spearhead the center’s initial research, which Wilkens says will benefit both the university and the state.

“Our observational expertise will save lives and help protect the environment,” Wilkens said. “As for UH, without the prospect of involvement in high-level science, UH would lose its best and brightest, both students and faculty.”

Defense research expanding

Homeland security contracts were not the only lucrative defense-related grants given to UH researchers in recent weeks. On Sept. 24, two weeks before the opening of the homeland security research center, UH’s Applied Research Laboratory was awarded an $850,000 task order by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Wai’anae Ordnance Reef Remedial Investigation Project.

Approved by the Naval Sea Systems Command, the order instructs scientists to examine the impact of seasonal variations in water quality and sediment composition upon the threat posed by discarded World War II munitions off the O’ahu’s Wai’anae Coast. The survey will be conducted over the course of a one-year period to rectify possible data gaps in a 2006 study performed by the Department of Defense and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“It is important that we examine the impacts from the discarded military munitions at Ordnance Reef to determine the most appropriate course of action,” said U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye in a written release. “I have no doubt that the UH lab will undertake its tasks with professionalism and with environmental and cultural sensitivity.”

The study will involve both private and community partnerships, said UH Vice President for Research Jim Gaines, and could generate funding for similar projects in the future.

“The Army Corps of Engineers is committed to understanding the problems created by discarded munitions and potential impacts on the health of the people of Hawai’i,” Gaines said. “This project could lead to more clean-up operations of the discarded munitions by local businesses, which would have its own positive effect on the economy.”

Researchers for the Applied Research Laboratory, a Navy-sponsored science and technology laboratory, will complete additional sampling, biotic-substance testing and risk-assessment analysis as part of their review.

Critics unconvinced

While the National Center for Island, Maritime and Extreme Environment Security and Applied Research Laboratory enjoy broad support among university administrators, many members of the UH community remain opposed to the two research centers, arguing that prospective financial gains are outweighed by the threat posed to core educational values.

“The National Center for Island, Maritime and Extreme Environment Security and Applied Research Laboratory are increasing and intensifying the militarization of UH,” said Kyle Kajihiro, program director for the American Friends Service Committee. “This is part of a trend nationwide, in which universities are becoming agents of the military-industrial complex, instead of independent institutions dedicated to expanding and sharing knowledge.”

Michael D’Andrea, a professor of counselor education at UH Mānoa, agrees, noting that both the Mānoa Faculty Senate and the Associated Students of the University of Hawai’i passed resolutions condemning the expansion of military research on campus.

“This type of research not only undermines education at the university,” D’Andrea said, “but also the democratic principles that govern our society.”

Of particular concern to opponents of the research centers is the execution of classified weapons research at UH, which Kajihiro believes is being hidden from public purview.

“The ocean ordnance research task order is chum to lure the public into biting the Applied Research Laboratory hook,” Kajihiro said. “It masks the true purpose of the ARL, which is the development of weapons systems for missile defense, sensor integration, anti-submarine warfare, high energy lasers and other weapons technologies to be tested at the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kaua’i.”

University officials maintain that classified weapons research is not the primary focus of either project.

“Once we get involved in classified areas, the free exchange of knowledge and information is inhibited, exactly the opposite of our mission,” Wilkens said.

Activists like Kajihiro are unmoved by the university’s reassurances, however, citing contractual loopholes as reasons for continuing their challenge.

“Remember that the Applied Research Laboratory’s voluntary no-classified research clause only applies to the first three years of operation,” Kajihiro said. “Do not let these institutions become Trojan horses for the expansion of secret research at UH. Do not let these invasive species dig their roots deep into UH.”


© Copyright 2008 Ka Leo O Hawaii

Source: http://www.kaleo.org/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=00e235cc-dc3f-41d5-8c27-8a6d36fe4268