Protest Israel’s killing of peace activists

The following action alert was sent by World Can’t Wait:

Protest! Tuesday, June 1
Federal Building, 3-6pm
Condemn the Killing of Unarmed Peace Activists!
End All U.S. Support for Israel!

As many as 19 activists in a flotilla carrying 700 activists and tons of emergency supplies to Gaza have been murdered by Israeli commandos! (ABC and US news reports 9; Al Jazeera reports “as many as 19”.) The flotilla was in international waters. Netenyahu as announced he supports Israel’s action; he says he’ s spoken with Obama since it happened. Protests are happening around the world.

As many of you know, Ann Wright was on the flotilla. It has been reported that she was not on the ship that was boarded, and where people were killed. All communication with people on the flotilla has been cut off. The satellite beaming Al-Jazeera news (which was on board) has been blocked. Activists have been taken into Israeli custody; some are being deported and others are remaining in Israeli prisons. News is breaking fast.

There will be a protest in front of the Federal Building tomorrow afternoon from 3-6pm. We urge everyone to be there! Spread the word and organize your friends. If you can’t make it at 3pm, come as soon as you can. We’ll have some signs, along with blank cardboard and pens, but bring your own if you can.

Because it is a holiday, the Federal Building will be shut down today. However, there’s lots you can do. Send letters to the editors. Send message to politicians (Djou is an outspoken Israel supporter!).

Following is a national press release from World Can’t Wait. It provides news links for the latest information.

We condemn the Israeli military attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters last evening. Al Jazeera’s most recent report says 19 international solidarity activists were killed, and dozens injured on 6 ships attempting to deliver humanitarian aid, and to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. There were 700 activists in the six ship flotilla, withmany journalists and Arab and European members of parliaments on board. All were unarmed, part of a non-violent effort to awaken world public opinion to the desperate state of the people of Gaza.

Find reports at witness. Adam Shapiro of the Free Gaza Movement, speaking at 3:30 am EST, told Democracy Now from New York what he had learned. The FGM supporters rep orted live to Adam during the attack that the IDF forces came about the ship firing. CNN and the Israeli government are reporting that activists came after the heavily armed IDF commandos with “axes.”

Our friend, and advisor to War Criminals Watch, Ann Wright had been on the largest ship attacked, but moved to another ship in the flotilla before 1,000 Israeli commandos boarded the ships, and began shooting, according to news sources. The AP reports that 9 were killed in the IDF’s “botched raid” and that Israel had taken all 700 activists — presumbly including the injured — into custody, jailing some and preparing to deport others from Beersheba.

The attack has already brought protests and condemnation in Turkey and across the globe. The world condemns the killing of unarmed peace activists, and knows that the number one supporter, financially and politically, of Israel is the United States.

World Can’t Wait calls on you to join protests wh erever you are!”

Deadly Israeli Raid on Aid Flotilla Draws Condemnation

Israel has committed a brutal military attack on the Freedom Flotilla that was bringing humanitarian aid to the blockaded people of Gaza.   Hawai’i resident Ann Wright, a retired Army Colonel, former diplomat and tireless peace and justice activist, was on one of the ships in the flotilla.   We are not certain of her whereabouts, but have been told that she is alive and apparently unharmed physically.  The whole world should condemn Israel for this atrocity.   The U.S. must cut off military aid to Israel.   Demand that the Hawai’i  congressional delegation support sanctions against Israel for this crime.  Senator Inouye has been a staunch supporter of military aid to Israel, but even he cannot ignore the criminal conduct of the Israeli government.

>><<

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053113252437484.html

Deadly Israeli raid on aid fleet

Al Jazeera’s Ayman Mohyeldin reports from Jerusalem on the storming of the flotilla and its aftermath

Israeli commandos have attacked a flotilla of aid-carrying ships off the coast of the Gaza Strip, killing at least nine people on board.

Dozens of others were injured when troops raided the convoy of six ships, dubbed the Freedom Flotilla, early on Monday.

Israel said activists on board attacked its commandos as they boarded the ships, while the flotilla’s organisers said the Israeli forces opened fire first, as soon as they stormed the convoy.

Organisers of the Freedom Flotilla say it was carrying 700 activists and 10,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid with the aim of breaking the Israeli siege of Gaza.

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, gave his “full backing” to the military forces after the raid.

The raid by Israel troops “was to prevent the infiltration of thousands of rockets, missiles and other arms that could hit our cities, communities or people”, he said.

“I give my complete backing to the army, the soldiers and commanders who acted to defend the state and to protect their lives.” He also said Israel regretted the loss of life in the raid.

Protests worldwide

Israeli media reported that many of the dead were Turkish nationals.

Hamas, the Palestinian group which governs the Gaza Strip, said the assault was a “massacre” and called on the international community to intervene.

The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, urged Arabs and Muslims to show their anger by staging protests outside Israeli embassies across the globe.

The call came even as demonstrations denouncing the Israeli raid were being held in many cities around the world, including the capitals of Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.

Thousands of Turkish protesters tried to storm the Israeli consulate in Istanbul soon after the news of the operation broke.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, officially declared a three-day state of mourning.

The United Nations Security Council met on Monday afternoon for an emergency session to discuss the matter.

Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, the chief foreign policy official of the UN, called on Israel to end its “counterproductive” and “unacceptable” blockade of Gaza.

Live ammunition

Al Jazeera’s Jamal Elshayyal, on board the flotilla’s lead ship, the Mavi Marmara, said in his last report before communications were cut off, that Israeli troops used live ammunition during the assault.

The Israeli military, 10 of whose soldiers were reportedly wounded in the operation, said troops opened fire after “demonstrators on board attacked the IDF naval personnel with live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs”.

Our correspondent said that a white surrender flag was raised from the ship and there was no live fire coming from the passengers.

Al Jazeera’s Sherine Tadros, reporting from the Israeli port of Ashdod, where the aid ships were taken after the assault, said the Israeli army was not giving any details of who had been killed, injured or detained.

“As soon as [the ships] land here, the goods [will be] taken [and] put into a terminal, and the passengers [made to] undergo extensive security checks,” she said.

“[They will be] given the choice either to go home straight away, in which case they will be taken to Tel Aviv airport. Or if they resist deportation, they will be taken to a nearby detention centre where, we understand, they will [remain] for at least 72 hours.”

More than 80 activists had been detained by mid-evening, Sabine Hadad, the spokeswoman for Israel’s immigration police, told AFP.

“So far, 83 have been detained, of whom 25 have agreed to be deported. The rest are going to jail,” she said.

Hadad said the Israeli authorities were expecting “hundreds more” arrests through the night.

Israeli defence

Defending Monday’s military raid, Mark Regev, the Israeli government spokesperson, said the Israeli commandos came under fire from people on board the flotilla whom he branded as “violent extremists”.

“Israel was totally within its rights under international law to intercept the ship and to take it to the port of Ashdod,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Unfortunately they were met by the activists on the boats with deadly violence, knives, metal clubs, even live fire on our service people. They initiated the violence.”

He said the people on board the flotilla were not peaceful activists.

“They are part of the IHH, which is a radical Turkish Islamist organisation which has been investigated by Western governments and by the Turkish government itself in the past for their links with terrorist organisations.”

But Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister, said the flotilla was carefully inspected before departure that there was no one on board “other than civilian volunteers.

“I want to say to the world, to the heads of state and the governments, that these boats that left from Turkey and other countries were checked in a strict way under the framework of the rules of international navigation and were only loaded with humanitarian aid,” he said.

Israeli ‘cover-up’

Murat Mercan, the head of Turkey’s foreign relations committee, said claiming that activists on board had links to terrorist organisations was Israel’s way of covering up its mistake.

“Any allegation that the members of this ship is attached to al-Qaeda is a big lie because there are Israeli civilians, Israeli authorities, Israeli parliamentarians on board the ship,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Does he [Regev] think that those are also attached to al-Qaeda?”

The flotilla was attacked in international waters, 65km off the Palestinian coastal enclave.

Avital Leibovich, an Israeli military spokeswoman, confirmed that the attack took place in international waters, saying: “This happened in waters outside of Israeli territory, but we have the right to defend ourselves.”

Mark Taylor, an international legal expert, told Al Jazeera that every state, including Israel, has the right to self-defence.

“In situations in which the state feels that it needs to take an act in international waters to defend itself, it will do that,” he said.

“But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s legal under international law.

“In this case, we’re looking at a humanitarian aid convoy, with prominent people and activists, clearly not a military target in any way whatsoever.”

‘Dire need of aid’

Israel said the flotilla boats were embarking on “an act of provocation” against the Israeli military rather than providing aid, and issued warrants to prohibit their entrance to Gaza.

But Adnan Abu-Hasana, a spokesman for UNRWA, said the Gazans are in dire need of aid after Israel’s war on the territory in December 2008-January 2009 destroyed buildings and infrastructure.

“We need hundreds of thousands of tonnes [of aid] to rebuild Gaza,” he told Al Jazeera.

“We need more of building materials … We need spare parts for machines in the agricultural and industrial sectors, for the fishermen, all these sectors are nearly collapsed.

“Eighty per cent of the Gazans are dependent on humanitarian aid coming from UN organisations such as UNRWA.”

+++

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01flotilla.html?pagewanted=all

Deadly Israeli Raid on Aid Flotilla Draws Condemnation

By ISABEL KERSHNER

Published: May 31, 2010

JERUSALEM — The deadly Israeli raid on a flotilla of aid ships bound for Gaza on Monday prompted widespread condemnation and set off a diplomatic crisis for the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Several European nations and Turkey summoned Israeli envoys for an explanation of the actions. At the request of Turkey, The United Nations Security Council met in emergency session on Monday over the attack, which occurred in international waters north of Gaza and killed at least nine people.

Mr. Netanyahu canceled his plans to meet with President Obama in Washington on Tuesday, an Israeli government official confirmed. Mr. Netanyahu, who is visiting Canada, planned to return home Monday to deal with fallout from the raid, the official said.

The White House, which had been at odds with the Israeli prime minister over settlements in East Jerusalem, released a statement saying that President Obama had spoken with Mr. Netanyahu and understood his need to return immediately to Israel. In addition to regrets about the loss of life, “the president also expressed the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances around this morning’s tragic events as soon as possible,” the statement said.

The criticism offered a propaganda coup to Israel’s foes, particularly Hamas, the militant group that holds sway in Gaza, and damaged Israel’s ties to Turkey, one of its most important Muslim partners and the unofficial sponsor of the convoy. As thousands of protesters took to the streets of Istanbul, Turkey canceled joint military exercises with Israel and recalled its ambassador, while Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called the raid “state terrorism.”

Mr. Netanyahu defended the Israeli military’s actions, saying the commandos were set upon by passengers on the ship and fired only in self-defense. The military released a video of the early moments of the raid to support that claim.

The Israeli Defense Forces said the naval personnel boarding the largest of the six ships in the aid convoy met with “live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs.” The naval forces then “employed riot dispersal means, including live fire,” the military said in a statement.

Greta Berlin, a leader of the pro-Palestinian Free Gaza Movement, speaking by telephone from Cyprus, rejected the military’s version.

“That is a lie,” she said, adding that it was inconceivable that the civilian passengers on board would have been “waiting up to fire on the Israeli military, with all its might.”

“We never thought there would be any violence,” she said.

At least four Israeli soldiers were wounded in the operation, some from gunfire, according to the military. Television footage from the flotilla before communications were cut showed what appeared to be commandos sliding down ropes from helicopters onto one of the vessels in the flotilla, while Israeli high-speed naval vessels surrounded the convoy.

A military statement said two activists were later found with pistols they had taken from Israeli commandos. The activists, the military said, had apparently opened fire “as evident by the empty pistol magazines.”

The warships first intercepted the convoy of cargo and passenger boats shortly before midnight on Sunday, according to activists on one vessel. Israel had vowed not to let the flotilla reach the shores of Gaza.

Named the Freedom Flotilla and led by the Free Gaza Movement and a Turkish organization, Insani Yardim Vakfi, the convoy was the most ambitious attempt yet to break Israel’s three-year blockade of Gaza.

About 600 passengers were said to be aboard the vessels, including the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Mairead Corrigan-Maguire of Northern Ireland.

“What we have seen this morning is a war crime,” said Saeb Erakat, the chief Palestinian negotiator for the government in the West Bank. “These were civilian ships carrying civilians and civilian goods — medicine, wheelchairs, food, construction materials.”

“What Israel does in Gaza is appalling,” he added. “No informed and decent human can say otherwise.”

At a news conference on Monday in Jerusalem, Israeli deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, said the flotilla’s intent was “not to transfer humanitarian things to Gaza” but to break the Israeli blockade.

“This blockade is legal,” he said, “and aimed at preventing the infiltration of terror and terrorists into Gaza.”

Ms. Berlin, of the Free Gaza Movement, said, “They attacked us this morning in international waters. According to the coordinates, we were 70 miles off the Israeli coast.”

Within hours, diplomatic repercussions began to spread from the Mediterranean to Europe, where Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs, called for a full inquiry into the incident and the immediate lifting of the Israeli blockade.

A joint statement from Robert Serry and Filippo Grandi, two senior United Nations officials involved in the Middle East peace process and humanitarian aid to Gaza, condemned the raid, which they said was “apparently in international waters.”

“We wish to make clear that such tragedies are entirely avoidable if Israel heeds the repeated calls of the international community to end its counterproductive and unacceptable blockade of Gaza,” the officials said.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France called Israel’s use of force “disproportionate,” while William Hague, the British foreign secretary, said he deplored the loss of life. Tony Blair, the representative of the so-called quartet of powers seeking a Middle East settlement, said in a statement that he expressed “deep regret and shock at the tragic loss of life.”

“We need a different and better way of helping the people of Gaza and avoiding the hardship and tragedy that is inherent in the current situation,” the statement said. The quartet includes the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. In London, hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters blocked Whitehall, the broad avenue running past the prime minister’s residence and office at 10 Downing Street.

Turkey strongly condemned the Israeli military action.

“Regardless of any reasoning, such actions against civilians engaged in only peaceful activities are unacceptable,” said a statement on the Foreign Ministry’s Web site on Monday. “Israel will be required to face the consequences of this act that involves violation of the international law.”

Murat Mercan, the head of the Turkish Grand National Asembly’s foreign affairs commission, said on television, “Israel launched this operation in international waters and to a ship flagged white, which is unacceptable under any clause of the international law.”

He added, “We are going to see in the following days whether Israel has done it as a display of decisiveness or to commit political suicide.”

Thousands of protesters gathered in Istanbul’s Taksim Square, chanting anti-Israeli slogans and repeating Islamic verses while government officials called for calm and urged demonstrators to avoid retaliation against Israeli nationals. Protesters met in front of the Israeli Consulate earlier and marched toward the square carrying a banner that read, “Zionist Embassy should close down,” and chanting slogans including “Damn Israel” and “Long live global intifada.”

Crowds also gathered outside the Ankara residence of Gabi Levi, the Israeli ambassador, who was summoned to the Foreign Ministry. Protests broke out in Iraq as well.

Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary General, said he was “shocked” by the attack. “I condemn this violence,” Mr. Ban told news conference in Kampala, Uganda. “It is vital that there is a full investigation to determine exactly how this bloodshed took place. I believe Israel must urgently provide a full explanation.”

News reports said the authorities in Egypt and Jordan, two Arab neighbors which have peace treaties with Israel, had summoned Israeli envoys to protest the action.

The outcry from Muslim leaders was strong and immediate. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, called the incident “a massacre,” according to the official Wafa news agency. Mr. Abbas is to meet with President Obama in Washington next week.

Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian envoy to the United Nations, called for “the strongest reaction possible” from the Security Council, saying it cannot let Israel get away “for the thousandth time” with ignoring international law. “It cannot act like it is a country above international law,” Mr. Mansour told reporters.

Saad Hariri, the Lebanese prime minister, denounced the raid as “a dangerous and crazy step that will exacerbate tensions in the region,” while the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said it was “inhuman.”

Channel 10, a private television station in Israel, quoted the Israeli trade minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, as saying 14 to 16 people had been killed. He said on Israeli Army Radio that commandos boarded the ships by sliding down on ropes from a hovering helicopter and were then struck by passengers with “batons and tools.”

“The moment someone tries to snatch your weapon, to steal your weapons, that’s where you begin to lose control,” Mr. Ben-Eliezer said, according to Reuters.

Jamal el-Shayyal, a reporter from the television broadcaster Al Jazeera, was on board the Mavi Marmara, the largest of the six ships, during the assault. He said in a video report that dozens of civilians had been injured in the fighting.

The I.D.F. said the ships from the convoy would be taken to the Israeli port of Ashdod, north of Gaza, where “naval forces will perform security checks in order to identify the people on board the ships and their equipment.”

On Sunday, three Israeli Navy missile boats had left the Haifa naval base in northern Israel a few minutes after 9 p.m. local time, planning to intercept the flotilla. After asking the captains of the boats to identify themselves, the navy told them they were approaching a blockaded area and asked them either to proceed to Ashdod or return to their countries of origin.

The activists responded that they would continue toward their destination, Gaza.

Speaking by satellite phone from the Challenger 1 boat, which has foreign legislators and other high-profile figures on board, a Free Gaza Movement leader, Huwaida Arraf, said: “We communicated to them clearly that we are unarmed civilians. We asked them not to use violence.”

Earlier Sunday, Ms. Arraf said the boats would keep trying to move forward “until they either disable our boats or jump on board.”

Reporting contributed by Sebnem Arsu in Istanbul, Alan Cowell in London, Steven Erlanger in Paris and Neil MacFarquhar .

Ampo’s Troubled 50th: Hatoyama’s Abortive Rebellion, Okinawa’s Mounting Resistance and the US-Japan Relationship

Gavan McCormack of Japan Focus has posted an excellent three-part paper on the history of the U.S.-Japan alliance and the Okinawan resistance to the U.S. military bases.

>><<

Ampo’s Troubled 50th: Hatoyama’s Abortive Rebellion, Okinawa’s Mounting Resistance and the US-Japan Relationship

Gavan McCormack

This is the first of a three part comprehensive survey of the US-Japan relationship defined by the Ampo Treaty of 1960, and refined subsequently in ways that have deepened Japanese and Okinawan subordination to American global power and ambitions. The article focuses on questions pertaining to the legacy of Article Nine of the Constitution, and to Okinawa and base relations as a template for exploring the troubled Ampo relationship, including the powerful and sustained Okinawan resistance to US base expansion.

Read Part 1

Read Part 2

Read Part 3

“Priorities and Concerns of Civil Society Relating to the Decolonization of Guam as a UN Non Self-Governing Territory”

http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2010/05/perspectives-on-decolonisation-of-guam.html

STATEMENT OF GUAHAN COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE and THE CHAMORRO STUDIES ASSOCIATION

By HOPE A. CRISTOBAL

THE UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONISATION

Pacific Regional Seminar

Noumea, New Caledonia

18 – 20 May 2010

“Priorities and Concerns of Civil Society Relating to the Decolonization of Guam as a UN Non Self-Governing Territory”

CHAMORU SELF-DETERMINATION PA’GO

I. INTRODUCTION

Hafa Adai! (Greetings) Your Excellency Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Special Committee on Decolonization.

Dangkolu na si Yu’os ma’ase (sincere thank you) for your invitation to participate at this revolving seminar to assess the progress of decolonization and to discuss priorities regarding the Question of Guam on the final year of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism in the 21st century.

Also, I bring warm Hafa Adei greetings from our indigenous Chamorro people to our fellow Kanaky people of New Caledonia. We thank you for graciously hosting this United Nations Pacific Seminar. We extend a heartfelt “Dangkolu na si Yu’os ma’ase” (sincere thank you) for the opportunity to join Your Excellency, the Special Committee and my esteemed fellow delegates today.

As you may know, the Chamorro people of the Mariana Islands have cultural and linguistic ties to the Kanaky people of New Caledonia through our common Austronesian heritage that spans Oceania. As peace loving peoples of the great Pacific, we hope one day to be able to share in a history of freedom from colonial dominance espoused by this Special Committee and the rest of the UN body.

I am Hope Alvarez Cristobal, a Chamorro former Senator of Guam. I am here as a representative of Guåhan Coalition for Peace and Justice, a Guam based coalition made up of grassroots organizations advocating for the political, cultural, social, environmental and human rights of the people of Guam. We formed in September 2006 as a result of the announcement of the United States-Japan Realignment Initiatives signed in May 2006 in our awareness and desire (consistent with our traditionally matrilineal social order) to organize and give voice to concerns of women and female children in a highly militarized environment.

Our focus on peace and justice is central in light of the ongoing issue of the denial of our Chamorro people’s inalienable human right of self-determination and decolonization of Guam as a modern-day colony of the United States. Particular emphasis is made on keeping Guam, our island home, safe and sustainable for our children and generations to come. The Guåhan Coalition for Peace and Justice is comprised of the following member organizations: Chamorro Studies Association; National Association of Social Workers, Guam Chapter; Conscious Living; Guam’s Alternative Lifestyle Association; and Nasion Chamoru.

II. THE LAND AND THE PEOPLE OF THE LAND

Guam’s unincorporated (permanent colony) status designation under the 1950 Organic Act of Guam legitimized US military land takings with rights of eminent domain of the only 147,000 acres of land—with only 116.5 miles of natural shoreline available to it for all purposes. Of this 147,000 acres, the military currently possesses 40,000 acres constituting 27.21% of the island’s landmass with the US National Park Service possessing 695 acres for 0.47% and the US Fish & Wildlife Service currently possessing 385 acres for 0.26% of the island. The local government possesses 37,673.36 acres for 25.6% of that total and with private lands consisting of only 68,246 acres for 46.43% of Guam’s land mass. [Ref. legislative Resolution 258-30 (COR)].

With a history of US land takings and the possibility of more land condemnation through the current US militarization plans, the 29th Guam Legislature passed public law 29-113 which clarifies that the disposition of public lands is exclusively the purview of the Guam Legislature and not the US military. This law stipulates that duly enacted legislation by the Guam Legislature is needed to authorize “the acquisition by condemnation or otherwise of private property” by means of Congressional appropriation to acquire property for public use.

The current 30th Guam Legislature also passed another law which tasks the local government’s Guam First Commission to determine which land the Federal Government may intend to lease or sublease, exchange for other land, or purchase, and to report their findings to the Guam Legislature and the Governor of Guam. This law also requires the Legislature’s approval of any federal acquisition of Government of Guam property, whether by lease, sub-lease, exchange or sale.

Guam’s colonial status continues to pave the way for US application of federal laws over our air space and sea lanes; our 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone; all our resources, control of exit and entry of our borders, control of our land, the environment and whatever can be defined as “a possession of but not a part of the United States.” It is clear that the Guam Legislature is now struggling as it finds itself with little power to protect local government assets under the laws of the administering power. For a small colonial people, the alienation of property by laws of the colonial power is one of the fundamental tenets of colonialism. In Guam, so much of the alienation has occurred through military seizure—but other forms of alienation have the same effect.

III. SECOND INTERNATIONAL DECADE FOR THE ERADICATION OF COLONIALISM

Mr. Chairman, people of the 16 remaining NSGTs still under the yoke of colonialism have been denied the benefits of decolonization as provided by the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [UN Resolution 1514 (XV)] and that despite the Special Committee’s diligent work emphasized in the proclamation of the two International Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism the world’s political map have not had any major transformation. We can honestly say that in the case of Guam, rather than the eradication of colonialism, the US administering Power has deepened its colonial roots.

What we find unacceptable, Mr. Chairman, is that the administering power’s WWII adversary, Guam’s brutal occupier of WWII, Japan, is now complicit in Guam’s modern day colonization and militarization through its joint Bi-lateral Agreement with the U.S. With respect to Guam, the Special Committee’s work was not only stymied; rather, it has been made to fail in its mission to make colonialism a fact of the past—in not having developed a programme of work for the decolonization of the NSGT of Guam in view of the US’s active, massive militarization plans. Included is the failure in dispatching a UN visiting mission at the time Guam was actively negotiating its political status over two decades ago; and today, with US plans for our militarization.

For 21st century Guam, it is déjà vu old-style colonialism again. This time it is not 17th C. Spain but the US administering Power utilizing its military forces in a kind of “reduccion” process of “subduing, converting and gathering the natives through the establishment of missions and stationing of soldiers to protect those missions.” (Ref. Rob Wilson, 21st Annual Conference, “Crosscurrents: New Directions in Pacific and Asian Studies,” University of Hawaii, Manoa, March 10, 2010.) The exploitation of our colonial status as a people, U.S. militarization, assimilationist immigration policies, the rising tide of cultural genocide, environmental degradation and contamination, the dispossession of our lands, etc., are direct violations of our rights as NSG people under:

a. The UN Charter, in particular, Articles 1, 55 and 73e which addresses the rights of peoples in non self-governing territories who have not yet attained a full measure of self-government, and commands states administering them to “recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants are paramount.” Furthermore, that administering powers, accept as a “sacred trust” the obligation to develop self-government in the territories, taking due account of the political aspirations of the people.

b. UN Resolutions 1514 that states, the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the UN and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation.

c. UN Resolution 1541 affirming three ways NSGTs could attain a full measure of self-government that must be the result of the freely expressed wishes of the peoples of NSGTs.

d. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—the latest UN international human rights instrument to explicitly expand the universe of the holders of the right of self-determination with its Article 3 that specifically recognizes, using the classic formulation of the right of self-determination enshrined in the 1966 Human Rights Covenants, that indigenous peoples hold the right.

e. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (known collectively as the 1966 Human Rights Covenants) that enshrine self-determination as a right.

f. And, other relevant UN documents on decolonization.

Clearly, the US continues to behave contrary to its concrete UN obligations as the administering Power over Guam. There is no mistaking that US dominance and subordination of Guam is a consequence of US military power dynamics over the Asia-Pacific region. And, without the United Nations assertion of its moral authority and oversight of its non self-governing territory of Guam, our home island and our people will continue to be treated as inferior having no sovereignty or agency in relation to US foreign policy and security interests. Gone unchallenged, the possibility of a free, decolonized and self-governing Guam will be sealed and buried under by our own administering Power.

At his opening statement of the House Armed Services Committee hearing on March 25, 2010, Congressman Ike Skelton spoke about the rebasing of U.S. Marines from Japan to Guam as “one of the largest movements of military assets in decades”—estimated to cost over ten billion dollars. He further stated that the changes being planned as part of that move will not only affect U.S. bilateral relationship with Japan; they will shape U.S. strategic posture throughout the critical Asia-Pacific region for 50 years or more. Congressman Skelton stated that the US “must be proactively engaged in the Asia-Pacific region on multiple fronts,” and that U.S. actions may well influence the choices and actions of others.”

For Guam, our exclusion from the decision made about the massive militarization of our island home through US military expansion and restructuring of its bases and military operations is unconscionable. Moreover, we have had no choice and no options offered vis-à-vis our colonial status or US actions having political implications on our colonial status. Guam is a colony and remains a colony until the Chamorro people is allowed to exercise our human right of self-determination and is allowed to decolonize.

IV. OUR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Chairman, the U.S. military’s militarization plans bodes great harm for the people and our island home environment. These plans include the construction of facilities and structure to support the full spectrum of warfare training for some 8,600 marines (and their dependants) being relocated from Okinawa to Guam; the construction of a deep-draft wharf in Guam’s only harbor to provide for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, destroying over 287,000 sqm (71 acres) of healthy and endangered coral reef; the construction of an Army Missile Defense Task Force modeled on the Marshall Islands-based Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, for the practice by US military personnel of intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles; the forcible land-grabbing of an additional 2,200 acres of indigenous Chamorro land; the desecration of Pagat, one of Guam’s oldest ancient villages dating back to 2,000 B.C.; the dangerous over-tapping of Guam’s water system to include the drilling of 22 additional wells; and the denial of the most fundamental human right of the Chamorro people of Guam to self-determination.

The militarization plan calls for an alarming 80,000 new residents within the next five years. These new residents include the 8,600 Marines and 1,000 Army troops with 9,000 of their dependents and large numbers of construction workers that will add to our current 180,000 residents. This is obviously not about demographics alone as we see US hegemony flourish and cultural genocide work for the administering power. As non-US citizens after WWII, we were over 95% of the population. As United States citizens 50 years later, our population is reduced to 42% (2000 Census). Five years ago, we comprised some 35% of our home population. But with the new US plan, the Chamorro population can be expected to drop to around 24%! This is perhaps the most plausible reason why all information impacting our people’s lives were kept secret until the official release of the draft environmental impact study last November 20, 2009.

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) was intended to, “assess the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed military activities” (DEIS, Executive Summary, Abstract) for the relocation of US marines to Guam, enhancement of infrastructure and logistic capabilities, improvement of pier/waterfront infrastructure for transient US Navy nuclear aircraft carrier (CVN) and placement of US Army ballistic missile defense (BMD) task force. It is supposed to report the overall impacts that the military’s plans will have on Guam’s environment. It was a document of 11,000 pages and we were given a 90-day window to comment (ending Feb. 17, 2010) with a Final EIS to be completed in July and a Record of Decision to be released in 30 days.

The selective and exclusive sharing of information on the military’s plans prevented our full participation and served to silence our voices in this critical process. The community scrambled to respond to the 11,000-page report within the rigid schedule. The “record speed” of a two-year environmental impact study for such unprecedented militarization of a non self-governing territory was obviously suspect. We were not told about the 80,000 people or that the US had planned to go outside their existing footprint. At the public outreach meetings, hundreds spoke resoundingly against the military’s plans. At the close of the public comment window, the military received over 10,000 comments from various indigenous Chamorro groups, community members and stakeholders and other external stakeholders.

The fear of being overwhelmed by the construction of a new US Marine base has permeated the community. In reference to the local government’s costs grossly underfunded in the plan, Lt. Governor Michael Cruz, M.D. who himself is a Colonel in the Army National Guard, stated “Our nation knows how to find us when it comes to war and fighting for war, but when it comes to war preparations—which is what the military buildup essentially is—nobody seems to know where Guam is.” Government officials put the total direct and indirect costs of coping with the military buildup at about $3 billion, including $1.7 billion to improve roads and $100 million to expand the already overburdened public hospital.

Last January 22, the 30th Guam Legislature adopted a resolution expressing the “strong and abiding opposition of the Guam Legislature and the People of Guam to any use of eminent domain [condemnation] for the purpose of obtaining Guam lands for either the currently planned military buildup or other U.S. Federal Government purposes, or both.” Copies were transmitted to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, the President Pro-Tem of the U.S. Senate, to UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, and other officials. Another resolution (No. 275-30 (LS)) was introduced and adopted relative to presenting to President Obama and the US Congress, the sentiments expressed by the people of Guam regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Guam military build-up; to enumerating the findings of the Legislature that have led to the conclusion that the DEIS is grossly flawed; to providing a list of essential elements which must be favorably resolved; to restate Guam’s agenda of priority concerns relative to federal-territorial issues that must be addressed concurrently with the buildup; and to asserting additional findings on actionable items relative to the DEIS.

Of grave concern is the fact that Chamorro self-determination and decolonization was not even addressed by the military in the DEIS and the fact that decisions have been made in the context of a huge power imbalance in which the US has the ultimate decision-making power with the social, cultural and political implications to the Chamorro community being grossly understated. It is no secret that the US and its military representatives are fully cognizant of the irreversible and significant consequences that their decision will have on its colonial people. Broad concerns relating to local infrastructure, environmental, labor and workforce, socio-economic and health and human services are being discussed among government and military officials. But the difference is: The US has completely ignored the negative implications to its colonial people’s human, political and legal right to self-determination. Just as select private businesses collectively predict positive gain by Guam’s militarization, the Chamorro people alone have historically and will predictably bear the unequal proportion of the burden.

On the last day of the public comment period, the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued the lowest possible rating of the DEIS of “environmentally unsatisfactory” and providing “inadequate information.” In its strongly worded six-page letter, the US EPA stated that “The impacts are of sufficient magnitude that..…action should not proceed as proposed and improved analyses are necessary to ensure the information in the EIS is adequate to fully inform decision makers.” Specifically, the EPA stated that the military’s plan would lead to:

a. A shortfall in Guam’s water supply, resulting in low water pressure that would expose people to water borne diseases from sewage.

b. Increased sewage flows to wastewater plants already failing to comply with the Clean Water Act regulations.

c. More raw sewage spills that would contaminate the water supply and the ocean.

d. “Unacceptable impacts” to the 287,000 sqm (71 acres) of a high quality coral reef.

But even with this indictment of its draft EIS, the military continues with its military expansion and restructuring plans today.

In Congress, Guam’s delegate introduced a bill that would provide for public education on Guam’s political status options. This bill was amended in the House of Representatives and now includes the other two NSGT’s: American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands and would “include but not (be) limited to the 3 internationally recognized options.

The implication is that the educational program could also include other options, albeit not defined in the bill. There is no reference to any referendums nor provision of a specific budget although Congressional estimate of the costs is some $2 million in the next 5 years for all the territories. It remains to be seen what will happen in the US Senate.

If the draft Guam Commonwealth bill or the Guam War Reparations bill or the bill to amend the US Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (to give compensation to the “down winders” (Guam included)) are any example, it will end up taking many forms over many years without resolution or action. Only time will tell. And, time, Mr. Chairman is not on our side.

V. OBSTACLES/OPPORTUNITIES/RECOMMENDATIONS

The Question of Guam shall remain a question of Chamorro self-determination and decolonization for Guam. As a process of decolonization, the exercise of Chamorro self-determination must necessarily occur outside the influences of the administering Power and with the cooperation of the United Nations.

We make the following recommendations to this seminar:

1. That the inalienable right of the Chamorro people of Guam to self-determination in conformity with all relevant UN documents be given utmost priority by the Special Committee on Decolonization in view of the administering power’s massive militarization planned from 2010 to 2014.

2. That a customized process of decolonization for the Chamorro people of Guam be immediately adopted in view of the severe irreversible impacts on Guam by the US administering power.

3. That an investigation be conducted as to the compliance of the administering power with its treaty obligations under the Charter of the United Nations to promote the economic and social development and to preserve the cultural identity of the Territories as related earlier in this text.

4. That a study must be conducted on the implications of US militarization plans on Guam’s decolonization and that UN funding be allocated immediately.

5. That the UN denounce the militarization of the non-self-governing territory of Guam without the consent of the people of Guam due to irreparable harm to the inalienable human rights of the Chamorro people and interests of the people of Guam.

6. That a work programme be adopted by the Special Committee to carry out its objectives for the decolonization of Guam.

VI. CLOSING

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and delegations for the opportunity to make this presentation. My people’s journey towards decolonization is at a very critical juncture. We can only rely on the United Nations to assure that the US live up to its obligations under the United Nations Charter and to its promise of self-determination and decolonization for the people of Guam.

Vieques: Living (and dying) under military occupation

Professor Katherine McCaffrey gave the following testimony to the White House Interagency Task Force on Puerto Rico. It is a powerful story of the social and economic violence wrought by the military occupation of Vieques.  It should sound familiar to the many communities where military occupation has left its boot print.   Thanks to the Comite Pro-Rescate y Desarollo de Vieques for sharing this.

>><<

(Complete version of Katherine McCaffrey’s presentation before the White House Interagency Task Force on Puerto Rico in Washington D.C. this past Tuesday.)

I’m honored to be invited today to speak before the commission. My name is Katherine McCaffrey. I am an associate professor of anthropology at Montclair State University and for the past 20 years I have conducted historical and ethnographic work in Vieques.

Today I want to make a statement about my dear friend, Mario Solis, who died in January this year at the age of 60. Mario was a person whose life wasboth shaped and constricted by Vieques. He died earlier this year of a heart attack brought on by a poorly managed case of diabetes. I have no doubt that if Mario lived in the States, or perhaps even on the main island of Puerto Rico, he would still be alive today. Mario’s life and death were shaped by Vieques’ poverty, its lack of opportunity, and the socioeconomic crisis created by 70 years of military occupation of all aspects of island life.

Mario was born in Vieques in 1949 in a military resettlement tract called Tortuguero. His family was one of the last evicted from eastern Vieques in 1947 to make way for the expansion of the Navy base. Mario’s father had been a milkman on the farm of a wealthy family. After the evictions, he pieced together day work in the cane fields and made charcoal. Mario’s mother washed and ironed sailor’s shirts. As a child Mario worked nights as a bootblack, cleaning the shoes of waves of sailors in town on maneuver. He picked up some English and supplemented the family’s meager income with his earnings.

Life was tough in Vieques these days. The Navy was bluntly antagonistic to any kind of economic development on the Island that could interfere with its unfettered access to the Vieques’ land, waters and airspace. The Navy wanted Vieques to serve as a theater of war, as a place to bomb and rehearse maneuvers. The military had very little use for the island residents, and planned unsuccessfully on several occasions to evict them all.

What the Navy failed to accomplish by decree, it achieved de facto. When Mario graduated high school, like most of the island youth, he left Vieques.

He worked in construction in St Thomas. When he learned of the opening of Pueblo Supermarket in St. Croix, he moved there. After two years away from his family and friends, Mario was so homesick that he returned home to Vieques. He worked for 13 years in a supermarket in Vieques, before his back was crushed by an avalanche of packaged pig’s feet. He was hospitalized for 6 months and unable to work for 3 years.

When I first met Mario twenty years ago, he was working as a staff member of El Fuerte Conde de Mirasol, a nineteenth century fort that now serves as a museum and cultural center in Vieques. What Mario lacked in formal education, he compensated for with diligence, attentiveness, and deep love of his island. Mario was an untrained archaeologist. He assisted Professor Luis Chanlatte in his decades long archaeological excavation of La Hueca site in Vieques.

Mario’s exquisite attention to detail and to the natural environment revealed clues to the past that other eyes would miss. He knew every crag and valley of his island. He knew the boulders outside of Camp Garcia that were etched with Taino petroglyphs. He could find nineteenth century pottery shards and old bottles on the shores next to the old municipal dump. Mario kept a cloth bag of pre Hispanic artifacts in the glove compartment of his battered car. He was ready at any moment to give an impromptu lecture on the amulets and sharpened stones crafted by ancient travelers to Vieques from the Amazon. In Mario’s hands, the past came to life. Visitors understood Vieques as a crossroads of the Caribbean, whose ancient past remains largely unexplored. I often wondered what Mario could have become if he had access to a college education, if had the opportunity to pursue an advanced degree.

Mario died because there isn’t a decent hospital in Vieques. Vieques’ sole health clinic is incapable of responding to any kind of real emergency. There is no x-ray machine, no pharmacy. Patients line up in the early morning darkness to see one of the clinic’s two doctors. Recent layoffs cut a dozen positions at the hospital, leaving only a skeleton staff. Any kind of crisis—a car accident, an asthma attack, a miscarriage, or in Mario’s case, a heart attack—any kind of crisis that might be managed by an average hospital in the United States, can lead to death in Vieques.

When Mario died, his family was scattered. His long marriage to a high school sweetheart had dissolved. His three children left the island for school and work. He lived in a one room concrete house, owned by a sister who lived in St. Croix. His nutrition was poor. Food in Vieques is expensive and its quality poor. The island’s fish, crabs, and fruit are all contaminated with heavy metals, the legacy of decades of live fire exercises. Mario was able to get two hot meals a day at the local senior center and he still played his harmonica, but diabetes, poverty and loneliness devoured him.

Mario Solis officially died of natural causes. In my mind, however, he died a violent death. He died of the violence of poverty, of the squelching of opportunity, of the fragmenting of family and community that 70 years of military occupation brought to the island. He died because there is no health care in Vieques. He died because all of these stresses –economic, social, environmental, and psychological –take a toll on a person, even a person as vibrant and optimistic as Mario.

I urge this committee to seek justice for the island of Vieques, where residents continue to suffer from the consequences of military occupation. I urge the committee to compensate residents who have been burdened with health problems, economic disadvantage, and social disorder. I urge the committee to pursue a fair resolution to the tragedy and violence that has been perpetuated on Vieques Island and make amends for decades of neglect.

“Superferry is completely dead”

Brad Parsons, who diligently followed the Hawaii Superferry saga on his blog and did amazing detective work to discredit the Superferry business plan, expose the military transport contracts lurking behind the Superferry facade, and calculate a seasickness index for voyages, declared “Superferry is completely dead.” Here’s his post about the revocation of a Public Utilities Commission license to operate a passenger vessel in Hawaii and the pending auction of the two ships by the Maritime Administration.

>><<

http://hisuperferry.blogspot.com/search/label/Superferry%20Sayonara

Friday, May 28, 2010

Superferry Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Cancelled Yesterday‏‏

Here was how I summarized it to a friend after reviewing the following two docs. I may be simplifying it, but:

The bankruptcy representative asked the PUC to cancel the CPCN because Superferry does not have the finances to perform some of the obligations under the CPCN and this needs to be cancelled so that the bankruptcy can be completed. The PUC approved it, and closed the docket on the Superferry yesterday. So basically somebody from the private sector who might try to come in again and operate under the Superferry’s prior charter will not be able to do so (unless the PUC reverses it’s decision?). The process would have to begin again, and that was about a 2 year process with public input again. Superferry is completely dead. The ships will be auctioned by MARAD soon.

The full-text docs are:
03/10/10 Request to Surrender CPCN
05/27/10 Order Approving Voluntary Surrender of CPCN

Other related news today on this otherwise old story:

From: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100528/BREAKING01/100528052/Lingle+criticizes+Hannemann+over+Hawaii+Superferry+remarks

BREAKING NEWS/UPDATES
Updated at 5:06 p.m., Friday, May 28, 2010

“Lingle criticizes Hannemann over Hawaii Superferry remarks”

Associated Press

HONOLULU — Gov. Linda Lingle is criticizing Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mufi Hannemann over his remarks about her handling of the Superferry controversy. Hannemann, the mayor of Honolulu, contended Thursday Lingle will not allow his proposed commuter rail project to move forward while she is in office. Lingle is now reviewing the project’s environmental impact study. Hannemann said the irony is Lingle “blew the Superferry” because she didn’t want to conduct a full environmental report on the interisland vessel. Lingle said in a statement Friday that Hannemann’s comments were “misinformed and patently false.” She says the state Supreme Court blocked the Superferry in March 2009 with an unprecedented reading of state environmental law.

I say, let ’em Duke it out. I’m only hangin’ around this story long enough to find out who buys the vessels at auction and at what price. Otherwise, I’m done wit’ dis’ story…
A – L – O – H – A!

South Korean civil society: Statement on the Current State of Affairs for Peace on the Korean Peninsula

Thanks to Narae Lee, International Coordinator of Peace Boat US for sharing the following statement by South Korean civil society about the sinking of the Cheonan naval ship:

>><<

Dear all,

Please, find a statement below, issued by South Korean civil society, regarding the sinking of the Cheon-ahn navy warship. While no sufficient evidence on the direct involvement of North Korea has been found, the event is threatening to escalate with the neighboring countries getting involved. The Japanese government also started using this case as an excuse for strengthening the US-Japan alliance.

It seems like the S.Korean government will bring this case to the UN Security Council next week.

Best,

Narae Lee

International Coordinator of Peace Boat US

The Statement on the Current State of Affairs for Peace on the Korean Peninsula

We, Korean civil society, gather here today to overcome the crisis and conflicts caused by the Cheon-ahn incident and to take a major step forward toward our goal of democracy, co-existence and peace.

Since the South Korean Cheon-ahn navy warship mysteriously sank on March 26th, our society has grieved the tragic incident together, and tried to clarify the cause and to provide comprehensive countermeasures to prevent its recurrence.

However, a handful of governmental and military officials have tightly controlled the relevant information in the name of military secrets and national security, checking these voluntary acts of citizens to find out the truth of the incident. Despite the fact that the Lee Myung-bak administration kept warning of a premature conclusion, the administration released the resulting reports which contained a number of unexplained hypotheses and caused questions before necessary investigations were finished. The investigation was conducted by the military which should have been reprimanded. In addition, without allowing enough time for the public and the National Assembly to review the investigation, the Lee administration unilaterally announced dangerous diplomatic and military countermeasures against North Korea without a national agreement. These are the types of measures that make ineffective the ‘peaceful crisis-management system’, which has been gradually established since the “July7 Declaration” by the Roh Tae-woo administration. As a result, the Korean Peninsula is facing the most devastating tensions since the end of the military regime. As a result, the Korean Peninsula is facing the most devastating tensions since the end of the military regime.

Do you think that such impetuous and dogmatic measures by the Lee administration are helping to resolve the situation? Instead, those actions are shaking the very foundation of the systems of peace and prosperity, which would secure the future of the Korean Peninsula. Amid the international economic crisis, our economy was slowly recovering but now it is faltering again. The efforts of the Six-Party-Talks as well as the denuclearization of North Korea are missing in the Lee administration’s enforcements of military and economic countermeasures against North Korea.

People!

Did you witness such military tension when peace and engagement policies were consistently pursued in the past? Now we are at crossroads and need to decide whether to go back to the adventurism of the Cold War era, which the issue of security was ill-used for politics and blinded people to the truth. Or to take future-oriented peaceful realism, which emphasizes the democratic process, checks on the abuse of the administrative and military power, and seeks ways for peace and co-existence rather than provocative slogans.

In this regard, we express our opinions.

First, both North and South Korea should immediately stop the military confrontation, which will bring the Korean Peninsula to war and economic crisis. The South should withdraw its series of dangerous military measures and economic sanctions against North Korea, which were enforced without debates with the public, the Nation Assembly, and concerned countries. In addition, the North also should refrain from provocative rhetoric and radical military actions but instead cooperate with a rational process of uncovering the truth of the case.

First, we call on the South Korean government to take an additional measure to clarify the facts of the case, which should be able to answer a number of remaining questions regarding the sinking of Cheon-ahn vessel. In that regard, the National Assembly should be given a free hand in clarifying the truth and reviewing the investigations. Furthermore, an international investigation committee – including concerned parties, the United States, and China – should be established so as to ensure the credibility of investigation findings.

First, both the South Korean government and the media should not abuse this case, for the upcoming election, which is directly connected to the safety of people. The government and the majority party should explain if it was necessary to release the premature results of the investigation and to announce military countermeasures. In addition, we urge the government to immediately stop abusing its political and legal power to pressure the voters who raise rational questions to the government’s report and reactions.

We appeal to you!

The crisis on the Korean Peninsula took place without our intention, but we should be responsible to clarify the real cause and seek ways to resolve this problem in an appropriate way. It is directly related to our future of democracy and peace. It is time to call upon your wisdom and courage to achieve peace.

At 3pm, on May 29, let us show our will to uncover the truth and accomplish real peace on the Korean Peninsula. From today, let’s begin to light up candles for peace of the Peninsula, each and every night.

On June 2, election day we will judge the situations of the country and the time with a sense of ownership and open our future toward democracy, co-existence, and peace for ourselves.

May 26, 2010

The Coalition for Peace on the Korean Peninsula

Creative Korea Party / Democratic Labor Party / Democratic Party /

New Progressive Party / The People’s Participation Party / 91 South Korean NGOs

Critical perspectives on the Sinking of the Cheonan

Korean Americans: Korea’s Cheonan Ship Sinking Incident-Questions

Thanks to Sung-hee Choi and her No Bases Stories of Korea blog for forwarding this video by Korean Americans that raises important questions about the sinking of the South Korean ship Cheonan. In an email she reminds us:

The  issues of Cheonan ship and Jeju naval Base should not be separated. We can predict by using the excuse of Cheonan ship, the US-Japan- ROK would spur the strengthening of alliances. It is also used for June 2 nationwide local election in Korea.

And drive for Okinawa base relocation (as reported and forwarded by some) and construction of the Jeju naval base. We should not also forget that this is also for arms industry (as reported in Futenma case) . The Samsung, the one of the construction companies for the naval base and one of the Korea aerospace companies is behind the Jeju naval base plan.

Compilation of news and analysis about the sinking of the Cheonan

With apologies and thanks to Satoko Norimatsu and the Peace Philosophy Centre blog for reposting her compilation of news and analysis about the sinking of the South Korean ship Cheonan.

Friday, May 28, 2010

Questions about Cheonan Sinking – What’s Available in English 天安艦沈没事件への疑問

Little has been reported in English on the growing suspicion about the outcome of the investigation of the sinking of South Korean warship Cheonan during the joint military exercise of South Korea and the U.S., and more people demand for more thorough and scientific re-investigation. We will try to list what is available.

******This one by Stephen Gowan, a Canadian writer and activist is a must-read, full of credible quotes by South Korean officials denying the North’s involvement and linking it to Japan-US military buildup in Okinawa and US arms sales to South Korean military.

“…a North Korean submarine is now said to have fired a torpedo which sank the Cheonan, but in the immediate aftermath of the sinking the South Korean navy detected no North Korean naval vessels, including submarines, in the area. Indeed, immediately following the incident defense minister Lee ruled out a North Korean torpedo attack, noting that a torpedo would have been spotted, and no torpedo had been spotted.”

To read the whole article,
The Sinking of Cheonan: Another Gulf of Tonkin Incident
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-another-gulf-of-tonkin-incident/

******Here is a letter to Hillary Clinton from S. C. Shin, a maritime expert recommended by Korean National Assembly for investigation of the sinking of Cheonan, who disagreed to the conclusion of the Korean military administration and now has been sued for libel by them. Shin argues on Cheonan he could not see any sign of explosion or a torpedo. It was a grounding accident accompanied by a second collision accident. Shin summarizes his report as:

(1) The most important thing is there were two series of accidents not one.
(2) The 1st accident was ‘Grounding’ with the evidences above.
(3) The ‘Grounding on a sand’ made some damages and led flooding but itself didn’t make those serious situation torn down in two.
(4) The 2nd accident hit a count-blow to sink.
(5) I couldn’t find even a slight sign of ‘Explosion’.
(6) The 2nd accident was ‘Collision’ with my analysis above.

For details, see:
http://www.seoprise.com/~bu/dk/Letter_to_Hillary_Clinton_US_Secretary_of_State.pdf

******Here is U.S. author and activist Bruce Gagnon’s take on it.(bolded by PeacePhilosopher)
“Most activists in South Korea have been, and remain, suspicious about the official story surrounding the sinking of their Navy ship. At the time of the incident the U.S. and South Korea were having one of their annual provocative war games where they practice an invasion of North Korea. One has to remember that the U.S. has a modus operandi when it comes to using sunk boats to justify war – “Remember the Maine” that was the prelude to the Spanish-American War and the more contemporary Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that was the kick-off to the Vietnam War. Some are already speculating that the South Korean sinking was timed before their June 2 elections and/or timed to ensure that Japan’s new government reneges on its promise to close a U.S. military base in Okinawa. I’m sure there are other good theories on this as well.”

****** Japan’s international affairs analyst Tanaka Sakai suspects a U.S. vessel involved. Tanaka’s article has been translated and posted on Japan Focus:Asia-Pacific Journal.

Who Sank the South Korean Warship Cheonan? A New Stage in the US-Korean War and US-China Relations

****** Historian Bruce Cumings urges us to look at this incident in a larger context in Democracy Now!

Historian Bruce Cumings: US Stance on Korea Ignores Tensions Rooted in 65-Year-Old Conflict; North Korea Sinking Could Be Response to November ’09 South Korea Attack
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/27/nk

****** In CNN, University of Georgia Professor Han Park argues hardliner reactions are counterproductive calls for re-investigation and talks.

Tensions Between Koreas
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/05/24/intv.korea.torpedo.sanctions.cnn

****** Selig Harrison in Hankyoreh, Korea’s national daily newspaper.

What Seoul should do despite the Cheonan
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_opinion/420827.html

****** A Russian perspective on the issue. This article, in “38 North,” specializing in DPRK analysis (hosted by SAIS, Johns Hopkins University), presents a sensible list of questions to be answered before we reach any conclusion.

“…The Russian position thus far has been to “wait and see,” most likely intending to follow China’s lead. If this issue is brought before the UN Security Council, Russia will probably demand ironclad proof of North Korean culpability and will likely abstain at best if this proof is not provided. “

To read the whole article,

Peace or War? Do we have to choose? A Russian Perspective by Georgy Toloraya
http://38north.org/2010/05/peace-or-war-do-we-have-to-choose-a-russian-perspective/

******Here are Scott Creighton’s “5-point flaws” of the report of the “international investigation team.”
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/pcc-772-cheonan-an-unacceptable-provocation-by-the-united-states-of-america-and-the-international-community-has-a-duty-to-respond/

Peace Philosopher

Army desecration of burials angers Native Hawaiians

Yesterday, a representatives of Native Hawaiian organizations and other supporters went on a site visit to the area in Lihu’e (Schofield range) where the Army desecrated the burials of at least two individuals, including an adult and a child.  Poi pounders and other cultural implements were also found at the site.

The Army’s propaganda spin machine has sought to make the desecration into “protection” and a cultural access into “consultation”.  The Honolulu Advertiser article at bottom is inaccurate.   It states that “All work was immediately halted.” But this is a false statement.

After the first bone was unearthed, the contract archeologist working for Garcia and Associates (GANDA) ordered the earth moving work to continue for another half-hour until more bones were found, in violation of federal and state laws that require all activity to cease when bones are unearthed.

The desecration of the sites in Lihu’e is happening on a massive scale.  But since these areas are in live fire ranges and off limits to civilians, the destruction is largely invisible to the public. Below is the press release from Native Hawaiians who visited the site and performed ceremony for the ancestors that had been unearthed by the Army.

>><<

May 28, 2010


Hawaiian Community Angered by Desecration of Burials at Schofield Barracks

Lihuʻe, Oʻahu. Representatives from several organizations concerned over the U.S. Armyʻs recent disturbance of ʻiwi kupuna (ancestral remains) visited the site on Schofield Barracks where a cultural complex was disturbed by Stryker-related construction. They were told by Laurie Lucking, cultural resource manager for U.S. Army Garrison-Hawaii, that the area where the ʻiwi kupuna was unearthed would be “closed forever.” But military construction and training continue to destroy many other cultural sites in a large expanse of land sacred to native Hawaiians.

Leimaile Quitevis, former cultural monitor who documented many of the sites in Lihu’e and a member of the Oʻahu Island Burial Council comments on the significance of the cultural site complex. “Hundreds of archaeological site features have been identified in the immediate vicinity of Stryker Brigade construction. In addition, more than 300 surface artifacts were collected by Army representatives. The massive amount of cultural properties located in this area help to paint the picture of the pre-contact land use of Lihue. The significance and importance of this landscape to Kanaka Maoli is limitless. Lihuʻe was once the ruling center of Oʻahu, hosting famous rulers and infamous battles. This history is important when evaluating and assessing the historic properties that have been identified. These sites are not isolated ‘archaeological sites.’ They are features, pieces of a puzzle, and parts of a whole. These sites are part of a complex that laments and praises the history and culture of our ancestors. Several bone fragments have been documented throughout the project area. None of these bones have ever been positively identified by a qualified osteologist. In addition clusters of artifacts are treated as isolated finds rather than actual sites. To date this project has damaged numerous petroglyphs, desecrated a minimum of two individual’s graves and breached the site protective measures of Haleauau Heiau.”

“The Army failed to do adequate cultural site investigations and consultations before drawing up and proceeding with its Stryker brigade plans,” said Summer Mullins a representative from Kipuka, one of the three native Hawaiian groups involved in the 2004 litigation against Stryker expansion. This was the first time that she and many others were given access to the area once recognized as the seat of government for Oʻahu aliʻi. In the past, groups had made several requests for access that were ignored or denied by the Army.

She added, “This desecration was completely avoidable. It was not an ʻinadvertent discovery,’ as the Army claims. They need to be held responsible for their actions. The Army failed to listen to the strong concerns raised by cultural monitors and community members years ago about the cultural importance of the Lihu’e area. Our wahi pana and wahi kapu are not appropriate training areas.”

“When our Kanaka Maoli people say do not disturb an area but their advice is not heeded, this does not constitute ‘proactive dialogue.’ Desecration was predictable. We are faced with the problem that the Army occupies a vast area that physically retains important cultural sites and burial grounds. No matter what, access to these sites must be guaranteed to our kanaka maoli people. It is their traditional right to visit, care for and continue passing on history to the next generation,” said Terri Keko’olani of the American Friends Service Committee.

Representatives were angered by the Armyʻs initial claim that they were protecting the discovery, as their actions painted a completely different picture. “The assertion that ‘all work was immediately halted’ is false. The contract archaeologist for Garcia and Associates (GANDA) ordered digging and grading to continue after the first ʻiwi was found, a violation of Federal and State laws that call for all activity to cease. Earth moving activity stopped only after more bones were exposed,” added Leimaile Quitevis.

According to Tom Lenchanko, spokesperson for lineal descendants of the area, “The families object to any process where our human remains are damaged, with no sensitivity to the lands of our Lo Aliʻi – Lihuʻe, Wahiawa and Helemano encompassing over 35,000 acres that is Kukaniloko. This is our national treasure. Our kupuna are all over that aina, and the military is blatantly disrespecting our ancestral burial sites.”

“This is Hawaiian land, we all know that the US military has no moral or legal authority over our lands or resources,” said Andre Perez of Hui Pu. “Relocating the bones of our ancestors for warfare training is unacceptable. It is the military who needs to relocate.”

Noelani DeVincent, kumu hula and member of the Wahiawa Hawaiian Civic Club was heartbroken to see this sacred place ripped apart, “It was a really emotional experience to see such a huge wrong being done towards our people. It is our kuleana to right this wrong, but how can we trust the Army will take care of this place?”

Leimaile Quitevis added “Our kupuna are calling us to look to the lands of Lihuʻe. We must kukulu kumuhana (pull our strengths) and work together to defend the bones of our ancestors and the rich history of this ʻāina.”

Other participants in the cultural access include Kai Markell and Kamoa Quitevis of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, William Aila of Hui Malama i Na Kupuna, Melva Aila of Hui Malama o Makua, and Kyle Kajihiro of the American Friends Service Committee.

Photo by Kai Markell at Lihu’e complex, Schofield Barracks. Many significant cultural sites are being destroyed by current Stryker-related construction.

Photo by Kai Markell at Lihuʻe complex, Schofield Barracks. Concerned Native Hawaiianʻs and community members inspect damage to cultural sites caused by Stryker-related construction.

####

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100528/NEWS25/5280343/Army+consults+agencies++on+relocation+of+bones

Posted on: Friday, May 28, 2010

Army consults agencies on relocation of bones

Advertiser Staff

Army officials yesterday said they invited representatives from the State Historic Preservation Division, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, O’ahu Burial Council, ‘Ahu Kukaniloko and Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai’i Nei to visit a Schofield Barracks construction site where human remains were discovered earlier this month.

“Now that the remains have been found, the decision must be made whether the remains should stay where they were found, or whether they should be relocated to a more appropriate site where they would not be disturbed again,” Laurie Lucking, cultural resource manager for U.S. Army Garrison-Hawaii, said in a statement.

Lucking said the remains were found in an Army training area where military vehicles will be operating and performing exercises “and we are seeking recommendations from the representatives on this matter.”

The Army said it will publish a general notice to allow claimants an opportunity to consult with the Army on the final disposition of the remains once a decision is made on whether to move the remains from their location.

An Army-contracted cultural monitor from Garcia and Associates was on site when a single bone fragment was found on May 14 in a mound of earth that had recently been excavated. All work was immediately halted.

Joint Statement of the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee

The U.S. has squeezed Japan to sacrifice Okinawa and Guam for the base realignment.   But Okinawans will resist.
>><<

Joint Statement of the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee

May 28, 2010
by
Secretary of State Clinton
Secretary of Defense Gates
Minister for Foreign Affairs Okada
Minister of Defense Kitazawa
——————————

On May 28, 2010, the members of the United States-Japan Security Consultative Committee (SCC) reconfirmed that, in this 50th anniversary year of the signing of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, the U.S.-Japan Alliance remains indispensable not only to the defense of Japan, but also to the peace, security, and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region. Recent developments in the security environment of Northeast Asia reaffirmed the significance of the Alliance. In this regard, the United States reiterated its unwavering commitment to Japan’s security. Japan reconfirmed its commitment to playing a positive role in contributing to the peace and stability of the region. Furthermore, the SCC members recognized that a robust forward presence of U.S. military forces in Japan, including in Okinawa, provides the deterrence and capabilities necessary for the defense of Japan and for the maintenance of regional stability. The SCC members committed to promote and deepen security cooperation in wide-ranging areas to enable the Alliance to adapt to the evolving challenges of the 21st century.

The Ministers reaffirmed the commitment to reduce the impact on local communities, including in Okinawa, thereby preserving a sustainable U.S. military presence in Japan. In this context, the SCC members expressed their shared commitments to relocate Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma and return the base to Japan as part of the Alliance transformation and realignment process.

The Ministers confirmed their commitment to implement steadily the realignment initiatives described in the May 1, 2006, SCC Document, “United States-Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation,” as supplemented by this SCC Statement.

The Ministers reaffirmed that, as provided for in the Guam Agreement of February 17, 2009, the relocation of approximately 8,000 III Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) personnel and their approximately 9,000 dependents from Okinawa to Guam is dependent on tangible progress toward the completion of the replacement facility. The relocation to Guam will realize the consolidation and return of most of the facilities south of Kadena.

Bearing this in mind, the two sides intend to verify and validate that this Futenma relocation plan appropriately considers factors such as safety, operational requirements, noise impact, environmental concerns, and effects on the local community.

Both sides confirmed the intention to locate the replacement facility at the Camp Schwab Henoko-saki area and adjacent waters, with the runway portion(s) of the facility to be 1,800 meters long, inclusive of overruns, exclusive of seawalls.

In order to achieve the earliest possible return of MCAS Futenma, the Ministers decided that a study by experts regarding the replacement facility’s location, configuration and construction method would be completed promptly (in any event no later than the end of August, 2010), and that the verification and validation would be completed by the time of the next SCC.

Both sides confirmed the intention to locate, configure, and construct the replacement facility in such a manner as to ensure that environmental impact assessment procedures and construction of the replacement facility can be completed without significant delay.

The Ministers recognized the importance of responding to the concerns of the people of Okinawa that they bear a disproportionate burden related to the presence of U.S. forces, and also recognized that the more equitable distribution of shared alliance responsibilities is essential for sustainable development of the Alliance. Based on the aforementioned recognition, the Ministers directed that, as progress is made toward the replacement facility, concrete measures should be taken expeditiously in the following areas:

Training Relocation

The two sides committed to expand the relocation of the U.S. forces activities, to include both bilateral and unilateral training, outside of Okinawa. In this regard, utilization of Tokunoshima will be considered, subject to development of appropriate facilities. Japan Self-Defense Forces (SDF) facilities and areas in mainland Japan may also be utilized. Both sides also committed to examine the relocation of training outside of Japan, such as to Guam.

Environment

In view of shared responsibilities on environmental stewardship, the Ministers instructed their staffs to discuss the potential for the United States and Japan to take a “Green Alliance” approach to our bases and the environment. U.S.-Japanese collaboration on a “Green Alliance” would consider ways to introduce renewable energy technology into U.S. bases in Japan and under development in Guam, including as a component of Host Nation Support. The Ministers instructed their staffs to consider promptly and seriously an agreement on the environment, including reasonable access to U.S. facilities and areas in cases of environmental incidents, and reasonable access to U.S. facilities and areas for environmental surveys prior to land returns.

Shared Use of Facilities

The two sides intend to study opportunities to expand the shared use of facilities between U.S. forces and the SDF, which would contribute to closer bilateral operational coordination, improved interoperability, and stronger relations with local communities.

Training Areas

The two sides decided on the partial lift of restrictions on the use of the “Hotel/Hotel training area” and committed to continue to consult on other measures.

Guam Relocation

The two sides confirmed that, in accordance with the Guam Agreement of February 17, 2009, the relocation of approximately 8,000 III MEF personnel and their approximately 9,000 dependents from Okinawa to Guam will be steadily implemented.The relocation to Guam is dependent on tangible progress made by the Government of Japan toward completion of the replacement facility. The U.S. side will examine the unit composition of III MEF personnel remaining on Okinawa in the context of overall theater security, including deterrence, while accounting for the concerns of local communities.

Facilitation of the Return of Facilities and Areas South of Kadena

The two sides confirmed that the return of facilities and areas south of Kadena will be steadily implemented in accordance with the Realignment Roadmap. In addition, the two sides decided that the “Industrial Corridor” of Camp Zukeran (Camp Foster) and a part of Makiminato Service Area (Camp Kinser) are priority areas for early return.

Noise Reduction at Kadena

The two sides affirmed their commitment to further noise reduction at Kadena through such measures as expansion of both bilateral and unilateral training outside of Okinawa, including improvements to the aviation training relocation program, and steady implementation of the Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO) Final Report.

Communication and Cooperation with Communities in Okinawa

The two sides affirmed their intention to intensify communication with communities in Okinawa on issues of concern related to the presence of U.S. forces. The two sides committed to explore cooperation in such areas as information technology initiatives, cultural exchanges, education programs and research partnerships.

As part of the effort to deepen security cooperation, the SCC members emphasized the importance of ensuring a shared understanding of the regional security environment and the role of the U.S.-Japan Alliance in advancing common strategic objectives. Toward this end, the SCC members committed to intensify the ongoing bilateral security dialogue. This security dialogue will address traditional security threats, as well as focus on new areas for cooperation.