Atlantic Free Press Review of ‘Bases of Empire’ book

http://atlanticfreepress.com/reviews/12902-the-bases-of-empire-the-global-struggle-against-us-military-posts-book-review-by-jim-miles.html

The Bases of Empire – The Global Struggle against U.S. Military Posts – Book Review by Jim Miles

Written by Jim Miles Contributor, Atlantic Free Press.

Tuesday, 23 March 2010 06:46

Corporations

One of the underlying themes arising from Lutz’s introduction and inclusive within the various essays is that “corporations and the military itself as an organization have profited from bases’ continued existence, regardless of their strategic value.” Military liaisons with other countries usually are “linked with trade and other kinds of agreements, such as access to oil and other raw materials and investment opportunities.”

The idea of corporate ‘investment’ via the military is reiterated throughout the essays. The introduction by John Lindsay-Poland to “U.S. Military Bases in Latin America and the Caribbean” says the bases there “have served explicitly to project and protect U.S. government and commercial interests in the region,” and are “tangible commitments to U.S. policy priorities such as ensuring access to strategic resources, especially oil and natural gas.” Further , the bases serve “to control Latin populations and resources.” In “Iraq as a Construction Site” Tom Engelhardt argues that “American [U.S.] officials are girding for an open-ended commitment to protect the country’s oil industry.”

The obverse of this is recognized in Roland Simbulan’s essay on “…U.S. Military Activities in the Philippines” where opposition to the bases “articulate…the possibility and desire for human security and genuine development through their common opposition to neoliberal globalization.” He notes that those opposed to the U.S. military bases also “consider themselves part of the anti-corporate globalization movement as well.”

More specifically, David Vine and Laura Jeffery highlight the power of trade in conjunction with the military in their essay “Give us Back Diego Garcia.” The Chagossians exiled from Diego Garcia ended up in Mauritius, where the U.S. and the U.K have used corporate-government threats “against Mauritian sugar and textile export quotas” to sideline the Mauritian agenda at the UN. They add more generally that former colonies are constrained by political and economic power that must “confront the power of governments like the [U.S.] and the ]U.K.]” The smaller the nation the more constraints apply “given their deep dependence on economic agreements with the major powers for their economic survival.” And again, the powerful can change laws to their liking and buy off opposition “with what for them are relatively small trade benefits.”

Larger nations are affected as well. Turkey’s decision to not participate in the invasion of Iraq brought forth concerns that the “price of non-cooperation was regarded as an impossible political and economic bargain for a country that relied heavily on IMF funding.” While debating the issue one of the main reference points was the “science of economics” showing that “acting alongside the USA would c certainly be in the benefit of Turkey in regard to the wealth of its population.” Economics is of course far from being a science, more in the realm of mythology, and the significant factor that most arguments for the military miss have little if anything to do with global/national economics as presented by the Washington consensus. And as exemplified in the case of “Okinawa,” by Kozue Akibayashi and Suzuyo Takazato, the situation becomes one in which the occupied territory provides “a considerable amount of financial aid…a cost born by host nations to maintain the U.S. military.”

Much of the devolves from the involvement of a local elite who would lose much of their power and personal wealth if the trade arrangements were abrogated. As argued within the text as a whole, a return to the indigenous populations original patterns of economy would benefit the population in areas much broader than just in monetary terms. Another example of this is Hawaii. Kyle Kajihiro writes that “the militarization of [Hawaii] involved collaboration by different sets of local elites.” The “haole elite, the descendents of missionaries and business owners, leveraged the [U.S.] desire for a navel base in [Hawaii] to their advantage.”

Corporations are an underlying theme, not the main theme, yet it is an issue that arises in each of the essays examining a particular base or set of bases in a country. There can be little doubt that U.S. “free trade capitalism” operates from the strength not of U.S. economic might, but that the economic might has been gained through the use of a militarized empire to promote corporate interests.

Resistance

Having made my connections to the work above, the subtitle of the text defines the greater thrust of the essayists in the book. The military bases around the world are not welcomed by the indigenous populations except for a few select elite who benefit with the financial and political power that arises from liaising with the U.S. For the majority, there is a resistance to the ongoing utilization of their land by the U.S. military. Apart from the globalization/economic arguments of the larger scale, there are many other common causes between the different protesting groups.

The losses are many in regions occupied by the U.S. military. Democracy, freedom, and equality, the main rhetorical features of U.S. arguments are all denied by the occupation forces and by the local elites that benefit from their association with them. In all cases presented, democracy has been limited, from the desires of the Okinawan people, the native Hawaiians, the citizens of Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Latin America, Diego Garcia, to Turkey.

For one thing, the bases themselves create artificial divisions that would not exist if they were not there in the first place. Certainly small elements of the native population may do well, but the wealth generally stays with the elites. As in the case of Hawaii, Okinawa, and Diego Garcia, racism becomes a factor as the indigenous population is denied any credence in the face of the corporate power of the military and the local power structures.

Damages

There are other damages to people, societal structures, and the cultural and natural environments of the occupied areas. In all of the cases, the presence of the U.S. military has created social problems ranging from the abuse of women and children, through the denial of social services and a true legal system, to the overall restructuring or destruction of a society. The environment, the native lands and oceans so important to indigenous survival anywhere, suffers from toxic pollutants ranging from standard industrial and agricultural chemicals to the unique chemicals and biological weapons of the military. The focus in these essays is on ‘traditional’ weapons used in firing ranges on land and sea but also includes nuclear weapons in storage or transit and the use of depleted uranium.

The people who protest against these bases suffer from the lack of legal rights, the tendency for frontier justice in many places in Latin America and the Philippines, and the verbal and physical attacks perpetrated by the occupying forces. Since 2001, the role of terrorism has had a great impact on many of the protesters as terrorism becomes the new communism – the overall threat that is used to justify many new laws of control and the creation of outlaws – extra-judicial murder by declaring anyone opposed to the government as a terrorist. The Philippines is proposing to enact a National Identification System and an Anti Terrorism Bill “in which draconian measures are to be introduced to clamp down on critical and dissenting voices and curtail civil liberties and democratic rights.” In Hawaii, terrorism in the form of “Homeland security” names an amorphous threat and simultaneously unleashes fantasies about assault and vulnerability. Within its terms, opposition is rendered unintelligible; to oppose the security of the homeland is unthinkable….Hawaii pays a high price.”

International law obviously takes a definite hit under these conditions. Occupation of territory, environmental laws, laws about humane treatment of prisoners of war (Diego Garcia is considered to be a particular spot to which people are ‘rendered’), laws and actions of the International Criminal Court are all abrogated or avoided by the U.S. For the indigenous peoples of the Philippines, Hawaii, Diego Garcia, Latin America – for that matter all areas with U.S. military bases including the current occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan – all are subject to the UN declaration of indigenous rights, and are “aware of the rights to self-determination accorded to indigenous peoples under international law.” Except for the U.S. who have not signed the declaration, for obvious reasons.

Be informed

One of the first steps in protesting and resisting U.S. occupation – at least for those not directly in the line of fire, literally or figuratively – is to become educated about the nature and principles that rule the world of the U.S. military occupations of foreign lands. The Bases of Empire is a well crafted study and an important contribution to the general understanding of the militarization of the globe and to specific problems as faced by individual groups. Collectively they represent a majority of the people within their regions and will need the support of as many outside voices as can understand their problems and concerns. This book contains a powerful set of ideas and well referenced information to help inform the world of the reality of U.S. militarization of the global community.

Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. Miles’ work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and news publications.

Guam Senator B.J. Cruz to speak in Honolulu about the proposed U.S. military expansion

http://www.law.hawaii.edu/event/2010/04/01

Maoli Thursday: The Guam Military Buildup

Examining Potential Impacts on Culture, Environment, the Economy and the Larger Community

Event Date: April 1, 2010

Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law Presents Maoli Thursday: The Guam Military Buildup: Examining Potential Impacts on Culture, Environment, the Economy and the Larger Community

Thursday, April 1, 2010 from 12:45 – 1:55 p.m.

Moot Court Room

Maoli Thursday is a lunchtime forum and speaker series held every first Thursday of the month.

Please RSVP by Tuesday, March 30, 2010 Via email: nhlawctr@hawaii.edu

Ka Huli Ao invites you to our last Maoli Thursday of the semester. This month’s lunchtime conversation is organized and moderated by law students Chris Odoca and Ana Pat-Borja.

Benjamin “B.J.” Cruz is the Vice Speaker of Guam’s Legislature and the former Chief Justice of the Guam Supreme Court. Mr. Cruz will discuss the proposed transfer of 8,600 U.S. Marines and their families from a U.S. military base in Okinawa to Guam, and the potential impacts on the island’s people and resources. In particular, Mr. Cruz will overview issues raised by the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed buildup, including projected effects on Guam’s reefs, water resources, and indigenous culture.

We are honored to have Wendy Wiltse, Ph.D., of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 Honolulu, who will provide additional comments.

Free and open to the public. Refreshments will be served.

Event will be live-streamed at www.KaHuliAo.com

Requests to film the event must be received by 03/30/10;

Email nhlawctr@hawaii.edu for details.

Jeju Island Navy Base Proposal Reaching a Boiling Point

Bruce Gagnon sent out this action alert for solidarity with Jeju islanders fighting against a planned navy base on their “Peace Island”.  In recent statements to the media, the South Korean government cites Hawai’i as an example of the positive impacts of militarization.

The Korean government’s argument that militarization has been good for Hawai’i and would be good for Jeju is dead wrong.     Militarization led to the loss of Hawai’i’s independence as a country; it led to the destruction of the environment and disintegration of Hawaiian culture; it made Hawai’i a target during WWII and the Cold War; it brought the most virulent forms of racism and martial law to the islands; it provided America the platform from which to expand its empire;  it continues to distort our development in ways that serve the interests of Empire and not the security of Hawai’i or the region.

In Hawai’i, Ke Awalau o Pu’uloa (Pearl Harbor) was once one of the most productive fisheries for Native Hawaiian people. There was an extensive agriculture-aquaculture complex that fed many thousands on O’ahu island. Ke Awalau o Pu’uloa was the reason America invaded and occupied the Kingdom of Hawai’i, but for its strategic location, not the abundance of its resources.   The Navy took this resource and turned the area into a toxic superfund site. There are approximately 749 contaminated sites that the Navy has identified within the Pearl Harbor Naval Complex.    There are now signs warning not to eat fish, crabs or shellfish from the waters at Ke Awalau o Pu’uloa.  The waters are all off-limits to the public because of military security measures.

There are hundreds of other military contaminated sites.  Contamination includes PCB, perchloroethylene, jet fuel and diesel, mercury, lead, radioactive Cobalt 60, unexploded ordance, perchlorate, depleted uranium…

It is partially true that the military has become a major source of revenue in Hawai’i, but at a very high price.  The military economy is artificial. It is largely a result of the corrupt processes of the military-industrial-political complex and the game of earmarking defense appropriations for projects in the islands.  This is the source of Senator Daniel Inouye’s power, his ability to direct federal monies to Hawai’i, even at the expense of the environment, Hawaiian rights and sovereignty and peace in the Asia-Pacific region.

Also, Pearl Harbor has become a major tourist attraction because of its mythical significance in the American psyche.

The questions that we must always ask about the alleged economic benefits of the military in Hawai’i are: “Who gets paid?  Who pays the price? What are the real social, cultural and environmental costs of such a dependent economy?”   The native people of the land are the ones whose lands are always stolen and destroyed by the military.  They live in the toxic shadow of the bases.  Other productive capacities wither away as Hawai’i has grown completely dependent on imports (90% of food is imported) and federal spending.    Meanwhile those who benefit most from the military economy are the contractors (many who flock to Hawai’i when new appropriations flow in) who feed on the destruction wrought by all this so-called ‘prosperity’.   Many of these same contractors are lining up to feed on the destruction of Guahan.

Hawai’i’s experience should be a cautionary tale about the disastrous impacts of militarization and empire.

>><<

JEJU ISLAND NAVY BASE PROPOSAL REACHING BOILING POINT
YOUR HELP URGENTLY NEEEDED

The latest word from Jeju Island  <http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2010/03/video-fwd-gangjeong-villagers-protest.html> in South Korea is that things are coming to a head very soon. The photo above is from a sudden protest that was organized on March 20 when the Gangjeong villagers learned that the South Korean Minister of Defense was going to come to the village for an “inspection”.

The villagers turned out with their yellow flags that say “We Death Defiantly Oppose the Naval Base!” It appears that the Defense Minister, Kim Tae-Young, did not stay long.

Apparently later that same day the Defense Minister met with five representatives from the village including the Mayor Kang Dong-Kyun. A transcript of some of the meeting has been released by the village committee against the base. Here are some bits from the meeting:

Mayor Kang told the Defense Minister Kim, “So-called national business can make both the nation and villagers cooperate and co-live only when it makes both healthy. The site selection process of changing the site from Hwasoon and Weeme to Gangjeong was a problem. Kim Tae-Hwan, the Jeju Island governor and the Island Congress, who said that they would not drive for [the naval base] without villagers’ agreement, have just driven for it. By the result of the villagers own vote, 94% were against the drive for the naval base.”

Defense Minister Kim, listened but requested that the people “not point out the problems of the past but to think with an open mind, of the future of Gangjeon, Jeju, and the nation.”

Minister Kim emphasized the importance of the naval base construction, saying, “The naval base construction would be a big help for the defense of the southern area of the Jeju Island” and claimed that the “Naval base is different from the general factories that contaminate the environment. If it is constructed, it would help the economic development of the Jeju.”

[This statement by Minister Kim that the navy base would protect the southern area of the nation is very interesting. When you study a map you find Japan on one side of Jeju and China on the other. The fact that Aegis destroyers, outfitted with “missile defense” systems would be deployed at this proposed navy base indicate that China is the target.]

Kim also said that, “I think, in the case of Hawaii, the naval base has given much help for the Hawaii development.”

The two hour meeting did nothing to reassure the Gangjeong villagers. The villagers lawsuit is scheduled to be heard in Seoul on March 25 and rumors abound that the Navy will make an attempt to quickly hold their ground-breaking ceremony that same day while some of the village leaders are off the island attending the court hearing on the mainland.

Just days ago an activist in Maine told me she had called the South Korean embassy in Washington DC to complain about the proposed Navy base on Jeju Island. The activist was told that many people have been calling to protest the base. It would be helpful if you would call as well. The phone is 202-939-5692 (Admiral Choi) or email at consular_usa@mofat.go.kr <mailto:consular_usa@mofat.go.kr>

Remind the South Korean embassy that Jeju Island is now called the Island of Peace and that building a navy base that will be used to help the U.S. militarily encircle China will create a new arms race and increase instability in the Asian-Pacific region.

If you live outside the U.S. please call the South Korean embassy in your country and lodge a similar complaint.

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@mindspring.com
www.space4peace.org <http://www.space4peace.org>
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/  (blog)

Velvet Imperialists

Foreign Policy in Focus
World Beat:Vol. 5, No. 12

Velvet Imperialists

By John Feffer, March 23, 2010

I’m not a big fan of Dana Rohrabacher, the grandstanding Republican congressman from California. But last week at a congressional hearing on U.S.-Japan relations, he ably cut through the Pentagon’s doublespeak.

The hearing’s topic was the current conflict between Washington and Tokyo over the military bases on the Japanese island of Okinawa. The United States wants to close the aging Futenma air base, send half the Marines over to Guam, and build a replacement facility in a less populated part of the island. Most Okinawans don’t want a new base or an old base expanded to accommodate the remaining Marines from Futenma. The Japanese government hasn’t decided whether to listen to Washington or to its own constituents.

Rohrabacher had a simple question for the Pentagon official at the hearing. “How many U.S. military personnel do we have in Japan?” he asked. Looking very uncomfortable, the official said that he would have to get back to the congressman with those figures.

Excuse me? The congressman wasn’t asking about the location of Osama bin Laden or the Pentagon’s covert plan for Helmand province. The number of U.S. troops in Japan — approximately 47,000 — is no state secret. In response, Rohrabacher quite sensibly pointed out that it’s impossible to make a case for a new base unless we have a clear sense of our capabilities and our needs.

Rohrabacher, of course, was attempting to ride his hobby horse — the China menace — to the finish line. He tried to goad the Pentagon official into stating that China was a threat, but to no avail. The United States is happy that Japan is strengthening its relations with countries in the region, the official said, and China poses certain “challenges” but isn’t a “threat.”

Well, all of that is useful to know. The official’s statement is perfectly consistent with the latest Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), in which the Pentagon pointedly failed to identify China as the only threat on the horizon that could dethrone the current king of the hill (a major feature of the previous QDR).

But if China’s no threat and the Cold War has been over for a couple decades, chairman of the Asia-Pacific subcommittee Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa) asked, why does the United States need so many troops stationed in Japan? Faleomavaega also wanted to know why the United States has to maintain over 700 bases around the world and tops the list of global arms exporters.

The Pentagon official couldn’t satisfy either Rohrabacher’s anti-China tirade or Faleomavaega’s probing questions about the U.S. empire of bases. And that’s precisely the problem with the Obama administration’s Pacific policy. We are trying to maintain the exact same force posture as previous administrations but at the same time emphasizing our new commitment to multilateralism and our new status as a “global partner.” It’s like Arnold Schwarzenegger going from Terminator to Kindergarten Cop in the space of a year: Audiences above the age of seven are just not convinced.

Most recently, the Pentagon quietly announced that it will not build anything on Okinawa without the approval of the host community. That might make base relocation on the island a little difficult. After all, the prefectural government has come out against any new bases (or base expansions). So have the mayors of the affected communities. And according to a June 2009 opinion poll, 68 percent of Okinawans oppose relocating the Futenma base within the prefecture.

And it’s not as if the people of Guam — where 8,000 of the U.S. Marines from Futenma are slated to relocate — are overjoyed at the expansion of their own base. “They are angry about a major military buildup here, which the government of Guam and many residents say is being grossly underfunded,” writes Blaine Harden in The Washington Post. “They fear that the construction of a new Marine Corps base will overwhelm the island’s already inadequate water and sewage systems, as well as its port, power grid, hospital, highways and social services.”

If the Obama administration is truly committed to gaining the approval of host communities, it might soon find itself without any hosts at all. Here’s the bottom line: It’s not easy to run an empire with velvet gloves. A proper imperialist would have given the thumbs up to Rohrabacher and squelched Faleomavaega’s impertinence. A good old-fashioned hawk would never talk about gaining the consent of a host community. At the same time, velvet imperialists who revel in touchy-feely values of mutuality and good governance are no good at dismantling empires. They’re afraid of appearing weak. They speak of the need to “maintain stability” in an anarchic world. And they love to talk about how military bases are necessary for responding to humanitarian disasters like tsunamis and earthquakes.

In other words, don’t expect the Obama administration to pull a Gorbachev and begin to unravel the U.S. empire of bases. Look instead for an insider who knows the system, as Gorbachev did, to pull the plug. If some future administration chooses Andrew Bacevich as secretary of defense — the Boston University professor served in Vietnam and rose to the rank of colonel — we might actually see Pentagon reform we can believe in.

In the meantime, where should the Marines of Futenma relocate? I vote for Washington, DC. Marines deployed outside the U.S. Capitol could promote democracy by protecting lawmakers who support health care legislation from the wrath of tea party crazies. And if the Pentagon’s so keen on rebuilding cities, parts of the District certainly qualify. If the prospect of having U.S. Marines involved in promoting democracy, maintaining stability, and responding to humanitarian crises at home makes you squeamish, you can begin to understand how the Okinawans might feel.

For more information on our campaign to reduce the U.S. military footprint on Okinawa, visit our new website. And consider contributing a few dollars to help us spread the word with ads in major media.

The Military Yardstick

The Pentagon’s involvement in humanitarian crises — Haiti, Afghanistan — is certainly one example of mission creep. However you might feel about the use of military transport and personnel to deliver food and medical supplies, one important unintended consequence is the application of military yardsticks to judge the success of economic development.

“The current generation of policymakers isn’t the first to have little patience in demanding immediate impact from taxpayer dollars spent overseas,” writes Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) contributor Todd Diamond in Do the Military and Development Mix? “But increasingly, development projects are expected to solve the problems not only of historically inoperable states but also of those recently destroyed by war in equally short order. Advanced tools of warfare have greatly expedited our ability to project power. But the success of rebuilding a community, never mind a nation, should not be judged according to a military timeline.”

As the aftershocks of the earthquake in Haiti wear off, the U.S. military has given way to development organizations. And development organizations are giving way to…sweatshops?

“Former President Bill Clinton, currently serving as the UN’s envoy to Haiti, and economist Paul Collier…think Haiti needs to leverage its ‘cheap labor.’ In other words, they think Haiti will solve its problems by opening up more sweatshops,” writes FPIF contributor Tope Folarin in Sweatshops Won’t Save Haiti. “All this ignores the most important point: sweatshop labor’s inherent inhumanity. Sweatshop labor proponents have never worked in the conditions they so enthusiastically endorse for others. When advocating such solutions, they often offer compelling numbers as proof of their effectiveness. But what about the human costs: the extra hours workers spend away from their families, the risk of injury that accompanies repetitive movements, and the loss of morale as some boss demands that you produce even more?”

Finally, in Honduras, resistance to the military coup continues. FPIF contributor Rosie Wong reports on the international fast that mobilized support for the civic organizations arrayed against the coup. “While mass media attempts to sell us stories about how the situation is better, Honduran activists continue to struggle,” she writes in Responding to the Honduran Coup. “In addition to holding at least one major march every month, Hondurans are working hard to organize their communities for a National Constituent Assembly — a people’s project that was supported by Zelaya.”

If you’re in the DC area, join us tonight at Busboys and Poets to hear journalist Mac McClelland talk about her new book, on her time living with associates of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization battling Burma’s dictatorship. If you can’t make the event, we’ll be publishing an interview with McClelland this week on FPIF.

John Feffer is co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus.

http://www.fpif.org/articles/velvet_imperialists

On Guam, planned Marine base raises anger, infrastructure concerns

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032101025_pf.html

On Guam, planned Marine base raises anger, infrastructure concerns

By Blaine Harden

Washington Post Foreign Service

Monday, March 22, 2010; A01

HAGATNA, GUAM — This remote Pacific island is home to U.S. citizens who are fervent supporters of the military, as measured by their record of fighting and dying in America’s recent wars.

But they are angry about a major military buildup here, which the government of Guam and many residents say is being grossly underfunded. They fear that the construction of a new Marine Corps base will overwhelm the island’s already inadequate water and sewage systems, as well as its port, power grid, hospital, highways and social services.

“Our nation knows how to find us when it comes to war and fighting for war,” said Michael W. Cruz, lieutenant governor of Guam and an Army National Guard colonel who recently returned from a four-month tour as a surgeon in Afghanistan. “But when it comes to war preparations — which is what the military buildup essentially is — nobody seems to know where Guam is.”

The federal government has given powerful reasons to worry to the 180,000 residents of Guam, a balmy tropical island whose military importance derives from its location as by far the closest U.S. territory to China and North Korea.

The Environmental Protection Agency said last month that the military buildup, as described in Pentagon documents, could trigger island-wide water shortages that would “fall disproportionately on a low income medically underserved population.” It also said the buildup would overload sewage-treatment systems in a way that “may result in significant adverse public health impacts.”

A report by the Government Accountability Office last year came to similar conclusions, saying the buildup would “substantially” tax Guam’s infrastructure.

President Obama had planned to visit Guam on Monday as the brief first stop of an Asia trip, but he delayed his travel because of Sunday’s health-care vote in the House. Obama is aware of the problems here and had planned to promise some federal help, White House officials said.

“We’re trying to identify and understand the current conditions on Guam and the potential impact of the relocation,” said Nancy Sutley, head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, who on Tuesday will lead a delegation to the island. “There’s no question that the environmental conditions on Guam are not ideal.”

Besides a new Marine base and airfield, the buildup includes port dredging for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, a project that would cause what the EPA describes as an “unacceptable” impact on 71 acres of a vibrant coral reef. The military, which owns 27 percent of the island, also wants to build a Marine firing range on land that includes one of the last undeveloped beachfront forests on Guam.

‘Should not proceed’

In a highly unusual move, the EPA graded the buildup plan as “environmentally unsatisfactory” and said it “should not proceed as proposed.”

“The government of Guam and the Guam Waterworks cannot by themselves accommodate the military expansion,” said Nancy Woo, associate director of the EPA’s western regional water division. She said Guam would need about $550 million to upgrade its water and sewage systems. White House officials said the EPA findings are preliminary.

Guam government officials put the total direct and indirect costs of coping with the buildup at about $3 billion, including $1.7 billion to improve roads and $100 million to expand the already overburdened public hospital. On this island — where a third of the population receives food stamps and about 25 percent lives below the U.S. poverty level — that price tag cannot be paid with local tax revenue.

“It is not possible and it is not fair that the island bear the cost,” Woo said.

At the peak of construction, the buildup would increase Guam’s population by 79,000 people, or about 45 percent. The EPA said the military plans, so far, to pay for public services for about 23,000 of the new arrivals, mostly Marines and their dependents who are relocating from the Japanese island of Okinawa. Ceded to the United States by Spain in 1898, Guam is a U.S. territory. Its residents are American citizens, but they cannot vote in presidential elections and have no voting representative in Congress.

The Marine Corps is sensing a populist backlash on Guam, which is three times the size of the District of Columbia and more than 6,000 miles west of Los Angeles.

“I see a rising level of concern about how we are going to manage this,” Lt. Gen. Keith J. Stalder, the Hawaii-based commander of Marine forces in the Pacific, said in a telephone interview. “I think it is becoming clearer every day that they need outside assistance.”

The White House said Obama included $750 million in his budget to address the civilian impact of the relocation and has asked Congress for $1 billion next year, but Guam officials say they have received no assurances from the federal government that the money is headed their way.

No input in decision

Guam was not consulted in the decision to move 8,000 Marines — about half those based in Okinawa — to the island. The $13 billion move was negotiated in 2006 between the Bush administration and a previous Japanese government, with Japan paying about $6 billion of the non-civilian cost, as a way of reducing the large U.S. military footprint in Okinawa.

But in the past year, with new leadership in Tokyo, the Japanese role in the move has become complicated. Anti-military sentiment is growing in Okinawa; Japan’s new leaders have yet to decide if they will allow a Marine air station to remain anywhere in the country. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has expressed irritation with Japan, even as the Pentagon presses ahead with its plan to shift the Marines to Guam by 2014.

The government of Guam and most of its residents initially welcomed the buildup. It was viewed as good for business, and the military enjoys deep respect here. Many families have members serving in the armed forces; among the 50 states and four territories, this island regularly ranks first in recruiting success. Guam’s killed-in-action rate is about four times as high as on the mainland.

Guam is the only American soil with a sizable population to have been occupied by a foreign military power. During World War II, the Japanese held the island for 2 1/2 brutal years, building concentration camps and forcing the indigenous Chamorro people to provide slave labor and sex. Beheadings were common.

Led by the Marines, American forces liberated the island in 1944, and people here say they still feel a debt to the United States. To repay it, they proudly call their island the “tip of the spear” for projecting U.S. military power in the Far East. Guam already has Navy and Air Force bases that can handle many of the most potent weapons in the U.S. arsenal. Nuclear-powered attack submarines, F-22 fighter jets and B-2 stealth bombers frequent the island, which will soon be protected by its own anti-missile system.

“We don’t mind being the tip of spear, but we don’t want to get the shaft,” said Simon A. Sanchez II, chairman of Guam’s commission on public utilities. “We have been asking for help from Day One, but we have not got any meaningful appropriations.”

‘Not being listened to’

The governor of Guam, Felix Camacho, asked the military last month to slow down the deployment of Marines until sufficient federal money arrives. But as a territory, and without a vote in Congress, the island has negligible lobbying power and no legal means of halting the buildup.

Many residents have hoped that Obama — a fellow Pacific islander, who was born in Hawaii and lived in Indonesia — might understand their anxieties and unlock federal resources. The White House said Obama will visit Guam when his Asia trip is rescheduled, perhaps in June.

“I just want to remind President Obama that his story is our story,” said Victoria-Lola Leon Guerrero, an English instructor at the University of Guam and a leader of a group opposing the buildup. She said her students read Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” focusing on a coming-of-age passage from his years in Hawaii, in which he describes his realization that he was “utterly alone.”

“That’s how we feel here,” she said. “We feel like we are not being listened to, like we are not being respected.”

The federal government’s push to further militarize this island — combined with its heel-dragging in paying for the impact on civilians — has led many Guam residents to doubt the value of their relationship with the United States.

“This is old-school colonialism all over again,” said Lisa Linda Natividad, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Guam and an activist opposing the buildup. “It boils down to our political status — we are occupied territory.”

Staff writer Michael D. Shear in Washington contributed to this report.

U.S. says base relocation plan must have acceptance of local community

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EJ212G0&show_article=1

LEAD: Local agreement necessary for Futemma relocation

Mar 21 09:35 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON, March 21 (AP) – (Kyodo)

The United States has told Japan it will not renegotiate the relocation plan for the U.S. Marine Corps’ Futemma Air Station in Okinawa Prefecture if the local community will not accept the relocation, sources close to the bilateral ties said Sunday.

While Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada is expected to visit the United States later this month, the U.S. side will likely stress that it is necessary to obtain local consent if Okada presents Japan’s proposal for the relocation site.

The Futemma transfer is part of a broader 2006 realignment road map for U.S. forces stationed in Japan, which also includes the relocation of 8,000 Marines to the U.S. territory of Guam by 2014.

The planned transfer of the Marines may be shelved if the Futemma facility is kept in continued use.

Washington has been pressing Japan to stick to the 2006 bilateral deal to transfer the Futemma facility, currently in Ginowan, Okinawa, to the coastal area of the Marines’ Camp Schwab in Nago — a move requiring land reclamation that has triggered strong local opposition.

Tokyo, for its part, plans to finalize the government’s plan on where to relocate it by the end of this month.

The Futemma relocation issue has remained as a major sticking point between the two countries since the coalition government of the Democratic Party of Japan, Social Democratic Party and the People’s New Party was launched last year.

Obama to meet with Guam authorities, but not grassroots leaders concerned about the military buildup

President Obama will meet with local Guam officials on a stopover March 22nd to allay rising concerns about the proposed military expansion in the Marianas islands   But he is not meeting with grassroots leaders who have demanded to be heard about their concerns regarding the military buildup.

>><<

http://www.guampdn.com/article/20100316/NEWS01/100316002/1001/NEWS/%3CB%3EBREAKING-NEWS-%3C-B%3E-8-15-a.m.-Obama-will-be-on-island-March-22-will-make-clear-his-commitment-to-the-people-of-Guam

BREAKING NEWS: 8:15 a.m. – Obama will be on island March 22, will make clear his commitment to the people of Guam

Pacific Daily News • news@guampdn.com • March 16, 2010

8:15 a.m. – President Obama will be on island on March 22 to demonstrate a commitment to people of Guam, according to White House officials who spoke during a press briefing on the president’s trip to Asia.

Obama on the evening of March 22 will be hosting a public event to speak with local Guam authorities and military personnel, said Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. Obama will leave for Indonesia the following day.

Denis McDonough, chief of staff for the National Security Council, added the president is “going to make sure that we have a very realistic and sustainable well-thought out approach to Guam.”

McDonough was responding to a reporter’s question. The reporter asked: “In addition to speaking to the Guam community and service members, what message is trying to be sent to the Pacific region overall and to Japan and China specifically with that?”

“While there he’ll not only visit with commanders but also with local Guam authorities. And he’s going to make sure that we have a very realistic and sustainable and well thought out approach to Guam,” McDonough said.

“He has a vision which we refer to here as ‘one Guam, green Guam,’ which is apropos of many of the questions heretofore, designed to make sure that we’re investing in capabilities on Guam that are sustainable over the course of time, that are clean energy focused, that do take very concrete steps to reduce the high price of energy on the island, and obviously will lead to an end state that’s politically, operationally, and environmentally sustainable.”

The president will also take a hard look at the infrastructure needs on Guam.

“We’ll obviously be looking at base-related construction that must take into accounts the needs of not only of an increased troop presence or Marine presence, but also the needs of the people of Guam, the impact on the environment, and the important role that the United States plays within the region,” McDonough said.

McDonough concluded: “”I wouldn’t read a particular set of — just to respond to the last part of your question — I wouldn’t read a specific or even general message to Japan or to China into the stop; I’d rather just make clear that we have a commitment to the people of Guam, and that as part of our ongoing plan for our presence in the region, are going to make very common-sense and important investments in the infrastructure there.”

Tiananmen in Nawiliwili

http://informationfarm.blogspot.com/2010/03/kauai-superferry-chronicles.html

Kauai | The Superferry Chronicles

Although most people are not aware of it, the USA has an image which is similar to the scene from Tiananmen Square. Fortunately this David and Goliath event did not end in the loss of life and the citizens were successful.

August 2007—Hawaii—A new Superferry transporting cars and people from island to island was stopped from docking on the island of Kauai and turned back. Residents of the island gathered along the shore to protest, some jumped in the water joining the surfers, kayaks and outrigger canoes in Nawiliwili harbor blocking the huge ship from entering.

Police and SWAT team members mingled with the onshore protesters and Coast Guard boats, one with military personnel manning large 40-caliber guns on deck, threatened the surfers and canoeists. The Coast Guard patrol boat even attempted to pass through the blockade nearly running over unarmed individuals in the water.

The Superferry was a Trojan horse. It was camouflaged as a means of transportation for the residents of Hawaii but the dark secret was that it’s actual use was for hidden military purposes which meant big dollars in future military government contracts for the owners of the Superferry.

The joint high-speed vessel “is a strategic transport vessel designed to support the rapid transport of military troops and equipment in the U.S. and abroad” —statement from the Army Environmental Command.

Hawaii is the center for the largest military command on the Earth—US Pacific Command (USPACOM).

The ferry is really a prototype for warships in potential military clashes with China. The plan is to save money for the Pentagon and the Navy and secure project ownership for its major investor, the former Navy Secretary. The prototype is to be built and launched not as a military ship, but as a civilian ferry.

In secret, military planners in the Pentagon design a company to be eventually run by the former secretary of the Navy and staffed by high ranking ex-military officers. The company operates military vessels disguised as civilian inter-island ferries and eventually reaps vast sums in military contracts. Sadly, this is how modern military officers create enormous wealth and power for themselves after their military careers all the time covering their greed by pontificating that they defending the nation from outside threats.

“The lead investor in the Superferry project (nearly $90 million) and new chair of the board for this ‘local’ ferry project was New York City military financier John Lehman, Ronald Reagan’s secretary of the Navy, a leading neocon with a famously aggressive military vision. (The Washington Post quoted him in 1984 as advocating first-strike nuclear strategies.) Lehman is a member of the Project for the New American Century and a 9/11 commissioner, but his great passion has been pushing for a vastly expanded, 600-ship Navy and a stronger US military presence in the Pacific to assuage mounting concerns about China as a future military superpower. After his company, J.F. Lehman, took over the Superferry project, Lehman appointed a new board with a majority of former top military brass. He later hired Adm. Thomas Fargo as CEO. Only four years ago Fargo was the commander of US military operations in the Pacific, answering directly to George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. So the question is this: why on earth would anyone need a board that qualifies as a mini-Pentagon to run a friendly transport for families and papayas between islands?” read the entire article at The Nation

Environmentalists called for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its Hawaii equivalent (HEPA) but the Hawaii Superferry Company, with strong support from Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle, refused.

When the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling demanded the boat suspend operations until it completed an EIS, Governor Lingle and Lehman’s Superferry company continued operations.

To allow the Superferry to operate in Hawaii without an Environmental Impact Statement and to sell the idea to the public, the help of the Governor was required. Most likely, members of the military and powerful interests offered Governor Lingle secret backroom deals which may include national political office. She later appeared at the Republican convention introducing vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. (A case of one unknown governor introducing another unknown governor.)

Governor Lingle’s actions regarding the ferry, such as defying the Hawaii Supreme Court, getting the legislature to authorize a $40 million loan to the Superferry company and telling citizens of Kauai that if they protested within the ‘security zone’ established by Homeland security law they “would be charged under new anti-terrorism laws that carry prison terms up to five years and/or a $10,000 fine”, indicate that she felt she had powerful backing.

The Superferry company received $140 million in federal government guaranteed loans. If the ferry turnes out to be a commercial failure its owners are off the hook and the taxpayers will repay the loan. In the twisted logic of today’s world, the federal loan specifically prohibits an EIS as part of the loan agreement even though the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires it.

Presently, the Superferry has stopped all service in Hawaii and posted the following on its website which comfirms it’s true military purpose.

For the present time, the Hawaii Superferry will no longer offer service in Hawaii due to a Hawaii Supreme Court ruling that struck down a new law allowing service without an Environmental Impact Report.

The Alakai will be used for other commercial service or military use in the future until an EIS has been successfully obtained (if this is possible.)

China strikes back with report on U.S. human rights record

China has issued a report on U.S. human rights record. Here’s a relevant excerpt followed by the full article.  There’s links at the bottom of the article to the full text of the human rights report and China’s own human rights plan.  Here’s an excerpt from the report:

VI. On U.S. Violations of Human Rights against Other Nations

The United States with its strong military power has pursued hegemony in the world, trampling upon the sovereignty of other countries and trespassing their human rights.

As the world’s biggest arms seller, its deals have greatly fueled instability across the world. The United States also expanded its military spending, already the largest in the world, by 10 percent in 2008 to 607 billion U.S. dollars, accounting for 42 percent of the world total (The AP, June 9, 2009).

According to a report by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. foreign arms sales in 2008 soared to 37.8 billion U.S. dollars from 25.4 billion a year earlier, up by nearly 50 percent, accounting for 68.4 percent of the global arms sales that were at its four-year low (Reuters, September 6, 2009). At the beginning of 2010, the U.S. government announced a 6.4-billion-U.S. dollar arms sales package to Taiwan despite strong protest from the Chinese government and people, which seriously damaged China’s national security interests and aroused strong indignation among the Chinese people.

The wars of Iraq and Afghanistan have placed heavy burden on American people and brought tremendous casualties and property losses to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. The war in Iraq has led to the death of more than 1million Iraqi civilians, rendered an equal number of people homeless and incurred huge economic losses. In Afghanistan, incidents of the U.S. army killing innocent people still keep occurring. Five Afghan farmers were killed in a U.S. air strike when they were loading cucumbers into a van on August 5, 2009 (http://www.rawa.org). On June 8, the U.S. Department of Defense admitted that the U.S. raid on Taliban on May 5 caused death of Afghan civilians as the military failed to abide by due procedures. The Afghan authorities have identified 147 civilian victims, including women and children, while a U.S. officer put the death toll under 30 (The Philadelphia Inquirer, June 9, 2009).

Prisoner abuse is one of the biggest human rights scandals of the United States. A report presented to the 10th meeting of Human Rights Council of the United Nations in 2009 by its Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism showed that the United States has pursued a comprehensive set of practices including special deportation, long-term and secret detentions and acts violating the United Nations Convention against Torture. The rapporteur also said, in a report submitted to the 64th General Assembly of the United Nations, that the United States and its private contractors tortured male Muslims detained in Iraq and other places by stacking the naked prisoners in pyramid formation, coercing the homosexual sexual behaviors and stripping them in stark nakedness (The Washington Post, April 7, 2009). The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has begun interrogation by torture since 2002. The U.S. government lawyers disclosed that since 2001, CIA has destroyed 92 videotapes relating to the interrogation to suspected terrorists, 12 of them including the use of torture (The Washington Post, March 3, 2009). The CIA interrogators used a handgun and an electric drill to frighten a captured al-Qaeda commander into giving up information (The Washington Post, August 22, 2009). The U.S. Justice Department memos revealed the CIA kept prisoners shackled in a standing position for as long as 180 hours, more than a dozen of them deprived of sleep for at least 48 hours, three for more than 96 hours, and one for the nearly eight-day maximum. Another seemed to endorse sleep deprivation for 11 days, stated on one memo (http://www.chron.com). The CIA interrogators used waterboarding 183 times against the accused 9/11 major plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and 83 times against suspected Al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah (The New York Times, April 20, 2009). A freed Guantanamo prisoner said he experienced the “medieval” torture at Guantanamo Bay and in a secret CIA prison in Kabul (AFP, London, March 7, 2009). In June 2006, three Guantanamo Bay inmates could have been suffocated to death during interrogation on the same evening and their deaths passed off as suicides by hanging, revealed by a six-month joint investigation for Harpers Magazine and NBC News in 2009 (www.guardian.co.uk, January 18, 2010). A Somali named Mohamed Saleban Bare, jailed at Guantanamo Bay for eight years, told AFP the prison was “hell on earth” and some of his colleagues lost sight and limbs and others ended up mentally disturbed (AFP, Hargisa, Somali, December 21, 2009). A 31-year-old Yemeni detainee at Guantanamo Bay who had been on a long hunger strike apparently committed suicide in 2009 after four prior suicide deaths beginning at 2002 (The New York Times, June 3, 2009). The U.S. government held more than 600 prisoners at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. A United Nations report singled out the Bagram detention facility for criticism, saying some ex-detainees allege being subjected to severe torture, even sexual abuse, and some prisoners put under detention for as long as five years. It also reported that some were held in cages containing 15 to 20 men and that two detainees died in questionable circumstances while in custody (IPS, New York, February 25, 2009). An investigation by U.S. Justice Department showed 2,000 Taliban surrendered combatants were suffocated to death by the U.S. army-controlled Afghan armed forces (http://www.yourpolicicsusa.com, July 16, 2009).

The United States has been building its military bases around the world, and cases of violation of local people’s human rights are often seen. The United States is now maintaining 900 bases worldwide, with more than 190,000 military personnel and 115,000 relevant staff stationed. These bases are bringing serious damage and environmental contamination to the localities. Toxic substances caused by bomb explosions are taking their tolls on the local children. It has been reported that toward the end of the U.S. military bases’ presence in Subic and Clark, as many as 3,000 cases of raping the local women had been filed against the U.S. servicemen, but all were dismissed (http://www.lexisnexis.com, May 17, 2009).

The United States has been maintaining its economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba for almost 50 years. The blockade has caused an accumulated direct economic loss of more than 93 billion U.S. dollars to Cuba. On October 28, 2009, the 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on the “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba,” with a recorded vote of 187 in favor to three against, and two abstentions. This marked the 18th consecutive year the assembly had overwhelmingly called on the United States to lift the blockade without delay (Overwhelming International Rejection of US Blockade of Cuba at UN, www.cubanews.ain.cu).

The United States is pushing its hegemony under the pretence of “Internet freedom.” The United States monopolizes the strategic resources of the global Internet, and has been retaining a tight grip over the Internet ever since its first appearance. There are currently 13 root servers of Internet worldwide, and the United States is the place where the only main root server and nine out of the rest 12 root servers are located. All the root servers are managed by the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), which is, by the authority of the U.S. government, responsible for the management of the global root server system, the domain name system and the Internet Protocol address. The United States has declined all the requests from other countries as well as international organizations including the United Nations to break the U.S. monopoly over the root servers and to decentralize its management power over the Internet. The United States has been intervening in other countries’ domestic affairs in various ways taking advantage of its control over Internet resources. The United States has a special troop of hackers, which is made up of hacker proficients recruited from all over the world. When post-election unrest broke out in Iran in the summer of 2009, the defeated reformist camp and its advocators used Internet tools such as Twitter to spread their messages. The U.S. State Department asked the operator of Twitter to delay its scheduled maintenance to assist with the opposition in creating a favorable momentum of public opinion. In May 2009, one web company, prompted by the U.S. authorities, blocked its Messenger instant messaging service in five countries including Cuba.

The United States is using a global interception system named “ECHELON” to eavesdrop on communications worldwide. A report of the European Parliament pointed out that the “ECHELON” system is a network controlled by the United States for intelligence gathering and analyzing. The system is able to intercept and monitor the content of telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other digital information transmitted via public telephone networks, satellites and microwave links. The European Parliament has criticized the United States for using its “ECHELON” system to commit crimes such as civilian’s privacy infringement or state-conducted industrial espionage, among which was the most striking case of Saudi Arabia’s 6-billion-dollar aircraft contract (see Wikipedia). Telephone calls of British Princess Diana had been intercepted and eavesdropped because her global campaign against land-mines was in conflict with the U.S. policies. The Washington Post once reported that such spying activities conducted by the U.S. authorities were reminiscent of the Vietnam War when the United States imposed wiretapping and surveillance upon domestic anti-war activists.

The United States ignores international human rights conventions, and takes a passive attitude toward international human rights obligations. It signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 32 years ago and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 29 years ago, but has ratified neither of them yet. It has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities either. On Sept. 13, 2007, the 61st UN General Assembly voted to adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which has been the UN’s most authoritative and comprehensive document to protect the rights of indigenous peoples. The United States also refused to recognize the declaration.

The above-mentioned facts show that the United States not only has a bad domestic human rights record, but also is a major source of many human rights disasters around the world. For a long time, it has placed itself above other countries, considered itself “world human rights police” and ignored its own serious human rights problems. It releases Country Reports on Human Rights Practices year after year to accuse other countries and takes human rights as a political instrument to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, defame other nations’ image and seek its own strategic interests. This fully exposes its double standards on the human rights issue, and has inevitably drawn resolute opposition and strong denouncement from world people. At a time when the world is suffering a serious human rights disaster caused by the U.S. subprime crisis-induced global financial crisis, the U.S. government still ignores its own serious human rights problems but revels in accusing other countries. It is really a pity.

We hereby advise the U.S. government to draw lessons from the history, put itself in a correct position, strive to improve its own human rights conditions and rectify its acts in the human rights field.

>><<

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-03/12/c_13208120.htm

China strikes back with report on U.S. human rights record

English.news.cn 2010-03-12 15:07:03

BEIJING, March 12 (Xinhua) — China Friday retorted U.S. criticism by publishing its own report on the U.S. human rights record.

“As in previous years, the (U.S.) reports are full of accusations of the human rights situation in more than 190 countries and regions including China, but turn a blind eye to, or dodge and even cover up rampant human rights abuses on its own territory,” said the Information Office of the State Council in its report on the U.S. human rights record.

The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2009 was in retaliation to the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2009 issued by the U.S. Department of State on March 11.

The report is “prepared to help people around the world understand the real situation of human rights in the United States,” said the report.

The report reviewed the human rights record of the United States in 2009 from six perspectives: life, property and personal security; civil and political rights; economic, social and cultural rights; racial discrimination; rights of women and children; and the U.S.’ violation of human rights against other countries.

It criticized the United States for taking human rights as “a political instrument to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, defame other nations’ image and seek its own strategic interests.”

China advised the U.S. government to draw lessons from the history, put itself in a correct position, strive to improve its own human rights conditions and rectify its acts in the human rights field.

This is the 11th consecutive year that the Information Office of China’s State Council has issued a human rights record of the United States to answer the U.S. State Department’s annual report.

“At a time when the world is suffering a serious human rights disaster caused by the U.S. subprime crisis-induced global financial crisis, the U.S. government still ignores its own serious human rights problems but revels in accusing other countries. It is really a pity,” the report said.

SPYING ON CITIZENS

While advocating “freedom of speech,” “freedom of the press” and “Internet freedom,” the U.S. government unscrupulously monitors and restricts the citizens’ rights to freedom when it comes to its own interests and needs, the report said.

The U.S. citizens’ freedom to access and distribute information is under strict supervision, it said.

According to media reports, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) started installing specialized eavesdropping equipment around the country to wiretap calls, faxes, and emails and collect domestic communications as early as 2001.

The wiretapping programs was originally targeted at Arab-Americans, but soon grew to include other Americans.

After the September 11 attack, the U.S. government, in the name of anti-terrorism, authorized its intelligence authorities to hack into its citizens’ mail communications, and to monitor and erase any information that might threaten the U.S. national interests on the Internet through technical means, the report said.

Statistic showed that from 2002 to 2006, the FBI collected thousands of phones records of U.S. citizens through mails, notes and phone calls.

In September 2009, the country set up an Internet security supervision body, further worrying U.S. citizens that the U.S. government might use Internet security as an excuse to monitor and interfere with personal systems.

The so-called “freedom of the press” of the United States was in fact completely subordinate to its national interests, and was manipulated by the U.S. government, the report said.

At yearend 2009, the U.S. Congress passed a bill which imposed sanctions on several Arab satellite channels for broadcasting contents hostile to the U.S. and instigating violence.

HEGEMONY UNDER PRETENCE OF “INTERNET FREEDOM”

The United States is pushing its hegemony under the pretence of “Internet freedom”, the report said.

There are currently 13 root servers of Internet worldwide, and the United States is the place where the only main root server and nine out of the rest 12 root servers are located, according to the report.

The United States has been intervening in other countries’ domestic affairs in various ways taking advantage of its control over Internet resources, it said.

The United States has a special troop of hackers, which is made up of hacker proficients recruited from all over the world, according to the report.

When post-election unrest broke out in Iran in the summer of 2009, the defeated reformist camp and its advocators used Internet tools such as Twitter to spread their messages, it said.

The U.S. State Department asked the operator of Twitter to delay its scheduled maintenance to assist with the opposition in creating a favorable momentum of public opinion, it said.

In May 2009, one web company, prompted by the U.S. authorities, blocked its Messenger instant messaging service in five countries including Cuba, according to the report.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION A CHRONIC PROBLEM

Racial discrimination is still a chronic problem of the United States, the report said.

Black people and other minorities are the most impoverished groups in the United States.

According to a report issued by the U.S. Bureau of Census, the real median income for American households in 2008 was 50,303 U.S. dollars, but the median incomes of Hispanic and black households were roughly 68 percent and 61.6 percent of that of the non-Hispanic white households.

And the median income of minority groups was about 60 to 80 percent of that of majority groups under the same conditions of education and skill background, the report added.

Ethnic minorities have been subject to serious racial discrimination in employment and workplace, the report said.

Minority groups bear the brunt of the U.S. unemployment. According to news reports, the U.S. unemployment rate in October 2009 was 10.2 percent. The jobless rate of the U.S. African-Americans jumped to 15.7 percent, that of the Hispanic rose to 13.1 percent and that of the white was 9.5 percent, the USA Today reported.

The U.S. minority groups face discriminations in education. According to a report issued by the U.S. Bureau of Census, 33 percent of the non-Hispanic white has college degrees, proportion of the black was only 20 percent and Hispanic was 13 percent .

Racial discrimination in law enforcement and judicial system is very distinct. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, by the end of 2008, 3,161 men and 149 women per 100,000 persons in the U.S. black population were under imprisonment.

And a report released by New York City Police Department said that of the people involved in police shootings whose ethnicity could be determined in 2008, 75 percent were black, 22 percent were Hispanic; and 3 percent were white.

Ethnic hatred crimes are frequent. According to statistics released by the U.S. Federal Investigation Bureau, a total of 7,783 hatred crimes occurred in 2008 in the United States, 51.3 percent of which were originated by racial discrimination and 19.5 percent were for religious bias and 11.5 percent were for national origins.

WIDESPREAD VIOLENT CRIMES

Widespread violent crimes in the United States posed threats to the lives, properties and personal security of its people, the report said.

In 2008, U.S. residents experienced 4.9 million violent crimes, 16.3 million property crimes and 137,000 personal thefts, and the violent crime rate was 19.3 victimizations per 1,000 persons aged 12 or over.

About 30,000 people die from gun-related incidents each year. According to a FBI report, there had been 14,180 murder victims in 2008, the report said.

Campuses became an area worst hit by violent crimes as shootings spread there and kept escalating. The U.S. Heritage Foundation reported that 11.3 percent of high school students in Washington D.C. reported being “threatened or injured” with a weapon while on school property during the 2007-2008 school year.

ABUSE OF POWER

The country’s police frequently impose violence on the people and abuse of power is common among U.S. law enforcers, the report said,

Over the past two years, the number of New York police officers under review for garnering too many complaints was up 50 percent.

In major U.S. cities, police stop, question and frisk more than a million people each year, a sharply higher number than just a few years ago.

Prisons in the United State are packed with inmates. About 2.3 million were held in custody of prisons and jails, the equivalent of about one in every 198 persons in the country, according to the report.

From 2000 to 2008, the U.S. prison population increased an average of 1.8 percent annually.

The basic rights of prisoners in the United States are not well-protected. Raping cases of inmates by prison staff members are widely reported, the report said.

According to the U.S. Justice Department, reports of sexual misconduct by prison staff members with inmates in the country’s 93 federal prison sites doubled over the past eight years.

According to a federal survey of more than 63,000 federal and state inmates, 4.5 percent reported being sexually abused at least once during the previous 12 months.

POVERTY LEADS TO RISING NUMBER OF SUICIDES

The report said the population in poverty was the largest in 11 years.

The Washington Post reported that altogether 39.8 million Americans were living in poverty by the end of 2008, an increase of 2.6 million from that in 2007. The poverty rate in 2008 was 13.2 percent, the highest since 1998.

Poverty led to a sharp rise in the number of suicides in the United States. It is reported that there are roughly 32,000 suicides in the U.S. every year, double the cases of murder, said the report.

WORKERS’ RIGHTS NOT PROPERLY GUARANTEED

Workers’ rights were seriously violated in the United States, the report said.

The New York Times reported that about 68 percent of the 4,387 low-wage workers in a survey said they had experienced reduction of wages and 76 percent of those who had worked overtime were not paid accordingly.

The number of people without medical insurance has kept rising for eight consecutive years, the report said.

Data released by the U.S. Census Bureau showed 46.3 million people were without medical insurance in 2008, accounting for 15.4 percent of the total population, comparing 45.7 million people who were without medical insurance in 2007, which was a rise for the eighth year in a row.

WOMEN, CHILDREN FREQUENT VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE

Women are frequent victims of violence and sexual assault in the United States, while children are exposed to violence and living in fear, the report said.

It is reported that the United States has the highest rape rate among countries which report such statistics. It is 13 times higher than that of England and 20 times higher than that of Japan.

Reuters reported that based on in-depth interviews on 40 servicewomen, 10 said they had been raped, five said they were sexually assaulted including attempted rape, and 13 reported sexual harassment.

It is reported that 1,494 children younger than 18 nationwide were murdered in 2008, the USA Today reported.

A survey conducted by the U.S. Justice Department on 4,549 kids and adolescents aged 17 and younger between January and May of 2008 showed, more than 60 percent of children surveyed were exposed to violence within the past year, either directly or indirectly.

TRAMPLING UPON OTHER COUNTRIES’ SOVEREIGNTY, HUMAN RIGHTS

The report said the United States with its strong military power has pursued hegemony in the world, trampling upon the sovereignty of other countries and trespassing their human rights.

As the world’s biggest arms seller, its deals have greatly fueled instability across the world. The United States also expanded its military spending, already the largest in the world, by 10 percent in 2008 to 607 billion U.S. dollars, accounting for 42 percent of the world total, the AP reported.

At the beginning of 2010, the U.S. government announced a 6.4-billion-U.S. dollar arms sales package to Taiwan despite strong protest from the Chinese government and people, which seriously damaged China’s national security interests and aroused strong indignation among the Chinese people, it said.

The wars of Iraq and Afghanistan have placed heavy burden on American people and brought tremendous casualties and property losses to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the report.

Prisoner abuse is one of the biggest human rights scandals of the United States, it said

An investigation by U.S. Justice Department showed 2,000 Taliban surrendered combatants were suffocated to death by the U.S. army-controlled Afghan armed forces, the report said.

The United States has been building its military bases around the world, and cases of violation of local people’s human rights are often seen, the report said.

The United States is now maintaining 900 bases worldwide, with more than 190,000 military personnel and 115,000 relevant staff stationed.

These bases are bringing serious damage and environmental contamination to the localities. Toxic substances caused by bomb explosions are taking their tolls on the local children, it said.

It has been reported that toward the end of the U.S. military bases’ presence in Subic and Clark, as many as 3,000 cases of raping the local women had been filed against the U.S. servicemen, but all were dismissed, according to the report.

Full Text of Human Rights Record of the United States in 2009

Full Text: National Human Rights Action Plan of China (2009-2010)

‘Close the Base’: a new website for solidarity with Okinawa

Close the Base is a new website for U.S. solidarity with the anti-bases struggle in Okinawa.  Here’s an excerpt from their site:

We support the unconditional closure of the U.S. Marine Corps base at Futenma and oppose the construction of other U.S. bases in Okinawa.

The Network for Okinawa (NO) is a grassroots network that draws together representatives from peace groups, environmental organizations, faith-based organizations, academia, and think tanks.

Organizations involved in this effort include:

  • American Conservative Defense Alliance
  • American Friends Service Committee
  • Center for Biological Diversity
  • Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach
  • Fellowship of Reconciliation
  • Greenpeace
  • Institute for Policy Studies
  • Japan Environmental Lawyers Federation
  • Just Foreign Policy
  • Pax Christi USA
  • Peace Action
  • Peace Boat US
  • Peace Philosophy Centre
  • United Methodists
  • Veterans for Peace
  • Women for Genuine Security

Our network supports the democratic decisions of the Okinawan people and opposes the expansion of U.S. military bases on Okinawa.