“Vieques: Military Contamination and Health” to air on CNN

The following message was sent by Comite Pro-Rescate y Desarolle de Vieques (Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques):

Thanks to Javier Cuebas for the information below.

Gracias a Javier S. Cuebas por la información abajo.

Dear Friends:

CNN is running a two part series on Vieques: Military Contamination and Health Monday, February 1 and Tuesday, February 2 during the Campbell Brown show at 8pm/EST.

Please check CNN’s web page to confirm at www.cnn.com. Please forward to your networks.
Also, you may want to read the following recent articles on Vieques:

Advierten de riesgo nuclear en Vieques
http://www.primerahora.com/diario/noticia/otras_panorama/noticias/advierten_de_riesgo__nuclear_en_vieques/361209

Cambios que preocupan en Vieques
http://vocero.com/noticia-39075-cambios_que_preocupan_en_vieques.html

Pide cuentas sobre Vieques
http://www.elnuevodia.com/blog/663734/

For additional information about Vieques you can visit:
www.americanvaluesnetwork.org

Sincerely,

Javier S. Cuebas
jcuebas@ameliacg.com

Hawaii Superferries to the rescue!

The Hawaii Superferry ships are fulfilling their military sea lift destiny in Haiti.  No doubt, this story will be used by proponents of the Superferry to argue for the ships to come back to Hawai’i.

>><<

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=50888

High-Speed Ferry Ships to Support Haiti Relief

Story Number: NNS100127-24

Release Date: 1/27/2010 8:17:00 PM

By Adrian Schulte, Military Sealift Command Public Affairs

NORFLOK, Va. (NNS) — High-speed ferry ships MV Huakai and MV Alakai are preparing to sail to Haiti in support of Operation Unified Response to provide disaster relief following the Jan. 12 earthquake.

Huakai and Alakai were originally built to serve as passenger and vehicle ferries in Hawaii but were turned over to the Maritime Administration’s custody when the ferry service went bankrupt.

The ships will be under operational control of the Military Sealift Command (MSC) during Operation Unified Response.

The ships’ main tasks will be to transfer equipment and personnel in the region. They are configured for the mission to each hold 450 tons of cargo and 500 passengers and can travel at a sustained speed of 33 knots.

Huakai loaded a rapid port opening package, communications gear, fork lifts, trucks, Humvees, supplies and other equipment at Fort Eustis, Va., Jan. 27. Huakai will also carry personnel from the 689th Rapid Port Opening Element, MSC’s Expeditionary Port Unit Detachment and elements from the Army’s 7th Sustainment Brigade. Huakai got underway Jan. 27 and is scheduled to arrive in Haiti Jan. 29.

Alakai is currently in Norfolk, Va., and is scheduled to get underway for Haiti in the next several days.

Huakai and Alakai are two of 12 ships under MSC control mobilized to date in support of humanitarian relief efforts in Haiti. These ships include hospital ship USNS Comfort (T-AH 20), fleet replenishment oiler USNS Big Horn (T-AO 198), rescue and salvage ship USNS Grasp (T-ARS 51), oceanographic survey ship USNS Henson (T-AGS 63), maritime prepositioning ships USNS 1st Lt. Jack Lummus (T-AK 3011) and USNS Pfc. Dewayne T. Williams (T-AK-3009) and dry cargo/ammunition ship USNS Sacagawea (T-AKE 2). In addition, three ships have been activated from the Maritime Administration’s Ready Reserve Force to assist with the effort. When activated, these ships will fall under operational control of MSC.

MSC operates approximately 110 noncombatant, merchant mariner-crewed ships that replenish U.S. Navy ships, conduct specialized missions, strategically preposition combat cargo at sea around the world and move military cargo and supplies used by deployed U.S. forces and coalition partners.

For more news from Military Sealift Command, visit www.navy.mil/local/MSC/.

Pilger: The Kidnapping of Haiti

Bits and pieces of news have begun to emerge about the U.S. militarization of relief efforts in Haiti.   In the article below, John Pilger describes what he calls the “Kidnapping of Haiti”.  France has accused the U.S. of “occupying” Haiti.  Others including Naomi Klein warned of a new disaster capitalism assault on Haiti in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake.  Compare Cuba’s response in Fidel Castro’s op ed at the bottom.   Some groups have organized petition drives to call for “food not troops” for Haiti.

For ordinary Haitians, the sentiment was summed up in an article in the Tehran Times:

“We don’t need military aid. What we need is food and shelter,” one young man yelled at UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon during his visit to the city Sunday. “We are dying,” a woman told him.

>><<

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/02/haiti-pilger-obama-venezuela

The Kidnapping of Haiti

John Pilger

Published 28 January 2010

——–

“With US troops in control of their country, the outlook for the people of Haiti is bleak”

——–

The theft of Haiti has been swift and crude. On 22 January, the United States secured “formal approval” from the United Nations to take over all air and sea ports in Haiti, and to “secure” roads. No Haitian signed the agreement, which has no basis in law. Power rules in a US naval blockade and the arrival of 13,000 marines, special forces, spooks and mercenaries, none with humanitarian relief training.

The airport in the capital, Port-au-Prince, is now a US military base and relief flights have been rerouted to the Dominican Republic. All flights stopped for three hours for the arrival of Hillary Clinton. Critically injured Haitians waited unaided as 800 American residents in Haiti were fed, watered and evacuated. Six days passed before the US air force dropped bottled water to people suffering dehydration.

A very American coup

The first TV reports played a critical role, giving the impression of widespread criminal mayhem. Matt Frei, the BBC reporter despatched from Washington, seemed on the point of hyperventilating as he brayed about the “violence” and need for “security”. In spite of the demonstrable dignity of the earthquake victims, and evidence of citizens’ groups toiling unaided to rescue people, and even a US general’s assessment that the violence in Haiti was considerably less than before the earthquake, Frei claimed that “looting is the only industry” and “the dignity of Haiti’s past is long forgotten”.

Thus, a history of unerring US violence and exploitation in Haiti was consigned to the victims. “There’s no doubt,” reported Frei in the aftermath of America’s bloody invasion of Iraq in 2003, “that the desire to bring good, to bring American values to the rest of the world, and especially now to the Middle East . . . is now increasingly tied up with military power.”

In a sense, he was right. Never before in so-called peacetime have human relations been as militarised by rapacious power. Never before has an American president subordinated his government to the military establishment of his discredited predecessor, as Barack Obama has done. In pursuing George W Bush’s policy of war and domination, Obama has sought from Congress an unprecedented military budget in excess of $700bn. He has become, in effect, the spokesman for a military coup.

For the people of Haiti the implications are clear, if grotesque. With US troops in control of their country, Obama has appointed Bush to the “relief effort”: a parody lifted from Graham Greene’s The Comedians, set in Papa Doc’s Haiti. Bush’s relief effort following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 amounted to an ethnic cleansing of many of New Orleans’s black population. In 2004, he ordered the kidnapping of the democratically elected president of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and exiled him to Africa. The popular Aristide had had the temerity to legislate modest reforms, such as a minimum wage for those who toil in Haiti’s sweatshops.

When I was last in Haiti, I watched very young girls stooped in front of whirring, hissing binding machines at the Superior baseball plant in Port-au-Prince. Many had swollen eyes and lacerated arms. I produced a camera and was thrown out. Haiti is where America makes the equipment for its hallowed national game, for next to nothing. Haiti is where Walt Disney contractors make Mickey Mouse pyjamas, for next to nothing. The US controls Haiti’s sugar, bauxite and sisal. Rice-growing was replaced by imported American rice, driving people into the town and jerry-built housing. Year after year, Haiti was invaded by US marines, infamous for atrocities that have been their speciality from the Philippines to Afghanistan. Bill Clinton is another comedian, having got himself appointed the UN’s man in Haiti. Once fawned upon by the BBC as “Mr Nice Guy . . . bringing democracy back to a sad and troubled land”, Clinton is Haiti’s most notorious privateer, demanding deregulation that benefits the sweatshop barons. Lately, he has been promoting a $55m deal to turn the north of Haiti into an American-annexed “tourist playground”.

Not for tourists is the US building its fifth-biggest embassy. Oil was found in Haiti’s waters decades ago and the US has kept it in reserve until the Middle East begins to run dry. More urgently, an occupied Haiti has a strategic importance in Washington’s “rollback” plans for Latin America. The goal is the overthrow of the popular democracies in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, control of Venezuela’s abundant petroleum reserves, and sabotage of the growing regional co-operation long denied by US-sponsored regimes.

Obama’s next war?

The first rollback success came last year with the coup against the Honduran president Jose Manuel Zelaya, who also dared advocate a minimum wage and that the rich pay tax. Obama’s secret support for the illegal regime in Honduras carries a clear warning to vulnerable governments in central America. Last October, the regime in Colombia, long bankrolled by Washington and supported by death squads, handed the Americans seven military bases to “combat anti-US governments in the region”.

Media propaganda has laid the ground for what may well be Obama’s next war. In December, researchers at the University of the West of England published first findings of a ten-year study of BBC reporting on Venezuela. Of 304 BBC reports, only three mentioned any of the historic reforms of Hugo Chavez’s government, while the majority denigrated his extraordinary democratic record, at one point comparing him to Hitler.

Such distortion and servitude to western power are rife across the Anglo-American media. People who struggle for a better life, or for life itself, from Venezuela to Honduras to Haiti, deserve our support.

+++

http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/5474-castro-on-haitiqsend-doctors-not-troopsq.html

WE SEND DOCTORS, NOT SOLDIERS

by Fidel Castro l HAVANA TIMES

In my Reflection of January 14, two days after the catastrophe in Haiti,  which destroyed that neighboring sister nation, I wrote:  “In the area of healthcare and others the Haitian people has received the cooperation of Cuba, even though this is a small and blockaded country.

Cuban doctors on the ground in Port-au-Prince
Approximately 400 doctors and healthcare workers are helping the Haitian people free of charge. Our doctors are working every day at 227 of the 237 communes of that country. On the other hand, no less than 400 young Haitians have been graduated as medical doctors in our country.

They will now work alongside the reinforcement that traveled there yesterday to save lives in that critical situation. Thus, up to one thousand doctors and healthcare personnel can be mobilized without any special effort; and most are already there willing to cooperate with any other State that wishes to save Haitian lives and rehabilitate the injured.”

“The head of our medical brigade has informed that ‘the situation is difficult but we are already saving lives.’”

Hour after hour, day and night, the Cuban health professionals have started to work nonstop in the few facilities that were able to stand, in tents, and out in the parks or open-air spaces, since the population feared new aftershocks.

The situation was far more serious than was originally thought.  Tens of thousands of injured were clamoring for help in the streets of Port-au-Prince; innumerable persons laid, dead or alive, under the rubbled clay or adobe used in the construction of the houses where the overwhelming majority of the population lived.

Buildings, even the most solid, collapsed.  Besides, it was necessary to look for the Haitian doctors who had graduated at the Latin American Medicine School throughout all the destroyed neighborhoods.  Many of them were affected, either directly or indirectly, by the tragedy.

Some UN officials were trapped in their dormitories and tens of lives were lost, including the lives of several chiefs of MINUSTAH, a UN contingent.  The fate of hundreds of other members of its staff was unknown.

Haiti’s Presidential Palace crumbled.  Many public facilities, including several hospitals, were left in ruins.

The catastrophe shocked the whole world, which was able to see what was going on through the images aired by the main international TV networks.  Governments from everywhere in the planet announced they would be sending rescue experts, food, medicines, equipment and other resources.

In conformity with the position publicly announced by Cuba, medical staff from different countries –namely Spain, Mexico, and Colombia, among others- worked very hard alongside our doctors at the facilities they had improvised.  Organizations such as PAHO and other friendly countries like Venezuela and other nations supplied medicines and other resources.  The impeccable behavior of Cuban professionals and their leaders was absolutely void of chauvinism and remained out of the limelight.

Cuba, just as it had done under similar circumstances, when Hurricane Katrina caused huge devastation in the city of New Orleans and the lives of thousands of American citizens were in danger, offered to send a full medical brigade to cooperate with the people of the United States, a country that, as is well known, has vast resources.  But at that moment what was needed were trained and well- equipped doctors to save lives.

Given New Orleans geographical location, more than one thousand doctors of the “Henry Reeve” contingent mobilized and readied to leave for that city at any time of the day or the night, carrying with them the necessary medicines and equipment.  It never crossed our mind that the President of that nation would reject the offer and let a number of Americans that could have been saved to die.  The mistake made by that government was perhaps the inability to understand that the people of Cuba do not see in the American people an enemy; it does not blame it for the aggressions our homeland has suffered.

Nor was that government capable of understanding that our country does not need to beg for favors or forgiveness of those who, for half a century now, have been trying, to no avail, to bring us to our knees.

Our country, also in the case of Haiti, immediately responded to the   US authorities requests to fly over the eastern part of Cuba as well as other facilities they needed to deliver assistance, as quickly as possible, to the American and Haitian citizens who had been affected by the earthquake.

Such have been the principles characterizing the ethical behavior of our people.  Together with its equanimity and firmness, these have been the ever-present features of our foreign policy.  And this is known only too well by whoever have been our adversaries in the international arena.

Cuba will firmly stand by the opinion that the tragedy that has taken place in Haiti, the poorest nation in the western hemisphere, is a challenge to the richest and more powerful countries of the world.

Haiti is a net product of the colonial, capitalist and imperialist system imposed on the world.  Haiti’s slavery and subsequent poverty were imposed from abroad.  That terrible earthquake occurred after the Copenhagen Summit, where the most elemental rights of 192 UN member States were trampled upon.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, a competition has unleashed in Haiti to hastily and illegally adopt boys and girls.  UNICEF has been forced to adopt preventive measures against the uprooting of many children, which will deprive their close relatives from their rights.

There are more than one hundred thousand deadly victims.  A high number of citizens have lost their arms or legs, or have suffered fractures requiring rehabilitation that would enable them to work or manage their own.

Eighty per cent of the country needs to be rebuilt.  Haiti requires an economy that is developed enough to meet its needs according to its productive capacity.  The reconstruction of Europe or Japan, which was based on the productive capacity and the technical level of the population, was a relatively simple task as compared to the effort that needs to be made in Haiti.  There, as well as in most of Africa and elsewhere in the Third World, it is indispensable to create the conditions for a sustainable development.  In only forty years time, humanity will be made of more than nine billion inhabitants, and right now is faced with the challenge of a climate change that scientists accept as an inescapable reality.

In the midst of the Haitian tragedy, without anybody knowing how and why, thousands of US marines, 82nd Airborne Division troops and other military forces have occupied Haiti.  Worse still is the fact that neither the United Nations Organization nor the US government have offered an explanation to the world’s public opinion about this relocation of troops.

Several governments have complained that their aircraft have not been allowed to land in order to deliver the human and technical resources that have been sent to Haiti.

Some countries, for their part, have announced they would be sending an additional number of troops and military equipment.  In my view, such events will complicate and create chaos in international cooperation, which is already in itself complex.  It is necessary to seriously discuss this issue.  The UN should be entrusted with the leading role it deserves in these so delicate matters.

Our country is accomplishing a strictly humanitarian mission.  To the extent of its possibilities, it will contribute the human and material resources at its disposal.  The will of our people, who takes pride in   its medical doctors and cooperation workers who provide vital services, is huge, and will rise to the occasion.

Any significant cooperation that is offered to our country will not be rejected, but its acceptance will fully depend on the importance and transcendence of the assistance that is requested from the human resources of our homeland.

It is only fair to state that, up until this moment, our modest aircrafts and the important human resources that Cuba has made available to the Haitian people have arrived at their destination without any difficulty whatsoever.

We send doctors, not soldiers!

Oppose U.S. military bases in Colombia

The Mingas network is a solidarity network working for peace, justice and democracy in Colombia.  It issued the following call to support a statement against the recent U.S.-Colombia agreement to establish multiple military bases in Colombia. They are seeking only organizational endorsers at this time.   Go to this link to sign the letter: http://www.formspring.com/forms/noUSbases-Obama . Please support by February 1, 2010.

>><<

The Mingas network call for support:

Dear friends:

We of the Mingas network are deeply concerned about the recently signed military agreement between the governments of Colombia and the United States. Under its terms, the U.S. is permitted to upgrade, expand and use seven Colombian military bases for the purpose of increasing the operational capabilities of U.S. armed forces throughout South America.

We believe the agreement will further exacerbate tensions across the entire region and aggravate armed conflict within Colombia.

The Mingas network opposes war and the exercise of violence as an instrument of political action. We believe that today the path of social transformation is democratic and peaceful mass struggle. We repudiate all forms of terror and State terrorism, including targeted killings, kidnapping, extortion, and armed attacks on the civilian population; none of these are legitimate expressions of the struggle of the people, and thus we condemn all such acts.

We call on faith communities, solidarity groups, students, academics, and other organizations in agreement with the above basic principles of nonviolence to come together in alliance to reject the U.S.-Colombia military base agreement — and we invite you to take action immediately.

Join us in signing the letter posted at: http://www.formspring.com/forms/noUSbases-Obama .

You can sign by filling out the online form at the foot of the letter.

Note that the current letter is a sign-on for organizations only.

Signatures must be received by February 1, 2010. After collecting signatures, we will send the letter to President Obama and other key government officials.

Thank you for your support.

Cordially,

The Mingas network

http://mingas.info

The sign on letter says:

President Barack H. Obama

Dear Mr. President:

On October 30, 2009, the government of Colombian president Álvaro Uribe signed a military agreement that ceded the sovereignty of Colombia’s land, sea, and air to the United States, under the pretext of a war on drugs that has been a resounding failure.

The Colombian government pledged to allow U.S. soldiers and contractors to use seven specified military bases as well as any others that “may be necessary to carry out joint operations,” thus heightening internal and external tensions in the region. Such a pact strongly contravenes the development of a new kind of relationship between the United States and Latin America. In fact, we ask you to annul the agreement because of the threats it poses to peace, regional stability, and Colombia’s sovereignty.

The signatories of this letter repudiate terror and terrorism in all forms, assassinations, kidnappings, and the exercise of violence as an instrument of political action. These acts of violence which have plagued Colombia are not legitimate expressions of popular struggle and impede citizens’ and organizations’ efforts to build a just society. As supporters of democratic processes in Colombia, we feel certain that a further entrenched presence of the U.S. military in Colombia will only intensify the internal armed conflict, interfere with efforts to find a peaceful solution to that conflict, and weaken rather than strengthen Colombian democracy.

President Obama, at the Summit of the Americas in April 2009 you promised to foster a “new sense of partnership” between the United States and the rest of the Western Hemisphere. But your administration has yet to address the grave concerns expressed by national leaders throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean regarding the U.S.-Colombia military base agreement.

With this agreement, Colombia may have allowed itself to become not just a training ground for U.S. troops but a platform to stage regional military operations. Many thoughtful Colombians fear that their territory will be used to threaten other nations and interfere in democratic processes in the hemisphere. Despite subsequent whitewashing, an Air Force document submitted to Congress in mid-2009 (the Military Construction Program, FY 2010 Budget Estimates, Justification Data Submitted to Congress, May 2009, pp. 215–17) confirmed that the originally envisioned purpose of the bases went far beyond narcotics control. The bases would provide “a unique opportunity for full spectrum operations in a critical sub region of our hemisphere” where “stability” is “under constant threat” by factors such as “anti-US governments” and “endemic poverty.” The document explicitly contradicts the avowal that U.S. use of the bases would be limited to narcotics control operations.

Further, the agreement grants immunity to U.S. military personnel, contractors, their family members, and other dependents, so that the Colombian justice system will be prevented from bringing them to trial and convicting them for any crime they may commit in its territory. Around the world, such immunity has been shown to correlate with an unconscionable level of sexual crimes against women and other abuses.

Clearly, then, peace and stability in Colombia and the hemisphere, a new direction for U.S.–Latin American relations, and respect for the national sovereignty of Colombia are ill served by this military bases agreement. We urge you to withdraw it altogether.

Very cordially yours,

US military build-up on Guam worries islanders

Over the last several weeks there has been a growing wave of opposition to the military expansion on Guam and the Northern Marianas, led mostly by youth.  It has been very encouraging to see them find their voice to speak out clearly, powerfully, and intelligently against the genocidal militarization planned for their island while navigating the complexities of a culture that reveres its elders, many of whom remember the Japanese atrocities of World War II and view the Amercans as liberators.

After posting news of the recent hearings on this website, I received a call from a woman in Portland, Oregon. She said she was Refaluwasch (Carolinian) from Sa’ipan and that she was opposed to the military buildup.  She said that everyone she called told her she needed to submit her comments on the EIS.  She told me “I don’t want to comment on the EIS!  I want to stop it! No one can tell me how to stop the EIS.”

It turns out that she had been calling government and military offices that are sponsoring the build up.   I directed her to other  grassroots groups that felt the same way she did,  explained how the environmental review process worked, and suggested some things that she and her 100 relatives living in the Portland area could do to support from where they were in the U.S.

This was another hopeful sign that the growing consciousness and resistance was beginning to spread to the heart of America, where the powers behind the military expansion must be confronted.

>><<

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jTZy36jNodIABBrEQifW9oBdt3bg

US military build-up on Guam worries islanders

By Mar-Vic Cagurangan (AFP) – Jan 21, 2010

HAGATNA — Residents of the US territory of Guam fear the planned influx of thousands of American troops and their families will leave their Pacific island home swamped.

Around 19,000 personnel and their families are set to relocate to Guam from southern Japan in a move that will treble the US military presence on the island.

But despite proclaimed economic benefits, not all of the 178,000-strong population is looking forward to the troops’ arrival.

“This proposed military build-up, with our current political status, will result in the cultural and racial genocide of the Chamorro people,” said Frank J. Schacher, chairman of the Chamorro Tribe Inc., a group representing the island’s indigenous people, who make up a third of the population.

“It is our island, our ancestral remains, our sacred artifacts, our waters, our culture, and our right to exist as a race that would be destroyed by these intended actions.”

It is a long time since the Chamorro have been masters of their own destiny: Spain controlled the island for more than two hundred years until the late 19th century, when it was taken over by the United States, and it was occupied by Japan during World War II.

In 2006, Washington and Tokyo agreed to shift thousands of marines from Okinawa after complaints that, with half of the country’s 47,000 US military personnel, the island was over burdened.

Guam’s US Congress delegate, Madeleine Bordallo, hailed the plan as a great opportunity for the territory. The local government and the business community have also welcomed an expected economic boom fuelled by the build-up.

“We acknowledge the unprecedented growth that lies ahead,” Guam Governor Felix P. Camacho said recently.

“Our future, however, will test our resolve and we will be called upon to display our commitment to doing what is good and right for our people.”

An 11,000-page US Defense Department draft environmental impact statement said the military expansion would strain the island’s limited infrastructure, healthcare, and ecology.

The study says the relocation, costing up to 15 billion dollars, would bring 8,600 marines, 630 army personnel, and about 10,000 dependents to Guam.

More than 33,000 foreign workers would also be needed to build wharves, aircraft carrier berths, roads, military barracks, and homes.

The Guam Chamber of Commerce, an early supporter of the relocation, said it was not oblivious to growing scepticism within the community.

“We’re the voice of the businesses, but our members all live in Guam too. So we’re looking out for the best interests of our businesses and the community at large and so we’re looking at everything,” Chamber president David Leddy said.

“There are positive and negative impacts. We just have to weigh the positive and negative and see what’s good for the people.”

About a third of Guam’s 549 square kilometres (212 square miles) is already owned by the US government, mainly for military use, and it wants to buy another 2,200 acres (890 hectares) as part of the troop transfer.

“Lands that our ancestors fought for are passed down from one generation to the next until they are indiscriminately taken away for purposes other than sustaining and nourishing the family clan,” said Gloria B. Nelson, whose property is being eyed by the Department of Defense.

Melvin Won Pat, one of the founders of a new activist group opposed to the build-up, said it was false to suggest the move was supported by the wider community.

“I think a lot of our people have been misled into believing the general population is in full support of this move,” he said.

The Department of Defense’s Joint Guam Project Office, which is in charge of the relocation, has held a series of public meetings to discuss the draft report, but some locals remain sceptical.

“I refuse to dignify this whole charade,” resident Filamore Alcon Palomo said.

“Attending public hearings would just be a waste of time because I know — everybody knows — this is a done deal. The military won’t listen to us. They will do what they want to do.”

Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.

Peace Action Network launches Okinawa solidarity events in Tokyo and Kyoto

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

http://tenthousandthingsfromkyoto.blogspot.com/2010/01/actions-scheduled-this-weekend-in-tokyo.html

US for Okinawa – Peace Action Network launches this weekend in Tokyo and Kyoto

Members of grassroots peace groups and other concerned individuals have gathered to form the “US for OKINAWA peace action network”.

Closely affiliated with the Peace Boat NGO and also including members from the Peace Not War Japan collective, the network’s primary aim is to voice the opposition of foreigners living in Japan to the presence and plans for expansion of U.S. military bases in Okinawa (and beyond):

us okinawabanners

New Network Formed to Protect Okinawa, Japan from Foreign Military Bases

US for OKINAWA is a new peace action network based in Tokyo that was recently formed by U.S., Japanese, Canadian, New Zealand, Australian, Welsh, Mexican and other citizens living in Japan who are concerned about Okinawa. A deliberate double entendre, US may be read both as “us” (you, me, everyone), as well as U.S. (reflecting the proactive stance of Americans in Japan who support a base-free Okinawa).

US for OKINAWA was organized out of shared concern regarding the danger that the U.S. Futenma Air Base poses to the people of Okinawa, as well as the pressure exerted by the U.S. on the new Japanese administration to construct a replacement facility for the base in Henoko, an environmentally fragile area on the eastern part of the island. If carried out, this construction would likely spell the extinction of the endangered dugong (cousin to the Florida manatee) and simply shift the problems of contamination, air pollution, safety hazards and crime associated with Futenma to another part of Okinawa.

US for OKINAWA is committed to forming liaisons with Okinawan and Japanese peace groups, whom we join in strong opposition to these bases for the hardships they impose upon Okinawan residents and for the environmental damage they cause . Okinawa makes up only .6% of Japan’s territory but “hosts” 75% of all US military bases in the country under treaties that were negotiated by Tokyo and Washington, without input from the Okinawan people.

The island already shoulders a disproportionate military burden, and US for OKINAWA applauds Prime Minister Hatoyama for having the integrity to call for a halt to new base construction in Henoko. The Obama administration’s demand that Prime Minister Hatoyama submit to its wishes or risk jeapordizing US-Japan relations is aggressive action that shows complete disregard for the right to peace and self-determination of the Okinawan people, and is extremely unbecoming of a Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

US for OKINAWA strongly believes that continued friendly relations between Japan and the U.S. should not depend on the construction of yet another base in Okinawa, and calls upon President Obama to return Futenma to the Okinawan people, and to desist from pushing for further unwanted military expansion.

Information on the network’s latest initiatives will also be posted on its blog here.

The network is planning a series of actions to raise support and awareness for its cause. This coming weekend, its very first events will be held in Tokyo (Sunday, January 31st) and Kyoto (Saturday, January 30th). Information is as follows:

US-for-Okinawa-jan31st-ARTISTs

Tokyo:

Come out to participate in a creative, art-themed event to raise awareness and gather support for a base-free Okinawa. Together, we will create collaborative art projects (painting, digital art, collage, photos, recycled artwork and more) featuring our message. Everyone is welcome…Please wear blue or green clothing to show your support for a peaceful Okinawa. No Futenma, No Henoko!!

Date: Sunday, January 31st)

Time: 13:00 – 15:00 (Meet at 13:00; action will start at 14:00)

Place: Yoyogi Park (near the fountain).

Directions from JR Harajuku Station (JR Yamanote Line):

From Harajuku Station, go right out of the Omotesando Exit. Turn right and walk over the bridge to the right. Cross the street and turn left. The park will be on the right. It’s about a 5 minute walk. Access is also available from the Tokyo Metro Chiyoda Line (Meiji-Jingumae station) or the Tokyo Metro Fukutoshin Line.

Contact:

Emilie McGlone (emilie@peaceboat.gr.jp) or Rose Welsch (rose@peaceboat.gr.jp)

Kyoto+Action+Demo

Kyoto:

Kyoto Action for Okinawa

Date: Saturday, January 30, 2010

Time: 17:00-18:30

Place: Arcade at Kawaramachi and Sanjo Street

Kyoto Action is a group of people living in Kyoto campaigning to close down Futenma Air Force Base and stop the construction of a new U.S. military base at Heneko in Okinawa. The group meets every Saturday, same place, same time, to show their opposition to U.S. military base constructions in Okinawa. On January 30th, in solidarity, Kyoto Action will also be distributing information about the US for Okinawa “Peace Action Network.”

Contact: Jen Teeter (teeter42@gmail.com)

Further information also available here in Japanese and in English.

– Posted by Kim Hughes and Jen Teeter

CINCPAC doing spin control on Nago mayoral election

In this article from the AP published in the Marine Times, Admiral Willard, the new Commander of the Pacific Command tries to downplay the significance of the Nago mayoral elections, where an anti-base candidate won over the pro-base incumbent.

>><<

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/01/ap_marine_futenma_pacific_command_012610/

PaCom boss: Vote not setback to moving Futenma

Audrey McAvoy – The Associated Press

Posted : Tuesday Jan 26, 2010 21:03:24 EST

CAMP H.M. SMITH, Hawaii — The election of a mayor who opposes moving a U.S. air field to his Japanese town isn’t a setback to efforts to fulfill a 2006 bilateral agreement to relocate the base, the top U.S. military commander in the Pacific said Tuesday.

On Sunday, voters in the town of Nago on Okinawa elected base opponent Susumu Inamine as mayor over incumbent Yoshikazu Shimabukuro. Inamine had campaigned against any expansion of U.S. military presence in the area and won with 52.3 percent of the vote.

Adm. Robert F. Willard said he believes more issues than just the Marine air field contributed to the mayor’s election.

“There’s probably a broader set of questions and a broader analysis that is appropriate to determine who won the election and why,” Willard said. “I don’t think it should be regarded as a setback.”

Still, Willard said the U.S. has “a good amount of work to do” to explain the importance of the U.S.-Japan alliance to the Japanese people.

“We bear a responsibility to share that message with them and to encourage the Japanese government, as well as to share with their people the importance of the alliance — why it exists and what benefits all of Asia derives from it,” Willard said.

Washington and Tokyo agreed in 2006 to reorganize U.S. troops in Japan, including moving 8,000 Marines to the U.S. territory of Guam, as a way to lighten the burden on Okinawa.

Part of that plan involves relocating Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to the northern part of the island where it is less congested.

The newly elected government of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has vowed to re-examine the decision to move Futenma to Nago. Some of Hatoyama’s Cabinet members said they want the base moved off Japanese territory entirely, a sentiment shared by many residents there.

His foreign minister this month pledged that Tokyo would determine the future of Futenma by May in a way that would have “minimal impact on the U.S.-Japan alliance.”

Under a security pact signed in 1960, U.S. armed forces are allowed broad use of Japanese land and facilities. In return, the U.S. is obliged to respond to attacks on Japan and protect the country under its nuclear umbrella.

Willard showed some patience for the new Japanese administration as it works out a solution for the base, saying it was “pretty natural” to have the new government “come in with a questioning attitude” and challenge assumptions.

“There’s no question there’s a new administration in Japan, and that the United States is getting acquainted with that new administration and so am I,” Willard said.

The admiral said the military-to-military relationship between the two nations was as strong as it’s ever been.

Shortly after speaking to reporters, Willard joined a videoconference with Japanese military leaders to discuss a bilateral exercise called “Keen Edge ‘10” involving hundreds of U.S. and Japanese personnel in the two countries.

The six-day exercise, which ends Wednesday, is designed to increase combat readiness and the interoperability of the two militaries.

Okinawa Upset

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575024411326468010.html

OPINION ASIA

JANUARY 26, 2010

Okinawa Upset

Sunday’s election deals a blow to U.S.-Japan relations, but the damage isn’t fatal.

By TOBIAS HARRIS

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the U.S.-Japan alliance, but an election in the tiny city of Nago, Okinawa (population 59,742) may have unsettled the relationship. Nago is home to Camp Schwab, a Marine camp that is scheduled to be the site of a new American air base under the terms of a military realignment program agreed on by Japan and the United States in 2006. On Sunday, Nago elected a new mayor, Susumu Inamine, who opposes that plan. His victory has been interpreted as a victory for opponents of the 2006 agreement.

The biggest loser may have been the Hatoyama government, which campaigned last year on a promise to revisit the agreement but is now realizing the difficulty of finding an alternative. With Mr. Inamine’s victory, the government will find it harder to retreat from its opposition to the 2006 roadmap, particularly given its sagging popularity and the corruption scandal surrounding Ichiro Ozawa, secretary general of the Democratic Party of Japan.

By the same token, Washington also lost Sunday. Some analysts have cautioned the Obama administration not to push the Hatoyama government too hard on Futenma, arguing that doing so could cause considerable harm to the alliance even if the U.S. were to get its way on the realignment of U.S. forces. With the election of Mr. Inamine the risks from pressuring the Hatoyama government have grown, not only because Washington will appear to be strong-arming a democratically chosen national government, but also because it would be pressuring that government to ignore a vote in a municipality directly affected by realignment.

Mr. Hatoyama has said that his government will make a decision on the 2006 agreement in May. In the meantime, the Obama administration must give serious thought to whether the 2006 agreement is worth poisoning the U.S.-Japan relationship. As it stands, Washington will either have to enlist the Hatoyama government as an ally in imposing the agreement on Nago—which seems like an unlikely partnership—or it will have to pressure both the Hatoyama government and the people of Nago to accept an agreement that neither desire.

The U.S. must bear considerable blame for insisting so strongly on an agreement that no Japanese government could sell to the Okinawan people for environmental, moral and historical reasons. While Washington would prefer to debate Futenma simply on the basis of strategic considerations, the reality is that for the people most affected by the 2006 roadmap, realignment is anything but a strategic question. The Okinawan people have been asked for too long to bear too great a burden—which includes the social and environmental costs of hosting more than half the U.S. forces in Japan—for them to accept the roadmap quietly, whatever its merits.

The election, moreover, is another reminder of the tension between the U.S.-Japan alliance and the development of Japanese democracy—or indeed democracy in any longtime U.S. ally, as the U.S. found when South Korea transitioned from one-party rule. The DPJ’s victory in August, as the first unambiguous power transition from one ruling party to another in the postwar period, marked the first opportunity for the Japanese public to reconsider Japan’s alliance with the U.S. While the DPJ is not opposed to the alliance—both the prime minister and Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada have stated their support repeatedly—the DPJ is opposed to how the alliance was handled by the Liberal Democratic Party. The DPJ alleges that the LDP ran the alliance behind closed doors and put the interests of the U.S. before those of the Japanese people, amounting to an unequal partnership between the two countries. Both the secret agreements on nuclear weapons under investigation by the Japanese foreign ministry and the 2006 roadmap are part of the DPJ’s case against the U.S.-LDP alliance. And the vote in Nago is the latest sign that Japanese voters—at least in a city where the alliance is a local issue—buy the DPJ’s argument that the relationship needs to be changed, at least as it pertains to them.

There is a silver lining here. Insofar as the Nago election makes the rejection of the 2006 roadmap more likely, this presents an opportunity for both Washington and Tokyo to step back and reconsider how the alliance should function and how it should be sold to the Japanese people in Japan’s new democracy. The age when the alliance could be managed by bureaucrats and experts from both countries has passed.

The discussion now needs to include more voices from across Japan’s political spectrum, from local governments as well as the elite ministries. It should be a two-way discussion, of course: the localities must learn to think in terms of national interests even as the U.S. government has learned to be more sensitive to local concerns. But the U.S. government needs to think harder about how to build support for the alliance, and not only in communities asked to host American forces. It must be able to explain plainly to Japanese citizens why they are there in the first place.

Ultimately the U.S. needs to worry less about the 2006 agreement, and more about building a sustainable foundation for the U.S.-Japan alliance by moving beyond the one-party regime that had been so amenable to U.S. interests for so long.

Mr. Harris, a former aide to a DPJ lawmaker, is a doctoral student in political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Appeal from No Dal Molin movement

This was sent by the No Dal Molin movement from Enzo Ciscato <enzo@ciscatoitaly.com>:

APPEAL: Let’s defend our HISTORY

To the associations, to the movements, to everyone

who, in these years, have put effort and struggle to preserve the landscape, the history and the cultural traditions of our territory

we are asking

for an extraordinary mobilitation to protect the archaeological findinds in the Dal Molin area.

The excavations for the construction of the US military base are actually progressing at full speed and in addition to the destruction of one of the last oasis of green and trees of the city and putting under serious risks our groundwater resources, are now endangering even the finding and the salvage of a new archaeological site on the origin of our “veneto” heritage.

The artefacts and the findings so far discovered give shape to the existence of a palaeo-veneto village dating back to a period (8000 years b.C.) preceeding of several centuries the one considered as the original first site in Vicenza area.

The risk that all this invaluable heritage will end up buried and destroyed forever under the foundation of a US military outlet is very high !

We are simply asking for the formal inspection of the value and consistence of such findings, through the channel and procedure which normally applay to the Italian archaeological sites: that is to stop the works and the intervention of the “Sovraintendenza dei beni Architettonici del Veneto”.

We are asking

to do this with transparency, making the results of the inspection available to the citizens

We think

that this is a necessary procedure, but we think that without a mobilization of the city even this request will be ignored, as happened before for the denied referendum for the construction of the Dal Molin site and the demand for the investigation on the environmental impact of the new base.

Vicenza can not forget that in the 70s Querini park, the most beautiful park in town, was saved from cement thanks to the mobilization of the citizens, of the associations and the movements.

For the Dal Molin matter Vicenza can not accept to compromise its future, insult its present and destroy its past to do a favour to a foreign power.

That’s the reason why we invite everybody, citizens, associations and movements who care for the city and its artistic and environmental heritage, to gather in this fundamental and binding demand for truth.

Presidio NoDalMolin, Vicenza, Italy

New Okinawa mayor opposes U.S. base

Nago mayor-elect Inamine opposes the relocation of the U.S. military base from Ginowan to Henoko/Oura.  This adds momentum to the movement to remove the bases from Okinawa.

But the relocation of the troops and bases to Guam or Hawai’i are not acceptable options either.  The U.S. bases are an oppressive and harmful presence in each of these islands.   It’s time the U.S. stop using our islands as platforms for American power projection.

>><<

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/world/asia/25okinawa.html?hp

Mayor-Elect in Okinawan City Opposes U.S. Base

By MARTIN FACKLER

Published: January 24, 2010

TOKYO — A candidate who opposes the relocation of an American air base on Okinawa won a crucial mayoral election on Sunday, raising pressure on Japan’s prime minister to move the base off the island, a move opposed by the United States.

The election in the small city of Nago could force Japan to scrap, or at least significantly modify, a 2006 deal with the United States to build a replacement facility in the city for the busy Futenma United States Marine air station. The base is currently in a crowded part of the southern Japanese island.

The fate of that deal has already become the focus of a growing diplomatic rift between the United States and Japan, its closest Asian ally. The Obama administration has been pushing Japan to honor the deal, but the new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, has said he will take until May to decide whether to support it or name a new site for the base.

Political experts have said losing Nago as a site for the base would complicate Mr. Hatoyama’s decision, because few other Japanese communities appear willing to host the base and its noisy helicopters.

This means that Mr. Hatoyama could try to merge the Marine base with a nearby United States Air Force base, or move it to Guam; both are options that the Obama administration has resisted.

Before his Democratic Party’s historic victory in national elections last summer, Mr. Hatoyama campaigned on promises to move the base off Okinawa or out of Japan altogether. In doing so, he was tapping deep misgivings in Japan about the 2006 agreement, which was signed by Mr. Hatoyama’s predecessors, the Liberal Democrats.

Many Japanese say the move to Nago would cause excessive environmental damage and impose an unfair burden on Okinawa, where almost half of the 50,000 United States military personnel in Japan are located.

In deciding whether to support the 2006 deal, Mr. Hatoyama has said he will heed the voice of Okinawa, which overwhelmingly supported his party in the election, which ended a half century of government by the Liberal Democrats. That made Sunday’s vote in Nago, a city of 60,000 in the island’s underdeveloped north, widely watched here as an important litmus test of Okinawan public opinion ahead of Mr. Hatoyama’s self-imposed deadline.

On Sunday, Susumu Inamine, the city’s school board chairman and an opponent of the base, defeated the incumbent mayor, Yoshikazu Shimabukuro, who supports it as a source of jobs and investment. Mr. Inamine, 64, won 52 percent of the vote, according to the Kyodo News Service.

The plans for the base, which had also been supported by two previous mayors of Nago, call for building two runways partly on landfill that extends into the coral-filled waters near Henoko, a tiny fishing village administered by Nago.