Coast Guard analysis of Superferry protest response

Mahalo to Brad Parsons for sharing this article containing the Coast Guard’s analysis of their “unified command” to suppress Hawaii Superferry protests in Nawiliwili harbor.

>><<

http://cgmarinesafety.blogspot.com/2009/12/hawaii-superferryinformation-sharing.html

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

The Hawaii Superferry—information sharing leads to operational success

Posted by USCG Proceedings of the MSSC

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine. By CAPT Vince Atkins, former commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu, and ENS Meghan Hough, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu.

Hawaii Superferry (HSF) came to Hawaii to start a high-speed ferry service between the Hawaiian islands of Oahu, Maui, and Kauai. The Superferry vessel, the Alakai, is a 350-foot high-speed catamaran designed to carry 866 passengers and 282 vehicles.

A Hostile Operating Environment
Citizens and environmental groups opposed to this new service voiced several concerns, citing Alakai’s lack of an environmental impact study, the possibility of increased traffic congestion, and the potential for introducing invasive species and harming marine life.

Alakai’s initial operations were greeted by an estimated 300 protestors in Kauai, endangering public safety at sea and ashore. USCG Station Kauai’s small boat is shown removing protesters on surfboards from the path of the Alakai into Nawiliwili Harbor, Kauai. The crowd forced the HSF facility to close its gates due to security concerns and, due to continuing public unrest, HSF decided to temporarily halt its Kauai operations altogether.

As the courts wrestled with the legalities of the situation, law enforcement agencies had to prepare for the ferry’s possible return to full service and the subsequent widespread civil disturbances it could cause ashore and in the harbors.

Unique Challenges
Federal, state, and local authorities faced the challenge of balancing seemingly contradictory objectives: upholding the law, ensuring public safety, ensuring the safe arrival and departure of the ferry in multiple ports and jurisdictions, and protecting and promoting constitutional freedoms. Information sharing was critical for successful operations, and for them to be viewed with the broadest scope—not just as an exchange among government agencies, but with the public at large.

Achieving Interagency Alignment
The Coast Guard; its port partners; and various county, state, and federal government officials routinely worked together on a number of committees, at exercises, and during other operational incidents to understand and align the various legal authorities and jurisdictional concerns.

The mechanism that provided for information sharing and interagency alignment was a unified command structure consistent with the National Incident Management System. The Incident Command System (ICS) provides an organizational structure and process wherein agencies with differing authorities, competencies, and equities may come together to work toward a common goal. The operational challenges, varying agency concerns, and differing agency capabilities were laid bare and discussed thoroughly during the frequent meetings of the unified command.

Execution of the Operation
The unified command worked together to develop a plan that recognized differing authorities and competencies. The two operations/groups (onshore and waterborne security operations) created an overall plan designed to reduce the number of on-water protesters, provided a pre-designated protest zone, and developed coordinated methods to deal with illegal and unsafe protests. The coordinated plan also required a temporary fixed security zone to ensure the safety of the vessel and its passengers.

Operational Success
The implementation of the new security/protest zone required extensive public affairs efforts to ensure the affected maritime stakeholders and ocean recreation community understood the scope of the security regulations. To increase compliance, the unified command formed a joint public information staff to meet with the public to outline security zone boundaries and explain the legal consequences of violating the zone. Public outreach proved successful in deterring a large number of protesters from illegally entering the on-water security zone.

It’s important to note that the intended result of this information sharing process and interagency collaboration was not to change the protestors’ opinions regarding the ferry operation.

In this instance, information sharing achieved its intended goals: allowing the Alakai to transit in and out of Maui without incident, allowing protestors to voice their dissent, and helping agencies to make the best use of unique authorities and competencies.

The complexities of maritime operations are often compounded by factors such as the variability of the sea itself, differing and sometimes overlapping legal authorities, and the presence of a wide range of concerned agencies with varying competencies and capabilities. Information sharing reduces operational complexity and sets the stage for success.

For more information:
Full article and “Focus on Safety” edition of USCG Proceedings is available at www.uscg.mil/proceedings. Click on “archives” and then “2008 Vol. 65, Number 2” (Summer 2008).

Or download article here.

Support Plowshares activists who broke into nuclear missile base

Five Plowshares activists broke into the Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor to symbolically disarm nuclear weapons stored there.   I admire the loving courage of the Plowshares activists.  Unlike consumer Christians who try to buy their salvation with trendy merchandise like the “WWJD” (What Would Jesus Do?) products, the Plowshares activists are for real. They truly ask “What Would Jesus Do?” in the face of  war, nuclear annihilation, poverty and suffering, and then they do it.   These Christian peace activists know that the historical Jesus was an activist, a radical who challenged the Roman Empire through nonviolent resistance, just as they confront the American Empire through their acts of nonviolent civil resistance.  I use the term “civil resistance” advisedly, as distinct from “civil disobedience”. Whereas “civil disobedience” means refusing to obey unjust laws, “civil resistance” refers to acts of resistance in the defense of laws. In this case the activists are upholding the international legal opinion that nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are illegal under international human rights law.    Such civil resistance affirmative defenses by anti-nuclear activists were actually upheld by courts in Scotland.   The five Plowshares peacemakers are facing trial for the action.   Check out the website for more information and ways to be in solidarity: http://disarmnowplowshares.wordpress.com/

>><<

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/nov/03/five-arrested-breaking-navy-base/#ixzz0YsiTnod5

Five Arrested for Breaking Into Navy Base

By Ed Friedrich

Posted November 3, 2009 at 10:55 p.m.

P1000251_t607

Photo courtesy of the “Disarm Now Trident Plowshares Action”.  Photo taken several days ago of the protesters who were arrested Monday for breaking into Naval Base Kitsap at Bangor. From left are Susan Crane, 65, of Baltimore MD;Lynne Greenwald, 60, of Bremerton; Anne Montgomery, 83, of New York; Steve Kelly, 60, of Oakland, Calif.; Bill “Bix” Bischel, 81, of Tacoma.

BANGOR — Five protestors associated with an international peace movement were arrested Monday after cutting through three security fences to reach an area where nuclear missiles are stored at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor.

Cited on suspicion of trespassing and destruction of government property were Bill Bischel, 81, a Catholic priest from Tacoma; Anne Montgomery, 83, a nun from New York; Susan Crane, 65, of Baltimore; Lynne Greenwald, 60, of Bremerton; and Steve Kelly, 60, of Oakland, Calif.

The nuclear weapons opponents were “apprehended in accordance with standing security procedures for incidents of this nature,” according to a Navy press release. They were turned over to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, cited and released at about 4 p.m.

“At no time was the safety of Navy personnel, property, or the public threatened in any way,” according to a Navy press release.

The protestors said Tuesday that they used bolt cutters to infiltrate the perimeter fence at around 2 a.m. Monday and slipped onto the base under a full moon. They walked along the ridge above Delta Pier and the weapons-handling wharf, then followed a road east to their destination — the weapons storage bunkers.

“We were hidden in plain sight the whole time,” Greenwald said.

Another pair of fences stood between the group and Strategic Weapons Facility-Pacific, where nuclear missiles for the base’s Trident submarines are stored. The protestors cut through them, setting off an alarm at around 6:30 a.m. They were quickly swarmed by Marines.

The protestors held up a banner that read “Disarm Now Plowshares: Trident: Illegal + Immoral.” They put their arms out, gave peace signs and tried to look as non-threatening as possible to keep from being shot, Greenwald said.

Plowshares is an international anti-nuclear weapons movement that gets its name based on scriptures in the Bible that encourage beating “swords into plowshares.”

The protestors complained about being handcuffed, hooded and kept on the ground for four hours.

“We had some intruders in a very strict-security place, and for them to be treated like criminals probably was the right thing for our security forces to do for awhile until they understood who they were, what they were doing there and what we needed to do to maintain our security,” said Navy Region Northwest spokesman Chris Haley.

Deadly force is authorized in SWFPAC, Haley said.

There have been dozens of protests at the base’s gates, and people have been arrested for walking a short distance onto federal property. But nobody has tried to cut through the fence before. Security measures worked, Haley said.

“We had a breach, we found the breach, we responded and everybody walked away healthy,” he said. “I don’t think we have any more concerns today than we had before.”

Security forces didn’t know how many people were involved or whether intruders might have driven onto the base, so the identification of everybody leaving the base was checked after the incident. That backed up traffic, but there was not a lockdown on Monday, Haley said.

The protestors said they wanted to bring to light the number of nuclear weapons in the community. The protestors say they believe the weapons are instruments of death that prevent peace in the world and waste money that could be put to better uses.

Greenwald and Bischel have participated in protests at the base organized by Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, but this action was on their own, acting in the Plowshares tradition, they said. Plowshares has staged about 100 nuclear resistance actions worldwide since 1980.

The group wasn’t trying to make a point that base security could be broken but wanted to get as close as possible to weapons they despise, they said.

“Our intent in talking to any media is not to emphasize how we broke through security or were treated but the real terror of the Trident nuclear weapons system,” Greenwald said.

Both trespassing and destruction of government property are misdemeanors, said Emily Langlie, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Seattle. The maximum penalty for trespassing is six months in jail and a $5,000 fine. It’s a year in jail and a $100,000 fine for destroying property. The tickets will be processed in San Antonio, which takes about 40 days. Letters will then be sent to the protestors to appear before a judge in Tacoma, Langlie said.

Japanese Bureaucrats Hide Decision to Move All US Marines out of Okinawa to Guam

Thanks to Japan Focus for translating and making available this excellent article about the military base relocation controversy in Japan.

>><<

http://japanfocus.org/-Tanaka-Sakai/3274

Japanese Bureaucrats Hide Decision to Move All US Marines out of Okinawa to Guam [Japanese original text at Tanaka News (tanakanews.com)]

Tanaka Sakai

Translation by William Steele

Introduction by Gavan McCormack

The Japanese government announced on 15 December 2009 that it was postponing indefinitely any decision on the contentious issue of a “Replacement Facility” for the Futenma Marine base in Okinawa. The decision to make no decision was low-key and at first glance may seem inconsequential. Its symbolic importance, however, is huge, signalling a possible changing of the tide of history in East Asia, above all in the US-Japan relationship.

It meant that the Hatoyama government had withstood the most sustained barrage of US pressure, intimidation, insult, ultimatum, and threat, and decided, at least for the present, to say: “No.” Hatoyama was telling the Obama government, in effect, that rather than rubber stamp an agreement made by the former ruling party, he would insist on renegotiating the 2005-6 “Reorganization of US Forces in Japan” and the “Guam Treaty” in which that agreement was incorporated. He was serving notice that the “Client State” relationship so carefully cultivated by the former (George W. Bush) administration and its successive LDP partners would be renegotiated and perhaps dismantled. How, was far from clear. But the US-Japan relationship can never be the same again.

The bottom line of the message was clear, even if it could only be read in the invisible ink of a bland announcement: if the Hayoyama administration prevails, no “Futenma Replacement Facility” will be built for the Marines in the waters off Cape Henoko in Northern Okinawa. A Pentagon dream since 1966, it had come close to realization under bilateral agreements in 1996, 2006, and 2009, only to be stalled each time by one of the most remarkable, non-violent political movements in modern Japanese history. Today this most unequal of struggles has reached a decisive moment.

Months of intense pressure (see “The Battle of Okinawa 2009”) had brought the Hatoyama government close to capitulation. The bureaucrats in both the Defense and Foreign Ministries insisted that the national interest was at stake and required submission. Moreover, the Futenma Base was a quid pro quo for US plans to withdraw—at Japanese expense—an estimated 8,000 Marines and their families to Guam. US Ambassador Roos (known to be a close personal friend of President Obama) expostulated, red-faced (according to observers) to the Japanese Defense and Foreign Ministers on 4 December that trust between Obama and Hatoyama might be grievously damaged if agreement to construct the Henoko base was not reached before the end of 2009. In Okinawa the following day, Foreign Minister Okada could only beg his audiences of Democratic Party faithful to understand how important this issue was for the US, and therefore for the alliance and for Japan. All previous LDP-led governments had submitted just as Okinawa had been forced to submit to American bases for more than six decades, unbroken by the 1972 “reversion” to Japan. The pressure applied to Hatoyama far exceeded that directed to any previous government of Japan, and many assumed that in due course he, too, would submit. He chose otherwise.

The mid-December decision was due to three factors, one long-term, one short-term, and one personal: the first and overwhelming one is the triumph of the non-violent resistance movement of the people of Okinawa itself, sustained since 1996; the second is the outcome of the 30 August Lower House national elections, which swept the Hatoyama DPJ to power nationally and especially in Okinawa gave them and other opponents of base construction a massive endorsement; the third is the strength of resolve by Prime Minister Hatoyama. He insisted throughout the crisis that he would personally make the key decision, and in the end that is what he has done, at least for the time being.

The decision was not solely shaped by US considerations. Japanese domestic politics played a critical role. Had Hatoyama submitted, however, and ordered work to commence on filling in the seas off Oura bay for the construction of a base, he would have faced the likely collapse of his coalition government (since both minor parties had said they would withdraw), the absolute alienation of the Okinawan people from him and his party (and in a sense from the Japanese national project itself), and the need to resort to martial law measures to enforce works whose legitimacy was accepted by virtually nobody in Okinawa. Submission, in other words, might over time not only have undermined the DPJ but might even have more seriously damaged the US-Japan relationship than resistance.

When Foreign Minister Okada visited Okinawa on 5 December, he was shocked to find nobody at all who would support the base construction project. His pleas to understand the American insistence that it proceed and his calls to recognize the importance of the US-Japan “alliance,” simply roused his DPJ audiences to anger. The Okinawan prefectural assembly is more than 90 percent opposed. Even the “conservative” Okinawan Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) League has said that it will switch from support to opposition to the base project if a decision is held off beyond the end of this year (as has now happened). Conservative mayors, including the Mayor of Naha, are increasingly lining up in support of the platform of anti-base meetings, while Futenma Mayor Iha, as Tanaka Sakai shows in the following report, has led the way in unmasking the machinations of Tokyo and Washington on the future of the base. The August election of the Hatoyama government has given Okinawan people the sense that at last they have a government that might listen to them.

Options for an alternative “Futenma Replacement Facility” to Henoko have been canvassed in recent months and they will now be submitted to a ruling coalition commission for further investigation. They include Guam (discussed below), Kadena, the US Air Force base close to Futenma, the island of Umage, just 8 square kilometres in area and 12 kilometres west of Tanegashima in Kagoshima prefecture, the island of Io (once known as Iwojima) south of Tokyo, and various unused or much underused airports in mainland Japan itself, from Osaka’s Kansai International (offered for consideration by Osaka’s Governor) to the recently built “white elephant” Shizuoka or Ibaraki airports.

Okinawan sentiments are especially aroused today as the lies and deception they have been fed by LDP governments over the past half-century gradually come to light. The Okinawan “return” to Japan in 1972 is now known to have been a purchase, in which Japan paid huge sums to subsidize the US war effort in Vietnam, opening the path to a system of Japanese war subsidies paid to the Pentagon ever since in the guise of “omoiyari” (consideration or sympathy) payments. The Japanese government, contrary to its proud “three non-nuclear policies”, has long given covert permission to US vessels carrying nuclear weapons to pass through Japanese ports and signalled its readiness to allow them into Okinawa in advance of any renewed war in Korea. The details of the “secret nuclear agreements” are now being exposed by former Japanese government officials who were party to the arrangements. Most explosive is the fact that Okinawans continue to learn more details of the readiness of their government over decades to pay almost any price to keep the US forces in Okinawa while sparing mainland Japanese the inconvenience of having numerous GIs in residence. That sense of grievance cannot easily be assuaged.

One major new factor in the Okinawan equation is the revelation, flowing principally from the office of the Okinawan town mayor of Ginowan City (reluctant host to the Futenma Marine Air station), that the Henoko project itself rests on a massive deception. That revelation is the subject of the Tanaka Sakai text that follows.

The Marine Corps documents that Mayor Iha Yōichi analyses call into question the official Japanese government claim that the construction of a Futenma Replacement Facility at Henoko is necessary to accommodate the Marine helicopter force by showing that the 2006 Guam Integrated Military Development Plan is a design to accommodate those helicopter forces plus battle force, artillery and supply units. If the Futenma Marines are designated under Pentagon plans for relocation to Guam anyway, the Henoko project loses its strategic purpose. And the foundations for Japanese government payments to maintain US forces in Okinawa, still less to pay for their transfer to Guam, are baseless. Even before the Iha revelations, military critics in Japan questioned the rationale behind the Agreement on Reorganization of US Forces in Japan and the Guam Treaty, many viewing them as new forms of coercion and of the secret diplomacy that has long characterized US-Japan dealings on Okinawa. If the Marines are going to Guam anyway, under Pentagon plans, the real design of the Guam Treaty agreements can only be to siphon off further substantial Japanese subsidies to the Pentagon, to provide a foothold for the Marines in an Okinawan resort location, or, perhaps, a fine new facility eventually for Japan’s own Self Defense Forces.

The Government of Japan’s initial response has been to deny Mayor Iha’s claims and the national media has yet to pursue them seriously. They are, however, based on persuasive US documentation and on the evidence of Iha’s investigations in Guam. Certainly, they sharply contradict the official rationale for the Henoko base construction and the official understanding of the Guam transfer. Now that the relocation issue has been returned to the drawing board, the newly established coalition body to study and report on the relocation issue has on the table many interesting and potentially explosive questions to examine.

GMcC

15 December 2009

Cape Henoko and Camp Schwab, 2009

After writing an article on Japan-China security arrangements that touched upon Okinawa and the Futenma debacle, I received feedback from readers and became aware that from the end of November 2009 the Mayor of Ginowan City, Iha Yōichi, has been pointing out something that will overturn the commonsense regarding American forces in Japan.

The Marines stationed on Okinawa are pushing forward a plan to move to Guam. In the Japanese mass media and in Diet deliberations it is usually stated that “the relocation from Okinawa to Guam will consist primarily of the Marine command unit,” but that “active duty forces including the helicopter unit and ground combat forces will remain.”

However, according to the investigations of Mayor Iha and members of the Ginowan City Assembly, American forces have already been implementing a plan to relocate to Guam not only the command unit but also, by 2014, the majority of combat forces and even logistic sections including supply units. Ginowan City Hall, having long dealt with the Futenma Air Station, has developed significant information-gathering skills and powers of analysis.

If the helicopter units and the ground combat units move almost all of their personnel to Guam, there is no longer any need to build a replacement site for Futenma in Okinawa, be it Henoko in Nago city or for that matter anywhere in Japan. This means that the great fuss over the removal to Henoko that has been festering over the past few years may have been completely unnecessary from the beginning. In 2006 the American military came up with a plan to begin the complete transfer of the Marines from Okinawa to Guam. The Japanese government promised to provide a large sum of money for the removal of American troops to Guam; it can only be assumed, therefore, that the Japanese Foreign Ministry and other Japanese government officials knew of these plans to move to Guam in detail. Nonetheless, they have continued to spout the mantra that “the new base at Henoko is necessary for the helicopter units that will remain on Okinawa after Marineheadquarters moves to Guam.” (宜野湾市「普天間基地のグァム移転の可能性について」)

On November 26 Mayor Iha traveled to Tokyo and explained this to members of the ruling party. On December 9 Iha visited the Foreign Ministry and voiced his contention that all the Marines based at Futenma can be expected to move to Guam. The Foreign Ministry, however, dissented, saying that such information “is counter to our understanding.” The meeting ended with the two sides talking past each other. (伊波市長が与党議員に説明した時に配布した資料) (伊波宜野湾市長 政府にグアム移転を要請)

Of the 8000 troops to be relocated, Marine Headquarters amount to only 3000

One of the grounds for Mayor Iha’s assertion that “the United States is sending the majority of Marines stationed on Okinawa to Guam” is derived from the draft of a report issued on November 20 by a U.S. environmental impact survey undertaken in conjunction with the expected relocation of Okinawa-based Marines to Guam (and to the nearby island of Tinian), which states that nearly all of the units of the Okinawa-based Marines will relocate to Guam. The environmental impact would be impossible to evaluate unless one knew which units will relocate. Thus the report gives details of the relocation, which the US military has been reluctant to publicize. (Guam and CNMI Military Relocation Draft EIS/OEIS)

The environmental impact report consists of 8,100 pages in 9 volumes. Volumes 2 and 3 of the report include details of the relocation of the Marine Corps from Okinawa. The Marine helicopter unit, for example, is (according to the draft report) scheduled for relocation, as are ground combat, assault, and supply forces. Listed for relocation from Okinawa to Guam are: 1) the Command Element, III Marine Expeditionary Force (CE, 3046 persons); 2) the Ground Combat Element, 3rd Marine Division Units (GCE, 1100); 3) Air Combat Element, First Marine Aircraft Wing and subsidiary units (ACE, 1856); 4) and the Logistics Combat Element, 3D Marine Logistics Group (LCE, 2550). The total number of troops in these four Marine Corps units slated to move is 8552, roughly the same as the 8000 number that had been officially announced as the size of the move from Okinawa to Guam. It is thus clearly wrong for the Foreign Ministry and others to maintain that “the 8000 Marines to be relocated to Guam consist primarily of the command unit.” The command unit itself consists of some 3046 persons; the remainder are combat and logistical forces. (VOLUME 2: MARINE CORPS – GUAM) (宜野湾市「普天間基地のグァム移転の可能性について」)

This is not the first time that the American side has reported that it plans to relocate the great majority of the Marines based on Okinawa to Guam. A September 2006 “Guam Integrated Military Development Plan” noted that a hangar, parking space, and helipad will be constructed for a maximum of 67 helicopters that will relocate along with the Marine Aircraft Groups. Since there are 56 helicopters in service at Futenma, this would mean that a greater number are to be moved to Guam. There is a high possibility that all of the helicopters stationed at Futenma will be moved to Guam (the rest may well arrive from the US). (Guam Integrated Military Development Plan)

This “Guam Integrated Military Development Plan” sought to develop Guam into one of the most modern integrated military facilities in the world. During the Cold War, when the United States created a “Eurasian network,” it wanted to station troops in countries including Japan, Korea, and the Philippines, but after the Cold War, there is no longer a need to station troops in each country, making Guam, located at nearly equal distances within 2000 nautical miles from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia, an ideal place to set up a new integrated facility that would allow troops to be withdrawn from bases in Japan and Korea. (グアムの戦略地図)

Map and location of Guam

In concrete terms, the plan not only sought to relocate all structural units of the Marine Corps, but to develop Guam into a major base of operations with joint use by the Navy and Air Force. As such, Guam would replace Okinawa as the true keystone of the Pacific, giving free rein to an integrated American global presence. It is natural to consider that the course this will take is that Okinawa-based Marines will be reduced to something like a remnant small branch, all the rest moving to Guam. (グアム統合軍事開発計画」より抜粋)

The Guam Plan that was Erased in One Week

The “Guam Integrated Military Development Plan” was drawn up in July of 2006 and released in September. A few months earlier, in May, the U.S.-Japan “Roadmap” was agreed upon in order to realize the relocation of American military forces in Okinawa. On this occasion, for the first time, it was decided that the Japanese government would pay most of the moving expenses for the removal of Okinawa-based Marines to Guam (6.1 billion dollars of the total estimated cost of 10.3 billion dollars). The American military, knowing that Japan would pay the construction costs, can be thought to have decided on a plan to develop Guam as a unique global integrated military center. (再編実施のための日米のロードマップ) (Link)

However, one week after the “Guam Integrated Military Development Plan” was posted on the Department of Defense website, it was deleted. The U.S.-Japan Roadmap had earlier called for the removal of Marines from Okinawa to Guam “in a manner that maintains unit integrity.” This also hinted that the transfer would not only involve Marine Corps headquarters but the relocation of combat units as well. At the same time it noted that “U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) forces remaining on Okinawa will consist of Marine Air-Ground Task Force elements, such as command, ground, aviation, and combat service support, as well as a base support capability.” “Marine Air-Ground Task Force,” however, is a term describing the principal organization for all missions across the range of military operations, and its meaning remains unclear. (Marine Air-Ground Task Force From Wikipedia)

It is suspected that the US and Japanese governments had agreed that, by deliberately keeping ambiguous which portions of the Okinawa-based Marines would relocate to Guam and which would remain, the Marines would continue to stay on Okinawa, the Japanese government would offer “sympathy monies” to the US military, the financially troubled US would divert these to the maintenance of the Guam base, and the Japanese government would maintain the blueprint of subordination to the US that it wished to continue as long as possible. Perhaps the “Guam Integrated Military Development Plan” revealed too much, causing fear that people would wake up to the fact that the Okinawa-based Marines were planning a complete withdrawal. It may have been this fear that caused the site to disappear so quickly. (日本の官僚支配と沖縄米軍)

After the plan was released in 2006, persons associated with the city of Ginowan, referring to the Guam Integrated Military Development Plan, asked the Consul General in Okinawa, “Isn’t there a plan for the Marine helicopter unit based in Futenma to relocate to Guam?” The Consul General replied that the plan they referred to was “a mere scrap of paper” and that “no formal decisions have been made.” He went on to insist that only the command element of the Okinawa-based Marines would be moving to Guam. However, three years later, on November 20, 2009, the draft environmental impact survey described above followed along lines laid out in the integrated development plan, allowing one to conclude that the American military authorities have been silently proceeding to move most of the Okinawa-based Marines to Guam. (宜野湾市「普天間基地のグァム移転の可能性について」)

Ginowan joined neighboring cities and villages in August 2007 in an inspection tour of American bases on Guam, gathering information from American and Guam official sources. As a result, they came to know the following:

1) The Vice Commander of Andersen Air Force Base in Guam took them to see the site intended to house facilities for the Okinawa-based Marines Air unit and explained that “65 to 70 Marine aircraft would be coming.” At present there are 71 aircraft stationed at Futenma, allowing one to conclude that nearly all of them would be moving to Guam.

U.S. F-15E Strike Eagles and a B-2 Spirit bomber fly in formation over Andersen Air Force Base in Guam. MSNBC on October 7, 2009 reported that “With a planned transfer of the Third Marine Expeditionary Force from Japan, and expansion of military facilities, Guam is to be transformed into a key military hub in the Pacific.”

2) At Apra Harbor in Guam, a docking area will be newly constructed to allow for berthing facilities for the large amphibious assault ships that are now stationed at Sasebo: the USS Essex (LHD-2), the USS Juneau (LPD-10), the USS Germantown (LSD-42) and the USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43). Plans appear to be in the works to redeploy these ships from Sasebo to Guam. Moreover, it is likely that the 31st Expeditionary Force, consisting of the Marine combat and logistic units that, to prepare for emergencies, must stay near the landing craft, will also move to Guam from its base in Sasebo. (グァム米軍基地視察報告 2007年8月13日)

Apra Harbor on the West side of Guam

In September 2008 the Secretary of the U.S. Navy submitted a report to a House of Representatives Military Committee on plans to develop Guam entitled “The Current Situation of American Military planning in Guam.” In it, the names of the units that were to move from Okinawa to Guam were noted, making it further clear that the majority of the Futenma-based units including almost all combat and helicopter units would be moved to Guam. (宜野湾市「普天間基地のグァム移転の可能性について」)

A Force of 10,000 Fabricated by the Japanese Foreign Ministry

According to Foreign Ministry reports and major news sources, some 18,000 Marines are stationed on Okinawa and only about 8,000 will be moved to Guam. This would leave about 10,000 Marines remaining on Okinawa. I too have written articles following this line. However, according to the American Military’s Japan headquarters, while the number of troops is “fixed” (teisū) at 18,000, the actual number presently in Okinawa is 12,500. Moreover, according to a May 17, 2006 article in the Okinawa Times, “The move to Guam involves a mysterious number,” the number of family dependents of Marines stationed in Okinawa is 8000. If 9000 family dependents move to Guam as announced, a negative number would remain in Okinawa. (「在沖縄海兵隊のグアム移転に係る協定」の署名に抗議する)

The “actual numbers” of Okinawa-based Marines are: 12,500 on-duty personnel and 8,000 dependents, making a total of 20,500. Of these, the number going to Guam is approximately 8,000 on-duty personnel and 9000 dependents for a total of 17,000. Now, if we close our eyes to the negative number of family members, the total number of Marines (and their dependents) remaining on Okinawa should only be 3,500. As part of an overall American military re-alignment, including the desire for cutbacks, there should be many key personnel who return to the United States, in the end making the number of those who remain on Okinawa even smaller. According to the aforementioned Ginowan City source, “the fixed number” of those Marines who remain on Okinawa is at present an empty number with no troops assigned to actual duties.” “An empty number” perhaps refers to the number of people (ghost members) who are not there in fact but are assumed to be there. (宜野湾市「普天間基地のグァム移転の可能性について」)

The Japanese Foreign Ministry, for example, has fabricated the number of 10,000 phantom troops, and has succeeded in making Japanese citizens and politicians believe that 10,000 Marines will continue to remain on Okinawa after the transfer. U.S. Marines stationed on Okinawa serve as a symbol of the subordinate status of Japan to the United States. The Japanese Foreign Ministry has long exercised control of Japan’s power structure by threatening politicians and business circles with the message that “if we cross the United States there will be terrible consequences”, while at the same time, bribing the US military with the right of “continued stationing of 10,000 troops” so that the Japanese government will continue to support sympathy budgets. In this way, the Foreign Ministry maintains the “right to interpret what the US” thinks. (日本の官僚支配と沖縄米軍)

In this fabricated blueprint, the Futenma base will never be returned. At Henoko, within Camp Schwab’s Marine base, quite a number of clean barracks and entertainment facilities are already being built. Because the Marines are to relocate to Guam by 2014, these new facilities would only be used for a short time. Because of the fraudulent acts of the Foreign Ministry, an exorbitant amount of tax money has been wasted. This is criminal waste of public funds meant for enhancing their own power. In April 2009 Mayor Iha gave testimony at the Diet saying that, “if the ghost fixed number were to be emphasized, 6.09 billion dollars (contributed by Japan for the relocation of the Marines to Guam) can only be seen as wasted money.” (○伊波参考人 2009年4月8日)

(Ultimately, after the Marines leave Okinawa, Camp Schwab may well become a base for the SDF, with the barracks at Henoko used to house SDF forces.)

Unwelcome Remarks by Governor Hashimoto on his Willingness to Consider the Relocation of Futenma to Kansai Airport

The Okinawa-based Marines are steadily moving to Guam while leaving a phantom force of 10,000 and continuing to receive huge sums of money from Japan. However, on the premise that 10,000 Marines will remain, talk continues about the need to build a new base in Henoko and the voices of opposition of the Okinawa people grow louder.

Hearing these cries of opposition, the Governor of Osaka, Hashimoto Tōru, made a statement on November 30 in which he said “he would accept the relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to Kansai International Airport.” In fact, two weeks earlier he made the same remarks to a group of reporters. Although his remarks became a topic of discussion in the Diet, the mass media kept totally silent about these happenings. The November 30 press conference was made public by a free lance journalist who posted it on YouTube. Only after people began to talk about it did the mass media, it is said, have no choice but to report on it. (大手マスコミ黙殺した橋下発言 「普天間関西へ」浮上の舞台裏) (Link)

If we see the Japanese mass media as a sort of propaganda machine manipulated by the Foreign Ministry and other bureaucratic organizations, then the reasons for the silence on Governor Hashimoto’s remarks can be understood. Because American military authorities intend to move nearly all Marines from Okinawa to Guam, there will be no need for Japan to have a facility to replace Futenma. The argument that “we must find a place to relocate Futenma” must not, in their view, be made concrete. If Hashimoto uses unwarranted care so that the suggestion about moving the Marines to the Kansai Airport really becomes concrete, then you never know if the structure of fraudulence may be exposed. Maybe that is why Hashimoto’s speech was ignored as unwelcome.

Iwo Jima has been mentioned as a potential replacement site, and the plan of joining up with Kadena base has been proposed, but for the same reasons there has been little follow up.

(Governor Hashimoto called upon the citizens of Osaka to ”think about Okinawa together.” This seems to represent the trend of Japanese awakening that connects the Okinawan base problem and division of power, which I have written about in two blogs “Japan waking up to Okinawa” and “The Hidden Multipolarism of the DJP”)

Off to the Showdown that will Determine Japan’s future

The contention of the mayor of Ginowan City that “The Marines intend to pull out completely from Okinawa to go to Guam” also has been conspicuously absent from the mass media. However, since Mayor Iha discussed these issues with members of the ruling party in late November, Prime Minister Hatoyama has begun to say that “Japan must in the near future make a decision on the Futenma Problem,” or that “a complete removal to Guam is under consideration,” making the situation suddenly fluid. It is hard to tell whether Prime Minister Hatoyama’s mention of the possibility of a complete removal to Guam may have some relation to what Mayor Iha had been pointing out for some time. In the end, all will have to agree that what happens is “the complete relocation to Guam.” So the government is beginning to stifle opposing views. (普天間移設「新しい場所を」首相が指示)

The idea of “complete removal to Guam” was not initially advanced by Japan, but came from the United States. Yet people act upon the idea that mass media reports are “facts,” and the fabricated story that 10,000 Marines will remain in Okinawa is a “fact” in the head of citizens. As long as this function is sufficiently powerful that even the Prime Minister cannot alert citizens about the mass media playing a propaganda role, Hatoyama has no choice but to use the gesture of “suggesting to the US” the complete relocation to Guam.

Hatoyama has stated that “concerning the removal from Futenma, agreement within the government has to be the first priority, and if necessary and the opportunity arises, he wishes to discuss the issue with the President of the United States.” But what is really important is not to re-negotiate the issue with the United States, but rather to coordinate the thinking of the Japanese government and to stop padding the number of Marines involved. If the Foreign Ministry and other bureaucratic organizations were to agree, the Japanese government could set a course of action so that “Okinawa-based Marines would completely relocate to Guam by the year 2014.” This would allow Japan to finally be in line with plans the American forces have already been advancing. (日米首脳会談、要請もできず…米側も消極的)

If the complete relocation of Marines to Guam becomes official Japanese government policy, Japan’s subordination to the United States based on the fabricated number of 10,000 Marines remaining on Okinawa will evaporate; in turn this will cause the Foreign Ministry to lose power. Therefore, the Foreign Ministry and other organizations under its umbrella are resisting this with full force. What is in store is a major showdown that will determine the future of Japan. The LDP have taken this chance to criticize the Democrat administration. The LDP should adopt a new policy as a conservative party, ridding itself of the subordinate relationship with the United States and its dependence on the bureaucracy, but it is foolish for it to remain the servant of the bureaucrats. (自民が民主批判の大号令、問題指摘のメモ作成)

Within the government, Defense Minister Kitazawa Toshimi has visited Guam. He may well have gone there to see if it is possible for all of the Marines to move from Okinawa to Guam, but it would seem that he was pushed around by the American military authorities there, for while in Guam, he reported that “a complete relocation to Guam is impossible. This would mean a departure from the US-Japan agreement.” In response to this, lower house representatives from the Social Democratic Party criticized Kitazawa saying “how could he stay so briefly, see so little, and conclude that it was impossible?” Fighting has broken out within the ruling coalition as well. (社民・重野氏「ちょろっと見て結論出るのか」 グアム移設で防衛相に不快感)

If the Japanese government came together on a policy of “complete relocation to Guam” then whether Japan would continue to pay for the relocation expenses after 2014 would naturally emerge as a problem for Japan and the US. The American military at the outset announced plans to build a large military facility on Guam at a cost of 10.7 billion dollars (of which 6.1 billion would be paid by Japan). However this cost does not include the construction of new roads and water and sewage systems, electric power supply and other additional construction costs that will result from an increase of military-related personnel and vehicles on the island. In July 2008 the American GAO (Government Accountability Office) issued a report that criticized the military saying that the relocation to Guam would increase the island’s population by 14 percent. (GAO says cost of Guam move will exceed estimate)

The American military has a habit of operating beyond budget; from around thirty years ago its operations have greatly exceed its budget. The American military may have been looking to Japan to make up for the shortfall, but the Hatoyama government is seeking to withdraw from a position of subordination to the United States and to emphasize its autonomy or independence, so it will be reluctant to dole out funds, using the pretext of financial difficulties. During the recent visit to Guam by Defense Minister Kitazawa, the Governor of Guam for the first time announced his opposition to the relocation of Marines from Okinawa to Guam, but behind his opposition can be seen a request to Japan to help pay for the costs of infrastructure and new facilities.

The American government is also experiencing financial difficulties, and if Japan is unwilling to pay the costs of relocating the Marines to Guam, they may well not send them, remaining instead in Futenma. However, if they do this, popular opposition in Okinawa will grow louder and the Hatoyama administration may well demand, without giving money, that the Marines leave. This is a demand that the Philippines and other so-called “normal countries” have made. Ultimately, the US military had no choice but to leave without receiving additional funds from Japan. In this case, it is conceivable that it will be taken care of by reducing the number of Marines who relocate to Guam and increasing the number of people returning to the United States. The common sense of the world that “a one-time resolution by the government or the congress can make the US military leave”, which the Japanese have been made to consider impossible, will now be put into practice.

There will be an election for the governor of Okinawa in 2010. Many people support a movement to urge Ginowan City Mayor Iha to stand as a candidate. If Mayor Iha becomes governor, Okinawa Prefecture will undoubtedly urge an early removal of American forces from Okinawa that Tokyo cannot ignore. This may lead to Okinawa’s freeing itself from its status as an island of American military bases.

This article was originally published at Tanaka Sakai’s website on December 10, 2009.  官僚が隠す沖縄海兵隊グアム全移転

Tanaka Sakai is the creator, researcher, writer and editor of Tanaka News (www.tanakanews.com), a Japanese-language news service on Japan and the world. This is the sequel to an earlier article called “China-Japan Defense Cooperation and the Okinawa-based US Military Base.” Both of the original Japanese texts of December 10 and December 15, 2009 are available at his site, 田中宇の国際ニュース解説

Tanaka Sakai’s new book is 『日本が「対米従属」を脱する日』—多極化する新世界秩序の中で—
The Day Japan Breaks with “Subordination to the US”: Amidst the Multipolarizing New World Order

Gavan McCormack is emeritus professor at Australian National University, coordinator of The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, author, most recently, of Client State: Japan in the American Embrace (in English, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean.

William Steele, professor of history, International Christian University, is author of Alternative Narratives in Modern Japanese History . His most recent book is Japan and Russia: Three Centuries of Mutual Images.

Recommended citation: Tanaka Sakai, “Japanese Bureaucrats Hide Decision to Move All US Marines out of Okinawa to Guam,” The Asia-Pacific Journal, 51-4-09, December 21, 2009.

Lind: “1971: Hawaii People’s Coalition for Peace and Justice”

Ian Lind posted archival materials from the Hawaii People’s Coalition for Peace and Justice circa 1971.   It is both encouraging and depressing to see that the themes and struggles from forty years ago are still relevant to the movement today.    One of the archived documents that caught my eye, an open letter to Americans from Micronesians in Hawai’i condemning the U.S. military domination of their islands and calling for solidarity to gain true self-determination, justice and peace.  Here’s a short excerpt from the post:

1971: Hawaii People’s Coalition for Peace and Justice

“In March of 1971 over a score of community, peace, student, military, low-income and other groups and individuals formed the Hawaii People’s Coalition for Peace and Justice–reflecting the joining of concerns for an end to the war, racism, exploitation, repression and poverty, and for a society based on human equality and respect for the earth.”

[Source: June 12, 1971 leaflet describing the coalition. Photo: Professor Walter Johnson at the beginning of a coalition-sponsored peace march from Ala Moana Park to city hall, April 1971. Photo by Ian Lind.]

Military to hikers: Take up indoor hobbies

Military to Guam residents: We will take your ancestral land and resources. So you won’t be able to fish, hunt, conduct traditional cultural practices, but you can go bowling or roller skating instead.  Wow, score!

>><<

http://mvguam.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10053:military-to-hikers-take-up-indoor-hobbies&catid=1:guam-local-news&Itemid=2

HIKING, FISHING FORFEIT IN GUAM MILITARY LAND GRAB

Marine Corps suggests residents turn to indoor activities

By Jude Lizama

HAGÅTÑA, Guam (Marianas Variety, Dec. 18, 2009) – SINCE bonnie stompers are likely to lose access to jungles and cultural sites on the island of Guam, the military is suggesting that hikers switch to indoor hobbies.

The Marine Corps Community Service has proposed various quality of life facilities such as hobby shop, indoor physical fitness centers, and indoor recreational resources such as bowling, skating rink, youth center, theater and recreational pavilion.

These are among the alternative recreations cited by the military in the draft environmental impact statement.

“By presenting alternate recreational options to the potential users, impacts to the recreational resources on non-DoD (Department of Defense) lands in north Guam could be lessened,” the study cited.

A significant portion of nonmilitary acreage on the east coast of the island, in addition to the loss of some of the island’s recreational and cultural sites, may be confiscated as a result of the training range complex construction alternatives proposed within the draft environmental impact statement.

According to the impact study, “There are several recreational resources that the public would lose the access to, and the use of the features if the proposed action were implemented: Guam International Raceway, Marbo Cave, Pagat Trail and associated trails near it, cultural gathering activities (suruhana), and off-shore fishing near Marbo Cave.”

Through the possible implementation of Training Complex Alternative A, the U.S. military would look to acquire 921 acres of nonmilitary land located east of both Andersen South and Route 15. This alternative would also require 1.7 miles of Route 15 to be realigned. Alternative B could possible would see the military take 1,129 acres with no realignment to Route 15.

If conducted, both of the training facility options would consist of live fire ranges under the classifications of known distance, unknown distance, pistol, square-bay, and machine gun; in addition to range control, range roads, range towers, and proposed special use airspace.

Additionally, the study cited that “Implementation of [Main Cantonment] Alternative 1, regardless of the Training Complex Alternatives A or B, would cause the cessation of the present activities at all the resources mentioned because the Known Distance Range Complex is proposed in that location. The loss of Guam International Raceway land and use would be an adverse impact. Therefore, [Main Cantonment] Alternative 1 would result in significant impacts to recreational resources.”

“Heightened awareness and education about environmentally sensitive areas,” will contribute toward “minimizing deterioration of resources,” the draft study says. “The general wear and tear of the amenities available and the conditions of the recreational resources would likely be accelerated due to the presence of potential users.”

Military men are silent victims of sexual assault

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/10/military-men-are-silent-victims-sexual-assault

Military men are silent victims of sexual assault

By Bill Sizemore

The Virginian-Pilot

© October 5, 2009

For years after the parachute accident that ended his Army service, Cody Openshaw spiraled downward.

He entered college but couldn’t keep up with his studies. He had trouble holding a job. He drank too much. He had trouble sleeping, and when he did sleep, he had nightmares. He got married and divorced in less than a year. He had flashbacks. He isolated himself from his friends and drank more.

“His anxiety level was out of this world,” his father said. “This was a young man who got straight A’s in high school, and now he couldn’t function.”

Openshaw had the classic symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, even though he had never been in combat. His parents attributed the trauma to the accident and the heavy medications he was taking for the continuing pain.

But there was more.

Finally, he broke down and told his father.

A few months after his accident, as he was awaiting his medical discharge from the Army, he had been sexually assaulted.

The attack left him physically injured and emotionally shattered. Inhibited by shame, embarrassment, sexual confusion and fear, it took him five years to come forward with the full story.

What truly sets this story apart, however, is not the details of the case, horrific as they are, but the gender of the victim.

There is a widespread presumption that most victims of sexual assault in the military services are women. That presumption, however, is false.

In a 2006 survey of active-duty troops, 6.8 percent of women and 1.8 percent of men said they had experienced unwanted sexual contact in the previous 12 months. Since there are far more men than women in the services, that translates into roughly 22,000 men and 14,000 women.

Among women, the number of victims who report their assaults is small. Among men, it is infinitesimal. Last year the services received 2,530 reports of sexual assault involving female victims – and 220 involving male victims.

One of them was Pfc. Cody Openshaw.

Now his family has made the difficult decision to go public with his story in the hope that it will prompt the military services to confront the reality of male sexual assault.

As Openshaw’s father put it in an interview, “Now that they know, what are they going to do about it.”

Openshaw grew up in a large Mormon family in Utah, the fifth of nine children. He was a mild-tempered child, an Eagle Scout who dreamed of becoming a brain surgeon.

He was an athlete, a tireless hockey player and a lover of the outdoors. He was prone to take off on a moment’s notice to go hiking or camping – sometimes with a friend, often just him and his tent – among Utah’s rugged canyons and brown scrub-covered mountains.

He had a sensitive side, too: He was a published poet.

He looked big and menacing but he was really a teddy bear, one of his brothers said.

When he walked into a room, a sister said, everyone would light up.

He also had a mischievous streak. Once after joining the Army in 2001, he went home on leave unannounced for his mother’s birthday. He had himself wrapped up in a big cardboard box and delivered to the front porch. When his mother opened the box, he popped out.

Openshaw volunteered for the 82nd Airborne Division, based at Fort Bragg, N.C., where he excelled as a paralegal and paratrooper. But his military career came to an untimely end shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

As his unit was training to invade Afghanistan, a parachute malfunction sent Openshaw plummeting 60 feet to the ground, causing severe stress fractures in his spine and both legs.

For months as he awaited his medical discharge, he was plagued by chronic pain. The medications prescribed by the Army doctors only helped so much, and alcohol became a kind of self-medication.

After a night on the town with a fellow soldier, his father learned later, Openshaw returned to the barracks and encountered a solicitous platoon sergeant.

His legs were hurting, and the sergeant said, “Let me rub your legs.” Then the contact became violently sexual. Openshaw – drunk, disabled and outranked – was in no position to resist.

The next day the sergeant told him, “Just remember, accidents happen. They can happen to you and to your family. You know, people show up missing.”

The story came out in tortured bits and pieces.

Openshaw confided in his older sister the next day in an agonized phone call but swore her to secrecy. He took his assailant’s warning as a death threat.

“He was worried about me and the rest of the family,” his sister said. “He said ‘We need to keep it quiet.’ ”

Because of the reported threat to Openshaw’s family, their names and locations have been omitted from this story.

He finally told his therapist at the Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in Salt Lake City, who referred him to a VA sexual assault treatment center in Bay Pines, Fla. As part of his therapy there, Openshaw shared more of the traumatic episode in a letter to his father.

“He wanted to get better,” his brother said. ” He decided, ‘I’m going to beat this. I’m tired of five years of depression. I want to feel alive again.’ ”

A longtime friend thinks guilt was a factor in Openshaw’s reluctance to come forward with his story.

“I think he blamed himself because he was drinking,” the friend said. “When the assault happened, he said he remembered laying there and he was so drunk that he couldn’t do anything about it.

“It really affected him. He struggled even with asking a girl out on a date. He felt unworthy.”

Trauma from sexual assault has become so commonplace in the military that it now has its own designation: MST, for military sexual trauma.

The VA was first authorized to provide sexual assault outreach and counseling to female veterans after a series of congressional hearings in 1992. As the realization dawned that this was not just a women’s issue, those services were extended to male veterans.

According to a 2007 study by a team of VA researchers, a nationwide screening of veterans seeking VA services turned up more than 60,000 with sexual trauma. More than half of those – nearly 32,000 – were men.

Those numbers almost certainly understate the problem, the researchers wrote, concluding that the population of sexually traumatized men and women under the treatment of the VA is “alarmingly large.”

Sexual trauma, the researchers found, poses a risk for developing post-traumatic stress disorder “as high as or higher than combat exposure.”

Among active-duty personnel, the Defense Department has embarked on what it says is an unprecedented effort to wipe out sexual assault in the ranks.

Key to that effort, the department says, is encouraging a climate in which victims feel free to report the crime without fear of retribution, stigma or harm to their careers.

In 2005, Congress authorized the creation of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services to examine how well the services are carrying out that mission. Its final report is being prepared now.

The task force fanned out across the world, hearing stories from dozens of service members who had been victimized by sexual predators. In April, at a public meeting in Norfolk, the group saw a slide presentation prepared by Cody Openshaw’s father.

As the story unfolded, the hotel conference room fell silent. By the end, the staffer who presented it – a crusty retired general – was close to tears.

It was a rare event: Of 58 stories collected by the task force over a year of meetings and interviews, only seven involved male victims.

If the crime is seldom reported, it follows that it is seldom prosecuted. According to Army court-martial records, 65 sexual assault cases involving male victims have been prosecuted worldwide in the past five years. There were almost 10 times that many cases, 621, involving female victims.

The Air Force, Navy and Marines were unable to provide a breakdown of sexual assault cases by gender.

Jim Hopper, a psychology instructor at Harvard Medical School who has studied male sexual abuse, said victims’ reluctance to come forward is rooted in biology and gender socialization.

Males are biologically wired to be more emotionally reactive and expressive than females, Hopper said, but they are socialized to suppress their emotions.

“Boys are not supposed to be vulnerable, sad, helpless, ashamed, afraid, submissive – anything like that is totally taboo for boys,” he said. “The messages come from everywhere. Right from the start, a fundamental aspect of their being is labeled as not OK.”

Military training reinforces that socialization, Hopper said. “It conditions men to accept physical wounds, death and killing while leaving them unprepared for emotional wounds that assault their male identity.

“When they get assaulted, they’re unprepared to deal with their vulnerable emotions. They resist seeking help. They believe that their hard-earned soldier-based masculinity has been shattered. They’re going to feel betrayed, alienated, isolated, unworthy. They feel like they’re a fake, a fraud, not a real man,” Hopper said.

Openshaw’s father, a marriage and family therapist, fears that the plight of male victims will continue to get short shrift.

“The military should take a more proactive role in understanding male sexual assault,” he said. “They need to set up some way that these young men can get some services without feeling so humiliated. They don ‘t have to be so macho.”

When Openshaw returned home from treatment in Florida in April 2008, his family and friends were buoyed by hope that he had turned a corner.

The two months of treatment “did a world of good,” one friend said.

“He texted me and said, ‘I’ve learned so many things. I’ve learned that bad things can happen to good people, and it’s not their fault.’ ”

“He was so excited to come home,” a sister said. “He was planning a big party. He wanted everybody to see he was better.”

He was still heavily medicated, however – with narcotics for the lingering pain from his parachute accident and antidepressants for his post-traumatic stress disorder.

His first night at home, he went to bed and never woke up.

The cause of death was respiratory arrest from prescription drug toxicity. He was 25.

“These medications that he was on, they build up in your bloodstream to the point of toxicity,” his father said. “And that’s what we’re assuming happened.”

He does not think his son committed suicide.

“I have nine children, including Cody, and 15 grandchildren,” he said. “Cody had made arrangements for them all to come over the next day. There was absolutely nothing in his affect or demeanor that would suggest that he would kill himself.”

He is buried beside a pine tree on a flat, grassy hilltop in the shadow of his beloved mountains. His gravestone is adorned by U.S. flags, flowers and cartoon bird figures recalling his whimsical streak.

A year later, his death remains an open wound for the family. One younger brother is “very angry with God,” his father said. He refuses to visit the grave.

Openshaw’s young nieces and nephews still talk about him and ask when he’s coming over to play.

“Kids loved him to pieces,” his mother said. “He affected everybody he met.”

She, like her husband, hopes her son’s story will prompt the military services to take male sexual assault more seriously: “Something needs to be done so other service members and their families don’t have to go through this.”

The Army Criminal Investigation Command investigated the case, but with the victim dead and no eyewitnesses, the initial conclusion was that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.

The suspect has been questioned but remains on active duty. He has been recently deployed in Iraq.

If the case is not prosecuted, the suspect may be subject to administrative sanctions.

Louis Iasiello, a retired rear admiral and chief of Navy chaplains who co-chairs the sexual assault task force, said that when commanding officers take the crime seriously, victims – whether male or female – are more likely to come forward.

“The command really does set the tone,” he said. “In places where the command set a positive tone and also set a zero tolerance toward this crime, it was very obvious that people felt more comfortable coming forward and reporting an incident and getting the help they needed to begin the healing process.”

In the Openshaw case, that clearly didn’t happen, said Thomas Cuthbert, the task force staffer who presented the story in Norfolk.

At the time of his attack, Openshaw was in a holding unit at Fort Bragg for soldiers awaiting medical discharge.

“Instead of protecting him while he was being treated, he was left alone and subject to a predator,” said Cuthbert, a retired brigadier general.

“The kid was not in a position where he was fully capable of defending himself, and he got hurt by some hoodlum wearing a uniform. Any Army officer worth his salt, looking at those facts, would get angry.

“He needed help, and instead he received abuse of the worst kind. Leadership can’t prevent all crime. But when someone in authority takes advantage of a subordinate, leadership should be held accountable.”

If the services are serious about coming to grips with male sexual assault, Cuthbert said, there is still much work to be done.

If it can happen to a talented, promising soldier in the 82nd Airborne, he said, plenty of others who aren’t as independent or as capable of taking care of themselves also are at risk.

“Nobody in uniform is very happy talking about this issue. They don’t want to publicly admit it’s there, although we all know it’s there.”

Bill Sizemore, (757) 446-2276, bill.sizemore@pilotonline.com

Resources

To report a sexual assault in a military service, contact a sexual assault response coordinator or victim advocate. Local contact information is provided by each military service. There also is a central hot line:

* Stateside: 800-342-9647

* Overseas: 00-800-3429-6477

* Overseas collect: 484-530-5908

Reports can be confidential; victims are encouraged but not required to notify their command or law enforcement. For Navy personnel in Hampton Roads, contact a Fleet & Family Support Center:

* Norfolk (757) 444-2230 Little Creek (757) 462-7563

* Oceana (757) 433-2912

* Northwest (757) 421-8770

* Yorktown (757) 688-6289

* Newport News (757) 688-6289

* Fleet & Family Support 24/7 phone numbers:

1-800-FSC-LINE (372-5463)

(757) 444-NAVY (6289)

On the Web

o Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), a national anti-sexual assault organization: www.rainn.o rg Safer Society Foundation, a national research, advocacy and referral center on the prevention and treatment of sexual abuse: www.safersociety. org

o 1 in 6, a support group for men who have had unwanted or abusive sexual experiences: www.1in6 .org

Diego Garcia: A thorn in the side of Africa’s nuclear-weapon-free zone

http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/diego-garcia-thorn-the-side-of-africas-nuclear-weapon-free-zone

Diego Garcia: A thorn in the side of Africa’s nuclear-weapon-free zone

By Peter H. Sand | 8 October 2009

Article Highlights

  • More than 13 years after its signature, the Pelindaba Treaty, which establishes Africa as a nuclear-weapon-free zone, officially came into force this summer.
  • However, conflicting British and African interpretations of an oblique footnote about Diego Garcia threaten to put one signatory, Mauritius, in breach of the treaty.
  • For Africa to truly be considered nuclear-weapon-free, this ambiguity must be clarified–possibly affecting U.S. and British military activities in the region.

On July 15, the Pelindaba Treaty, which established Africa as a nuclear-weapon-free zone, finally entered into force. The treaty is the latest regional agreement to ban nuclear weapons in its area of application. The other five are the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco (for Latin America and the Caribbean), the 1985 Treaty of Rarotonga (for the South Pacific), the 1995 Treaty of Bangkok (for Southeast Asia), and the 2006 Treaty of Semipalatinsk (for Central Asia).

The Pelindaba Treaty–named for the former South African nuclear weapons facility near Pretoria–requires each party “to prohibit in its territory the stationing of any nuclear explosive devices,” while allowing parties to authorize visits or transits by foreign nuclear-armed ships or aircraft. It also prohibits nuclear weapon tests and radioactive waste dumping. Two supplementary protocols to the treaty provide for non-African nuclear powers to agree that they won’t “contribute to any act which constitutes a violation of this treaty or protocol.” The United States co-signed the treaty’s protocols under the Clinton administration in 1996, but after a heated political debate, Washington didn’t submit them to the Senate for ratification. China, France, and Britain have ratified them, however, ostensibly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency’s enthusiastic (if slightly exaggerated) claim that the treaty made the “entire Southern hemisphere free of nuclear weapons.”

Underneath this international support for an African nuclear-weapon-free zone, however, is a low-profile but high-stakes dispute over the status of the Chagos Archipelago, which includes Diego Garcia. This coral atoll in the British Indian Ocean Territory happens to be the site of one of the most valuable (and secretive) U.S. military bases overseas. Both Britain and Mauritius claim sovereignty over the archipelago.

According to the map appended to the Pelindaba Treaty, the nuclear-weapon-free zone explicitly covers the “Chagos Archipelago–Diego Garcia,” albeit with a footnote (inserted at the British government’s request) stating that the territory “appears without prejudice to the question of sovereignty.” (To read more about the negotiations that led to the ominous Diego Garcia footnote, see the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research publication, “The Treaty of Pelindaba on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone.”) Although all of the participating African countries agreed that the Chagos Islands should be included in the treaty parameters, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) did not, stating that it had no doubt as to its sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory, and upon signing the protocols noted that it did “not accept the inclusion of [the Chagos Islands] within the African nuclear-weapon-free zone” without consent of the British government.

While Russia refused to sign the Pelindaba protocols because of the ambiguity created by that unilateral statement, Britain’s interpretation of the footnote was supported by the United States and France, with a representative of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency explaining that it was adequate to “protect U.S. interests because any resolution of the [sovereignty] issue will occur outside the framework of the treaty.”

But what are the U.S. interests and what exactly does this sovereignty debate have to do with Africa’s nuclear-weapon-free zone? In the last 40 or so years, thanks to a series of U.S.-British bilateral agreements (some of them secret), the expulsion of the atoll’s indigenous population between 1967 and 1973, and a $2.5 billion U.S. military construction program, Diego Garcia has developed into a robust naval support facility, satellite tracking station, and bomber forward-operating location. It played a central role in all offensive combat missions against Iraq and Afghanistan from 1991 to 2006 and was used as a staging area for 20 B-52 bombers prominently deployed as a “calculated-ambiguous” tactical nuclear deterrent against any possible chemical or biological weapons used by Iraq against U.S. forces. The Diego Garcia internal lagoon–a gigantic natural harbor, measuring 48 square miles and dredged to a depth of 40 feet as a turning basin for aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines–is currently being upgraded to accommodate the U.S. Navy’s new nuclear-powered, guided missile attack submarines. Considering the base’s strategic location, current U.S. needs in the Middle East and Central Asia, and what is known about past uses of the base, it would be irresponsible to rule out the potential for nuclear weapons at Diego Garcia.

That the United States found the Pelindaba footnote to be adequate protection against the “bite” of the treaty protocols may have been overly confident. Now that the treaty has entered into force, Mauritius and Britain are legally bound by its provisions–though the British FCO would vehemently disagree, citing the footnote as disclaimer. A recent editorial in the Mauritius Times called on the government to broaden its ongoing bilateral negotiations (which will resume in London in October) with the FCO on the Chagos Archipelago to include U.S. authorities (pointedly referring to President Barack Obama’s Prague speech), with a view toward making Diego Garcia nuclear-weapon-free. Until that time, in the eyes of Mauritius and the other African signatories to the Pelindaba Treaty, Mauritius will not be able to meet its treaty obligations.

One key to these talks may be the precedent of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, which also contains a disclaimer for sovereignty issues. Thus far, nobody has interpreted this disclaimer as excluding the British Antarctic Territory from the geographic scope of that treaty. As such, Britain may be forced to confront some inconvenient internal contradictions lurking in the wake of the Pelindaba Treaty. To the embarrassment of the FCO, the Diego Garcia base also has been confirmed by the CIA as a destination or transit point for several “extraordinary rendition flights” for suspected terrorists–branding the island as yet another “legal black hole” à la Guantánamo Bay, where neither the British Human Rights Act nor Britain’s ratifications of the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Human Rights Covenants, or the U.N. Convention against Torture apply.

The Pelindaba Treaty should mark the beginning of a momentous new era in Africa, including regional cooperation for the peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology through a new African Commission on Nuclear Energy. But there is the possibility that the Diego Garcia footnote could stand in the way of progress. If Britain, the United States, and Mauritius cannot resolve this debate, then the entry into force of the Pelindaba Treaty hasn’t truly made Africa free from nuclear weapons after all.

Agent Orange’s lethal legacy, part 5

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/agentorange/chi-agent-orange-dioxindec17,0,2121785,full.story

AGENT ORANGE: PART 5 OF 5

Agent Orange’s lethal legacy: Defoliants more dangerous than they had to be

Papers show firms didn’t act on data to reduce toxicity

Before and afterBefore-and-after air views show the effects herbicides had when sprayed in Vietnam during the war. Above is an unsprayed mangrove forest, date unknown, and the bottom image is of the same area in 1970. It was sprayed in 1965. (AP photos)

Part 5 of a Tribune investigation unearths documents showing that decisions by the U.S. military and chemical companies that manufactured the defoliants used in Vietnam made the spraying more dangerous than it had to be. Complete coverage >>

As the U.S. military aggressively ratcheted up its spraying of Agent Orange over South Vietnam in 1965, the government and the chemical companies that produced the defoliant knew it posed health risks to soldiers and others who were exposed.

That year, a Dow Chemical Company memo called a contaminant in Agent Orange “one of the most toxic materials known causing not only skin lesions, but also liver damage.”

Yet despite the mounting evidence of the chemical’s health threat, the risks of exposure were downplayed, a Tribune review of court documents and records from the National Archives has found. The spraying campaign would continue for six more years.

Records also show that much of the controversy surrounding the herbicides might have been avoided if manufacturers had used available techniques to lessen dioxin contamination and if the military had kept better tabs on levels of the toxin in the compounds. Dow Chemical knew as early as 1957 about a technique that could eliminate dioxin from the defoliants by slowing the manufacturing process, according to documents unearthed by veterans’ attorneys.

Since the Vietnam War, dioxin has been found to be a carcinogen associated with Parkinson’s disease, birth defects and dozens of other health issues. Thousands of veterans as well as Vietnamese civilians were directly exposed to the herbicides used by the military.

Debilitating illnesses linked to defoliants used in South Vietnam now cost the federal government billions of dollars annually and have contributed to a dramatic increase in disability payments to veterans since 2003.

Documents show that before the herbicide program was launched in 1961, the Department of Defense had cut funding and personnel to develop defoliants for nonlethal purposes. Instead it relied heavily on the technical guidance of chemical companies, which were under pressure to increase production to meet the military’s needs.

The use of defoliants led to massive class-action lawsuits brought by veterans and Vietnamese citizens against the chemical firms. The companies settled with U.S. veterans in the first of those suits in 1984 for $180 million.

Since then, the chemical companies have successfully argued they are immune from legal action under laws protecting government contractors. The courts also found that the military was aware of the dioxin contamination but used the defoliants anyway because the chemicals helped protect U.S. soldiers.

A 1990 report for the secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs found that the military knew that Agent Orange was harmful to personnel but took few precautions to limit exposure. The report quotes a 1988 letter from James Clary, a former scientist with the Chemical Weapons Branch of the Air Force Armament Development Laboratory, to then- Sen. Tom Daschle, who was pushing legislation to aid veterans with herbicide-related illnesses.

“When we initiated the herbicide program in 1960s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicides,” Clary wrote. “We were even aware that the ‘military’ formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the ‘civilian’ version due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the ‘enemy,’ none of us were overly concerned.”

Military scientists had been experimenting with herbicides since the 1940s, but funding cuts in 1958 left few resources in place to fully evaluate the chemicals for use in Vietnam.

“I was given approximately 10 days notice to come to Vietnam to undertake ‘research’ in connection with the above tasks,” wrote Col. James Brown of the U.S. Chemical Corps Research and Development Command in an October 1961 report to top brass just as the defoliation program was ramping up. “Thus, a large order was placed on a very poorly supported research effort.”

The military launched a limited herbicide program in 1962 that involved 47 missions. At the time, relatively little was known about the health effects of dioxin, in part because cancer and other illnesses can take decades to develop and the herbicides had only been in wide use since 1947.

But documents uncovered by veterans’ attorneys show the chemical companies knew that ingredients in Agent Orange and other defoliants could be harmful.

As early as 1955, records show, the German chemical company Boehringer had begun contacting Dow about chloracne and liver problems at a Boehringer plant that made 2,4,5-T, the ingredient in Agent Orange and other defoliants that was contaminated with dioxin.

Unlike U.S. chemical companies, Boehringer halted production and dismantled parts of its factory after it discovered workers were getting sick. The company studied the problem for nearly three years before resuming production of 2,4,5-T.

In doing so, the company found that dioxin was the culprit and that they could limit contamination by cooking the chemicals at lower temperatures, which would slow production.

In response to questions from the Tribune, Dow said it didn’t purchase the proprietary information on the technique until 1964 and didn’t start using it until 1965. Records show it did not inform other manufacturers or the government about the technique until the military began planning construction of its own chemical plant to make herbicides in 1967.

By that time, Dow also had developed a procedure to test dioxin levels in batches of 2,4,5-T. The company provided that technique to other companies in 1965 but not to the military until 1967, the company said.

Earlier in the decade, nearly two dozen military officials and chemical industry scientists met in April 1963 to issue a “general statement” about the health hazards from 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. No one raised concerns about using the chemicals in Vietnam, according to minutes from the meeting.

Evidence focused largely on the fact that more than 300 million gallons of the compounds had been used domestically since 1947, even though the formulations for Vietnam would be far more concentrated and contain more dioxin.

“The committee concluded that no health hazard is or was involved to man or domestic animals from the amounts or manner these materials were used in aforementioned exercise,” the minutes show.

Nonetheless, Dow told the Tribune it had been sharing information about health issues with the military. “In fact, the chemical manufacturers, including Dow, were in dialogue with the U.S. government regarding the potential hazards of chloracne in production workers beginning as early as 1949 and continuing through the 1960s,” Dow spokesman Peter Paul van de Wijs said in a written response.

In 1965, the chemical companies involved in producing the defoliants met at Dow’s headquarters in Midland, Mich., to discuss the contaminant’s threat to consumers.

“This material (dioxin) is exceptionally toxic; it has a tremendous potential for producing chloracne and systemic injury,” Dow’s chief toxicologist, V.K. Rowe, wrote to the other companies on June 24, 1965.

But none of the companies informed the military personnel charged with overseeing the defoliation contracts of the safety concerns until late 1967, according to depositions from the lawsuits.

Internal documents from multiple companies indicate they were worried about the specter of tighter regulation.

Only after a study for the National Institutes of Health showed that 2,4,5-T caused birth defects in laboratory animals did the military stop using Agent Orange, in 1970.

Alan Oates, a Vietnam veteran who chairs the Agent Orange committee for Vietnam Veterans of America, said veterans have had little luck in their legal fight for compensation since the 1984 settlement.

Veterans have argued unsuccessfully in court that the settlement was insufficient because it came too early for thousands of people whose illnesses did not develop until after all the settlement money had run out.

One unresolved issue, Oates said, is whether chemical companies can be held liable for health costs associated with birth defects seen in the children of Vietnam veterans. “Now that it’s starting to show it has an impact on future generations, what is the recourse for those folks?” Oates said.

jgrotto@tribune.com

tmjones@tribune.com

DN!: Indigenous Leaders at the Front Line of Climate Change

Malia Nobriga from Hawai’i was interviewed by Democracy Now! at the Copenhagen Climate Change action where 100,000 people marched outside while the states debated inside.  The issue of climate change, rampant development, energy consumption and degradation of the environment is now reaching an irreversible tipping point for the planet, with the poor and indigenous peoples taking the brunt of the impact. This is an environmental justice issue.  In the future, more and more wars will be fought over resources, unless there are dramatic shifts in the world economy.

http://i2.democracynow.org/2009/12/14/indigenous_leaders_at_the_frontline_of

Indigenous Leaders at the Front Line of Climate Change, at the Front of the Historic Climate March in Copenhagen

On Saturday, over 100,000 people marched in Copenhagen calling on world leaders to agree to a just climate policy. Leading the march was a delegation of indigenous leaders from communities on the front lines of climate change. Democracy Now!’s Anjali Kamat and Elizabeth Press speak to indigenous activists at the march and at the Danish National Museum.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Climate Countdown. We’re broadcasting live from Copenhagen in our exclusive two-week series on the climate talks. I’m Amy Goodman.

On Saturday, over 100,000 people marched in Copenhagen calling on world leaders to agree to a just climate policy. Leading the march was a delegation of indigenous leaders from communities on the front lines of climate change.

Democracy Now!‘s Anjali Kamat and Elizabeth Press spoke to indigenous activists at the march and at an earlier event at the Danish National Museum.

FIU ELISARA: Well, I’m Fiu Elisara from Samoa, a small country in the Pacific. I’m here in Copenhagen, because as small island countries, the whole issue of climate change is an issue of life and death for many of our peoples and indeed our countries. And as indigenous peoples, too, it’s a huge issue for us, because a lot of the solutions that are being proposed in Copenhagen are all terrible, flawed solutions that would not do anything about the objectives of the climate change convention about curbing climate change and stopping emissions. But they are, in fact, making the problem worse.

And it’s really sad to see that there is no political will to actually make it work, and instead of cutting greenhouse gas emissions and the commitments made by the developed countries, they are in fact now shifting the responsibility to us, who have contributed very little or nothing to the whole problem, and yet we really are at the forefront of the impacts, the negative impacts.

MALIA NOBREGA:Aloha kakou. My name is Malia Nobrega, and I’m from the island of Kauai in Hawaii, which is, unfortunately, an illegal part of the United States of America. For me, back home on Kauai, my family, we’re salt producers. And it’s the last place in the islands of Hawaii that continue to make salt in this traditional way. And we’re seeing the disappearance of our land, which—where we can produce salt.

PROTESTERS: Leave the oil in the soil! Leave the oil in the soil!

ROBBY ROMERO: My name is Robby Romero. I am from the Apache and Pueblo territories of the Southwest, Turtle Island. And I’m here because I think it’s vital that indigenous peoples’ voice is part of the global conversation, especially when it comes to climate change. I believe that everything new is hidden in the past and that indigenous peoples are the first to be impacted. They live at the point of impact and are the first to experience the ruin and unnecessary desecration of land and life. And it’s their wisdom, along with modern science—it’s going to take both—to lead us into a time of healing. And if the indigenous voice is not included in the negotiations here at COP15, it will be a major, major mistake.

JOHNSON CERDA: My name is Johnson Cerda. I am a Quechua Indian from the Ecuadorian Amazon, and I grew up in the rainforest. Now we are here because we understand that climate change—in the climate change negotiation, we need at least to put our voice first. Second, we want to insert some safeguards for indigenous peoples. And the third thing is that we need to also say here that we have knowledge, and we can share our knowledge.

SARIMIN BOENGKIH: My name is Sarimin Boengkih, and I come from a small island in the Pacific region called New Caledonia. We are losing land. With losing land, we lose identity. We lose our sovereignty on food. We lose our culture. We lose our languages. So it is very important for us, for the future generation, that the world leaders listen to us, take into account our rights, and sign a good long-term, binding agreement.

MALIA NOBREGA:Well, we’re hearing that what will come out of Copenhagen is a six- or seven-page political statement. I think at this point, for the indigenous caucus, we want to at least have a few sentences within this whole document that will recognize and respect our indigenous rights, because that will create the framework for any future negotiations.

GUNN-BRITT RETTER: My name is Gunn-Britt Retter. I’m working for the Saami Council Arctic and Environmental Unit. I am from a small town on the northeast coast of Norway called Unjárga, or Nesseby. And I’m a Coastal Saami. It’s not only the climate change that’s a challenge to us, but also the national state’s mitigation efforts. So we don’t only see—as the Arctic Ocean opens up, we don’t only see a race for the oil and gas resources, which also impacts our lands; we also see a race for green energy and windmills and water power plants and nuclear plants actually impacts our land, as well. So the mitigation measures are as big a challenge as climate change in itself.

PROTESTERS: Fight for justice! Fight for justice! Fight for justice!

FIU ELISARA: Unfortunately, they are now proposing a whole lot of geo-engineering solutions, so-called solution techno-fixes, to the problem. And we are—we are really looking at that with a huge concern, because the Pacific Ocean now is being targeted for ocean fertilization. And that has never been tested. And we are concerned that the languages here does not even address the whole issue of relevant and appropriate technologies. And the fact that, you know, developed countries are trying to integrate intellectual property rights into technology makes it unaffordable and inaccessible for people like ourselves in the Pacific.

PROTESTERS: Climate justice! Climate justice! Climate justice!

JOHNSON CERDA: In relation to our contribution, we have, as I said, knowledge, but the problem is that, here, most of the countries, they believe that they have the knowledge. Also organizations, you know, NGOs, they are saying that “We want to go to train the communities to understand what is climate change.” We feel the climate change. We know what’s climate change.

PROTESTERS: ¡El pueblo unido, jamás será vencido! ¡El pueblo unido, jamás será vencido!

FIU ELISARA: We are saying that climate is going to be the economic crisis. It’s going to cause economic crisis. It’s not only affecting our peoples, small island countries, the Pacific and indigenous peoples of the world; it’s already knocking at the doors of the rich countries. And if they don’t do anything about it, and if they don’t heed the caution of the scientists, if they don’t heed the spirit of Bali to do real solutions and to address climate change, unfortunately, the whole world and Mother Earth is—it’s going to be, you know, the end—it’ll be the end of all of us.

ROBBY ROMERO: I think that what we do now, or fail to, in this moment will be humanity’s defining legacy.

AMY GOODMAN: That report by Anjali Kamat and Elizabeth Press, indigenous leaders on the front lines of climate change, on the front lines of the climate protest.

National Call for March 4 Strike and Day of Action To Defend Public Education

Education is a right!  Fund education, not wars, prisons or bailouts!

National Call for March 4 Strike and Day of Action To Defend Public Education

California has recently seen a massive movement erupt in defense of public education — but layoffs, fee hikes, cuts, and the re-segregation of public education are attacks taking place throughout the country. A nationwide resistance movement is needed.

We call on all students, workers, teachers, parents, and their organizations and communities across the country to massively mobilize for a Strike and Day of Action in Defense of Public Education on March 4, 2010. Education cuts are attacks against all of us, particularly in working-class communities and communities of color.

The politicians and administrators say there is no money for education and social services. They say that “there is no alternative” to the cuts. But if there’s money for wars, bank bailouts, and prisons, why is there no money for public education?

We can beat back the cuts if we unite students, workers, and teachers across all sectors of public education — Pre K-12, adult education, community colleges, and state-funded universities. We appeal to the leaders of the trade union movement to support and organize strikes and/or mass actions on March 4. The weight of workers and students united in strikes and mobilizations would shift the balance of forces entirely against the current agenda of cuts and make victory possible.

Building a powerful movement to defend public education will, in turn, advance the struggle in defense of all public-sector workers and services and will be an inspiration to all those fighting against the wars, for immigrants rights, in defense of jobs, for single-payer health care, and other progressive causes.

Why March 4? On October 24, 2009 more than 800 students, workers, and teachers converged at UC Berkeley at the Mobilizing Conference to Save Public Education. This massive meeting brought together representatives from over 100 different schools, unions, and organizations from all across California and from all sectors of public education. After hours of open collective discussion, the participants voted democratically, as their main decision, to call for a Strike and Day of Action on March 4, 2010. All schools, unions and organizations are free to choose their specific demands and tactics — such as strikes, rallies, walkouts, occupations, sit-ins, teach-ins, etc. — as well as the duration of such actions.

Let’s make March 4 an historic turning point in the struggle against the cuts, layoffs, fee hikes, and the re-segregation of public education.

– The California Coordinating Committee

(To endorse this call and to receive more information contact march4strikeanddayofaction@gmail.com and check out www.defendcapubliceducation.wordpress.com )