Former U.S. envoy backs Guam sentiments on buildup

Former U.S. envoy backs Guam sentiments on buildup

Friday, 21 August 2009 00:25

by Mar-Vic Cagurangan

Variety News Staff

TAKING up the cudgels for local activists, former U.S. ambassador and retired Army colonel Ann Wright assailed the federal government for shutting out the local population in the planning process for the U.S. Marines’ relocation from Okinawa to Guam.

“The U.S. federal government seldom takes into account local feelings about their projects, particularly military projects in a region far removed from the Washington power center,” Wright writes in an article titled “Guam resists military colonization” posted on CommonDreams.org.

“Guam activists want their voices heard and respected and not to be treated as merely residents of a colony of the United States,” said Wright, who accompanied members of the Japanese peace activist group Code Pink-Osaka during a fact-finding mission on Guam last month.

Wright said her visit to Guam has given her new perspectives about the Department of Defense’s plan for the relocation of 8,000 U.S. Marines to Guam.

“Three Guam legislators told us that the Guam government has not been properly consulted in the discussions between the U.S. and Japanese governments on the relocation of the large US Marine force,” Wright said. “Guam officials have been given little firm information about the military expansion plans.”

Anti-war

Wright is an outspoken critic of the Iraq war. Over the course of her diplomatic career that began in 1987, Wright served as deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassies in Afghanistan.

On the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, Wright sent her resignation letter to then State Secretary Collin Powell, saying she could no longer work for the U.S. government under the Bush administration. Wright quit her job in protest over the U.S. invasion of Iraq without sanction from the U.S. Security Council.

Now taking up the Guam military buildup case, Wright lashed at the U.S. for its plan to deploy thousands of troops to Guam “with virtually no consultation with the local government and citizens.”

Guam concerns

“Professors and students at the University of Guam expressed concern that there will be a sharp increase in sexual assault and rape on the island due to the relocation of US Marines,” she wrote. “They believe one of the reasons the Japanese government finally was able to get the U.S. government to move some military forces out of Okinawa was because of major citizen mobilizations that occurred in response to rapes by U.S. military personnel.”

The $10 billion relocation cost will be subsidized by the Japanese government, which has pledged to shoulder $6 billion, a commitment that was cemented in the Guam International Agreement signed in February.

“The Japanese people, too, are in the dark about the details of the billions of dollars they will pay the U.S. government to have US forces leave Japan,” Wright said.

Source: http://guam.mvarietynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8140:former-us-envoy-backs-guam-sentiments-on-buildup&catid=1:guam-local-news&Itemid=2

Ann Wright to speak about her recent trips to Gaza, Japan and Guam

Ann Wright to speak about her recent trips to Gaza, Japan and Guam

Sunday, August 23 at 3pm.

Revolution Books

2626 S King St # 201, Honolulu, HI 96826-3248

(808) 944-3106)

Ann Wright will be speaking at Revolution Books this Sunday afternoon at 3pm. She was also interviewed for a new show on Voices of Resistance (Olelo 56) that will air on Monday evening at 8pm.

Ann will update us on her trip to Gaza/Israel, but focus on her tour of Guam, Okinawa, and Japan, where she continued to speak out against military expansion and empire. At a time when all too many people are sitting home hoping that Obama’s war policies will somehow be better than Bush’s, and while the evidence is proving otherwise, it is tremendously heartening that Ann Wright is continuing to call people to resist the war. Join us on Sunday in welcoming Ann back. As always, there will be light refreshments after her talk and everyone is invited to stay and talk story informally.

Following are some links to articles about Ann’s recent tour:

Guam Resists Military Colonization: Guam/Common Dreams

Ann Wright Goes to Guam-Takes on Empire: Guam/After Downing

In Hiroshima: Huffington Post

Guam Resists Military Colonization

Published on Monday, August 17, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/17-6

Guam Resists Military Colonization

Having No Say When Washington Tries to Increase your Population by 25%

by Ann Wright

The United States and the Chinese governments have some remarkable similarities when it comes to colonization. The Chinese government has sent a huge Han population to inhabit Tibet and overwhelm the Tibetan population, even building the world’s highest railway to get people and materials there.

The United States government, with virtually no consultation with the local government and citizens, is increasing the population of its non-voting territory, Guam, by 25%. 8,000 U.S. Marines, their dependents and associated logistics units and personnel-a total of 42,000 new residents-will be moved to the small Pacific island (barely three times the size of Washington, DC) that has a current population of 175,000. The move will have a tremendous impact on the cultural and social identity of the island.

These military forces are being relocated to Guam, in great measure, because of the “Close US Military Bases” campaign organized by citizen activists in Okinawa, Japan. The United States has had a huge military presence there since the end of World War II.

I thought I was reasonably well-informed about America’s interests in the Pacific. I had worked as a US diplomat in Micronesia for two years and travelled many times through Guam, a US territory, located an 8 hour flight west of Honolulu.

But earlier this month, in Guam on a study tour sponsored by a coalition of Japanese peace activists spearheaded by CODEPINK-Osaka, Japan, which included a former member of the Japanese Diet (Parliament), I learned new aspects of the decision to relocate this large number of U.S. military to Guam.

Guam was first colonized by the Spanish in the 1500s, became a US colony in 1898, a war-trophy from the Spanish-American war and served as a stopover for ships travelling to the Philippines. During World War II, Guam was attacked and occupied by Japan on December 8, 1941, the day after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. American citizens living on the island had been evacuated by the United States government before the attack, but the indigenous Chamorro population was left behind. During the 31 months of Japanese occupation, the Chamorros endured forced labor, concentration camps, forced prostitution, rape and execution by the Japanese military. The United States military returned three and one-half years later on July 21, 1944 to retake Guam.

In 1950, Guam was made an “unincorporated territory” of the United States by a US Congressional act and residents were given US as one of 16 “non-self governing territories” left in the world.

Lands were taken after World War II from the native Chamorro population without compensation by the US military to construct major air and naval bases which the US military still uses. Currently, there are 3,000 US Air Force and 2,000 US Navy personnel and 1,000 employees of other federal security agencies assigned to Guam.

Three Guam legislators told us that the Guam government has not been properly consulted in the discussions between the US and Japanese governments on the relocation of the large US Marine force. Guam officials have been given little firm information about the military expansion plans. They are very concerned about the impact of further militarization of their island as its major income is provided by hundreds of thousands of Japanese tourists who visit the tropical island annually.

They are disturbed by rumors of proposed forced condemnation of another 950 acres of land owned by members of the native Chamorro population for a live fire range for the incoming Marines. Residues of Agent Orange left from the Vietnam War and other toxic wastes from the military bases, plus the possibility that artillery shells and other munitions made from depleted uranium will be used on their island, are all sources of concern for the people of Guam.

In order to get the 8,000 US Marines out of Okinawa, the Japanese government is paying $6 billion to the US government for their relocation. Guam officials are concerned that not enough of the relocation funds will be made available for the large infrastructure improvements that will be needed for the island’s roads, water, sewage and electrical systems as it tries to support a 25% increase in population. They feel the military will take care of its bases but may leave the local population struggling with the new infrastructure problems created by the large number of military personnel.

The Japanese people, too, are in the dark about the details of the billions of dollars they will pay the US government to have US forces leave Japan. Japanese members of our delegation were shocked when they learned from local Guam activists that the relocation budget calls for the Japanese government to pay $650,000 for the construction of each new house on the base, while Guam activists told us the cost of a middle class home on Guam is around $250,000. The Japanese delegation was greatly concerned that their government is funding such inflated projects and is going to raise the budget with Japanese Diet members when they return to Japan.

Of concern to the Guam business community is consideration by US House of Representatives law makers to give Japanese contractors the same access as American firms to bidding on contracts worth more than $2.5 billion in upcoming US military construction projects on Guam. Apparently, the Japanese government, like the US government, likes to have its commercial firms benefit from government aid projects it is funding “overseas.” With Japan’s $6 billion contribution to the $10 billion cost of relocating the Marines, Japan wants some of that money returned to Japan through construction contracts on the Guam infrastructure projects.

Many Guam officials and a large number of Guam citizens are deeply concerned about the cultural, economic and security impact of the dramatic increase in population and militarization of their island the relocation would present. The current cultural divide of those living in relative luxury inside the bases with better housing, schools and services has been a source of friction between the US military and the local population over the years.

Guam officials said that they too have been perturbed about the extraordinarily high expenditures on US military base facilities, when the Government of Guam is strapped financially. The officials said they were amazed and horrified when they learned that the Air Force recently built an on-base animal kennel for $27 million, with each animal space costing $100,000, when locally, the government is unable to provide sufficient infrastructure for its citizens, much less animals.

Professors and students at the University of Guam expressed concern that there will be a sharp increase in sexual assault and rape on the island due to the relocation of US Marines. They believe one of the reasons the Japanese government finally was able to get the US government to move some military forces out of Okinawa was because of major citizen mobilizations that occurred in response to rapes by US military personnel.

In 2008, the US Ambassador to Japan had to fly to Okinawa to give his apologies for the rape of a 14 year old girl by a US Marine. The US military forces on Okinawa had a 3 day stand-down for “reflection” and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had to express her “regrets” to the Japanese Prime Minister “for the terrible incident that happened in Okinawa… we are concerned for the well-being of the young girl and her family.”

In April, 2008, U.S. Marine Staff Sergeant Tyrone Hadnott, 38, who had been in the Marines 18 years, was charged with the February 10, 2008, rape of 14 year old girl, abusive sexual contact with a child, making a false official statement, adultery and kidnapping.

On May 17, 2008, Hadnott was found guilty of abusive sexual conduct and the four other charges were dropped. Hadnott was sentenced to four years in prison, but will only serve a maximum of three years in prison due to a pretrial agreement that suspended the fourth year of the sentence. He was reduced to private and given a dishonorable discharge from the US Marines.

The rape accusation against Hadnott stirred memories of a brutal rape more than a decade ago and triggered outrage across Japan. Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said that Hadnott’s actions were “unforgivable.”

There are US Congressional stirrings of concern about the relocation of the Marines to Guam. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee chair Ike Skelton has raised concerns about the size, scope and cost of the move to Guam. “At over $10 billion (two and one-half times the initial cost estimate of $4 billion), it is an enormous project, and I am concerned that the thinking behind it is not yet sufficiently mature,” Skelton said at a recent Congressional hearing. “We need to do this, but it needs to be done right.”

In a challenge to US military “forward deployment” strategy in Asia and the Pacific, Guam activists strongly feel the US military should relocate large forces to the mainland of the US where there presence can be better absorbed by the greater populations and existing large military bases, rather than to their small Pacific island.

However, the US federal government seldom takes into account local feelings about their projects, particularly military projects in a region far removed from the Washington power center.

Guam activists want their voices heard and respected and not to be treated as merely residents of a colony of the United States.

Ann Wright is a 29 year US Army/Army Reserves veteran who retired as a Colonel and a former US diplomat who resigned in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq. She served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. In December, 2001 she was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. She is the co-author of the book “Dissent: Voices of Conscience.” (www.voicesofconscience.com)

Guam to host meeting of the International Network of Women Against Militarism

Save the date and spread the word about this important meeting of solidarity taking place on Guam next month

*************************************

7TH MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF WOMEN AGAINST MILITARISM

Resistance, Resilience, and Respect for Human Rights

CHinemma’, Nina’maolek, yan Inarespetu para Direchon Taotao

Location: University of Guam, Mangilao, Guåhan
Dates: September 14-19, 2009

Women across the globe have endured tremendous struggles to protect their families and survive during times of war and unrest. It is from these struggles that women have gained the strength to fight for peace. This September, they will gather on the island of Guam for the 7th Meeting of the International Network of Women Against Militarism themed, “Resistance, Resilience and Respect for Human Rights”.

The five-day conference will bring together women from Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, Hawaii, Philippines, Australia, Republic of Belau, Marshall Islands, Guam, United States, Puerto Rico and Saipan – all of whom have felt the tremendous impacts of US military bases in their homelands.

The International Network of Women Against Militarism has been meeting since 1997 to share information and strategize about the negative effects of US military operations. These effects include military violence against women and girls, the plight of mixed-race Amerasian children abandoned by US military fathers, environmental contamination, cultural degradation and the distortion of local economies. They focus on how military institutions, values, policies and operations impact communities, especially women.

The United States has had a strong military presence on Guam for more than a century, and occupies nearly one-third of the island. Guam, which has been dubbed “the tip of the spear” by the US Department of Defense, is in the midst of an unprecedented military build-up as the US plans to move 17,000 Marines and their dependents from Okinawa to the island. The conference comes at a critical time in Guam’s history, and aims to bring international attention to the concerns being raised about the proposed build-up.

The conference will feature workshops and public forums on human trafficking and prostitution; political arrangements with the United States; rethinking peace and security; exploring alternatives for economic sustainability; environmental contamination and toxicity; and much more.

There will also be a historical tour of the island; a community vigil to honor the past and heal for the future; a public art event featuring local and international artists; and many opportunities to network and establish goals for the future.

For more information please contact: Dr. LisaLinda Natividad at lisanati@yahoo.com or (671) 735-2962.

Sponsoring Organizations: Conscious Living; Famoksaiyan; Fuetsan Famalao’an; Guåhan Coalition for Peace and Justice; Guåhan Indigenous Collective; GUAHAN Project; Global Fund for Women; Office of Minority Health Resource Center; Sage Project, Incorporated; Women and Gender Studies Program, University of Guam.

Obama's Empire: An Unprecedented Network of Military Bases That is Still Expanding

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/30-3

Published on Thursday, July 30, 2009 by The New Statesman

Obama’s Empire: An Unprecedented Network of Military Bases That is Still Expanding

The 44th president of the United States was elected amid hopes that he would roll back his country’s global dominance. Today, he is commander-in-chief of an unprecedented network of military bases that is still expanding.

by Catherine Lutz

In December 2008, shortly before being sworn in as the 44th president of the United States, Barack Obama pledged his belief that, “to ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad”, it was vital to maintain “the strongest military on the planet”. Unveiling his national security team, including George Bush’s defence secretary, Robert Gates, he said: “We also agree the strength of our military has to be combined with the wisdom and force of diplomacy, and that we are going to be committed to rebuilding and restrengthening alliances around the world to advance American interests and American security.”

Unfortunately, many of the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts are being directed towards maintaining and garnering new access for the US military across the globe. US military officials, through their Korean proxies, have completed the eviction of resistant rice farmers from their land around Camp Humphreys, South Korea, for its expansion (including a new 18-hole golf course); they are busily making back-room deals with officials in the Northern Mariana Islands to gain the use of the Pacific islands there for bombing and training purposes; and they are scrambling to express support for a regime in Kyrgyzstan that has been implicated in the murder of its political opponents but whose Manas Airbase, used to stage US military actions in Afghanistan since 2001, Obama and the Pentagon consider crucial for the expanded war there.

The global reach of the US military today is unprecedented and unparalleled. Officially, more than 190,000 troops and 115,000 civilian employees are massed in approximately 900 military facilities in 46 countries and territories (the unofficial figure is far greater). The US military owns or rents 795,000 acres of land, with 26,000 buildings and structures, valued at $146bn (£89bn). The bases bristle with an inventory of weapons whose worth is measured in the trillions and whose killing power could wipe out all life on earth several times over.

The official figures exclude the huge build-up of troops and structures in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade, as well as secret or unacknowledged facilities in Israel, Kuwait, the Philippines and many other places. In just three years of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, £2bn was spent on military construction. A single facility in Iraq, Balad Airbase, houses 30,000 troops and 10,000 contractors, and extends across 16 square miles, with an additional 12 square mile “security perimeter”. From the battle zones of Afghanistan and Iraq to quiet corners of Curaçao, Korea and Britain, the US military domain consists of sprawling army bases, small listening posts, missile and artillery testing ranges and berthed aircraft carriers (moved to “trouble spots” around the world, each carrier is considered by the US navy as “four and a half acres of sovereign US territory”). While the bases are, literally speaking, barracks and weapons depots, staging areas for war-making and ship repairs, complete with golf courses and basketball courts, they are also political claims, spoils of war, arms sale showrooms and toxic industrial sites. In addition to the cultural imperialism and episodes of rape, murder, looting and land seizure that have always accompanied foreign armies, local communities are now subjected to the ear-splitting noise of jets on exercise, to the risk of helicopters and warplanes crashing into residential areas, and to exposure to the toxic materials that the military uses in its daily operations.

The global expansion of US bases – and with it the rise of the US as a world superpower – is a legacy of the Second World War. In 1938, the US had 14 military bases outside its continental borders. Seven years later, it had 30,000 installations in roughly 100 countries. While this number was projected to shrink to 2,000 by 1948 (following pressure from other nations to return bases in their own territory or colonies, and pressure at home to demobilise the 12 million-man military), the US continued to pursue access rights to land and air space around the world. It established security alliances with multiple states within Europe (NATO), the Middle East and south Asia (CENTO) and south-east Asia (SEATO), as well as bilateral agreements with Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAS) were crafted in each country to specify what the military could do, and usually gave US soldiers broad immunity from prosecution for crimes committed and environmental damage caused. These agreements and subsequent base operations have mostly been shrouded in secrecy, helped by the National Security Act of 1947. New US bases were built in remarkable numbers in West Germany, Italy, Britain and Japan, with the defeated Axis powers hosting the most significant numbers (at one point, Japan was peppered with 3,800 US installations).

As battles become bases, so bases become battles; the sites in east Asia acquired during the Spanish-American war in 1898 and during the Second World War – such as Guam, Thailand and the Philippines – became the primary bases from which the US waged war on Vietnam. The number of raids over north and south Vietnam required tons of bombs unloaded at the naval station in Guam. The morale of ground troops based in Vietnam, as fragile as it was to become through the latter part of the 1960s, depended on R&R (rest and recreation) at bases outside the country, which allowed them to leave the war zone and yet be shipped back quickly and inexpensively for further fighting. The war also depended on the heroin the CIA was able to ship in to the troops on the battlefield in Vietnam from its secret bases in Laos. By 1967, the number of US bases had returned to 1947 levels.

Technological changes in warfare have had important effects on the configuration of US bases. Long-range missiles and the development of ships that can make much longer runs without resupply have altered the need for a line of bases to move forces forward into combat zones, as has the aerial refuelling of military jets. An arms airlift from the US to the British in the Middle East in 1941-42, for example, required a long hopscotch of bases, from Florida to Cuba, Puerto Rico, Barbados, Trinidad, British Guiana, north-east Brazil, Fernando de Noronha, Takoradi (now in Ghana), Lagos, Kano (now in Nigeria) and Khartoum, before finally making delivery in Egypt. In the early 1970s, US aircraft could make the same delivery with one stop in the Azores, and today can do so non-stop.

On the other hand, the pouring of money into military R&D (the Pentagon has spent more than $85bn in 2009), and the corporate profits to be made in the development and deployment of the resulting technologies, have been significant factors in the ever larger numbers of technical facilities on foreign soil. These include such things as missile early-warning radar, signals intelligence, satellite control and space-tracking telescopes. The will to gain military control of space, as well as gather intelligence, has led to the establishment of numerous new military bases in violation of arms-control agreements such as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. In Colombia and Peru, and in secret and mobile locations elsewhere in Latin America, radar stations are primarily used for anti-trafficking operations.

Since 2000, with the election of George W Bush and the ascendancy to power of a group of men who believed in a more aggressive and unilateral use of military power (some of whom stood to profit handsomely from the increased military budget that would require), US imperial ambition has grown. Following the declaration of a war on terror and of the right to pre-emptive war, the number of countries into which the US inserted and based troops radically expanded. The Pentagon put into action a plan for a network of “deployment” or “forward operating” bases to increase the reach of current and future forces. The Pentagon-aligned, neoconservative think tank the Project for the New American Century stressed that “while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein”.

The new bases are designed to operate not defensively against particular threats but as offensive, expeditionary platforms from which military capabilities can be projected quickly, anywhere. The Global Defence Posture Review of 2004 announced these changes, focusing not just on reorienting the footprint of US bases away from cold war locations, but on remaking legal arrangements that support expanded military activities with other allied countries and prepositioning equipment in those countries. As a recent army strategic document notes, “Military personnel can be transported to, and fall in on, prepositioned equipment significantly more quickly than the equivalent unit could be transported to the theatre, and prepositioning equipment overseas is generally less politically difficult than stationing US military personnel.”

Terms such as facility, outpost or station are used for smaller bases to suggest a less permanent presence. The US department of defence currently distinguishes between three types of military facility. “Main operating bases” are those with permanent personnel, strong infrastructure, and often family housing, such as Kadena Airbase in Japan and Ramstein Airbase in Germany. “Forward operating sites” are “expandable warm facilit[ies] maintained with a limited US military support presence and possibly prepositioned equipment”, such as Incirlik Airbase in Turkey and Soto Cano Airbase in Honduras. Finally, “co-operative security locations” are sites with few or no permanent US personnel, maintained by contractors or the host nation for occasional use by the US military, and often referred to as “lily pads”. These are cropping up around the world, especially throughout Africa, a recent example being in Dakar, Senegal.

Moreover, these bases are the anchor – and merely the most visible aspect – of the US military’s presence overseas. Every year, US forces train 100,000 soldiers in 180 countries, the presumption being that beefed-up local militaries will help to pursue US interests in local conflicts and save the US money, casualties and bad publicity when human rights abuses occur (the blowback effect of such activities has been made clear by the strength of the Taliban since 9/11). The US military presence also involves jungle, urban, desert, maritime and polar training exercises across wide swathes of landscape, which have become the pretext for substantial and permanent positioning of troops. In recent years, the US has run around 20 exercises annually on Philippine soil, which have resulted in a near-continuous presence of US soldiers in a country whose people ejected US bases in 1992 and whose constitution forbids foreign troops to be based on its territory. Finally, US personnel work every day to shape local legal codes to facilitate US access: they have lobbied, for example, to change the Philippine and Japanese constitutions to allow, respectively, foreign troop basing and a more-than-defensive military.

Asked why the US has a vast network of military bases around the world, Pentagon officials give both utilitarian and humanitarian arguments. Utilitarian arguments include the claim that bases provide security for the US by deterring attack from hostile countries and preventing or remedying unrest or military challenges; that bases serve the national economic interests of the US, ensuring access to markets and commodities needed to maintain US standards of living; and that bases are symbolic markers of US power and credibility – and so the more the better. Humanitarian arguments present bases as altruistic gifts to other nations, helping to liberate or democratise them, or offering aid relief. None of these humanitarian arguments deals with the problem that many of the bases were taken during wartime and “given” to the US by another of the war’s victors.

Critics of US foreign policy have dissected and dismantled the arguments made for maintaining a global system of military basing. They have shown that the bases have often failed in their own terms: despite the Pentagon’s claims that they provide security to the regions they occupy, most of the world’s people feel anything but reassured by their presence. Instead of providing more safety for the US or its allies, they have often provoked attacks, and have made the communities around bases key targets of other nations’ missiles. On the island of Belau in the Pacific, the site of sharp resistance to US attempts to instal a submarine base and jungle training centre, people describe their experience of military basing in the Second World War: “When soldiers come, war comes.” On Guam, a joke among locals is that few people except for nuclear strategists in the Kremlin know where their island is.

As for the argument that bases serve the national economic interest of the US, the weapons, personnel and fossil fuels involved cost billions of dollars, most coming from US taxpayers. While bases have clearly been concentrated in countries with key strategic resources, particularly along the routes of oil and gas pipelines in central Asia, the Middle East and, increasingly, Africa, from which one-quarter of US oil imports are expected by 2015, the profits have gone first of all to the corporations that build and service them, such as Halliburton. The myth that bases are an altruistic form of “foreign aid” for locals is exploded by the substantial costs involved for host economies and polities. The immediate negative effects include levels of pollution, noise, crime and lost productive land that cannot be offset by soldiers’ local spending or employment of local people. Other putative gains tend to benefit only local elites and further militarise the host nations: elaborate bilateral negotiations swap weapons, cash and trade privileges for overflight and land-use rights. Less explicitly, rice imports, immigration rights to the US or overlooking human rights abuses have been the currency of exchange.

The environmental, political, and economic impact of these bases is enormous. The social problems that accompany bases, including soldiers’ violence against women and car crashes, have to be handled by local communities without compensation from the US. Some communities pay the highest price: their farmland taken for bases, their children neurologically damaged by military jet fuel in their water supplies, their neighbors imprisoned, tortured and disappeared by the autocratic regimes that survive on US military and political support given as a form of tacit rent for the bases. The US military has repeatedly interfered in the domestic affairs of nations in which it has or desires military access, operating to influence votes and undermine or change local laws that stand in the way.

Social movements have proliferated around the world in response to the empire of US bases, ever since its inception. The attempt to take the Philippines from Spain in 1898 led to a drawn-out guerrilla war for independence that required 126,000 US occupation troops to stifle. Between 1947 and 1990, the US military was asked to leave France, Yugoslavia, Iran, Ethiopia, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Vietnam, Indonesia, Peru, Mexico and Venezuela. Popular and political objection to the bases in Spain, the Philippines, Greece and Turkey in the 1980s gave those governments the grounds to negotiate significantly more compensation from the US. Portugal threatened to evict the US from important bases in the Azores unless it ceased its support for independence for its African colonies.

Since 1990, the US has been sent packing, most significantly, from the Philippines, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Vieques and Uzbekistan. Of its own accord, for varying reasons, it decided to leave countries from Ghana to Fiji. Persuading the US to clean up after itself – including, in Panama, more than 100,000 rounds of unexploded ordnance – is a further struggle. As in the case of the US navy’s removal from Vieques in 2003, arguments about the environmental and health damage of the military’s activities remain the centrepiece of resistance to bases.

Many are also concerned by other countries’ overseas bases – primarily European, Russian and Chinese – and by the activities of their own militaries, but the far greater number of US bases and their weaponry has understandably been the focus. The sense that US bases represent a major injustice to the host community and nation is very strong in countries where US bases have the longest standing and are most ubiquitous. In Okinawa, polls show that 70 to 80 per cent of the island’s people want the bases, or at least the marines, to leave. In 1995, the abduction and rape of a 12-year-old Okinawan girl by two US marines and one US sailor led to demands for the removal of all US bases in Japan. One family in Okinawa has built a large peace museum right up against the edge of the Futenma Airbase, with a stairway to the roof that allows busloads of schoolchildren and other visitors to view the sprawling base after looking at art depicting the horrors of war.

In Korea, the great majority of the population feels that a reduction in US presence would increase national security; in recent years, several violent deaths at the hands of US soldiers triggered vast candlelight vigils and protests across the country. And the original inhabitants of Diego Garcia, evicted from their homes between 1967 and 1973 by the British on behalf of the US for a naval base, have organised a concerted campaign for the right to return, bringing legal suit against the British government, a story told in David Vine’s recent book Island of Shame. There is also resistance to the US expansion plans into new areas. In 2007, a number of African nations baulked at US attempts to secure access to sites for military bases. In eastern Europe, despite well-funded campaigns to convince Poles and Czechs of the value of US bases and much sentiment in favour of accepting them in pursuit of closer ties with Nato and the EU, and promised economic benefits, vigorous pro tests have included hunger strikes and led the Czech government, in March, to reverse its plan to allow a US military radar base to be built in the country.

The US has responded to action against bases with a renewed emphasis on “force protection”, in some cases enforcing curfews on soldiers, and cutting back on events that bring local people on to base property. The department of defence has also engaged in the time-honoured practice of renaming: clusters of soldiers, buildings and equipment have become “defence staging posts” or “forward operating locations” rather than military bases. Regulating documents become “visiting forces agreements”, not “status of forces agreements”, or remain entirely secret. While major reorganisation of bases is under way for a host of reasons, including a desire to create a more mobile force with greater access to the Middle East, eastern Europe and central Asia, the motives also include an attempt to prevent political momentum of the sort that ended US use of the Vieques and Philippine bases.

The attempt to gain permanent basing in Iraq foundered in 2008 on the objections of forces in both Iraq and the US. Obama, in his Cairo speech in June, may have insisted that “we pursue no bases” in either Iraq or Afghanistan, but there has been no sign of any significant dismantling of bases there, or of scaling back the US military presence in the rest of the world. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, recently visited Japan to ensure that it follows through on promises to provide the US with a new airfield on Okinawa and billions of dollars to build new housing and other facilities for 8,000 marines relocating to Guam. She ignored the invitation of island activists to come and see the damage left by previous decades of US base activities. The myriad land-grabs and hundreds of billions of dollars spent to quarter troops around the world persist far beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, and too far from the headlines.

© 2009 The New Statesman

Catherine Lutz is a professor at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University and editor of “The Bases of Empire: the Global Struggle against US Military Posts [1]” (Pluto Press, £17.99)

International community needs to recognize turmoil faced in Guam

Shiloh Melei, the author of this article was a summer intern in the AFSC Hawai’i office through the City and County of Honolulu summer youth employment program.  He is a Farrington High School Student, a member of the winning 2008 O’ahu High School interscholastic poetry slam team.  Congratulations to Shiloh and keep up the great work!  Mahalo to Michael Bevacqua for sharing his mana’o and for the Hawaii Independent for covering news that others are ignoring.

>><<

http://thehawaiiindependent.com/?/page-one/read/international-community-needs-to-recognize-turmoil-faced-in-guam/

International community needs to recognize turmoil faced in Guam

Jul 29, 2009 – 10:59 AM | By Shiloh Melei | The Hawaii Independent

From Spanish missionaries to Japanese soldiers to the U.S. Armed Forces, the tiny island of Guam has held the feet of foreigners on her shores for hundreds of years. And for hundreds of years, its people have been made to live under the rule of those foreigners. As a result, the culture, people, and land have all suffered greatly.

Missionaries banned the native tongue as well as cultural dances so that they were almost completely forgotten. Native birds have become extinct thanks to Brown Snakes brought overseas by U.S. cargo ships. The constant rising of new buildings to hold the rapid increase of people coming to the island has reshaped the landscape. Chemicals leaked from military weaponry and technology has polluted the land. Military nuclear testing in the 1970s exposed the islands inhabitants to massive amounts of radiation, followed by an increase in the island’s rates of still births and radioactivity related cancers. These problems come in addition to a high cost of living as available land is being taken away by the military.

The abuse of the land and its people has been going on for hundreds of years, but not without resistance. Many representatives from Guam have given testimony to the United Nations Special Political and Decolonization Committee about the abuse of their homeland, urging for help in the liberation of Guam.

The tiny island of Guam and its people may not be able to last another hundred years of this abuse.

Michael Lujan Bevacqua has been active in working toward liberation. Bevacqua is a recent graduate from the Ethnic Studies Ph.D. program at the University of California in San Diego, editor of the Chamorro zine Minagahet, and a co-founder of the Chamorro activist organization Famoksaiyan. He also helps to maintain several websites dedicated to the issues of Chamorro history, culture, and decolonization. Bevacqua was selected to attend the 2008 Democratic National Convention as the official blogger from Guam, and has organized numerous events and conferences in both California and Guam to inform people about the struggles of Chammorros and their islands.

His dedication to his homeland is reflected in almost everything he does. When talking with his two-year-old daughter, Bevacqua speaks only in Chamorro so that she will be one of the few people in the world who will be able to speak the language fluently.

He is also an avid reader of manga — Japanese comics. Like most readers Bevacqua began reading manga for personal enjoyment. But unlike most readers, he translates manga into his native Chamorro tongue and hopes to bring a sort of Shonen Jump to Guam. Shonen Jump is an extremely popular manga magazine in both the U.S. and Japan, which, when translated, will allow native Chamorro speakers to share in Bevacqua’s enjoyment of these world renowned stories.

His appreciation for other cultures while strengthening his own is a way of life that Bevacqua honed while spending time in Africa when Apartheid was still occurring. As the son of a “White” father and a “Brown” mother, it was difficult for him to discern where he belonged-something that has shaped his political views on issues today.

The proposed Military buildup on Guam is one such issue he strongly opposes. This buildup refers to the U.S. decision to relocate from Okinawa more than 20,000 Marines and their dependents to Guam. So much military force is already funneled onto the island that it is often referred to as “the tip of the spear.” Plans are for the United States to send 48 F-22 and F-15 fighter jets, six B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers, and adding as many as six nuclear submarines to the three already stationed on Guam. This would be done regardless of the damage already dealt to the island as a result of housing the military.

Bevaqcua refers to himself as an “information activist,” meaning he works to let people know about the issues Guam is facing.

The tiny island of Guam and its people may not be able to last another hundred years of this abuse. The international community must stand up on behalf of them-people who see wrong and speak up about it rather than sit in silent tolerance. These are the kind of people who can inspire change for treatment of Guam. These are the type of people who can change the world.

Chamoru Nation

Michael Bevacqua, Chamoru activist and artist is the guest on Making Waves. He discusses the legacy of colonization and militarization in Guam and the Chamoru resistance.   Terri Keko’olani hosts.

http://olelo.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=23&clip_id=7014&publish_id=&event_id=

Retired Army officer, Japan peace delegation tour Guam

Retired Army officer, Japan peace delegation tour Guam

A peace delegation from Osaka, Japan is on island to study and tour Guam and to hear from the locals on their thoughts about the Marines’ relocation from Okinawa to Guam. Joining them is a retired U.S. Army colonel who says the move won’t be good for Guam.

By Michele Catahay

A peace delegation from Osaka, Japan is on island to study and tour Guam and to hear from the locals on their thoughts about the Marines’ relocation from Okinawa to Guam. Joining them is a retired U.S. Army colonel who says the move won’t be good for Guam.

During the eve of Liberation Day, a peace delegation from Osaka took a tour around the island today to visit the many sites where Chamorros suffered the atrocities of war. The group toured various locations and memorials, to include here at the Tinta caves, where they paid respect to those Chamorros who died during the Japanese occupation of Guam. Joining them is retired Colonel Anne Wright, who says their mission is to study the impact Guam will have on the move.

In fact, Wright says there will be a negative impact, noting, “I’m very concerned about the militarization of Guam. Of course, it is a dilemma. Where does the U.S. put its military forces, but to put it in such small islands that are going to be negatively impacted by such a large increase in population. Plus, the weapons that are going to be used, the toxic materials that are used as a part of war, fighting and practicing the exercise training areas that will be used here on Guam.”

Wright was once a diplomat in Micronesia and visited Guam in the past. She says Guam’s pristine lands will be greatly impacted by the increase of Marines and their dependents. “I would urge our military to take our military to other places and put it in an area that has the capability of absorbing so many people and so many war-fighting materials,” she said.

Wright will be speaking at several conferences as she joins the peace delegation back to Japan.

Meanwhile, trip organizer Ako Miamoto from Osaka says her group currently promotes peace in a nuclear-free world. She says the trip will give them insight on what happened during World War II and what could happen once the Marines move to Guam. “Today we’re traveling all around Guam to study what our Japanese military did during the Second World War and now the relocation issues,” she said. “They are already so many concerns about it. So that’s why we invited 18 people.” She also said, “It’s our common issue. We’re all against the relocation of U.S. Marines.”

The group also met with native rights groups. They will leave the island tomorrow.

Source: http://www.kuam.com/bm/news/retired-army-officer-japan-peace-delegation-tour-g.shtml?15081

Former diplomat warns against US plan for Guam

Ex-envoy warns against US plan for Guam

Wednesday, 22 July 2009 00:51 by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff

A FORMER U.S. diplomat turned peace activist advised Guam residents to be wary of the American government’s military buildup plan for the island.

“We need to be looking very carefully at what our federal government does to us,” said Ann Wright, a retired U.S. Army colonel who spoke to a small crowd on the implications of the relocation of 8,000 U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam during a presentation held Monday night at the University of Guam.

“While we all want to be safe and secure in the world, sometimes our federal government uses this issue of national security to do things to us that we normally wouldn’t put up with,” she added.

Wright accompanied members of the Code Pink Japan, a peace activist group, who visited Guam to discuss the impact of the military buildup with local activists. The group left Guam yesterday.

“Our delegation is here in solidarity with the people of Guam in terms of the movement of 8,000 marines from Okinawa. The people of Japan, particularly the people on Okinawa, have been working very hard to remove some of the extensive military forces. Now, they seem to be coming to your lovely island,” said Wright, a native of Arkansas.

“The [Okinawans] certainly understand that whenever the U.S. military lands somewhere, it leaves a very large footprint. You all know it very well, because much of your land is already occupied by the U.S. military,” the former U.S. envoy told the audience.

Anti-war

Wright is a former U.S. deputy ambassador who was assigned in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Mongolia and Micronesia. She joined the military at the time when the U.S. military was invading Vietnam.

On March 19, 2003, the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Wright cabled a letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell, stating that without the authorization of the UN Security Council, the invasion and occupation of a Muslim, Arab, oil-rich country would be a isaster. Since then, she has been writing and speaking out for peace and is now a resident of Honolulu.

“It has been deeply emotional for all of us. Here we are in war again. The United States has started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” she said. “When you look at the number of civilians who have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guam, it brings home to us all what we should be working on.”

“The history of the United States is not a peaceful history,” said Wright, who added that the U.S. has, “a history of invading other countries.”

Land grabbing

With regard to the local military buildup, Wright told the audience that, “You have been seeing your own lands being taken from you,” adding that, “The federal government builds without your agreement. They build enormous facilities that have disastrous effects on your environment.”

The retired colonel suggested that people weigh the importance of their own lands, and whether or not it is worth it to lose those lands for an increase in short term values such as trade and business.

“Once the federal government gets its hands into something it never gets it out. With the Obama administration I certainly hope that we will all join together to throw out many of the provisions of the Patriot Act that are really curtailing our own civil liberties,” she said.

Threatened

Japanese parliamentarian and Code Pink member Sumi Fujita said that because of the long military presence and all of the rape cases in Okinawa, “women [there] now feel threatened.”

“All of the military promises to help the Okinawan economy have been a big lie,” Fujita said, through interpreter Hisae Ogawa.

As for the rape issue, Wright said, “This is a failure in leadership that is coming to you, that will allow this to continue.”

“Sometimes being an activist leads to things that you’d never thought you’d be doing,” said Wright.

The former U.S. diplomat also stated that we should all be aware of the “isms” created by policy makers. “Our government has been very good, meaning very bad, in using the ‘isms’ like communism, terrorism, and fascism to frighten and scare the American public so that they can do things that normally we would protest,” she said. “It something we should always be very wary of, when there’s another ‘ism’ coming up.”

Source:

http://guam.mvarietynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7666:ex-envoy-warns-against-us-plan-for-guam&catid=1:guam-local-news&Itemid=2

Journalism and Militarization on the 'tip of the spear'

http://indiancountrynews.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6896&Itemid=64&mosmsg=Thanks+for+your+vote!

War Stories and the Chamorus: journalism and militarization on the tip of the spear.

By Beau Hodai
Special to News From Indian Country 7-09

The weight of occupation and corporate media self-censorship

It was a typical day in the jungle, though more overcast than the constant island diet of endless blue skies and fluffy white clouds; humid– drizzling rain that would materialize from the sticky mist in the air, a breeze stirring through breadfruit and banana leaves.

I was at the family home of Navy Hospital Corpsman Second Class Anthony Carbullido, Jr., whom the Department of Defense had recently listed among the dead to be routed back from Afghanistan to Guam through Dover, Delaware– the victim of an improvised explosive device.

Family and friends of the corpsman were seated in rows of folding chairs under a glowing green fiberglass awning reciting the rosary, “may eternal peace and rest be unto Tony…” a dull, sleepy drone mixed with the static rain.

I was seated in one of the chairs, as were my photographer and his girlfriend. To the side of the house, under a separate awning, large tables were being set with large trays of traditional Chamorro food. A pit-bull puppy pawed at the kitchen door, leaving streaks of red clay as more family members prepared food inside.

I had arrived on Guam less than a month before to work for the island’s largest newspaper, the Gannett-owned Pacific Daily News. My assigned beat was “health and environment,” and while the Carbullido rosary service did not exactly fall under the banner of that beat, it was assigned to me as one of my co-workers, who was usually assigned to rosaries and military funerals, had said he needed a break from covering such functions, as the process of extracting a story from a grieving mother is– at best– draining.

In the darkened living room of the family home I was made to understand this sentiment all too well as I held my little recorder in the mother’s face and asked her how she felt about her son’s death.

Aurora Carbuliido, the sailor’s mother, said that her son’s death was the realization of her fears as a mother of a sailor involved in active duty.

“I’ve seen past pictures and past articles (of troops who have died in combat) and it scared me because my son is over there,” she said.

“This is a hard situation to be in,” his father said. “It’s hard to believe that this is happening to us.” (From: “Family, friends mourn sailor: Acting governor orders flags to half-staff,” Pacific Daily News, August 9, 2008).

It should be noted that the idea that what a person is quoted as saying in a newspaper is accurate is not necessarily accurate; as the photographer haggled with the father about his desire not to be photographed, Mrs. Carbuillido spoke of her son and her fears in the present-tense… “and it scares me because my son is over there.” The idea that they would be shoveling clay into their son’s face sometime in the weeks to come had not yet hit home.

There had been a steady succession of these stories, as Cabullido was the 17th casualty from Guam and the 29th from the northern Marianas region since the outset of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001.

This succession has given Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, with a population of under 300,000, the dubious honor of being the region of the United States with the highest number per capita of such casualties.

This is comparable to a city the size of Spokane taking the same blow in the “War on Terror,” but with one large difference: in the insular world of Micronesia, everybody is related in one way or another to everyone else. Few get out. It is because of this that one family’s pain ripples out through the entire community.

A brief history of Guam to bring you to this point:

Guam, the northern-most island of the Marianas Archipelago, known to the Chamorus who occupied it as Guahan, was dubbed the “Island of Thieves” by Ferdinand Magellan when a group of natives attempted to steal one of his ships during his 1521 landing.

In 1668, the Jesuit Padre San Vitores, began colonization of the island for the Spanish crown.

San Vitores was promptly killed in 1672 by a Chamoru chief named Matapang for baptizing his daughter without permission. Matapang was eventually killed in turn.

At the time of Spanish colonization, there were 175,000 Chamorus on Guahan; 100 years into colonization, the population had dwindled to 1,500.

Following the Spanish-American War, Spain ceded the island to U.S. forces in 1898, at which time it served as a small military outpost.

In 1941, Japanese forces invaded the island. Fortunately, U.S. citizens on the island were evacuated prior to the occupation. Unfortunately, all Chamorus were left behind to face three years of forced labor and life in concentration camps around the island. A further 300 Chamorus died during this period. Scars from this period can be found throughout the island in the form of old munitions and tunnels bored though hillsides by Chamoru slave labor for the Japanese.

On July 21, 1944, the U.S. Marines retook the island in the bloody Battle of Guam. Today, Liberation Day warrants a week-long barbeque party along the island’s main drag, Marine Corps Drive, in the capital of Hagatna.

In 1950 the Guam Legislature passed the Organic Act, which laid the foundation for local government as it is now and established Guam as an unincorporated territory of the United States.

Today, Catholicism extends to every facet of life on-island and the Archdiocese of Hagatna holds heavy political sway. The word “Matapang,” which, at the time of San Vitores’ death meant “to be made pure by cleansing,” means “silly” or “foolish” in modern Chamorro, which is a polyglot of English, Spanish and Chamoru.

The word Guahan, which meant “we have”, has long since been replaced by the bastardized “Guam,” which means nothing; and every day the most mournful cacophony I have ever heard rings out of the synth bells atop the Basilica of the Archdiocese of Hagatna, echoing off the cliffs and out into the Philippine Sea like a funereal music box opened for a dead child.

At present, a full third of the island’s land mass of 209 square miles is occupied by either Andersen Air Force base or U.S. Naval Base Guam. Guam is often proudly referred to as the “tip of the spear” for U.S. military operations, as it is the furthest military outpost from the U.S. mainland. Many bumper stickers also proclaim: “Guam: where America’s day begins,” or “SPAM!”

Guam has no exports, virtually no agricultural production (due in large part to military contamination of the land and water-much of this contamination has been attributed to nuclear weapons testing that took place in the Marshall Islands from 1946 to 1962, the effects of which were documented in a 2005 report filed by the National Research Council under the National Academies of Science. Because of this, legislation has been introduced repeatedly-and with little success-by Guam Congressional Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallo to include the territory in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act) and no other line of production. Outside of federal subsidies, the main source of revenue on-island is in the trade of Japanese tourist dollars-a revenue stream that has been dwindling in recent years.

This dead-end environment leaves the military as the only viable option for many young people looking to get out.

Following the recitation of the rosary, while waiting to interview Carbullido’s parents, I spoke with several of his friends, his siblings and some of his cousins.

As I was speaking to his teenage brother, one of his cousins joined us.

“What do you think? Still planning on joining up?” the brother asked the cousin, a man in his early twenties clutching a pale blue Bud Lite can.

“Yeah,” he said, raising the can and tilting his head.

“This doesn’t change your mind at all?” asked the brother.

No, the cousin replied; there really wasn’t much other choice for him-no other way out, or up– even if it meant coming back in a box.

Unfortunately for those whose families could not afford private school tuition or cannot afford higher education and who are products of the Guam Public School System, even the military option appears to be closing on them.

A recruiter for the Guam Army National Guard told me in an interview at the time that, while he has seen an increase in interest in military service in the region, increasing numbers of young people educated on the island have been unable to pass the Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Test.

GPSS is, by far, the GovGuam line agency beset by the most demons-which is considerable, given that GovGuam could be likened to a boondoggle of contemptuous, incompetent snakes, each trying to bight the other’s head off in the perennial battle over the territory’s small annual budget.

Last year the office of the Guam Attorney General closed down several of the system’s schools, citing exposure of students to raw sewage, asbestos and fire hazards.

All but one of the schools have been reopened to date, but the department has still been unable to fill its staffing needs, students still continue to perform well below national standards and at a 2008 budget hearing a GPSS employee told the Guam Legislature that teachers in the system actually had a higher absenteeism rate than students.

But, even if enlistment is not an option, many still see the Department of Defense as Guam’s Savior.

In 2006, the DoD announced plans to relocate some 5,000 Marines and their dependents from the Japanese prefecture of Okinawa to a new to-be-built base on Guam.

The estimated impact of the shift, or “military buildup,” as it is commonly referred to, when considering the number of workers to fill jobs created by the need to expand both civilian and military infrastructure, translates to at least a twenty percent population boom over the course of a few years, set to begin (tentatively) in 2010. Some believe that a twenty percent population increase is a conservative estimate and set the number much higher.

Many members of the Guam business community and government are bedazzled by what they anticipate to be a cornucopia of new possibilities in profit and employment offered through the expansion.

Many of these dazzled individuals are the same ones who advertize in, and thereby underwrite, the island’s news media, chief of which is the same Gannett-owned Pacific Daily News that I covered the Carbullido rosary for.

When my editor changed Aurora Carbullido’s quote, he also buried it at the back of the article. He had placed canned statements from the island’s acting governor and congressional representative before not just statements from the grieving mother, but of all the corpsman’s family members.

“We extend our sympathies and prayers to all his family, friends and loved ones,” said Guam Delegate Madeleine Bordallo…

“Anthony will rest in the hearts and minds of a grateful people humbled by his ultimate sacrifice,” said Acting Governor Mike Cruz in a statement yesterday. “I have ordered all government… agencies to fly flags at half-staff in honor of…”

This same editor had lectured me on previous occasions about putting the statements of “real people” above whatever hollow canned crap you may get from the desk of a politician. This rule apparently did not apply to cases involving a military death.

Cases when the rule did apply, by PDN/Gannett standards, were when you’d be handed a press release on some banal item, such as “Healthy Snack Food Month,” or “Infant Automobile Safety Awareness Month,” from some ad hoc task force. You’d then be given your orders to go over to the shopping center down the block, get three “reactions” from “real people,” then march back to the newsroom and churn out six to eight inches of copy by combining all or parts of the press release with the quotes.

That is Gannett journalism: the best in fast food, bulleted coverage-as pioneered by U.S.A Today.

My theory then, as this editor in the most gently condescending tones, explained the role of “real people” to me, is the same as it is now in hindsight; Aurora Carbullido’s reaction was too real. It was the visceral reaction of a shocked mind to an inconceivable pain. And this pain was brought about by involvement with the Department of Defense, the same DoD that so many underwriters looked on as a messiah that would finally put them on the map. This is why the quote of a grieving mother was altered and buried.
The statement that journalism at such a paper is only an incidental byproduct that suffers from this ad-driven editorial policy could be considered libelous if-for one, it was not true-or if it was not the Gannett modus operandi by definition:

The company was started by Frank Ernest Gannett, who in 1906 began buying small newspapers in New York state…

… These newspapers were usually the only ones published in their city and so could be run very profitably. The company’s growth was further spurred by the attention it paid to advertising and circulation and by its tight control of costs…

…This pattern of buying up all the newspapers in an area, slashing subscription rates to levels which (according to critics) only a national conglomerate could sustain, and then raising advertising rates once control over the local market had been secured brought Gannett severe criticism as well as lawsuits. Smaller community and privately owned newspapers have charged the media giant with predatory practices and violations of antitrust laws. Not helping Gannett’s image was the frank admission of brash business tactics by former Gannett chairman Allen Neuharth in his autobiography, Confessions of an S.O.B. (1989). (From, “Gannett Co., Inc.” as defined by Encyclopedia Britannica, 2009).

So it should have been no surprise when the PDN refused to cover any story outlining the long shadow of rape and assault allegations that accompanied the history of Marines stationed in Okinawa and whose arrival was being staged on Guam.

The same co-worker who had declined to cover the rosary and myself had been pressing our editors to do a story on this history, as there had been virtually no coverage of it in Guam media to that point.

Nothing ever came of it; each day we logged on to the program that contained the daily budget and found that the item had either been pushed back or removed entirely.

Eventually, unable to stomach their editorial policy any longer, I jumped ship and went to work for the PDN’s only competition, the Marianas Variety.

One day my old co-worker said he had given up trying to get the story into the PDN following an especially heated exchange between himself and the managing editor on the subject of the Okinawa Marines story in which he said the editor had indignantly exclaimed, “I have friends and family in the military!”

Military censorship

I had been holding the story up to that point out of respect for my friend, but on hearing that he had given up trying to run it in the PDN, I decided to run with it.

I set out to get some information on the allegations from the Navy and the Joint Guam Program Office, which had been set up by the DoD to act as a civilian-military liaison to pave the way for the Marines. It seemed that once the Navy had figured out I was going to write a critical article, my phone calls and emails went unanswered.

The Variety finally ran an article-despite lack of cooperation on the part of the Navy-in November highlighting the grave concerns of many Guam senators over the violent history of the Marines in Okinawa.

At about that time the Navy’s public information officer met with the Variety’s general operations manager, saying that I was harassing him and that he thought I didn’t know what I was talking about. He said the Navy did not keep any records of allegations against its service members and suspected that I had not done my research.

Given the Navy’s reticence on the issue, I cited numbers directly from the Okinawa prefecture government website, as well as data compiled by Japanese activist groups:

“A report filed this year by an activist group, Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence, documented over 400 alleged cases of rape, abduction, assault, murder and other forms of abuse committed by U.S. forces in Japan from the period of their post-war occupation to the present.”(“Concerns raised over Okinawa incidents: part 1” Marianas Variety, October 30, 2008)

“(T)here have been more than 5,076 cases of crime caused by the SOFA (Service of Forces Agreement) status people since the reversion of Okinawa to mainland Japan (1972). This number includes 531 cases of brutal crimes and 955 cases of assaults. Thus, there is fear amongst the people of Okinawa as to whether or not security for their daily lives can be maintained and whether their property can be preserved.”(From “Concerns raised over Okinawa incidents: part 2,” Marianas Variety, November 7, 2008-as quoted directly from the website of the government of the Okinawa Prefecture.)

In December, following the story on the Okinawa Marines, I wrote an article for the Variety entitled “DoD’s ‘mystery’ project puzzles Guam officials,” which examined a tip I had received that JGPO was looking to convert about 650 acres currently belonging to the Chamorro Land Trust Commission and 250 acres belonging to the Ancestral Lands Commission-which was currently occupied by Guam International Raceway– into a firing range.

On January 15, Variety reporter and editor, Mar-Vic Cagurangan, wrote a follow-up article, based on a written statement from JGPO Operations Director, Lt. Col. Rudy Kube, confirming the suspicions.

On April 28, the Variety received payment from JGPO for their role as a ‘watchdog’ paper when Variety reporters were barred from attending the “Guam Industry Forum III,” while all other media outlets on-island were granted access.

Variety reporter, Jennifer Naylor Gesick, wrote:

Onsite industry forum personnel notified the reporting staff that the ban was on a “federal level” and was issued as a “government order” from U.S. Marine Corp Capt. Neil Ruggiero with the Joint Guam Project Office…”
The ban was in effect in all venues, as confirmed by Variety reporters in the field. Press passes were printed for every media company on island, except for the Variety…

… Ruggiero argued that Variety could have attended the event as a business if the publishers had registered with the forum.

“Marianas Variety was given the same opportunity as anyone else, they just chose not to be paying registrants, [Pacific Daily News] chose to pay and they were allowed access,” he said…

…However, any media covering the event was allowed in free.

In response to claims of a violation of the freedom of the press in restricting access to the forum, Ruggiero responded that “the press who only stays one session is allowed in free.” That accommodation was not extended to the Variety.

Ruggiero also said that a Variety columnist was given access to represent the paper.

Variety columnist Jayne Flores confirmed that she was given a pass, but Ruggiero later said, “I told her she could not come as Marianas Variety or write any news for them.”

(From “Variety banned by JGPO,” Marianas Variety, April 29, 2009)

Gesick went on to quote Ruggiero, who is the public information officer for JGPO, as saying that the ban on Variety reporters was in effect because he felt part of Kube’s statement had been published out of context, although he did not challenge the veracity of the story.

Despite this lack of cooperation with media outlets willing to report any story critical of the DoD’s plans for the island, events in which the public have been able to ask questions of those involved with the proposed buildup or voice their concerns have drawn large crowds.

The large turnout at such forums suggests that those who are concerned for their island’s future in light of such weighty developments are not marginal or fringe groups as the dismissive attitudes of the DoD and the PDN would suggest.

At a forum held in November at the University of Guam, panelists from both the Civilian-Military Task Force, which works under the auspices of the Office of the Governor with JGPO, as well as members of the community working toward Guam’s self-determination stated both their progress and concerns with the buildup.

Panelist Mike Bevacqua of Famoksaiyan said every resident of Guam-regardless of their position on the buildup-needs to realize that the buildup will affect them personally. He encouraged residents to take a more proactive role in the course of their and Guam’s future.

“It is taking place because we are America, and it’s taking place because we’re not. It is not only something that takes place because of our geographic position, but our colonial status as well…”

“…It is also taking place because we are one of the few American communities where a unilateral announcement by the DOD that it intends to drastically affect life in your community and cause a population increase of 74 percent is met with excitement, celebration and a frightening lack of questioning…”

“…and this military buildup is predicated on the fact that you live in a colony and you can be treated as an object for the subject of the United States, as a weapon of the warrior of the United States military. This is the United States military sharpening the tip of its spear.”

(“Military buildup forum draws huge crowd,” Marianas Variety, November 20, 2008)

 OpenCUNY » login | join | terms | activity 

 Supported by the CUNY Doctoral Students Council.  

OpenCUNY.ORGLike @OpenCUNYLike OpenCUNY

false