Struggle to Protect Jeju Island from Monstrous Naval Base Intensifies

There has been an intense amount of activity in the struggle to protect Jeju island from destruction due to the building of a naval base in Gangjeong.   The Save Jeju Facebook page is a great source of news with many photos and as-it-happens reports of protests at the site of the naval base.

John Feffer wrote a travel article about visiting Jeju in the Washington Post “South Korea’s Jeju Island, paradise with a dark side”(April 20, 2012) which included a significant amount of information about the anti-base struggle there.

The Los Angeles Times published “In South Korea, a small island town takes on the navy” (May 6, 2012).

Ann Wright also wrote a piece for Op Ed News “64 years later, in Second Massacre on Jeju Island, South Korea: US Missile Defense System Destroys a World Heritage Site” (April 4, 2012).

And an international solidarity team produced an English language newsletter that reports on the deportation of several international supporters from Korea and the denial of entry to a delegation from Veterans for Peace.

One of the issues has been South Korean politicians using Hawai’i as an example of the successful marriage between tourism and the military.  A leading conservative politician has repeatedly made the comparision.  Jeju activists asked us to address her claims. Here’s an email sent by Korean activist Sung Hee Choi on May 1, 2012, which contains my letter to the editor rebutting the claims:

“I would invite Ms. Park to take a swim in Hawai’i’s most famous military-tourist attraction: Pearl Harbor (the true name given by Native Hawaiians is Ke Awalau o Pu’uloa). However, the water is too toxic. And before she could get very far, she would be arrested by the Navy for trespassing in military waters. There is no tourist activity within Pearl Harbor except for those museum sites controlled by the government.” (Kyle Kajihiro)

On May 1, Labor Day, Park Geun-Hye, daughter of deceased ex-President Park Chung-Hee who ruled South Korea for decades with military dictatorship made absurd remarks that, “In case of Hawai’i, tourism income is 24% while military-related income is 20% in its whole finance,” and “If we construct the Jeju naval base as civilian-military dual use port and make it well so that 150,000 ton cruise can enter and exit, it would not likely to be less than Hawai’i” (Headline Jeju, May 1).  On March 30 before General election, Park, supporting the candidates of the Saenuri Party (the ruling conservative Party)-though none were elected in the Jeju Island furious on naval base, has said, “We should make Jeju like Hawai’I famous for global tourism site and naval base.” It was a happening that reminded absurd remark by Kim Tae-Yong, ex-Minister of National Defense on March 20, 2010.  Amidst raining all day, Gangjeong villagers and activists protested against her spreading absurd remarks of so called civilian-military dual use port, from morning to afternoon.  Kyle Kajihiro has sent a below writing refuting her remarks on April 25. Kyle Kajihiro is the program director for the American Friends Service Committee in Hawaii. He works on demilitarization, environmental justice, and Kanaka Maoli human rights issues. He has been involved in immigrant worker organizing, community mural projects, antiracist/antifascist activism, the Central America Solidarity movement, Hawaiian sovereignty solidarity efforts, and community radio and television. He has visited the Jeju and has many times expressed his solidarity on Jeju. Please refer to DMZ Hawai’i / Aloha ‘Aina (http://www.dmzhawaii.org/)

Protest letter to Park Geun-Hye

http://www.parkgeunhye.or.kr/english/01pgh/pgh01.asp

http://www.parkgeunhye.or.kr/english/

The Military Impacts in Hawai’i should be a Warning to Koreans about the threat to Jeju island.

By Kyle Kajihiro

April 25, 2012

Ms. Park Keun-Hye is gravely mistaken to claim that military bases have been good for Hawai’i and therefore would be good for Jeju. The U.S. invaded and occupied the sovereign country of Hawai’i in order to build a military outpost. This included the taking of more than 200,000 acres of land for military bases, training and other activities. The result has been the destruction of the environment with more than 900 military contamination sites identified by the Department of Defense. The military’s toxic cocktail includes PCB, perchloroethylene, jet fuel and diesel, mercury, lead, radioactive Cobalt 60, unexploded ordance, perchlorate, and depleted uranium.

When the U.S. took over, especially during WWII, the military seized thousands of acres of Hawaiian land. Whole communities were evicted, their homes, churches and buildings razed or bombed for target practice, their sacred sites destroyed by bombs or imprisoned behind barbed wire.

Recently, hundreds of landless Native Hawaiian families were evicted from a secluded area of O’ahu where they had been living in cars and makeshift tents. They are the internally displaced native people, evidence of the so-called ‘benefits’ of militarization. Meanwhile the military occupies more than 13,000 acres of Hawaiian land, comprising a third of the land in that part of the island.

The enormous military presence did not bring security. On the contrary, it made Hawai’i the prime target during WWII and the Cold War. Militarization imported the most virulent forms of racism and martial law to the islands and provided the U.S. a launching pad from which to expand its empire. The military interests of the U.S. continue to override the needs and security of local communities as it distorts our development in ways that serve empire.

I would invite Ms. Park to take a swim in Hawai’i’s most famous military-tourist attraction: Pearl Harbor (the true name given by Native Hawaiians is Ke Awalau o Pu’uloa). However, the water is too toxic. And before she could get very far, she would be arrested by the Navy for trespassing in military waters. There is no tourist activity within Pearl Harbor except for those museum sites controlled by the government.

Ke Awalau o Pu’uloa is a perfect example of the dangers of militarization. The U.S. invaded and occupied the Kingdom of Hawai’i in order to take Ke Awalau o Pu’uloa as a strategic port. What was once one of the most productive fisheries for Native Hawaiian people with extensive wetland agriculture and aquaculture complexes that fed many thousands on O’ahu island has become a giant toxic Superfund site. Today there are approximately 749 contaminated sites that the Navy has identified within the Pearl Harbor Naval Complex. The seafood from Ke Awalau o Pu’uloa is no longer safe to eat. The famous pearl oysters are no more.

It is partially true that the military has become a major economic source in Hawai’i, but at a very high price. The military economy is artificial. It is largely a result of the corrupt processes of the military-industrial-political complex that injects money for pet projects in the islands like a drug. Politicians, businesses, and even unions become addicted to the quick high of these federal infusions and then become desperate to chase the next fix, even at the expense of the environment, Hawaiian rights and sovereignty and peace in the Asia-Pacific region. Meanwhile the real source of Hawai’i’s economy – the beauty and health of our natural environment and our cultural richness – deteriorates at an alarming rate.

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

Jeju island is a unique cultural and natural treasure that must be protected from military expansion. The beautiful islands of the Pacific are being targeted because the governments think we are small and insignificant. But islands do not have to be isolated. As the peoples of the Pacific have known for centuries, Ka Moananuiakea (the great ocean) unites us, brings us life, culture, food and solidarity. We must join our efforts and broaden our solidarity beyond our local shores, we can weave a net that is big and strong enough to restrain those monstrous fish that threaten to devour us all.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Reference

http://www.headlinejeju.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=149257
박근혜 “해군기지로 제주발전 재도약 뒷받침할 것”
해군기지 업무보고…”70년대 감귤이면, 지금은 해군기지가 성장동력”
제주도 “15만톤급 크루즈 안전성 꼭 필요”…박 “좋은 결론 나왔으면”
2012.05.01 14:43:44

http://www.sisajeju.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=146386
[사진]짧은 거리 경호원이 우산 펴자, 박근혜 위원장 손 저으며…
2012.05.01 13:24:46

http://www.headlinejeju.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=149232
박근혜 위원장, “제주해군기지 업무보고 받겠다”
오후 1시 제주도청서 민군복합형 관광미항 업무보고 받기로
제주항 터미널 현장투어…노인복지시설 현장 방문 후 이도
2012.05.01 09:44:34

http://www.pressian.com/article/article.asp?article_num=60120330170329
박근혜 “제주, 해군기지로 ‘동양의 하와이’ 만들어야”
“민간인 사찰, 지위고하 막론하고 철저히 수사해야”
2012-03-30

http://www.jejuall.co.kr/

Several days later, Sung Hee posted news reports that the proposed mixed civilian-military use of the Jeju port was just a ruse; the Korean Navy had plans all along for the port to be an exclusive military port:
[May 3~7] It is a military-exclusive not civilian-military port. As the fakeness of dual use port was confirmed, People will have an emergency protest on May 7.

People will have emergency protest in front of the Island government hall in the morning of May 7, to demand Island governor Woo Keun-Min’s special decision to stop construction (destruction) and to revoke the project on the Jeju naval base which is so-called, “Beautiful Tourism Port for Mixed Civilian-Military Use.’

It is because it was confirmed that the Ministry of National Defense (MND) has secretly promoted military-exclusive port by making a prior legislation notice on the revision of bill on the enforcement of ordinance on harbor and bay law on April 26, even without informing to public. The notice was informed only by a Headline Jeju article on May 5 and 6, 2012.

According to a Headline Jeju on May 6, the item 2 of article 8, enforcement of ordinance, that is newly established reads:

‘Regarding the entry permission in the Beautiful Tourism Port for Mixed Civilian-Military Use among the zones applicable to each item […] of article 9 or military base and facilities […], the JURISDICTION UNIT COMMANDER should acquire the license on the ‘cruise passenger transportation business,’ or complex maritime passenger traffic business according to the maritime traffic law and guarantee maximum of port entry by the ships designated by him, among the approved and registered ships for the purpose of cruise business, following the ‘tourism promotion law.’

The most furious thing is that it is to take double-designation of water area of so called dual use port as both trade port and military protection zone-which means the cruise entry and exit of port would be under military control in reality.

Second, as seen in item 2 of article 8, the MND has no will to hand over the right to official regulations, [regarding cruise] to the MLTM (Jeju Island)

Third, there is no mention on commercial ships but only cruise, bringing confirmation that it would be a trade port only by name.

It is the violation of MOU (* which is dual itself) between the 3 parties of MND. MLTM, and Jeju Island on April 27, 2009, of which primary purpose was for the entry and exit of two 150,000 ton cruises. It is also violation of the recommendation item of sub-committee of Budget and Balance committee of National Assembly last October, which was of independent rights to official regulation for cruise by the MLTM (Jeju island) and for military vessels for NMD respectively.

(# MLTM: Ministry of Land, Transportation and Maritime Affairs)

The headline Jeju May 5 article reported navy’s press release which has not been informed to the public yet. The MND (navy) whole statement titled, “Position related to the establishment on the military facility protection zone on the water area of the Jeju civilian-military complex port,” is like the below:

– Even though some media on the date of May 4, Fri. (* reported in Jeju media on May 3), 2012, has reported that, if water area is designated as a trade port, breakwater, inner port area, and navigation route related to cruise entry and exit of port would be excluded from the military facility protection zone, it is different from the facts.”

– To guarantee cruise’s entry and exit of Jeju civilian-military complex port, the MND has made a prior legislation notice on the revision of bill on the enforcement of ordinance on military base and facility protection law on April 26 and the Ministry of Land, Transportation and Maritime Affairs (MLTM) has made a prior legislation notice on the revision of bill on the enforcement of ordinance on harbor and bay law as of May 4, in which the content is to designate the cruise related area as a trade port system.

– “If related procedure (procedure on the revision of enforcement of ordinance) is finished, the water area of Jeju civilian-military complex harbor would be DOUBLY designated as military protection zone and trade port kind so that the capacities as operation base that can accommodate maneuvering flotilla and as entry -exit port of cruise can be guaranteed.”

-The MND(navy) is in process of negotiation with related institutes to conclude a protocol on common use to effectively operate the Jeju Beautiful Tourism Port for Mixed Civilian-Military Use.”

The sub-committee of the National Assembly has recommended through synthetic opinion of its report last October, that “The MLTM revise the ‘enforcement of ordinance on harbor and bay,’ by this June and change the ‘harbor and bay basic plan,’ so that the cruse harbor and bay water area and its facilities can be designated as a ‘trade port.’

It also ordered that “The MND(navy) revise the enforcement of ordinance on military base and facility protection law by this June and the MND, MTLM, and Jeju Special Self-Governing Island promote the conclusion of ‘common use on the civilian-military harbor and bay,’ by June so that they can wipe out concerns that the base would be operated centered on military vessels.

Following it, it recommended that “Regarding the right to official regulations on harbor and bay, they finish the consultation by June so that the MLTM (Jeju Island) has it on cruise while the MND(navy) on military vessels, while regarding maintenance and repairing costs, the three conclude a protocol by June.”
…………………………………………………………………
Image source:

http://www.headlinejeju.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=149604

Proposal on the establishment of maritime zone in the Gangjeong section of the Seogwipo port

Source: Ministry of Land, Transportation and Maritime Affairs and Headline Jeju

………………………………………………………………………

Reference

http://www.headlinejeju.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=149661
또 ‘뒤통수’?…국방부 입법예고, 왜 쉬쉬 했나
[데스크논단] 몰래 이뤄진 국방부 군사보호법 시행령 입법예고
‘군사보호구역’ 중복 지정, 무늬만 ‘무역항’?…관제권은 부대장이?
2012.05.07 00:12:19

http://www.headlinejeju.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=149604
제주해군기지 ‘무역항’, ‘군사보호구역’ 중복 지정
군사시설보호법 시행령 입법예고…”경계 긋지않고 중복지정”
“무역항 지정되더라도 군사보호구역 제외 안돼”…작전 중에는?
2012.05.05 17:22:26

http://www.headlinejeju.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=149506
“강정해군기지 무역항 지정 시행령 개정은 위법행위”
강정마을회, 국토부 시행령 개정입법예고에 반박
2012.05.04 09:45:42

http://www.headlinejeju.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=149437
정부, 제주해군기지 강정수역 ‘무역항’ 지정
국토부, 항만법 시행령 입법예고…”서귀포항 구역 확대 지정”
군사시설보호법 개정 등 ‘군항과 민항’ 항만공동사용 협정 추진
2012.05.03 11:25:27

 

Moana Nui 2011 conference videos are online!

Videos of the Moana Nui 2011 conference are now online.   Of particular interest for the DMZ-Hawai’i / Aloha ‘Aina site is the panel on Militarization and Resistance in the Pacific.

Walden Bello, keynote speech

NATIVE RIGHTS, ECONOMIES, GOVERNANCE–RESISTING GLOBAL POWERS

Passage of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), coupled with advancing decolonization movements among Pacific Islands peoples, has altered the political geography of Moana Nui. Nonetheless, Pacific Rim economic powers and multi-national corporations continue to dominate our regions. Global trade negotiations in APEC/TPP bring new dangers, as “economic integration” among powerful nations threatens to crush indigenous and small island peoples’ work toward strengthened control. This panel features key leaders from Oceania who have worked to restore Native peoples’ control and management of local resources and economies. They discuss strategies for defending our rights and resources from exploitation.

Moderator: Jon Osorio (O‘ahu, Hawai‘i) Kamakak‘okalani Center for Hawaiian Studies
Nalani Minton (Kanaka Maoli Tribunal Komike, Hawai‘i)
Santi Hitorangi (Practitioner, Hitorangi Clan, Rapa Nui)
Joshua Cooper – (Hawai‘i) UN Human Rights
Mililani Trask – (Hawai‘i) Vice Chair, General Assembly of Nations, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organizations (UNPO)
Victoria Tauli-Corpuz (Igorot, Tebtebba Foundation, UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Philippines)
Julian Aguan (Guahan, Guam) Indigenous Chamoru Activist, Attorney, and Author
Public 1,2, Public 3, Public 4-6, Public 7,8

MILITARIZATION & RESISTANCE IN THE PACIFIC

The Pacific basin has been a frequent victim of military domination by global powers, fighting for regional political and economic control. 66 years after the end of World War II hundreds of U.S. military bases still spread from Hawaii across the Pacific to Guam, and many other Pacific islands, with dozens more in South Korea and Japan, and one on Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean), all directed at presumed threats from China. Local peoples are outraged. Popular resistance in Guam, Okinawa-Japan, Jeju Island-South Korea, and elsewhere demands removal of U.S. occupying forces. Similar movements exist in Hawaii, where about 25% of total land area is devoted to military purposes, from nuclear ports to training areas to missile sites.

Moderator: Ikaika Hussey
Poetry: Craig Santos Perez: (Chamorro, poet, author, activist, Guahan, Guam)
Bruce Gagnon: (Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space)
Christine Ahn: (San Francisco, California) Executive Director, Korea Policy Institute; Policy Analyst, Global Fund for Women
Dr.Lisa Natividad: (Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice)
Suzuyo Takazato: (Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence)
Kyle Kajihiro: (O‘ahu, Hawai‘i) Hawai‘i Peace and Justice, DMZ Hawai‘i/Aloha ‘?ina
Mayumi Oda: (Japan/Hawai‘i) Artist/Activist
Public 1, Public 2, Public 3

GLOBALIZATION, DEVELOPMENT & GEOPOLITICS

Economic globalization seeks to homogenize (globalize) diverse regional economies within a unified vision of how we should all live; a vision that suits global corporate purposes, rather than local needs, traditions, visions, cultures, workers and environments. Negotiations like APEC/TPP intend for Pacific Rim and Pacific Island nations to merge within one integrated economic machine. NAFTA of the Pacific! It’s our challenge to learn the full details of what’s at stake, how life will change, how our economies will change—-The role of resource, military, tourist and energy development. What is gained, what is lost? And if we don’t want it, how do we organize to protect ourselves, our lands, resources, and local sovereignties.

Moderator: Jerry Mander (Int’l Forum on Globalization);
Joseph Gerson (American Friends Service Committee);
Dale Wen (IFG China Scholar, Beijing-Hamburg)
Anuradha Mittal (Oakland Institute, India/US);
Adam Wolfenden (Pacific Network on Globalization, PANG, Australia);
Ray Catania (Labor organizer/Hawai‘i Gov’t. Employees Association, Kauai)
Yumi Kikuchi (Peace activist, author, Japan);
Public

PACIFIC RESOURCES, LANDS & ECONOMIES

As elsewhere on Earth, the Pacific faces environmental crises from overdevelopment, resource scarcities, climate change, rising seas, destruction of coral reefs (for military ports and mining), loss of arable soils, and other challenges, threatening local communities. Powerful nations of the Asia-Pacific are fiercely competing for regional resources: oil and gas in Indonesia, fish stocks and minerals from the seas, “rare earths” from China, while diminishing fresh water and agricultural lands are torn between local needs, industrial biotechnology, military dominance, and tourism.  Trade and investment negotiations like Apec/TPP further threaten the already tenuous hold of small island nations and peoples on their economic and cultural viability. How do we organize together to resist this and regain control?

Moderator: Arnie Saiki (Coordinator, Moana Nui 2011, and ‘Imi Pono Projects, Hawai‘i);
Peter Apo (Office of Hawaiian Affairs);
Jamie Tanquay (Well-being indicators, Vanuatu )
Galina Angarova (Pacific Environment, Russia/Siberia/Mongolia);
Albie Miles (environmental indicators)
Walter Ritte (Anti GMO/Hawaiian Rights activist, Molokai);
Richard Heinberg (Post Carbon Institute, author The End of Growth)
Public

APEC & TPP: WHAT WE MUST KNOW; WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

Local sovereignty, militarization and colonization, forms of development, control and ultimate  ownership of resources, worker rights, investment protocols, energy and resource battles are all implicated in the grand bargain sought by great powers and their corporations.  We need to learn every detail of these agreements, and their import. And we need to determine what, exactly, we can do about it.

Moderator: Victor Menotti (International Forum on Globalization);
Jane Kelsey ((Aotearoa/New Zealand)?Prof. of Law, Univ. of Auckland; Author of “TPPA – No Ordinary Deal: Unmasking the Trans-Pacific partnership free Trade Agreement”;
Lori Wallach (Public Citizen, Wash. DC);
Yasuo Konda (People’s Action Against TPP, JAPAN);
Walden Bello (Philippine Legislature, Focus on Global South)
Public 1, Public 2

Occupy APEC with Aloha

Christine Ahn wrote an brilliant article in FPIF on the Moana Nui conference and peoples’ resistance to the APEC neoliberal – militarization agenda.   I quote liberally from the article below.  You should read the full article here.

“The time has come for us to voice our rage,” the Hawaiian artist Makana sang as he gently strummed his slack-key guitar. “Against the ones who’ve trapped us in a cage, to steal from us the value of our wage.”

Makana wasn’t serenading the Occupy movement; rather his audience included over a dozen of the world’s most powerful leaders, including President Obama and China’s Premier Hu Jintao, at the world’s most secure, policed, and fortified event: the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) dinner in Hawaii.

[…]

Makana, however, wasn’t the only one voicing his outrage during the APEC summit. As government and corporate leaders from 21 Asia-Pacific economies plotted how to expand a global free trade agenda, civil society activists from throughout the Asia Pacific gathered across town at the Moana Nui (the Great Pacific Ocean) conference to discuss pressing issues facing people and the planet, such as climate change, income inequality, and militarization of the region.

Organized by Pua Mohala I Ka Po and the International Forum on Globalization (IFG), scholars, activists, policy analysts, lawyers, labor union leaders, practitioners, and artists traveled from Guam, Marshall Islands, Palau, Tonga, Fiji, Micronesia, New Zealand, Australia, Rapa Nui, Samoa, Japan, Siberia, Okinawa, Philippines, South Korea, Vanuatu, and the United States.

[…]

What’s significant is what preceded and then followed Obama’s China bashing. Ahead of the summit, both State Secretary Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta outlined the United States’ expanded role in the Asia-Pacific. In “America’s Pacific Century,” an article in Foreign Affairs, Secretary Clinton writes that the United States will “substantially increase investment—diplomatic, economic, strategic and otherwise—in the Asia-Pacific region.” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also echoed Clinton on his last trip to Asia, where he promised greater U.S. military presence throughout the Asia-Pacific—that is, more than the 300-plus U.S. bases that have already been there for over half a century.

After APEC, President Obama visited Australia to announce the arrival of 250 U.S. marines to northern Australia next year, with the eventual buildup to reach 2,500. “The goal, though administration officials are loath to say it publicly,” writes Mark Landler of the New York Times, “is to assemble a coalition to counterbalance China’s growing power.” Although Washington is posing China as a military threat, the reality is that in 2010, the United States spent $720 billion on its military, compared with China’s $116 billion, and it’s the United States that has over 300 military bases in the Asia-Pacific, whereas China has none.

Moana Nui: The Alternative to APEC

Moana Nui brought together several social movements—the indigenous and native communities fighting for sovereignty with activists working to stop corporate globalization and militarism. It was significant to be gathering in Hawai’i, a once-sovereign nation whose Queen Lili’uokalani was overthrown by American gunboat “diplomacy” in 1893. Moana Nui opened with a daylong conversation among indigenous and native communities from throughout the Pacific. This was an important reminder of the United States’ long history of stealing indigenous peoples’ lands, without treaties, without democratic process. Moana Nui participants also reframed the Pacific in aquatic terms as the “liquid continent” instead of the continental approach used by hegemonic powers.

Their voices were soon joined by those who have been organizing and resisting against the onslaught of trade liberalization and militarization, the new and more subtle face of colonialism. Moana Nui participants shared how transnational corporations, empowered by free trade and structural adjustment policies, have destroyed local economies, cultural properties, natural resources, and ultimately the sovereignty and self-sufficiency of communities. Jane Kelsey, Professor of Law at the University of Auckland, warned that the TPP will further impact domestic policy and regulation and “give more ammunition to corporations to challenge governments,” by granting foreign investors stronger intellectual property rights and further facilitating corporate global supply chains.

The corporate-led free trade agenda, however, needs the military to secure its profits. Kyle Kajihiro of Hawaii Peace and Justice reminded the audience of Thomas Friedman’s classic quote, “The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist—McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.” The military has gone hand-in-hand with free trade by forcing open new markets for investment and new natural resources for exploitation (let’s not forget Iraq). Although it may allow for the safe and secure transport of vital natural resources such as oil and natural gas, the military is there to project force, a lethal force that could intervene militarily if U.S. interests were compromised.

[…]What was clear during Moana Nui was that the peoples of the Asia-Pacific refuse to fall victim to the growing arms race between the United States and China. Echoing a proverb widely known in the Pacific, Gerson warned, “When the elephants are battling or making love, it’s the ants that get squashed.” Activists from Guam and Okinawa shared how the decades-long presence of U.S. military bases had destroyed their livelihoods, culture, and sovereignty, but also how their organizing has led to victories, such as delaying the transfer of 8,000 U.S. marines from Okinawa to Guam, and mass protests that brought nearly 100,000 Okinawans to the streets to protest the transfer of U.S. bases within Okinawa.

[…]

The final sessions of Moana Nui carried a clear message: the only way to address these challenges to sovereignty is to fundamentally roll back the conditions and laws imposed by FTAs, the WTO, and structural adjustment. As Walden Bello put it, “We need to de-globalize economies instead of being subordinated to free trade and global markets if we want to achieve food security, human livelihoods and ecological sustainability.”

[…]

The final declaration that emerged out of Moana Nui united the struggles of those who traveled across the great Pacific Ocean. “We invoke our rights to free, prior and informed consent. We choose cooperative trans-Pacific dialogue, action, advocacy, and solidarity between and amongst the peoples of the Pacific, rooted in traditional cultural practices and wisdom.”

The declaration also included a Native Hawaiian prophesy which echoes the principles of the Occupy movement: E iho ana o luna, E pi’i ana o lalo, E hui ana na moku, E ku ana ka paia. “That which is above shall be brought down, that which is below shall rise up, the islands shall unite, the walls of our foundation shall stand.” E mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono. “Forever we will uphold the life and sovereignty of the land in righteousness.”

In APEC's Shadow: The Pacific People's Economy

http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2011/11/10/13740-in-apecs-shadow-the-pacific-peoples-economy/

In APEC’s Shadow: The Pacific People’s Economy

By Chad Blair11/10/2011

John Hook/Civil Beat

APEC is “armed and dangerous” and “drunk with power,” capable of enacting violence against people and destroying whole economies.

That harsh assessment comes from Victor Menotti, executive director of the International Forum on Globalization.

[…]

Moana Nui — Hawaiian for “big ocean” — was organized by “a loose collective” of academics, activists and community leaders. The speakers talked about a “liquid nation” that struggles to sustain itself in an “American lake,” to use the title of a book by the conference’s keynote speaker, Walden Bello.

[…]

“We envision a better future for all people,” said Osorio. “We never want to lose sight that we as a native people have a stake.”

“We come here to find a way to rise up to support the liquid nation,” said Menotti.

That nation involves labor, faith groups, environmentalists, peace activists and indigenous leaders.

Menotti continued: “All our different movements have come together to challenge APEC and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agenda and assert our own agenda.”

(De) Militarizing the Pacific – Hawaiʻi and Guahan

NATIVE VOICES #3: 11/9/11, 7pm, Halau O Haumea, Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies.

DEMILITARIZING THE PACIFIC: a roundtable featuring scholars & activists from HAWAII & GUAHAN, including JULIAN AGUON, LISA NATIVIDAD, TY KAWIKA TENGAN, TERRI KEKOʻOLANI, & KALEIKOA KAʻEO. Hosted by CRAIG SANTOS PEREZ.

"Living Along the Fenceline" in Jeju

The Stars and Stripes reports that “Naval base puts S. Korea’s ‘island of world peace’ in hot spot”:

JEJU ISLAND, South Korea — This country’s southernmost major island is a study in contrasts.

A popular tourist destination, Jeju boasts some of the world’s most beautiful scenery and is one of 28 finalists in an international competition for selection as one of the “New 7 Wonders of Nature.” Yet it’s also home to a number of cheesy tourist stops, including Jeju Love Land, a sexual theme park.

In 2005, the South Korean government officially recognized Jeju as the “island of world peace,” and then-President Roh Moo-hyun said he would do his best to make it a “center of peace in Northeast Asia.” But South Korea is now building a naval base on the island for the expressed purpose of enhancing its ability to police its vital shipping lanes and respond faster to any North Korean threats.

Critics suggest that once the base opens in 2014, the U.S. will use it extensively, with the goal of keeping an eye on China. That, they say, could make the “island of world peace” a target the next time hostilities erupt in the region.

[…]

The base could also prompt China to hasten the buildup of its naval firepower, further heightening tensions on the Korean peninsula, [Yang Mu-jin, a professor of politics and unification studies at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul] said.

The South Korean government has tried to downplay the social and political implications of the base and have even drawn comparisons to the U.S. military in Hawai’i as an example of good military-civilian relations:

“The project is not aimed at building a military-only base for war,” the ministry’s August report said. “It is targeted at preventing war by strengthening maritime sovereignty, realizing peace and supporting other naval warships of South Korea.”

Pointing to other “successful civilian-military harbor complexes” like those in San Diego and Hawaii, the defense ministry said the naval base and the island of world peace “both can coexist in (a) mutually complimentary manner.”

But in Hawaiʻi, we know that this is rubbish.   The military has taken a terrible toll on local communities and the environment.  It was the force that drove the regime change and occupation of the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaiʻi.   The South Korean Defense Ministry erroneously referred to “successful civilian-military harbor complexes” in Hawaiʻi.   Pearl Harbor is not accessible for civilian use.   Warning signs along the shoreline of Ke Awalau o Pu’uloa make it clear that despite Hawai’i’s otherwise strong shoreline public access laws, the water is off limits.

Meanwhile, the documentary film “Living Along the Fenceline”, which was screened at the 12th annual Women’s Film Festival in Jeju, exposes the social and environmental costs of military bases around the world, including Hawaiʻi.  Director Lina Hoshino and Co-producers Gwyn Kirk and Deborah Lee attended the film festival.  The Jeju Weekly reports:

One expat asked the most provocative question of the evening. He asked Ms. Kirk if she thought Jeju Island and its forthcoming naval base represented an inevitable pattern around the world for the creation of more military bases. Ms. Kirk answered she believed the US will inevitably want to build more bases if US imperialism continues to grow. She conveyed that if we can imagine a different kind of future that actively addresses climate change, use of resources, etc… then it is not inevitable. We need a change in leadership and attitude in the US and US allies, including South Korea, who should refuse to have a US military base in the country.

Answering another question, Ms. Kirk said today the United States government spends half of its tax dollars on the world military system, not including the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A grassroots campaign advocates spreading the money from the defense budget to other social programs including education, health care, care for children, the elderly, and people with disabilities, and domestic violence shelters. Unfortunately, these programs are being cut because of the economic crisis. But, the military budget remains intact.

Secondly, Ms. Kirk said there is another campaign to educate people about the military worldwide. People are unaware about the US’s worldwide military presence and are often shocked by the actual number of bases. This film is part of this education campaign.

Ms. Kirk hopes the film inspires people to think about what a military base means in their communities. She said it is important for people to be clear what happens when a military base is installed in a new location. She said, “It is tempting to think military bases will bring jobs. The reality is military spending generates the fewest amount of jobs of any government spending.” The military is a capital intensive industry, not a human capital intensive industry. The same amount of money spent on a military base spent on education or health care would generate far more jobs.

Terri Keko’olani with Hawai’i Peace and Justice and DMZ-Hawai’i / Aloha ‘Aina is featured in the film.

 

 

Connecting the Aegis dots between Jeju, Okinawa, Guam, Hawai'i

Koohan Paik, co-author of the Superferry Chronicles and member of the Kaua’i Alliance for Peace and Social Justice wrote an excellent op ed in the Garden Island newspaper connecting the dots between the military expansion at the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kaua’i, the struggle to stop a naval base in Jeju, South Korea, and protest movements in Okinawa and Guam.

True defenders

When I was a child in South Korea during the 1960s, we lived under the repressive dictatorship of Park Chung-hee. Anyone out after 10 p.m. curfew could be arrested. Anyone who tried to protest the government disappeared. A lot of people died fighting for democracy and human rights.

Today, the South Korean people carry in living memory the supreme struggles that forged the freedom they currently enjoy. And after all they’ve sacrificed, they are not going to give that freedom up.

So it is no surprise that the tenacious, democracy-loving Koreans have been protesting again — this time for over four years, non-stop, day and night. They are determined to prevent construction of a huge military base on S. Korea’s Jeju Island that will cement over a reef in an area so precious it contains three UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

This eco-rich reef has not only fed islanders for millennia, but it has also been the “habitat” for Jeju’s lady divers who are famous for staying beneath the surface for astonishing periods of time, before coming up with all manner of treasures. Even during South Korea’s times of unspeakable poverty, subtropical Jeju Island was always so abundant with natural resources and beauty that no one ever felt “impoverished” there.

There happens to be a very strong connection between Jeju’s current troubles and business-as-usual on the Garden Isle. You see, the primary purpose of Jeju’s unwanted base is to port Aegis destroyer warships. And it is right here, at Kaua‘i’s Pacific Missile Range Facility, that all product testing takes place for the Aegis missile manufacturers.

On Aug. 29, when Sen. Dan Inouye was here to dedicate a new Aegis testing site, he said, “We are not testing to kill, but to defend.” It would have been more accurate if Inouye had said, “We are not testing to kill, but to increase profits for Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, no matter how many people are oppressed or how many reefs are destroyed.”

Four days later, on Sept. 2, I got a panicked call from a Korean friend that there had been a massive crackdown on the peace vigil in Gangjung village to protect Jeju’s reef from the Aegis destroyer project.

More than 1,000 South Korean police in head-to-toe riot gear descended upon men and women of all ages blockading construction crews from access to the site. At least 50 protestors were arrested, including villagers, Catholic priests, college students, visiting artists and citizen journalists. Several were wounded and hospitalized. My friend told me, “We fought so hard for democracy. And now this. It’s just like dictatorship times.”

Another reason the Koreans are so angry is that their government has been telling them that the Aegis technology will protect them from North Korea. But Aegis missiles launching from Jeju are useless against North Korea, because North Korean missiles fly too low. In a 1999 report to the U.S. Congress, the Pentagon verified that the Aegis system “could not defend the northern two-thirds of South Korea against the low flying short range Taepodong ballistic missiles.”

So if Aegis is no good against North Korea, why build the base? Again, this is not about defense, this is about selling missiles (and increasing profits for Samsung and other major contractors on the base construction job).

There is a strong similarity between resistance on Jeju (where a recent poll showed 95 percent of islanders are opposed to the base) and concurrent uprisings on Guam and Okinawa, as well. All three islands are slated for irreversible destruction to make way for Aegis destroyer berthing.

And who wouldn’t protest? Like us, these are island peoples who care passionately for their reefs, ocean ecosystems and fisheries. I have heard certain Jeju Islanders say they will fight to the death to protect their resources.

Today, the mayor of Gangjung himself, along with many others, languish in prison because of their uncompromising stance against the Aegis base. Fortunately, people across the Korean peninsula and beyond, are heading to Jeju to support the resistance movement.

Without peaceful warriors like them, there would be no more reefs, no more coral, no more fish, no more nothing. They are our true defenders, not the missile manufacturers, as Inouye’s sham logic would have us believe.

As the Pentagon conspicuously ramps up militarization in the Asia-Pacific region, individuals of good conscious should pursue de-militarization. In the words of Aletha Kaohi, “Look to within and get rid of the ‘opala, or rubbish.”

Koohan Paik, Kilauea

Message from the International Women’s Network Against Militarism to the peoples movement for No Naval Base on Jeju!

Message from the  International Women’s Network Against Militarism to the peoples movement for No Naval Base on Jeju! 

September 1, 2011

Dear friends in the struggle against US military expansion at Jeju Island

We women from Okinawa, mainland Japan, the Philippines, Marshall Islands, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Australia and west-coast USA send our greetings in solidarity with the people of Ganjeong who oppose the construction of a new naval base to house Aegis destroyers.

We understand that 94 percent of the residents do not want this base. We admire and respect your strong opposition by occupying land seized by the government and by blocking roads in an attempt to stop construction. We deplore the fact the South Korean government has ordered police to take further measures against you, especially as you have used every possible democratic means to overturn the decision to construct the base in the pristine waters and land that have been your livelihood for many generations.

We agree that this base and the increased militarization of the island of Jeju will create new security threats in an increasingly tense region.

We also live in communities that experience increased militarization and the effects of enormous military investments that distort our local economies and take resources needed for our communities to thrive. The political and military alliances between our governments and the United States jeopardize our genuine security. Indeed, U.S. military expansion in the Asia-Pacific and the Caribbean relies on these alliances to tie our communities together according to their version of security that is not sustainable.

The plan to relocate U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam includes military construction projects that involve labor from Hawai’i, Micronesia and the Philippines. In addition to the destruction and loss of life caused by continued wars in the Middle East, these wars are also destabilizing our economies. For example, Filipinos who have been recruited to work on military construction projects are laid off during times of crisis and return to the Philippines where they have no jobs. On Guam, local companies cannot compete with larger military contractors and are seldom able to get contracts for base construction projects. The establishment of the U.S. military base at Ke Awa Lau o Pu’uloa, or Pearl Harbor, has transformed Oahu’s food basket into a toxic “Superfund” site where many of Hawai’i’s poorest communities live along its contaminated shores. In Puerto Rico, Governor Luis Fortuño has unleashed brutality against citizens, and suppression of their civil liberties because of protests against budget cuts to public services and education. In the continental United States a new campaign is calling for new priorities in federal spending away from war and toward services to support local communities.

We see your struggle as part of a wider pattern of people’s protest against increasing militarization.

Although we are far away, please know that we stand with you. We thank you for your courage to resist the militarization of your home. Your example inspires and strengthens us.

In solidarity,

Signed, on behalf of the IWNAM:

Kozue Akibayashi, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Japan

Ellen-Rae Cachola, Women for Genuine Security/Women’s Voices Women Speak, U.S. & Hawai’i

Lotlot de la Cruz, KAISAKA, Philippines

Cora Valdez Fabros, Scrap VFA Movement & Philippine Women’s Network for Peace and Security, Philippines

Annie Fukushima, Women for Genuine Security, U.S.

Terri Keko’olani, Women’s Voices Women Speak, Hawai’i

Gwyn Kirk, Women for Genuine Security, U.S.

Rev. Deborah Lee, Women for Genuine Security, U.S.

Bernadette “Gigi” Miranda, Women’s Voices Women Speak, Hawai’i

María Reinat Pumarejo, Colectivo Ilé: Organizadoras para la Conciencia-en-Acción

Aida Santos-Maranan, Women’s Education, Development, Productivity and Research Organization (WEDPRO), Philippines

Dr. Hannah Middleton, Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, Australia

Suzuyo Takazato, Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence, Okinawa

Lisa Natividad, Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice, Guahan (Guam)

Ana Maria R. Nemenzo, WomanHealth Philippines.

Darlene Rodrigues, Women’s Voices Women Speak, Hawai’i

Abacca Anjain-Maddison,  Marshall Islands

Brenda Kwon, Women’s Voices Women Speak, Hawai’i

Anjali Puri, Women’s Voices Women Speak, Hawai’i

 

The International Women’s Network Against Militarism was formed in 1997 when forty women activists, policy-makers, teachers, and students from South Korea, Okinawa, mainland Japan, the Philippines and the continental United States gathered in Okinawa to strategize together about the negative effects of the US military in each of our countries.  In 2000, women from Puerto Rico who opposed the US Navy bombing training on the island of Vieques also joined; followed in 2004 by women from Hawai’i and in 2007 women from Guam.  The Network is not a membership organization, but a collaboration among women active in our own communities, who share a common mission to demilitarize their lands and communities. For more information, visit  HYPERLINK “http://www.genuinesecurity.org/”www.genuinesecurity.org.

 

Around the Globe, US Military Bases Generate Resentment, Not Security

Writing on the Nation blogKatrina vanden Heuvel zeroes in on the social and financial costs of U.S. foreign military bases:

As we debate an exit from Afghanistan, it’s critical that we focus not only on the costs of deploying the current force of more than 100,000 troops, but also on the costs of maintaining permanent bases long after those troops leave.

This is an issue that demands a hard look not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but around the globe—where the US has a veritable empire of bases.

According to the Pentagon, there are approximately 865 US military bases abroad—over 1,000 if new bases in Iraq and Afghanistan are included.  The cost?  $102 billion annually—and that doesn’t include the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan bases.

In a must-read article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Sciences, anthropologist Hugh Gusterson points out that these bases “constitute 95 percent of all the military bases any country in the world maintains on any other country’s territory.”  He notes a “bloated and anachronistic” Cold War-tilt toward Europe, including 227 bases in Germany.

She describes the global anti-bases movement:

Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) fellow Phyllis Bennis says that the Pentagon and military have been brilliant at spreading military production across virtually every Congressional district so that even the most anti-war members of Congress are reluctant to challenge big Defense projects.

“But there’s really no significant constituency for overseas bases because they don’t bring much money in a concentrated way,” says Bennis.  “So in theory it should be easier to mobilize to close them.”  What is new and heartening, according to Bennis, is that “there are now people in countries everywhere that are challenging the US bases and that’s a huge development.”

[…}

IPS has worked diligently not only with allies abroad but also in the US to promote a more rational military posture with regard to bases.  Other active groups include the American Friends Service Committee and the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the latter focusing on bases in Latin America.

In 2010, IPS mobilized congressional opposition to the building of a new base in Okinawa by working with groups in the US and in Japan.  This campaign included the creation of a grassroots coalition of peace, environmental and Asian American groups called the Network for Okinawa, a full-page ad in the Washington Post, articles in various progressive media, and a series of congressional visits.  (The East Asia-US-Puerto Rico Women’s Network Against Militarism also played a key role, linking anti-base movements in Okinawa, Guam, Puerto Rico and Hawaii.)

Yes, that’s right.  U.S. bases in Hawai’i are foreign bases in an occupied country.  As Thomas Naylor writes in Counterpunch “Why Hawai’i is Not a Legitimate State – What the Birthers Missed” (There’s a typo in the title of the original article.):

Notwithstanding a series of clever illegal moves by the U.S. government, Hawaii cannot be considered a legally bona fide state of the United States.  In 1898 the United States unilaterally abrogated all of Hawaii’s existing treaties and purported to annex it on the basis of a Congressional resolution.  Two years later the U.S. illegally established the so-called Territory of Hawaii on the basis of the spurious Organic Act.  After a period of prolonged belligerent occupation by the U.S., Hawaii was placed under United Nations Charter, Article 73, as a “non-self-governing territory” under the administrative authority of the United States.  Then in 1959 the U.S. falsely informed the U.N. that Hawaii had become the 50th state of the United States after an illegal plebiscite.  Among those allowed to vote in this invalid election were members of the U.S. military and their dependents stationed in Hawaii.  In other words, Hawaii’s occupiers were permitted to vote on its future.

[…}

Hawaii became an alleged state of the United States as a result of a foreign policy based on full spectrum dominance and imperial overstretch – the same foreign policy employed by Obama over a century later in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, and Palestine.


In the wake of the Army's Makua decision

The Honolulu Star Advertiser did a feature article on David Henkin, an attorney for EarthJustice who represents Malama Makua in its fight with the U.S. Army.  David is a friend and Makahiki brother who has done a great job as the attorney for Malama Makua.   However, I disagree with his suggestion that live fire or other training is more acceptable at Schofield (Lihu’e) or Pohakuloa.  The principles of aloha ‘aina and solidarity that bring thousands of people from around the world to stand with Makua must be reciprocated.  The ‘not-in-my-backyard’ argument leaves unchallenged the very premise that the training is necessary and for some legitimate purpose, which, as the death toll and costs rise in Iraq and Afghanistan, we know to be a lie.  As Jim Albertini writes in his January 12, 2011 leaflet: “The bottom line is this: Hawaii residents don’t want the U.S. military training to do to others what the U.S. has already done to Hawaii: overthrow and occupy its government and nation, and contaminate it’s air, land, water, people, plants, and animals with military toxins.”

Below is the leaflet issued by Malu ‘Aina followed by the interview with David Henkin:

Pohakuloa Military Expansion Opposed Unanimously!

Below is a brief report on the public hearing held Jan. 11th at Hilo Intermediate School cafeteria on plans for military expansion at Pohakuloa. The plans call for new live-fire ranges and training, and construction activities, at Pohakuloa, as well as high altitude helicopter flights and landings on Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa in training for Afghanistan/Pakistan high altitude mountainous warfare.

The first hour and a half was taken up with “open house” science fair type displays by military people who knew very little about the history of militarism in Hawaii and couldn’t answer many questions asked. But the public testimony portion on Pohakuloa was powerful.

The public hearing portion started with Kumu Paul Neves and his Ohana/halau doing chants and then Paul led a Pule.  Lots of young Hawaiians testified both in their native tongue and English.  They spoke eloquently against the military desecration of the sacred mountains and aina.  Other Hawaiians and people of all ages,  testified as well.  The testimony went for 2 hours.  Not one person spoke in support of the military expansion plans. The PTA new commander and the Army Garrison commander from Oahu sat stoned-faced throughout the 2 hours of public testimony

Many citizens noted that no further military activity at the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) should go forward.  On July 2, 2008 the Hawaii County Council passed a resolution by a vote of 8-1 calling for a complete halt to all live-fire at PTA and any activities that create dust until there is a comprehensive independent assessment of the depleted uranium (DU) at PTA and a clean up of the DU present.  The council’s resolution also called for 7 additional actions, none of which have been implemented.

Several people emphasized that stopping the bombing and all live-fire, construction, and other activities that create dust at PTA is key.  Du particles are particularly hazardous when inhaled.  People testified that the federal government should pay for the comprehensive independent assessment, testing and monitoring for radiation contamination and that federal funds should be sought through Hawaii’s congressional delegation –senators Inouye and Akaka, and representatives Hirono and Hanabusa.  There has been plenty of money over the years for military build up but very little funding for military clean up.  It’s time to change those priorities.

The bottom line is this: Hawaii residents don’t want the U.S. military training to do to others what the U.S. has already done to Hawaii: overthrow and occupy its government and nation, and contaminate it’s air, land, water, people, plants, and animals with military toxins.

Stop the Bombing!  Stop All the Wars!
Military Clean Up NOT Build Up Now!
End all Occupations! Restore the Hawaii Nation!

1. Mourn all victims of violence. 2. Reject war as a solution. 3. Defend civil liberties. 4. Oppose all discrimination, anti-Islamic, anti-Semitic, etc. 5. Seek peace through justice in Hawai`i and around the world.
Contact: Malu `Aina Center for Non-violent Education & Action P.O. Box AB Kurtistown, Hawai`i 96760.
Phone (808) 966-7622.  Email ja@interpac.net   http://www.malu-aina.org
Hilo Peace Vigil leaflet (Jan. 14, 2011 – 487th week) – Friday 3:30-5PM downtown Post Office

Jim Albertini

Malu ‘Aina Center for Non-violent Education & Action

P.O.Box AB

Kurtistown, Hawai’i 96760

phone: 808-966-7622

email: JA@interpac.net

Visit us on the web at: www.malu-aina.org

+++

http://www.staradvertiser.com/columnists/20110121_David_Henkin.html

David Henkin

The lawyer for Earthjustice won a long campaign to stop the Army’s live-fire training in Makua Valley

By Dave Koga

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jan 21, 2011

David Henkin knew early in life that he wanted to protect the environment. As a child in Los Angeles, he would pick up pieces of trash during walks with his mother and wonder aloud how people could be so thoughtless.

“The interest got more sophisticated after that,” he says, “but I think for a lot of people it starts with just looking around and seeing how beautiful the world is and what a gift we’ve been given … and understanding that we all have an obligation to stewardship.”

At Yale Law School, Henkin naturally gravitated toward environmental law, which would give him “the chance to stand up for the Earth.”

“What drew me in was not just the work — the opportunity to make the world cleaner, better, safer — but that the clients are never in it for money or personal gain,” he says. “They’re in it because they have a passion for protecting resources and places for future generations. And so that’s something I’ve always been able to get up in the morning for … to keep my energy up and keep doing it year in and year out.”

Since arriving in Hawaii in 1995 to work for Earthjustice, Henkin has filed numerous cases on issues ranging from protection of the endangered Hawaiian crow to the upgrading of Honolulu’s wastewater treatment facilities.

He is best known for representing the community group Malama Makua, which has pressed the U.S. Army since 1998 to prepare environmental impact statements on its training in Makua Valley, home to more than 100 archaeological sites and 50 endangered plant and animal species.

Two weeks ago, the Army’s commander in the Pacific, Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, announced that “in an effort to balance our relations with the community and the requirements that we have for training,” the Army had abandoned plans to resume live-fire training in Makua Valley and would conduct future exercises at Schofield Barracks and the Pohakuloa Training Area on the Big Island.

Henkin is pleased with the Army’s decision, which he says was too long in coming. But he says the ultimate goal remains the return of the valley to the state — and it may be a while before that issue is resolved.

QUESTION: Now that the Army is saying there will be no more live-fire training in Makua, what’s your sense of what’s going to happen next?

ANSWER: What’s important to understand is that the Army hasn’t done any live-fire training in Makua since 1998 (when Malama Makua filed suit after a series of munitions-sparked brushfires). In the last 12 years, they’ve fired rounds in only 26 exercises during a three-year period. So actually, out of the last 12 years, there have been nine years without a single shot fired. And as you know, during that period of time, particularly from 2001 onward, the Army has been deploying constantly to combat theaters and they’ve been training their soldiers elsewhere. So what Gen. Mixon said is really just an acknowledgment of reality — which is that not only can the Army get by without live-fire training at Makua, it has.

And so the Army and the people of Hawaii have to ask themselves: Is it worth sacrificing the cultural sites and the endangered species? Is it worth training within three miles of heavily populated areas? Is it worth training across the street from areas where people play with their children and gather food from the ocean when there are other options?

The first lawsuit was filed in 1998 … and in 2000 and then again in 2001, the Army came out with a very short document called an environmental assessment where they said there was no potential for training at Makua to cause any significant harm to the environment. This, against a history in which cultural sites have been destroyed and endangered species have been burned, just didn’t pass the smile test. And the judge agreed with us that they needed to do the full-blown environmental impact statement …

To me, this case is a perfect illustration of what Congress intended when it made … the environmental review law. It is, “Let’s get the facts on the table; let’s not do it based on rhetoric and supposition. Let’s get the facts on the table and make a good decision.” And we believe the decision Gen. Mixon announced last week is not only good for us, but good for the Army and good for the people of the state of Hawaii, because for so long the dialogue has been readiness versus the environment. And now we realize that you can have both. You can protect sacred places, special places, and you can also do the training.

Q: What do you think was driving the Army’s reluctance to do any kind of complete study all these years?

A: We’ve heard that the Army had a fear — almost like the old domino theory — that if the Army gave in at Makua, then the activists would be at the gates and they would try to push them out of Schofield and out of Pohakuloa. For Earthjustice and Malama Makua, the issue has always been Makua and whether this is an appropriate place to train. I think there were some concerns about (the Army) saving face. Maybe along the way some of the generals (who commanded Pacific forces) believed their rhetoric.

Q: What are Malama Makua’s thoughts on the Army’s plan to now turn Makua into a roadside-bomb training site?

A: Our clients’ belief, and my personal belief, is that Makua is a very sacred, special place that just is not appropriate for training. I don’t think any rational military trainer in the 21st century would look around the state of Hawaii and say, “I’m going to train at Makua” if they hadn’t been there since World War II. I think it’s a legacy of past decisions made in a different age, with different knowledge and different sensibilities.

So I guess the short answer is there are other places where they can do this kind of training. To do the convoy exercise you basically need a road. There are plenty of roads on Army land at Schofield and Pohakuloa.

Now, the specifics of what’s being proposed are pretty much unknown at this point. My guess is that it is substantially less of an impact on the cultural sites and the endangered species than what they had been doing before, but to get back to my theme, information is vital and there hasn’t really been disclosure. I can just say, based on what I do know, that there are other places they can do it and Makua really ought to be returned to the people of the state of Hawaii for appropriate cultural and civilian use.

Q: Are you confident of that happening?

A: Before (the government’s 65-year lease for Makua expires in) 2029? My approach to the type of work that I do is that you have to be optimistic and idealistic, because that’s what keeps you going. But at the same time, you have to be realistic and keep your expectations low because that’s what keeps you from becoming discouraged. When you’re doing public interest environmental work, it’s always a long-term battle, it’s always an uphill battle, it’s never really over. So I do envision a return of Makua to the people of Hawaii as soon as possible. But I don’t expect it. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

You have to remember that when Makua was originally taken for training in 1941, the families who lived there, the families who were evicted, were told that their land would be returned six months after the end of hostilities. They’re still waiting. So really, Makua has a history of very profound broken promises to the individual families and in a larger context to the people of Hawaii.

Q: Does Earthjustice have any problem with live-fire training at Pohakuloa?

A: My understanding is that the Army has started an environmental review process, where from the beginning they’ve admitted the need for an environmental impact statement — so there’s been progress over the years — and that they’re doing a review of locations of alternate training facilities to Pohakuloa. It is hard to find a place in the state of Hawaii to do live-fire military training that is not going to cause damage. It is by its very nature a destructive activity. You’re practicing war.

Am I OK with them training at Pohakuloa? That’s not really the lens that I look at it through. I look at it through this lens: If the Army is going to do a certain type of training, where can they do it with the least impact?

Q: As far as returning Makua to Hawaii and having it open to civilians again, do you have a sense of how much unexploded ordnance might still be there and how much clean-up it would take?

A: Well, one of the things we were able to secure through a settlement agreement in 2001, is an obligation for the Army now to be clearing unexploded ordnance from the valley. Normally, the Army has a policy that live training ranges don’t get cleaned up until they’re actually closed. But as part of our settlement we said, “We don’t want you to wait until you’re ready to leave, we want you to start cleaning up now.” So there have been 1,000-pound bombs, 250-pound bombs, a lot of heavy ordnance that has already been pulled out of there. Now they tend to find a mortar round here, a mortar round there.

Compared to Kahoolawe, the entire military reservation’s about 4,100 acres. The flat lands where people would want to carry out cultural activities, maybe start farming again, is a much, much smaller area. So I think it would be manageable.

 OpenCUNY » login | join | terms | activity 

 Supported by the CUNY Doctoral Students Council.  

OpenCUNY.ORGLike @OpenCUNYLike OpenCUNY

false