Testifiers oppose Pohakuloa training plans

Source: http://www.bigislandweekly.com/articles/2011/01/19/read/news/news01.txt

Residents to Army: NO

Testifiers oppose Pohakuloa training plans
By Alan D. Mcnarie
Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:21 AM HST

An army has to train if it wants to avoid unnecessary casualties. And American troops stationed in Hawai’i face a narrowing set of options for training. Kaho’olawe has been returned, much the worse for wear, to the native Hawaiians. And last week, the Army bowed to public pressure and announced that it would no longer pursue live-fire training in O’ahu’s Makua Valley.

That leaves Hawai’i Island’s 133,000-acre Pohakuloa Training Area to absorb much of the burden. Last year, the Army announced that it would shift its artillery heavy weapons practice from Makua to Pohakuloa. And last week, island residents got a glimpse of some of the specifics of that plan, as the Army held two “scoping sessions” for its “Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement” on the Army’s proposal to modernize PTA’s aged buildings and firing range. But at the two sessions, it appeared that the Army had no more support for training here than it did at Makua Valley.

Compared to some of its recent projects, such as the purchase of several thousand acres of range land for a Stryker vehicle maneuver area, the plans covered by the Programmatic EIS are relatively modest. All of the improvements would fall “within the current footprint. We’re not buying land to expand,” army spokesperson Mike Egami told BIW.

“The cantonment area and the ranges are so old that they’re not up to modern Army standards. The ranges are really fundamental; we have them (troops) training on these Korea-World War II types of facilities,” Egami said.

Plans include a new “shoot house” — an indoor firing range with walls that bullets can’t penetrate — an Infantry Battle Complex for training company-sized groups of foot soldiers, and a Military Operations Urban Terrain (MOUT) site where soldiers can practice dismounted urban warfare, all to be built within the confines of the current firing range.

At this stage, there still appear to be major holes in the Army’s assessment of the new facilities’ impact. Egami couldn’t say, for instance, how much the use of the new facilities would increase the amount of ammunition fired at the base, and when, where and how the unexploded ordnance would be cleaned up. He did tell BIW that all the ammunition used at the new facilities would be from small arms.

At the Tuesday Hilo scoping session, not a single resident spoke in favor of the Army’s plans. The Army got a similar verbal shellacking the next night in Waimea. Most of those who spoke wanted Pohakuloa closed down, not expanded. Several residents suggested that the Army should spend its money on rehabilitating the physical and mental casualties of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, instead of on expanding training facilities.

“I can say that I’m a part of a military family, like it or not,” said veteran Hawaiian activist Moanikeala Akaka, after reciting a long list of relatives who’d served in the military or worked on military bases. “But I can say there are some of us who are sick and tired of the military expansion on the island.”

Relatively few of the speakers, in fact, actually addressed the specifics of the Army proposals contained in the PEIS, though one speaker did suggest that new training sites be moved to a different part of the impact area to get them further away from areas of native vegetation. Several residents wanted to talk about still another army training proposal that was not contained within the PEIS: The Army wants to use existing DLNR helicopter landing sites on Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea to hold high altitude training for the choppers of its 25th Combat Aviation Brigade, which is due to employ to Afghanistan in late spring of this year. The High Altitude Mountainous Environment Terrain Training (HAMET) is being handled in a separate Environmental Assessment; EAs do not require public hearings, though residents can give written input. A Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was published last month, and the Army is now accepting public comment on it. The draft is available at larger public libraries and online (Search Army + Hawaii + HAMET).

The Army has, in fact, been using those landing sites for years, and not without incident. According to the Draft Finding of No Significant Impact, a helicopter involved in a HAMET exercise in 2003 missed its landing zone and accidentally landed in the Mauna Kea Ice Age Natural Area Reserve. In 2006, another HAMET “incident” occurred when “an aircraft hovered too low over critical habitat.” The “critical habitat” mentioned is home to the palila, an endangered Hawaiian bird found only in the Big Island’s upper-altitude mamane forests, some of which have already been lost to the realignment of the Saddle Road.

Other threatened or endangered species may also be affected by the flights: the ‘io (Hawaiian Hawk); the ope’ape’a (Hawaiian hoary bat); and the nene. One of the helicopter landing sites on Mauna Loa, in fact, lies right on the edge of the Kipuka Ainahou Nene Sanctuary, though a map included in the Draft FONSI shows the border of the actual nene range well to the east of the sanctuary border. The Army plans to mitigate by flying at least 2000 feet over possible habitats, and the FONSI claims that the endangered species are “unlikely to be present at the elevation of any of the LZs [landing zones].”

Paul Neves of the Royal Order of Kamehameha I called the HAMET EA “completely inadequate.” He noted, for instance, that it had “no analysis of people using traditional trails near the landing zones,” and didn’t mention the usage of Mauna Loa Observatory Road by observatory workers, hunters and hikers, even though the military wanted to use landing zones on both sides of that road.

“The helicopters have been landing for seven years now with almost zero public oversight…,” testified the Sierra Club’s Cory Harden. “Helicopters may fly up to 18 hours a day during training, day and night, to within 2,000 vertical feet of the summit. The EA says noise and visual impacts on cultural practices and recreation will not be significant. That’s like saying impacts would not be significant from helicopters at Machu Pichu…. The EA has a cultural overview without one word about the illegal takeover of Hawai’i. That’s like writing a cultural overview of the United States and leaving out the Civil War.”

Harden also brought up another controversy: the furor over depleted uranium ordnance at Pohakuloa and the army’s refusal, so far, to completely remove it, or even to hunt very hard for it. She cited instance after instance of the army documents and spokespeople claiming it was too dangerous to look for DU in Pohakuloa’s impact zone. Yet all of the new battle areas, she noted, were “either in or directly adjacent to the existing impact areas of PTA.”

“Why is it too dangerous to enter the impact area to hunt for DU, but safe to go in and build more military facilities?” she asked.

Egami told BIW that the new live fire training facilities were not in the impact area, but adjacent to it. But one of the displays the army had put up at the scoping session said that the Infantry Platoon Battle Area would be “located at one of three (3) potential locations within the existing impact area”; an adjacent map showed not only the Infantry Platoon Battle area, but the shoot house and MOUT facility all within the impact zone. Army munitions expert Vic Garo explained that there were actually two zones of risk within the impact area. Within the impact area was the Improved Munitions Area, which held unexploded heavy ordnance including Vietnam-era bomblets. The outer zone, where the new facilities would be located, may contain mostly unexploded small arms munitions.

“We had to send our explosive ordnance disposal people in to clear that area [where the new facilities would be]” he said; cultural and natural survey teams could enter the outer zone if accompanied by explosives ordnance demolition teams.

“When projects come up, we go within the impact zone,” confirmed PTA archeologist Julie Toombs. “I keep telling people we haven’t blown any archeologists up yet.”

Toombs said that there had, indeed, been archeological sites found within the Impact Area: “There are platforms, lava tube systems, excavated pits….” Toombs said no one knew for certain what the pits were for, but they may have been carved into the lava to attract nesting sea birds: “Nineteenth Century accounts speak of huge flocks of sea birds in that area.”

Many native Hawaiians, from veteran activists such as Neves to several students who testified in Hawaiian, saw the Army’s plans as a strengthening of an illegal military occupation.

“Pretty soon the Big Island will no longer be the Big Island, because it will be called the United States Military,” predicted Neves.

Others dwelt on the sacredness of the mountain.

“I don’t know how many of you have seen Avatar, but Mauna Kea is like our home tree,” said another. “Your training of our youth is appreciated, but not here on Mauna Kea, not at Pohakuloa.”

Army's Makua move welcome

The editorial from the Honolulu Star Advertiser about the Army’s decision to end live-fire training in Makua is surprisingly favorable to the community groups.    It ends with an acknowledgment that the move of major training activities to Pohakuloa will incite other resistance:  “The decision to move live-fire training from Oahu to the Big Island will not quickly dissolve reasonable resistance and scrutiny — nor should it.”

>><<

Source: http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20110113_Army_ends_live-fire_training_at_Makua.html

Army’s Makua move welcome

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jan 14, 2011

After some two decades battling environmental and cultural advocates, the Army has agreed to remove heavy firepower exercises from Makua Valley. The decision is not the full surrender that some had wanted and the Army needs to provide an analysis of the environmental effects created by the decision to alter its training grounds — but the move is a step in the right direction.

The decision comes five years after a federal judge ruled that the Army had failed to show that 25th Infantry Division soldiers would be “inadequately trained” if denied use of live ammunition in field exercises in the leeward valley, an Army training area since the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Four years have passed since the Army reported to Congress that the training in Makua was “absolutely necessary,” although no live-fire training has been permitted there since 2004.

Just over the Waianae ridge from Schofield Barracks, the 25th Infantry’s headquarters, the valley is regarded by some as a sacred place and is home to a multitude of endangered species.

Little more than two months ago, U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway found that the Army had failed to adequately show how the live-fire training would affect cultural sites in the valley and Makua Beach limu, a seaweed consumed by families that fish in the area.

A trial on unresolved issues had been scheduled to begin next month.

The Malama Makua community group, which challenged the Army in court in 1998, and David Henkin, its Earthjustice attorney, welcomed the Army’s new stance. Waianae physician Fred Dodge, a Malama Makua board member, is understandably cautious about what the Army intends to do with the valley, remarking that he “would like to know more” about the Army’s plans.

Lt. Gen. Benjamin R. “Randy” Mixon, former commander of the 25th Infantry and now head of the U.S. Army in the Pacific, says the artillery and other heavy weapons training will move from the 4,190-acre Makua Valley to the 133,000-acre Big Island Pohakuloa Training Area, Schofield and mainland sites.

The Army is now eyeing Makua for a roadside-bomb and counterinsurgency training center, with conditions replicating those in Afghanistan. The potential effects of that new plan should be cautiously vetted.

The Army already faces opposition at Pohakuloa over depleted uranium contamination, but asserts that the radiological doses are “well within limits” considered safe.

Pohakuloa now is being used as an Army training area for 19-ton Stryker tracked vehicles.

The live-fire training move to Pohakuloa will provide ammunition for the opposition Malu Aina Center for Nonviolent Education & Action, headed by longtime peace activist Jim Albertini.

Mixon says the plan for Pohakuloa will be described in a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement now being prepared.

The decision to move live-fire training from Oahu to the Big Island will not quickly dissolve reasonable resistance and scrutiny — nor should it.

A partial win for Makua, but struggle far from over

Yesterday, the Army announced that it will end live fire training in Makua valley. This is a win for those who have struggled for many years to save Makua from the destructive and contaminating activities of the U.S. military. The Honolulu Star Advertiser ran a story and so did the Associated Press.

However, it is only a partial victory.

The Army continues to hold Makua hostage and plans to use the valley for other kinds of training. Furthermore, the Army is shifting the bulk of its training to Schofield in Lihu’e, O’ahu and Pohakuloa on Hawai’i island. This is consistent with the recent announcement of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for expanding or renovating training facilities at Pohakuloa.

This was never a “Not-In-My-Back-Yard” movement. Trading one ‘aina for another is not acceptable. Furthermore, it leaves unchallenged the very premise that the training is needed. Training for what purpose? To invade and occupy other countries? Inflict death and destruction in the name of Pax Americana?

The movement to protect Makua moves into a challenging phase as we now push for the cleanup and return of the land. The Army is hoping that non-live fire training will be less likely to inflame community anger. By removing a major flashpoint, the Army hopes to deflate the momentum of the movement. It is more difficult to sustain high levels of energy around the technical and tedious clean up and restoration of a site. So we must be inspired by our vision of the alternative we hope to grow in Makua.

Every gain we make in Makua owes to the thousands in Hawai’i and around the world who have come forward to malama ‘aina, speak out, protest, pray and grow the peaceful and blessed community we wish to see in the world.  The Makua movement must not forget its kuleana to the many people who have stood in solidarity with us, as we continue to stand and speak out in solidarity with others.

>><<

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20110113_Army_ends_live-fire_training_at_Makua.html

Army ends live-fire training at Makua

After decades of opposition to bombing the valley, real ordnance will be used only at Schofield and Pohakuloa

By William Cole

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jan 13, 2011

The last company of soldiers may have stormed the hills of Makua Valley with M-4 rifles blazing, artillery whistling overhead, mortars pounding mock enemy positions and helicopters firing from above.

After battling environmentalists and Hawaiian cultural practitioners since at least the late 1980s, the Army said this week it is acceding to community concerns and no longer will use the heavy firepower in Makua that started multiple fires in the 4,190-acre Waianae Coast valley and fueled a number of lawsuits.

In place of the company Combined Arms Live-Fire Exercises, known as CALFEXes, the Army said it is moving ahead with a plan to turn Makua into a “world class” roadside-bomb and counterinsurgency training center with convoys along hillside roads, simulated explosions and multiple “villages” to replicate Afghanistan.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Hawaii rally protesting Israeli commando raid

http://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/Hawaii-rally-protesting-Israeli-commando-raid/TYuDgfAt2UCv_A00H-6aIQ.cspx

Hawaii rally protesting Israeli commando raid

Reported by: Marisa Yamane

Email: myamane@khon2.com

Last Update: 6/01 10:13 pm

A Honolulu woman was among seven hundred activists taken into Israeli custody after soldiers raided a flotilla carrying relief supplies to Gaza.

The deadly raid also sparked protests across the US today, including here in Hawaii.

Hawaii residents outraged by the deadly Israeli commando raid staged a protest outside of the federal building in Downtown Honolulu Tuesday afternoon.

Sunday, Israeli soldiers stormed a Turkish ship that was leading a six-ship flotilla bringing 10,000 tons of supplies and aid to Gaza.

The Israeli Government said its soldiers boarded the ship to make sure there were no weapons being smuggled in for the terror group Hamas, and that its soldiers opened fire only after they came under assault.

At least nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed.

Hundreds of other activists were taken into Israeli detention, including Honolulu resident Ann Wright.

“I’m glad she’s alive it looked like she was walking and not suffering severe injury she was obviously defiant because her hand was up and she was doing the peace sign. I’m also concerned because she has physical problems in her legs,” said friend Carolyn Hadfield.

Wright is a retired US Army Colonel, and a former State Department official who publicly resigned in protest of the US invasion of Iraq.

This is video of Wright in 2007, protesting the Iraqi War, in front of the White House.

“We are the people that are saying stop this war and stop it now,” said Wright in 2007.

More recently, Wright turned her efforts towards Gaza.

“She said the main reason she became involved in this particular issue because it was so clear the US taxpayers were funding a genocidal regime in Gaza and those were her words,” said Hadfield.

Hadfield helped organize this protest Tuesday afternoon — to not only get the message out, but also in honor of her friend.

“I’m very proud of her. I’m proud of her courage,” said Hadfield.

The Israeli Government said tonight it’ll deport almost all of the activists within the next two days, but will still detain about fifty of them for their investigation.

Hilo peace activists threatened with arrest at Hilo Armed Forces Day events

Press release:  May 16, 2010

Peace Activists threatened with arrest at Hilo Armed Forces Day events

further contact: Jim Albertini 966-7622, ja@interpac.net

“Over a dozen peace activists were threatened with arrest for offering peace leaflets and peacefully sign holding at Armed Forces Day events in Hilo on Saturday, May 15th.  The activists held signs reading “Rescue the troops from War”, “Stop the War”, “End U.S. Occupation”, etc. along Hilo’s airport road fronting the Civil Air Patrol Area of Hilo Airport from 10-11:30AM,” said Jim Albertini of Malu ‘Aina.

Albertini said  “head of Hilo airport security Steven Santiago called police and wanted the protesters arrested if they did not leave the area where they were holding signs visible to those arriving for the Armed Forces day events and flights in and out of Hilo airport.” According to Albertini, “Santiago, wearing an Army cap, also wanted peace activists arrested for offering peace leaflets to people walking from their parked cars toward the military displays.”

Albertini said “peace activists stood their ground and refused to leave the area to a more remote designated “free speech zone” citing their first amendment free speech rights.  Higher ups in both the police department and State transportation were called and eventually the protesters’ rights were recognized.”
(Copy of the peace leaflet below)

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.malu-aina.org>

+++

Rescue the Troops from War!

It’s not just the troops that need rescuing from war.  It’s all of us — all of humanity, and the earth itself. The world is spending Trillions of dollars on wars and militarism which is contributing to our global crisis with unprecedented human and environmental needs going unmet.  The U.S. spends almost half of the world’s total military spending.  www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending <http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending>

Besides the current wars consider the following: :The ongoing global financial crisis threatens  global economic collapse;  there is a global environmental crisis that threatens the sustainability of life on the planet; an uncontrolled oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has no end in sight.  Trust in religious institutions and governments to solve problems appear at an all time low.  Amid unprecedented concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, billion dollar bonuses and bail outs, ordinary people are hurting.  Look at the number of unemployed, foreclosures, homeless, and mounting debt.  People are afraid, angry, and confused. Many don’t know where to turn.

In the face of such crises, we need a new local and global vision of justice, peace, and caring for the earth, a vision that rejects violence as a solution to problems, a vision where the means we use must be in line with the end we seek.  The choice is now between embracing non-violence or non-existence.  And a big question locally and globally is can we recognize and end our addiction to war?  Or will we remain in denial?

The U.S. is now in its 9th year of war in Afghanistan, 7th year in Iraq, and now war in Pakistan.
Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In America’s War On Iraq:  4,715   icasualties.org/oif/
Many troops are in their multiple year deployment.
Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan $992,517,275,108 http://www.costofwar.com/
The Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered Since The U.S. Invaded Iraq “1,366,350”
www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html>
The number of casualties in Afghanistan and Pakistan are increasing daily and there is an increasing threat of a US/Israel attack on Iran.


1.  A majority of Americans says the war in Afghanistan is not worth its costs, the Washington Post reports. 56 percent of independents say it is not worth fighting, up from 47 percent in December. Among Democrats, 66 percent say it’s not worth it, including half who feel that way strongly.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/05/on_afghanistan_a_negative_shif.html

2)  Shootings of Afghan civilians by American and NATO convoys and at military checkpoints have spiked sharply this year, becoming the leading cause of combined civilian deaths and injuries at the hands of Western forces, American officials say.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/world/asia/09afghan.html

Cut off the war funds! Bring the Troops Home Now!

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 (May 14, 2010 – 452nd week) – Friday 3:30-5PM downtown Post Office

+++

Hilo activist Danny Li writes on Indy Media Bay Area:

At the Hilo International Airport, 14 progressive Peace activists stood proudly with their anti-Occupation signs and placards. The Airport Security initially tried to force the peaceful group onto a “Designated Protest Area” some 500 yards away from the public entry to the military event. For over half an hour, there was a tense standoff, as Airport Security head Steve Santiago threatened to arrest the protestors, who valiantly stood their ground and insisted on their First Amendment right(especially because they had brought a copy of the Application for demonstration that was previously faxed to the Airport authorities). Two of the anti-war activists also insisted on their right to pass out informational leaflets to the Public.

Finally, after a police lieutenant and an Airport superior were called in to negotiate with the Peace activists, the potentially ugly confrontation resulted with a small but important victory for the anti-war activists. They were allowed to continue their sign-holding at the entry to the military event, and they could pass out the leaflets unimpeded to the Public (subsequently, some 250+ copies of the “Rescue Troops from War” leaflets were handed out).

It was A Good Day to continue Working for Peace in Hilo, Hawai’i on May 15, 2010!

Okinawans surround Futenma Air Base with a 13 km 'Human Chain'; solidarity demo in Honolulu

Yesterday, tens of thousands of Okinawans surrounded the Futenma Air Base with a Human Chain 13 kilometers long calling for the removal of the U.S. military base. There is video at the Okinawa Times website:

http://www.okinawatimes.co.jp/article/2010-05-16_6534/

On Friday, 5/14/2010, the Hawai’i Okinawa Alliance held a demonstration in front of the Federal Building in Honolulu in solidarity with the Okinawa action.   Also in support were Fight for Guahan, youth from the Rise Up! Roots of Liberation camp, the American Friends Service Committee, DMZ-Hawai’i / Aloha ‘Aina, Hawai’i Puerto Rican scholar/activist Tony Castanha, and professors Mari Matsuda and Vincent Pollard.  Also joining the demonstration were TAKAHASHI Masaki and ICHINOSE Emiko, former Peace Boat comrades who were visiting Hawai’i to write a book about the “hidden” history of occupation, militarism, corporate tourism and genetic engineering in Hawai’i.

Imperial Footprint: America’s Foreign Military Bases

http://www.worlddialogue.org/content.php?id=450

GLOBAL DIALOGUE Volume 11 ● Winter/Spring 2009—After Georgia

Book Review

Imperial Footprint: America’s Foreign Military Bases

ZOLTAN GROSSMAN

Zoltán Grossman is professor of geography at The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington, US.

The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle against US Military Posts

edited by Catherine Lutz

London, Pluto Press, 2009. 356 pages

Hardback UK £60.00, US $95.00. Paperback UK £17.99, US $29.95

“Metaphorically,” observes Catherine Lutz, “the military is spoken of as an ‘arm’ of the state, as having ‘posture,’ ‘reach,’ ‘stance,’ and perhaps most tellingly, a ‘footprint’ ” (p. 21). In the twenty-first century, this military “footprint” can be seen in the form of the vast, global network of military bases belonging to the United States. Lutz’s new anthology, The Bases of Empire, asserts that “Bases are the literal and symbolic anchors, and the most visible centerpieces, of the U.S. military presence overseas. To understand where those bases are and how they are being used is essential for understanding the United States’ relationship with the rest of the world, the role of coercion in it, and its political economic complexion” (p. 6).

Lutz, a professor of international studies and anthropology at Brown University, introduces her anthology with a review of the growing military-bases network. As of 2007, the Pentagon officially massed “190,000 troops and 115,000 civilian employees” within 909 military facilities in forty-six countries and territories. Just one of these military installations—the Balad Air Base in Iraq—covers sixteen square miles with an additional twelve-square-mile “security perimeter”. The base can, in fact, be seen from outer space (and can be viewed on Google Earth by downloading the military-bases datafile at www.tni.org). Lutz observes that “While the bases are literally barracks and weapons depots and staging areas for war-making . . . they are also political claims, spoils of war, arms sales showrooms, toxic industrial sites, laboratories for cultural (mis)communication, and collections of customers for local bars, shops, and prostitution” (p. 4).

Like a good geographer, Lutz ties the global phenomenon of US bases to their local realities:

The environmental, political, and economic impact of these bases is enormous and, despite Pentagon claims that the bases simply provide security to the regions they are in, most of the world’s people feel anything but reassured by this global reach. 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 U.S. military and political support given as a form of tacit rent for the bases. (P. 4)

Lutz identifies four major historical periods when the United States has built new military bases, and during which “The presumption was established that bases captured or created during wartime would be permanently retained” (p. 14). The first period was after the United States began expanding into North America, when it annexed Native American and Mexican national territories, and “every Western fort . . . was a foreign military base” (p. 10). The second period was after the 1898 Spanish–American War, and the acquisition of new colonies in the Pacific and Caribbean, which served as “coaling stations” for a globalised US Navy. The third period was after 1945, during the Cold War and the immense extension of US economic power around the world. The fourth period was set in motion after 2001 in the so-called “global war on terror”, which is notable mainly for its similarity to earlier imperial projects, with the same rationales of protecting security and freedom.

It used to be that military bases were built to wage wars, but increasingly it seems that wars are being waged to build bases. After every US military intervention since 1990, the Pentagon has left behind clusters of new bases in areas where it never before had a foothold. The string of new bases stretches from Kosovo and adjacent Balkan states, to Iraq and other Persian Gulf states, into Afghanistan and other Central Asian states. Collectively on a map, the bases appear to form a new US sphere of influence in the strategic “middle ground” between the European Union and East Asia, and may well be intended to counteract the emergence of these global economic competitors.

In his contribution on “US Foreign Military Bases and Military Colonialism”, Joseph Gerson of the American Friends Service Committee analyses the reasons for the Pentagon’s “web of foreign fortresses that surpass those created by Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, or Queen Victoria” (p. 51). Gerson notes that bases do not simply project military force abroad, but have many other functions. These include encircling enemies (such as the Soviet Union or Iran), servicing warships and jets, securing fossil fuels from friend and foe alike, controlling and influencing governments and political dynamics, and serving as training and exercise centres, command-and-control facilities, and more recently as torture centres. In a sense, the bases serve as a “tripwire” to prevent any real changes to the status quo—the United States has to intervene in other world regions in order to protect the bases it has already stationed there.

Gerson recalls activists from Guam displaying two maps that illustrated the effects of US bases on their daily lives. One map showed the island’s “best fishing grounds, its best agricultural land, and its best drinking water. The other showed the locations of the U.S. military bases, installations, and military exercises. The two maps were identical” (p. 53). He also relates the tragedy of Diego Garcia, ostensibly a tiny British island-colony in the Indian Ocean. All of the island’s residents were evicted in the 1960s so that it could be occupied by an enormous US base that has served as a lynchpin in every US Middle East invasion and occupation since that time.

Some may be tempted to blame the administration of George W. Bush for the rapid growth in the number of US military bases around the world. But Gerson observes that “While the reckless unilateralism of the Bush–Cheney administration was widely regarded as a radical departure from more complex and nuanced methods of maintaining the empire, it reflected more continuity than change” (p. 57). During recent Republican and Democratic administrations, the Pentagon has used every crisis as a convenient opportunity to establish a permanent military presence in strategic parts of the world—particularly in the belt stretching from Poland to Pakistan.

The Bases of Empire is invaluable for its documentation of recent changes in US basing strategy. While most critical studies of US military bases seem stuck in Cold War or “post–Cold War” paradigms, this book focuses on the new conditions of the twenty-first century. Uppermost among the new strategies is former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s “lily-pad” scenario, which has seen the proliferation of smaller and more widely scattered bases around the world—including in new regions such as East and West Africa. Because the new bases have fewer personnel (and virtually no military families), they are less visible and socially disruptive to the host nation than earlier sprawling megabases.

A key aspect of the lily-pad strategy is the increasing US use of foreign military installations through basing access agreements, and the prepositioning of weapons and supplies. The foremost example, as Ronald Simbulan observes, is the “Visiting Forces Agreement” (VFA), a controversial measure in the Philippines that offers the United States temporary access to its former bases there, allowing it to mount aggressive and nearly constant training exercises. Another major feature of the lily-pad strategy is the turning over of US military functions to private security contractors, to place a civilian fig leaf over armed occupation. As Lutz notes, Balad Air Base houses not only thirty thousand troops, but also ten thousand private contractors (who call the base “Mortarville” because it has been pounded so often by the shells of Iraqi insurgents). The Obama administration is increasing the use of civilian contractors in Afghanistan as well.

As part of the lily-pad strategy, followed closely by the current US defence secretary, Robert Gates, bases have been located in new host countries in order to substitute for bases that have become unpopular in other host countries. For example, new bases in eastern and central Europe—such as Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo—are substitutes for the unpopular and rapidly downsizing US presence in Germany. Operations in Guam and Hawaii have expanded because of the powerful anti-bases movements in the Philippines and Okinawa. The US bases in Iraq were intended partly to be substitutes for the US bases in Saudi Arabia—whose presence in the Muslim holy land fed the resentment that helped lead to the attacks of 11 September 2001. And since Ecuador has announced that the United States will no longer be allowed to use the air base at Manta, Washington has been planning to set up new military bases in Colombia, the region’s most notorious human-rights abuser. By playing this “shell game” with its bases, the Pentagon may also be trying to play off anti-base movements in different countries against one another.

Another new development in the past two decades has been the Pentagon’s ability to deliver force directly from the US “homeland”. The Air Force has undertaken bombing runs around the world (to Panama, Iraq, etc.) from air bases in the United States, rather than exclusively from foreign bases. A related development is the pronounced military build-up of island garrisons that are under US sovereignty or control so that they become virtual aircraft carriers. John Pike, webmaster of the defence website GlobalSecurity.org, predicts that the US military will “be able to run the planet from Guam and Diego Garcia by 2015, even if the entire Eastern Hemisphere has drop-kicked us” (p. 211).

The global proliferation of US bases might cause one to believe that the US military is an unstoppable steamroller that inevitably prevails over the hapless victims in its path, but The Bases of Empire highlights several case studies of successful popular resistance. As Lutz observes, nationalist revolutions or public campaigns have ejected large US military bases from at least twenty countries or territories—including the Philippines, Panama, Ecuador, and Vieques (Puerto Rico)—and reduced or modified the Pentagon’s presence in dozens of other countries. In certain other countries—such as Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan—even dictatorial regimes have (at least temporarily) scaled back US bases in the face of public dissent.

In 2007, anti-bases activists from around the world met in Ecuador to form the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases, committed to ending the presence of all militaries outside their own borders. They met again in 2009 in a “Security without Empire” conference in Washington, D.C., buoyed by the strengthened citizens’ opposition to US bases in Italy, South Korea, Japan, the Czech Republic, and other countries. The network’s website at www.no-bases.org documents the struggles in each country, and discusses unified strategies and actions to overcome the bases “shell game” played by the Pentagon, and to prevent the growing global movement from becoming segmented and divided.

Lutz does a great service to the global movement by including case studies by anti-bases activists and scholars themselves, who deftly explore the local nuances and complexities unique to their regional situations. The contributors cover Latin America and the Caribbean (John Lindsay-Poland), Europe (David Heller and Hans Lammerant), Iraq (Tom Engelhardt), the Philippines (Roland Simbulan), Diego Garcia (David Vine and Laura Jeffery), Vieques (Katherine McCaffrey), Okinawa (Kozue Akibayashi and Suzuyo Takazato), Turkey (Ayşe Gül Altmay and Amy Holmes), and Hawaii (Kyle Kajihiro).

The authors discuss innovative strategies and tactics of the anti-bases movements, such as the “bombspotting” campaigns that have monitored nuclear weapons in Europe and tracked the caravans transporting such weapons in Britain. Other tactics include the activist occupations of naval bombing ranges on Vieques and Kaho’olawe (Hawaii) that not only stopped the shelling, but restored part of the islands for public use—pending the US Navy’s painfully slow munitions clean-ups. Local opposition has succeeded in preventing the expansion of bases in Okinawa (Japan), and blocked the use of US bases in Turkey as launching-pads for the US invasion of Iraq.

But the book does merely cheer on the anti-bases movements, or present them as a monolithic bloc. The contributors take a more original and innovative approach by describing the difficulties of building and maintaining social-movement alliances against the bases. For example, Diego Garcia activists have followed divergent strategies: to return the island to Mauritius, to return evicted residents to the island, or to return the region to a relatively demilitarised state. These strategies often conflict with one another and by no means entail a common goal—closure of the US base on the island—despite the use of the common yet ambiguous slogan, “Give Us Back Diego!” In contrast, political factions with different stances towards the colonial status of Puerto Rico agreed to frame their Vieques demands primarily around environmental health and safety for residents, as reflected in the slogan, “Not One More Bomb!”, and met with much greater success than did the Diego Garcia activists.

The opposition in Okinawa has similarly coalesced around safety for residents, and against the harassment and rape of local women by US military personnel. In the Philippines, various concerns about militarism, women’s rights, and environmental safety reinforced the Filipino nationalist movement, helping it to throw off decades of American neo-colonial control. In Hawaii, about 17 per cent of the population is part of the US military community, and 19 per cent are Native Hawaiians—many of whom oppose not only the bases (largely for desecrating sacred and natural sites), but also the original illegal US annexation of their islands.

The main hurdle that the anti-bases movement must overcome, however, is the stunning lack of awareness among American citizens of their “empire of bases”. In her foreword, feminist scholar Cynthia Enloe offers useful insights into why the US public and media have a “lack of curiosity” about the bases. Most Americans assume that the bases have been invited in by host countries, that the latter enjoy stability and material benefits as a result, and that contact with the most “civilised” military in the world “can only prove beneficial to the fortunate host society” (p. xi). Catherine Lutz’s book documents that most of these assumptions are untrue, and in fact are the opposite of the real experiences of local residents living near US military bases abroad. The Bases of Empire is a useful source for Americans asking why their foreign policy seems only to diminish national security for other countries, and for their own, and an invaluable handbook for Americans who really seek a new relationship with the rest of the world.

Hawai'i vigil in solidarity with Okinawa

P4250185

P4250189

Photos: Jamie Oshiro, Hawai’i Okinawa Alliance

Yesterday, in solidarity with the 90,000+ Okinawans who rallied against U.S. military bases in Okinawa, the Hawai’i-Okinawa Alliance (HOA), the American Friends Service Committee – Hawai’i and DMZ-Hawai’i / Aloha ‘Aina organized a vigil in front of the Japanese Consulate in Honolulu.

Approximately 40 people held signs and candles in front of the Japanese Consulate. Ukwanshin Kabudan, Nakem Youth, Fight for Guahan, Veterans for Peace and Urban Babaylan were some of the groups represented.

10.4 oki dugong 10.4 oki k&y 10.4 oki jo my bk ng jaPhotos: Darlene Rodrigues

People spoke about the impacts of U.S. military bases in Hawai’i, Guam, Korea, and the Philippines and the need for our peoples to be in solidarity for the removal of these bases of war. Wearing a “Deji-wajiwaji!” HOA tee-shirt, World War II Veteran Don Matsuda called for the bases to get out of Okinawa. Kisha Borja-Kicho’cho’ with a contingent from Fight for Guahan expressed solidarity from the Chamoru community in their struggle to resist the U.S. military base expansion on her home island. Many speakers expressed a desire to remove the oppressive military bases and make the Pacific a zone of peace. Several people came after seeing coverage of the event on the television. For some it was their first demonstration.

10.4 oki norman Photo: Jeffrey Acido

Norman Kaneshiro sensei and several young Okinawan musicians sang traditional Okinawan songs. We closed the circle with singing “Hana” (Kina Shoukichi’s famous peace anthem).

10.4 oki ribbons 10.4 oki candle Photos: Darlene Rodrigues

Then we tied yellow ribbons with messages of peace written on them on the consulate fence.

The event was covered on KITV and KHNL television stations, and there reporters for the Okinawa Times and Ryukyu Shimpo covered the event.

Solidarity Statement from the Members of the Network for Okinawa

http://closethebase.org/2010/04/22/solidarity-statement-from-the-members-of-the-network-for-okinawa/

Solidarity Statement from the Members of the Network for Okinawa

April 25, 2010

Network for Okinawa

We, the members of the Network for Okinawa, represent many hundreds of thousands of Americans and people around the world who support democracy and environmental protection in Okinawa. Our grassroots network draws together representatives from U.S. and international peace groups, environmental organizations, faith-based organizations, academia, and think tanks.

Today we proudly announce our stand with the governor, the mayors, the media, the Henoko village elders, and the one million citizens of Okinawa; the thirty thousand residents of Tokunoshima, and the hundreds of thousands of citizens across Japan who support Okinawa.  From across the Pacific Ocean, we support their demand for the closure of the Futenma U.S. Marine Base and opposition to any new military base construction in Okinawa and Tokunoshima Island.

We appeal to Prime Minister Hatoyama to keep his promise to the Okinawan people and honor their rejection of any new construction in Camp Schwab. This includes a proposal to build a runway within the base already rejected in the 1990’s. The mayor of Nago, Inamine Susumu reiterated this rejection this year. We also ask Prime Minister Hatoyama to reject the U.S.-Japan 2006 proposal to construct partially offshore runways. This expansion would destroy the coral reef which is the home to the Okinawan dugong, blue coral, and other species,  It would damage beautiful Yanbaru Forest, home of many beautiful animals and plants, including endangered species.

We call upon President Obama, as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military, to honor the Okinawan democratic decision to remove the U.S. Futenma Marine base out of their prefecture and their call for no further U.S. military base construction.

The U.S. military built its first military bases during the Battle of Okinawa to serve as a platform for an invasion into Japan, then ruled by an imperial militarist wartime regime.  Over two hundred thousand Okinawan civilians, American soldiers, and Japanese soldiers died in the crossfire between the U.S. and Japan in that battle. It was the bloodiest in the Pacific War.

But the war’s end did not bring peace to Okinawa. The U.S. never dismantled its military bases and began to use them under its own Cold War military regime with a never-ending succession of enemies: Korea, Vietnam, Laos, China and the Soviet Union. Some U.S. and Japanese officials again imagine China a threat—despite détente and ever-increasing economic integration between China and the U.S., Japan, South Korea, Australia, and other nations that deems war very unlikely.

Former Okinawan governor Masahide Ota stated—that for Okinawans—the war never ended.  Many Okinawans still experience anxiety and depression from wartime trauma. The remains of 4,000-5,000 dead Okinawans have yet to be collected. Unexploded bombs remain throughout the island. Over 5,000 Okinawans have been the victims of crimes committed by American soldiers. Mr. Ota, therefore, asks: “Why shall we start preparing for a new war, while the old war is not over yet?”

Network member Peter Galvin, Conservation Director of the Center for Biological Diversity states, “Destroying the environmental and social well-being of an area, even in the name of ‘national or global security,’ is itself like actively waging warfare against nature and human communities.”

The US government has repeatedly promised reform in Okinawa. The 1972 “reversion” of Okinawa from the U.S. to Japan did not result in promised demilitarization. Their latest proposal—first made in 1996 and renegotiated in 2006—does not “lighten a burden.” It instead would move U.S. military pollution, noise, and assaults from Ginowan City to untouched Henoko.

How many elections, resolutions, and mass-scale rallies does the Japanese government and US government need before they hear the message of the Okinawan people?

We, the many people in the U.S. and worldwide, of the Network for Okinawa–hear and support these messages for removal, not relocation of military bases from Okinawa.

To illustrate, we would like to share some individual remarks from our supporters:

Gavan McCormack, Australian National University professor states, “An alliance that treats the opinion of Okinawans with such contempt is not an alliance of or for democracy. The ‘free world’ used to be fiercely critical of Moscow for trampling on the opinions of Poles, Czechs, and Hungarians; now, in the name of ‘freedom,’ it is about to act in precisely the same way. Does freedom mean so little to those who pretend they defend it?”

John Lindsay-Poland, Director of Fellowship of Reconciliation’s Latin America program, states: “Military bases in Japan and other countries are material projections of the will of the U.S. to use war and violent force. War is not only brutal, unjust, and ecologically devastating, but unnecessary to achieve legitimate aims.”

Kyle Kajihiro, Program Director, American Friends Service Committee – Hawai’i Area Office, states: “The powerful Okinawan demand is clear: peace is a human right. The Okinawan people are an inspiration to our own movement. We stand with them in solidarity for peace across the Pacific.”

In a speech she gave in Stockholm, Japanese Canadian author Joy Kogawa paid tribute to Okinawa’s peace-loving traditional culture that honors the sanctity of life:

“There is a certain small island in the east, where the world’s longest living and intensely peaceable people live.

“My brother, a retired Episcopalian priest, was in Okinawa for a few years in the 1990’s.  He told me that in 1815, Captain Basil Hall of the British navy steamed into Naha, Okinawa and was amazed at what he found.  The story goes, that on his way back to England, he dropped in to the island of St. Helena and had a chat with Napoleon.

“’I have been to an island of peace,’ the captain reported.  ‘The island has no soldiers and no weapons.’

“’No weapons?  Oh, but there must be a few swords around,’ Napoleon remarked.

“’No.  Even the swords have been embargoed by the king.’

“Napoleon, we’re told, was astonished. ‘No soldiers, no weapons, no swords! It must be heaven.’

“A unique culture of peace had developed in one tiny part of our warring planet…

“When Japan, that once warring nation, took over the kingdom, there was an entirely bloodless coup.  No soldiers were found to help later with the invasion of Korea. A disobedient people, Japan concluded.  A kingdom without soldiers was clearly impossible. Okinawa, with its history of peace, must surely have had a culture as close to heaven as this planet has managed. And perhaps therefore a special target for the forces of hate.”

Today our world stands at a crossroads between survival and self-destruction. We must transform from a world dominated by a culture of war into a world led by cooperation and nonviolent conflict resolution. Instead of forcing more unwanted military violence upon this peaceful island, the U.S. and Japan would be wise to model Okinawa’s democratic culture of life.

http://closethebase.org/

CONTACT: John Feffer, Institute for Policy Studies

johnf@ips-dc.org, 202-234-9382, cell: 510-282-8983

===============================================

連帯声明

2010年4月25日
Network for Okinawa

我々、Network for Okinawa(沖縄のためのネットワーク)のメンバーは、沖縄の民主主義と環境保護を支持する何十万人もの米国人と世界中の人々を代表する。我々の草の 根のネットワークは、米国と世界の平和・環境団体、宗教的奉仕活動団体、大学・研究機 関やシンクタンクの代表者を結びつける。

我々は今日、沖縄を支持する県知事、市町村長、メディア、辺野古のお年寄りたち、100万人の沖縄県民、3万人の徳之島住民、そ して日本全国何十万人にもおよぶ国民と共にあることを、誇りを持って宣言する。太平洋を経た地より、彼らの米軍普天間基地の閉鎖と沖 縄そして徳之島におけるいかなる新たな基地建設への反対の要求を支持する。

我々は鳩山首相に、沖縄県民との約束を果たし、キャンプシュワブの新たな基地建設を拒否する彼らの意志を尊重するよう要請する。 これには基地内に滑走路を建設するという、1990年代すでに拒否された提案も含まれる。名護市の稲嶺進市長は今年、沖縄 県民のこの意志表示を繰り返した。

更に、我々は鳩山首相に、部分的に岸から離れた滑走路を建設するという2006年の日米提案を拒否することも要請する。こ のような基地の拡大は沖縄のジュゴンやアオサンゴなどが棲むサンゴ礁を破壊し、絶滅の危機にある動植物を含めた多くの美しい生物が生 息するやんばるの森をも破壊することになる。

我々は米軍の最高司令官であるオバマ大統領に対して、沖縄から米軍普天間基地を取り除きたいという県民の民主的決断と、県 内における一切の新たな基地建設に反対するという彼らの意志を尊重するよう求める。

米軍は沖縄戦中、当時軍事帝国主義によって統治されていた本土を侵略する足がかりとして沖縄に最初の基地を建設した。20万人以 上の沖縄市民、米軍兵士そして日本軍兵士がこの戦いで命を落とした。これは太平洋戦争の中でも、最も残酷な戦闘であった。

しかし終戦は沖縄に平和をもたらさなかった。米国はいっこうに基地を解体しようとせず、朝鮮・ベトナム・ラオス・中国・ソ連など次 々と「敵」をつくり出しながら冷戦における軍事政策のもとに沖縄の基地を使い始めたのだ。緊張緩和や日・中・米・韓・豪な どの経済統合がかつてないほど進んでいるにも関わらず、日米の政府関係者の中には中国を再び「脅威」と想定する者がいる。

沖縄元県知事の太田昌秀氏は、沖縄の市民にとって戦争は決して終わらなかったと言った。沖縄県民の多くが今でも戦時中のトラウマ による不安とうつに悩まされている。

四千から五千の沖縄人の遺体が未だに回収されていない。沖縄全土に渡り不発弾も残っている。そして五千人以上の沖縄市民が米兵に よる犯罪の犠牲となっている。「前の戦争がまだ終わっていないのに、なぜ次の戦争を始める準備をしなければならないのか」と 太田氏は問う。

Network for Okinawaのメンバーであるピーター・ギャルビンは生物多様性センターの保全所長でもある。彼は「た とえ『国家や世界の安全保障のため』という名目であっても、ある地域の環境や社会福祉を損なうということはそれ自体、自然と人間社会 に戦争を仕掛けるようなものだ」と言う。

米国政府は沖縄での改革を繰り返し約束してきた。1972年の米国から日本への『復帰』は約束されていた非軍事化にはつながらなかった。1996年 に作られ、2006年に再協議された最新の提案は、沖縄の「負 担軽減」にはならなかった。むしろ、米軍基地による汚染、騒音、暴力などの問題を宜野湾市から手つかずの辺野古へ移すだけとなった。

沖縄の人々の声が日本と米国政府に届くには、いったい、幾つもの選挙や決議、大規模なデモを行う必要があるのだろうか。

我々Network for Okinawaに所属する多くの米国と世界各地の人々には沖縄の声が聞こえる。我々は単に基地を県内移設させ るのでなく、沖縄から取り除きたいという県民のメッセージを支持する。

これを例証するために、我々支持者の声をここにいくつか紹介する:

オーストラリア国立大学教授のギャバン・マコーマック氏は、「沖縄県民の意志をこのような侮辱でもって対処するような同盟は民主的 でもなければ民主主義のためでもない。かつて『自由主義陣営』はポーランド人、チェコ人、ハンガリー人の意志を踏みにじったソ連政府 に対して極めて批判的であった。ところが今、『自由』の名において全く同じことをしようとしている。自由を守るふりをする者たちにとって、自由はこんなに も少しの意味しか持たないのだろ うか。」と話す。

友和会ラテンアメリカ・プログラムの責任者ジョン・リンゼイ・ポーランド氏は「日本やその他の国々にある米軍基地は、戦争を起こ し武力を行使するというアメリカの意志を反映している。戦争は非人間的で不正義で環境破壊をするにすぎず、正当な目的を達成するため には不必要である。」と述べている。

米国フレンズ奉仕団ハワイ地域事務局のプログラム・ディレクター、カイル・カジヒロ氏は「沖縄県民の力強い要求は明らだ。平和は 人権である。沖縄の人々は私たち自身の運動にインスピレーションを与えてくれる。太平洋をまたがる平和への連帯のもと、私 たちは沖縄の人々を支持する。」

日系カナダ人の執筆家ジョイ・コガワはストックホルムでのスピーチで、命の尊厳を大事にするという、沖縄の平和を愛す る伝統文化を称えた:

「東方にある小さな島があります。そこには世界一の長寿で、ものすごく穏やかな人々が住んでいるんです。」

「私の兄は退職する前に聖公会の牧師として1990年代の何年かを沖縄で過ごしました。その兄が教えてくれたのですが、1815 年に英国海軍のバジル・ホール艦長が沖縄の那覇に突入していった時、大変驚きの発見をしたのです。イングランドへの帰途、艦 長はセント・ヘレナ島に立ち寄り、ナポレオンとおしゃべりをしました。」

「私は平和の島に行ったことがある」と報告する艦長。「その島には兵隊もいなければ武器もないのだ。」

「武器がない?でも剣の2、3本はあったんじゃないのかね」とナポレオン。

「いや。剣でさえ国王が禁止している」

ナポレオンはびっくり仰天。「兵隊も武器も剣もない!そりゃ天国に違いない」

「平和の文化は戦争の絶えないこの地球の、ちっぽけな島で発展したのです・・・」

「かつて戦争中だった日本がこの王国を占領したとき、全く血を見ないクーデターが起こりました。また後々朝鮮半島を侵略するときに 手を貸したいという戦士も見つかりませんでした。日本は、この島の人々は反抗的だと結論付けました。兵隊のない王国など明 らかに不可能でした。このような平和の歴史を持つ沖縄は、きっと地球上で一番天国に近い文化を持つ場所だったのでしょう。もしかすると、それが故に、この 島は憎しみの部隊にとって特別な標的となっ たのかもしれません」

今日、我々の世界は生き残りか自己破壊の境目にある。我々は戦争の文化に蝕ばまれた世界を、お互いに協力し合い、暴力によらない 紛争を解決する世界へと変革しなければならない。この平和的な島に不必要な軍事暴力を押しけるのでなく、米国と日本は沖縄の命を尊ぶ 民主的な文化から学ぶべきである。

http://closethebase.org/

CONTACT: John Feffer, Institute for Policy Studies

johnf@ips-dc.org , 202-234-9382, cell: 510-282-8983

A report on the March 20, 2010 Hilo Peace Rally

A report from Jim Albertini on the March 20, 2010 Hilo Peace Rally

Aloha Peace Ohana,

More than 60 people gathered on Hilo Bayfront from 10AM till noon today for a peace rally amid a light rain to call for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. The rally was organized to mark the 7th anniversary of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq and to stand in solidarity with thousands around the U.S. organizing similar rallies and marches to end the wars. Many of the signs called for cutting off the war funds and redirecting the money to human needs, such as education, jobs, health care, and stopping foreclosures.

In Hilo people held signs and banners along Kamehameha Ave. for the first hour and continued to do so the 2nd hour when a number of speakers offered insights and gave encouragement to build a movement for justice and peace. It was especially encouraging to have many local youth join the rally. Keana DeCosta spoke for UHH Global HOPE. Eric Orseske, another UHH student also inspired the crowd. Eric served in the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division both in Afghanistan and Iraq from 2001 to 2004. Eric said the best way to support the troops is to stop the wars and bring the troops home. Eric called for:

1. withdrawal of all U.S. and foreign troops from Iraq and Afghanistan;

2. Insuring adequate health care for returning veterans and their families;

3. Reparations for the Iraqi and Afghani people who have suffered tremendous losses (1.3 million Iraqi civilians have been slaughtered since the 2003 U.S. invasion);

4 Eric also called for other GI’s to know their rights and he called for investigating Depleted Uranium (munitions and contamination) and the erosion of our Bill of Rights.

Other speakers included Hanako Shibata from Nagasaki, Japan who said “war never again –peace to all!” Local building contractor, Danny Li, spoke on the economic aspects of the wars –trillions of dollars spent on war and Wall Street while human needs and basic government services are cut back. Rosylyn “Bunny” Smith, who lived in Iran and other parts of the world as a U.S. diplomat family, spoke of concern for Palestine and the similar rhetoric today about Iran like we heard prior to the war in Iraq. Lee Bowden encouraged people to not give up, to keep protesting what’s being done in our names and urged people to join the weekly Hilo Peace Vigil on Fridays 3:30-5PM at the down down Hilo Post Office.

A statement was read from Cory Harden who could not attend the rally: Cory urged public hearings for the EIS of the Army’s proposed Join High Speed Vessel (JHSV) –the militarized Superferry. At present no hearings are planned. Cory also summarized the story of depleted uranium in Hawaii and the non-functioning Pohakuloa Community Advisory Group.

I urged people to take and pass on to friends a “Call to Action” flier. The flier (see below) notes three actions:

1. Call Hawaii’s congressional delegation to demand a cut off of the war funds;

2. A Saturday, April 10th and Sunday, April 11th roving peace vigil around the island — urging people to join in their local communities for an hour during the weekend;

3. A public form –Sunday, April 25th on Military Depleted Uranium Radiation Contamination on Hawaii island.– 7-9PM at the Keaau Community Center

Following the rally’s scheduled speakers, there was an open microphone for others to come forward and share. Many did, sharing thoughts and even a few songs. The honking horns from passing cars showed widespread opposition to the wars. A lone war supporter (– part of “The gathering of Eagles”) stood in the long line of war opponents, but on this day in history the pro-war message didn’t fly in Hilo. The response was clear. People have had enough of war: Bring the troops home now. Stop the Wars! Ground the Imperial Eagle!

A Call to Action

1. Email/Call Hawaii’s Congressional delegation and demand a cut off of the war funds:

Senator Dan Inouye http:inouye.senate.gov in Washington 202-224-3934, in Hilo 935–0844, in Honolulu 541-2542

Senator Dan Akaka http:akaka.senate.gov in Washington 202-224-6361, in Hilo 935-1114

Congresswoman Mazie Hirono www.hirono.gov in Washington 202-225-4906, in Hilo 935-3756, in Honolulu 808-541-1986.

2. Join and help spread the word about the Saturday, April 10th and Sunday, April 11th Roving Peace Vigil around the island with an emphasis on stopping the wars; shifting war funds to education, health care and other human needs; and military clean up not build up in Hawaii.

On Sat. April 10th Vigil sites are:

9-10AM Bayfront Hilo

11-12AM Honoka’a (Hwy by Tex’s Drive In)

1-2PM Waimea — Fronting Parker Ranch Shopping Center (Foodland)

3-4PM Waikoloa Village – Waikoloa Rd and Paniolo Ave. by shopping center

On Sunday, April 11th Vigil sites are:

9-10AM Volcano Hwy 11 Wright Road

11-12 Na’alehu theater

1-2PM Captain Cook –across from Manago Hotel

3-4PM Kailua-Kona – Kailua pier

3. Join, and help pass the word about the forum on Military Depleted Uranium Radiation Contamination on Hawaii Island

Sunday, April 25th from 7-9PM at the Keaau Community Center

Representatives from the military are invited along with citizen representatives to give presentations and field questions from the audience.

Please Answer the Call. Mahalo!

For more information contact: Malu ‘Aina Center for Non-violent Education & Action

P.O. Box AB Ola’a (Kurtistown), Hawaii 96760. Phone 808-966-7622

email ja@interpac.net Visit us on the web at www.malu-aina.org

 OpenCUNY » login | join | terms | activity 

 Supported by the CUNY Doctoral Students Council.  

OpenCUNY.ORGLike @OpenCUNYLike OpenCUNY

false