‘US Unlikely to Redeploy Nukes in South’
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter
Washington is unlikely to re-deploy tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula to deter North Korea's nuclear threat largely because of its goal ofdenuclearizing the peninsula, the Washington Post reported Saturday.
``The chances of the United States re-deploying those weapons are slim,'' the newspaper reported, citing U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's remarks last week that the goal of U.S. diplomacy is to denuclearize the peninsula.
A group of 17 former South Korean defense ministers and war veterans last week issued a statement calling on the government to ask the U.S. military to re-deploy tactical nuclear weapons, which were removed by former President George H.W. Bush's administration in 1991 as part of arms reductions following theCold War.
In the same year, the two Koreas signed a pact pledging not to deploy, develop or posses nuclear bombs on the peninsula, which was apparently breached by Pyongyang when it reportedly conducted a nuclear bomb test on Oct. 9.
Defense analysts also said the U.S. government is expected to provide a stronger nuclear umbrella to Seoul rather than re-deploying nuclear weapons on the peninsula, which would fan a nuclear arms race among countries like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan.
Kim Tae-woo, a researcher at the state-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA), said the current U.S. nuclear umbrella for South Korea is enough to counter North Korea's nuclear capability.
``What South Korea needs right now is the United States' firm commitment to the provision of nuclear umbrella to South Korea, given that U.S. aircraft carriers and submarines frequently visit South Korean ports and are being deployedaround the peninsula,'' said Kim.
Defense Yoon Kwang-ung and his U.S. counterpart Donald H. Rumsfeld are to meet in Washington, D.C. on Saturday to reaffirm military cooperation, includingthe nuclear umbrella for Seoul, against the apparently nuclear-armed Pyongyang regime.
During the security talks, called the Security Consultative Meeting, the two sides are also expected to draw up a final road map regarding the transition of wartime operational control that has remained in the hands of the U.S. military.
The U.S. military is reportedly deploying about 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons around the world. Most of the atomic weapons are being stationed at bases in Hawaii and Guam and have advanced aircraft carriers and submarinesavailable for nuclear weapons installment.
Tactical nuclear weapons are used in a limited nuclear war targeting the enemy military forces. They have an explosive yield ranging from 0.1 kiloton (100 tons of TNT) to 1 megaton (1 million tons of TNT).
The ``low-yield'' weapons are short-range, covering less than 500 kilometers, and take the form of artillery shells. An arms control treaty does not currently cover these nuclear weapons.
Tactical nuclear weapons expected to cover Korea include the Tomahawk cruise missile capable of carrying a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead, the AGM-69 short-range attack missile, the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile fo rB-52 bombersand the BGM-109G ground-launched cruise missile, according to defense experts.
Strategic nuclear weapons are used in an attack aimed at an entire country, including both military and civilian targets, in a full-scale nuclear war. Such an attack would seek to destroy the entire economic, social and military infrastructure of a country.
A case in point is the United States' nuclear bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr10-15-2006 17:41
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Bula Nukes
‘US Unlikely to Redeploy Nukes in South’
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter
Washington is unlikely to re-deploy tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula to deter North Korea's nuclear threat largely because of its goal ofdenuclearizing the peninsula, the Washington Post reported Saturday.
``The chances of the United States re-deploying those weapons are slim,'' the newspaper reported, citing U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's remarks last week that the goal of U.S. diplomacy is to denuclearize the peninsula.
A group of 17 former South Korean defense ministers and war veterans last week issued a statement calling on the government to ask the U.S. military to re-deploy tactical nuclear weapons, which were removed by former President George H.W. Bush's administration in 1991 as part of arms reductions following theCold War.
In the same year, the two Koreas signed a pact pledging not to deploy, develop or posses nuclear bombs on the peninsula, which was apparently breached by Pyongyang when it reportedly conducted a nuclear bomb test on Oct. 9.
Defense analysts also said the U.S. government is expected to provide a stronger nuclear umbrella to Seoul rather than re-deploying nuclear weapons on the peninsula, which would fan a nuclear arms race among countries like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan.
Kim Tae-woo, a researcher at the state-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA), said the current U.S. nuclear umbrella for South Korea is enough to counter North Korea's nuclear capability.
``What South Korea needs right now is the United States' firm commitment to the provision of nuclear umbrella to South Korea, given that U.S. aircraft carriers and submarines frequently visit South Korean ports and are being deployedaround the peninsula,'' said Kim.
Defense Yoon Kwang-ung and his U.S. counterpart Donald H. Rumsfeld are to meet in Washington, D.C. on Saturday to reaffirm military cooperation, includingthe nuclear umbrella for Seoul, against the apparently nuclear-armed Pyongyang regime.
During the security talks, called the Security Consultative Meeting, the two sides are also expected to draw up a final road map regarding the transition of wartime operational control that has remained in the hands of the U.S. military.
The U.S. military is reportedly deploying about 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons around the world. Most of the atomic weapons are being stationed at bases in Hawaii and Guam and have advanced aircraft carriers and submarinesavailable for nuclear weapons installment.
Tactical nuclear weapons are used in a limited nuclear war targeting theenemy military forces. They have an explosive yield ranging from 0.1kiloton (100tons of TNT) to 1 megaton (1 million tons of TNT).The ``low-yield'' weapons are short-range, covering less than 500 kilometers,and take the form of artillery shells. An arms control treaty does notcurrently cover these nuclear weapons.Tactical nuclear weapons expected to cover Korea include the Tomahawk cruisemissile capable of carrying a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead, the AGM-69short-range attack missile, the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile forB-52 bombersand the BGM-109G ground-launched cruise missile, according to defenseexperts.Strategic nuclear weapons are used in an attack aimed at an entire country,including both military and civilian targets, in a full-scale nuclear war.Suchan attack would seek to destroy the entire economic, social and militaryinfrastructure of a country.A case in point is the United States' nuclear bombing of the Japanese citiesof Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr10-15-2006 17:41
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter
Washington is unlikely to re-deploy tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula to deter North Korea's nuclear threat largely because of its goal ofdenuclearizing the peninsula, the Washington Post reported Saturday.
``The chances of the United States re-deploying those weapons are slim,'' the newspaper reported, citing U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's remarks last week that the goal of U.S. diplomacy is to denuclearize the peninsula.
A group of 17 former South Korean defense ministers and war veterans last week issued a statement calling on the government to ask the U.S. military to re-deploy tactical nuclear weapons, which were removed by former President George H.W. Bush's administration in 1991 as part of arms reductions following theCold War.
In the same year, the two Koreas signed a pact pledging not to deploy, develop or posses nuclear bombs on the peninsula, which was apparently breached by Pyongyang when it reportedly conducted a nuclear bomb test on Oct. 9.
Defense analysts also said the U.S. government is expected to provide a stronger nuclear umbrella to Seoul rather than re-deploying nuclear weapons on the peninsula, which would fan a nuclear arms race among countries like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan.
Kim Tae-woo, a researcher at the state-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA), said the current U.S. nuclear umbrella for South Korea is enough to counter North Korea's nuclear capability.
``What South Korea needs right now is the United States' firm commitment to the provision of nuclear umbrella to South Korea, given that U.S. aircraft carriers and submarines frequently visit South Korean ports and are being deployedaround the peninsula,'' said Kim.
Defense Yoon Kwang-ung and his U.S. counterpart Donald H. Rumsfeld are to meet in Washington, D.C. on Saturday to reaffirm military cooperation, includingthe nuclear umbrella for Seoul, against the apparently nuclear-armed Pyongyang regime.
During the security talks, called the Security Consultative Meeting, the two sides are also expected to draw up a final road map regarding the transition of wartime operational control that has remained in the hands of the U.S. military.
The U.S. military is reportedly deploying about 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons around the world. Most of the atomic weapons are being stationed at bases in Hawaii and Guam and have advanced aircraft carriers and submarinesavailable for nuclear weapons installment.
Tactical nuclear weapons are used in a limited nuclear war targeting theenemy military forces. They have an explosive yield ranging from 0.1kiloton (100tons of TNT) to 1 megaton (1 million tons of TNT).The ``low-yield'' weapons are short-range, covering less than 500 kilometers,and take the form of artillery shells. An arms control treaty does notcurrently cover these nuclear weapons.Tactical nuclear weapons expected to cover Korea include the Tomahawk cruisemissile capable of carrying a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead, the AGM-69short-range attack missile, the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile forB-52 bombersand the BGM-109G ground-launched cruise missile, according to defenseexperts.Strategic nuclear weapons are used in an attack aimed at an entire country,including both military and civilian targets, in a full-scale nuclear war.Suchan attack would seek to destroy the entire economic, social and militaryinfrastructure of a country.A case in point is the United States' nuclear bombing of the Japanese citiesof Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr10-15-2006 17:41
Monday, October 23, 2006
Only 5.3% of Guam is over the age of 65
Compensation overdue for radiation victims
by Jean Hudson, KUAM News
Sunday, October 22, 2006
One non-profit organization continues to push for victims of radiation exposure. President of the Pacific Association for Radiation Survivors Robert Celestial says according to the National Research Council Guam has missed out on many years of compensation. "Because as of 2000 through 2002, counties in the United States have been receiving millions of dollars through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, and we missed it back then and last year again,' he explained.
Celestial continued, "And so what that does, we now have to justify ask for funding for a new hospital, radiation therapy, and we need a radiation oncologist and a team to operate the machine because they appropriated $2 million for through the Legislature for the machine. It's like buying an airplane without the pilots and mechanics to run it."
He says according to the National Research Council, survivors who lived on Guam between 1946 and 1962 may qualify for compensation. Also, during the PARS annual membership meeting this afternoon, guest speaker Dr. Luis Syzfres with the Cancer Research Center talked about research that reveals that only 5.3% of Guam's population is over age 65. "This is something that is even published in the U.S. Census. I began to ask what is going on in Guam? I receive answers like 'Oh, they're on vacation, the old people', 'They are visiting their children.' No! So what is it? What is unique to Guam that people can't get really old?
"And when we say old, we know that these are diseases that are not like bullets. They are chronic diseases that start early in life," he said.
by Jean Hudson, KUAM News
Sunday, October 22, 2006
One non-profit organization continues to push for victims of radiation exposure. President of the Pacific Association for Radiation Survivors Robert Celestial says according to the National Research Council Guam has missed out on many years of compensation. "Because as of 2000 through 2002, counties in the United States have been receiving millions of dollars through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, and we missed it back then and last year again,' he explained.
Celestial continued, "And so what that does, we now have to justify ask for funding for a new hospital, radiation therapy, and we need a radiation oncologist and a team to operate the machine because they appropriated $2 million for through the Legislature for the machine. It's like buying an airplane without the pilots and mechanics to run it."
He says according to the National Research Council, survivors who lived on Guam between 1946 and 1962 may qualify for compensation. Also, during the PARS annual membership meeting this afternoon, guest speaker Dr. Luis Syzfres with the Cancer Research Center talked about research that reveals that only 5.3% of Guam's population is over age 65. "This is something that is even published in the U.S. Census. I began to ask what is going on in Guam? I receive answers like 'Oh, they're on vacation, the old people', 'They are visiting their children.' No! So what is it? What is unique to Guam that people can't get really old?
"And when we say old, we know that these are diseases that are not like bullets. They are chronic diseases that start early in life," he said.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
How Prepared is Guam?
How prepared is Guam for a nuclear attack?
by Clynt Ridgell, KUAM News - Saturday, October 21, 2006
With concerns about North Korea and nuclear testing, some in the community may be wondering if Guam is ready. Guam homeland security advisor Frank Blas, Jr says that he takes the threat of a nuclear attack seriously, telling KUAM News, "There is the concern of North Korea's capability to be able to launch nuclear missiles not only to Guam but to Hawaii, Japan and the [United States] West Coast."
Blas says that they are in constant contact with the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the White House about the North Korean threat. "We can only hope and pray that the diplomacy that is ongoing right now will help to calm the situation down," he speculated. Aside from this, Blas says they've already procured some equipment and training to deal with a nuclear disaster and are looking at expanding this training.
But what should you and I do in the event of a nuclear attack? Blas suggests, "Make sure you've got you're emergency supply kits, you've got your flashlights, your battery-operated radios, your batteries, three days' supply of food just in case; then should an incident occur and should you get word of something that may be going on please listen to radio and television broadcasts for official homeland security civil defense releases."
We asked the homeland security advisor if there were any actual bomb shelters for people to go to in the event of a disaster. "No no, I think a lot of people can recall back in the old days the fallout shelters were concrete, and a lot of that was based on," he continued. "Back in those days there were less concrete buildings than, there were steel and wooden structures. Now, obviously there are a little bit more concrete structures."
Blas says your best bet is to stay indoors.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Navy May Outsource Civilian Jobs
Navy may outsource civilian jobs
By Gerardo R. Partido Variety News Staff
A NUMBER of civilian workers at U.S. Naval Base Guam may lose their jobs if the Navy proceeds with plans to outsource their work. According to the Department of the Navy, jobs that may be affected would be in the non-guard security support services and emergency management dispatch support services.
These include jobs in the field of vehicle inspection, explosive detection, pass and ID, court services or administrative support, armory and ready for issue, training, physical security, supply/logistics, crime prevention, surveillance detection, and dispatching functions.
According to the Navy, two separate competitions will be conducted to determine if it is more cost-effective for the Navy to continue to perform these functions or to contract them out.
The jobs are being considered as part of a Navy-wide review of commercial activities being undertaken as per Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, which establishes federal policy for the performance of commercial activities. If an activity can be performed by either contract or government in-house personnel, an A-76 study will be done to determine the most economical method of operation.
Sen. Antonio Unpingco, R-Santa Rita, who heads the Legislature’s military committee, wrote to Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo to ask for assistance. “It has been brought to my attention that once again, the people of Guam are subjected to unfair treatment by the Department of Defense. Guam is the only jurisdiction in the country that has an A-76 Study. It is unfair that our island and our people are the only ones who continue to suffer from the impact of this program,” Unpingco wrote.
He added that Guam has seen how the A-76 Study has devastated the island’s economy and negatively impacted a large number of families.
“We have observed how the A-76 Study has caused the deterioration of existing military assets such as the Fena Reservoir which supplies water to the Navy. It is time that we diligently work together to terminate this program,” Unpingco stressed.
The OMB Circular requires periodic review of each commercial activity to determine if continued performance by government personnel is economical.
Both the government and contract cost figures used in the competition are based on the same scope of work and the same performance standard to assure a fair comparison and continued high level of performance. If the costs of contracting are lower than the costs of continued government performance, the Navy said the jobs will be contracted out.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Nuclear Sub Docks At Apra
Nuclear submarine docks at Apra
By Gerardo R. Partido
Variety News Staff
10/21/06
THE nuclear attack submarine USS Seawolf (SSN 21) has docked at the Navy’s Apra Harbor facility, Variety sources said.
The USS Seawolf is more advanced than the three Los Angeles-type submarines currently homeported on Guam.
Variety sources said this was the first time that the USS Seawolf has been to Guam or this part of the world.
It was unclear yesterday whether the USS Seawolf’s visit was connected to the current North Korean crisis.
The Navy yesterday confirmed the presence of the submarine but did not give details. “The submarine is here for a routine port visit,” COMNAVMAR public affairs assistant Ben Keller told Variety. But he could not say how long the submarine would be on Guam or where it was headed for next.
“For security reasons, we do not discuss ship movements,” Keller said.
Usually, submarines or any ships making routine port visits to Guam are announced by the Navy.
Ceremonies are even held to welcome the crew and ship visits are offered to the public. But this time, the Navy said no such things were planned for the submarine.
The USS Seawolf is the lead ship of her class, succeeding the Los Angeles-type of attack submarine. It is said that the USS Seawolf is quieter at its tactical speed of 25 knots than a Los Angeles submarine is at pier side. Originally, 29 were to be produced, but with the end of the Cold War, the cost was judged to be prohibitively high and only three were built in favor of the smaller, cheaper, Virginia class.
According to Global Security, the USS Seawolf is designed to rapidly deploy to hostile ocean areas and clear the way for strikes by other friendly forces, as well as engage and destroy surface forces and land targets.
In addition, the USS Seawolf is designed to be a quiet, fast, heavily armed, and shock-resistant submarine. Variety sources said the USS Seawolf is just the first of more submarines that will be sent to Guam as part of normal rotations and a more deliberate show of force in the region.
Currently, Guam is home port to two attack submarines, the USS City of Corpus Christi and the USS Houston, as well as the submarine tender USS Frank Cable.
Another submarine, the USS Buffalo, will join them next year to replace the USS San Francisco, the Los Angeles-class submarine currently being repaired in the mainland.
But the number of U.S. submarines based on Guam may further increase to five in line with the Department of Defense’s quadrennial defense review released last February, which recommended the deployment of more submarines to the Pacific by 2010.
In addition, the Navy is reportedly planning to deploy missile submarines to Guam, in addition to the attack submarines already homeported on island.
The cruise missile submarines are designed to attack large warships and tactical targets on land in contrast to the attack submarines currently based on Guam, which specialize more in combat with other naval vessels.
Two cruise missile submarines, perhaps as many as four, may be deployed to Guam as part of deterrence measures against China and North Korea, which has lately been beefing up its military posture in the region.
By Gerardo R. Partido
Variety News Staff
10/21/06
THE nuclear attack submarine USS Seawolf (SSN 21) has docked at the Navy’s Apra Harbor facility, Variety sources said.
The USS Seawolf is more advanced than the three Los Angeles-type submarines currently homeported on Guam.
Variety sources said this was the first time that the USS Seawolf has been to Guam or this part of the world.
It was unclear yesterday whether the USS Seawolf’s visit was connected to the current North Korean crisis.
The Navy yesterday confirmed the presence of the submarine but did not give details. “The submarine is here for a routine port visit,” COMNAVMAR public affairs assistant Ben Keller told Variety. But he could not say how long the submarine would be on Guam or where it was headed for next.
“For security reasons, we do not discuss ship movements,” Keller said.
Usually, submarines or any ships making routine port visits to Guam are announced by the Navy.
Ceremonies are even held to welcome the crew and ship visits are offered to the public. But this time, the Navy said no such things were planned for the submarine.
The USS Seawolf is the lead ship of her class, succeeding the Los Angeles-type of attack submarine. It is said that the USS Seawolf is quieter at its tactical speed of 25 knots than a Los Angeles submarine is at pier side. Originally, 29 were to be produced, but with the end of the Cold War, the cost was judged to be prohibitively high and only three were built in favor of the smaller, cheaper, Virginia class.
According to Global Security, the USS Seawolf is designed to rapidly deploy to hostile ocean areas and clear the way for strikes by other friendly forces, as well as engage and destroy surface forces and land targets.
In addition, the USS Seawolf is designed to be a quiet, fast, heavily armed, and shock-resistant submarine. Variety sources said the USS Seawolf is just the first of more submarines that will be sent to Guam as part of normal rotations and a more deliberate show of force in the region.
Currently, Guam is home port to two attack submarines, the USS City of Corpus Christi and the USS Houston, as well as the submarine tender USS Frank Cable.
Another submarine, the USS Buffalo, will join them next year to replace the USS San Francisco, the Los Angeles-class submarine currently being repaired in the mainland.
But the number of U.S. submarines based on Guam may further increase to five in line with the Department of Defense’s quadrennial defense review released last February, which recommended the deployment of more submarines to the Pacific by 2010.
In addition, the Navy is reportedly planning to deploy missile submarines to Guam, in addition to the attack submarines already homeported on island.
The cruise missile submarines are designed to attack large warships and tactical targets on land in contrast to the attack submarines currently based on Guam, which specialize more in combat with other naval vessels.
Two cruise missile submarines, perhaps as many as four, may be deployed to Guam as part of deterrence measures against China and North Korea, which has lately been beefing up its military posture in the region.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
US Reviewing War Plans with North Korea
US Reviews War Plan on N. Korea
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter
The Korean Times
10 - 16- 06
The United States is mapping out a new theater war plan on the Korean Peninsula aimed at striking weapons of mass destruction in North Korea, reports said yesterday, citing an unidentified Chinese defense expert in Canada.
The U.S. move comes after North Korea's self-proclaimed nuclear weapon test on Oct. 9.
According to the report, the United States is considering a plan against North Korea to neutralize Pyongyang's nuclear capability with overwhelming use of the U.S. Air Force.
Whether the new plan is related to the joint contingency plan with South Korea, dubbed OPLAN 5027, was not confirmed.
South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) declined to comment on the report.
Under the envisaged plan, U.S. combat aircraft and bombers, such as F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighters and F-15Es, would conduct ``surgical strikes'' on major weapons of mass destruction (WMD) facilities, training sites, and intelligence and communication facilities in the North instead of ground forces advancing into the North, the report said.
OPLAN 5027, drawn up by the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC), aims to deter North Korean forces armed with conventional weapons. The South Korean and U.S. militaries review the contingency scheme every year and update it in accordance with the security situation.
Washington is reportedly committed to dispatching some 690,000 troops with 1,600 aircraft and 160 ships to the peninsula within 90 days after a war breaks out under OPLAN 5027.
The plan, however, lacks specific actions to cope with a nuclear war.
Since Pyongyang's nuclear test, the South Korean military has also stepped up preparations for a possible nuclear war on the peninsula.
Sources at the JCS said last week that Seoul is reviewing OPLAN 5027 to address North Korea's missile and nuclear threats.
The JCS has submitted two reports to Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung since Oct. 3 when Pyongyang announced its plan to conduct a nuclear test, they said.
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter
The Korean Times
10 - 16- 06
The United States is mapping out a new theater war plan on the Korean Peninsula aimed at striking weapons of mass destruction in North Korea, reports said yesterday, citing an unidentified Chinese defense expert in Canada.
The U.S. move comes after North Korea's self-proclaimed nuclear weapon test on Oct. 9.
According to the report, the United States is considering a plan against North Korea to neutralize Pyongyang's nuclear capability with overwhelming use of the U.S. Air Force.
Whether the new plan is related to the joint contingency plan with South Korea, dubbed OPLAN 5027, was not confirmed.
South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) declined to comment on the report.
Under the envisaged plan, U.S. combat aircraft and bombers, such as F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighters and F-15Es, would conduct ``surgical strikes'' on major weapons of mass destruction (WMD) facilities, training sites, and intelligence and communication facilities in the North instead of ground forces advancing into the North, the report said.
OPLAN 5027, drawn up by the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC), aims to deter North Korean forces armed with conventional weapons. The South Korean and U.S. militaries review the contingency scheme every year and update it in accordance with the security situation.
Washington is reportedly committed to dispatching some 690,000 troops with 1,600 aircraft and 160 ships to the peninsula within 90 days after a war breaks out under OPLAN 5027.
The plan, however, lacks specific actions to cope with a nuclear war.
Since Pyongyang's nuclear test, the South Korean military has also stepped up preparations for a possible nuclear war on the peninsula.
Sources at the JCS said last week that Seoul is reviewing OPLAN 5027 to address North Korea's missile and nuclear threats.
The JCS has submitted two reports to Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung since Oct. 3 when Pyongyang announced its plan to conduct a nuclear test, they said.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Guam Rebuffs NK Threat
GUAM REBUFFS NORTH KOREA THREAT OF MISSILE ATTACK
HAGÅTÑA, Guam (Pacific Daily News, Oct. 16)
A North Korean missile attack on Guam will likely fail because the communist country doesn't have the capabilities to accurately target such weapons, according to U.S. officials. Any attack on Guam also would result in an "overwhelming retaliation" from the United States, according to Delegate Madeleine Bordallo. The top Air Force commander on Guam said U.S. forces are "ready to go yesterday" should an attack happen. Also, such an attack would have to first penetrate U.S. military and allied defenses that includes missile interceptors in bases and ships that line the Asia-Pacific region from South Korea and Japan to Guam. A missile launched from North Korea could reach the island within an hour. An unofficial spokesmanfor North Korea in Japan, Kim Moyong Choi, during an interview with ABC Radio Australia yesterday, said North Korea might attack Guam, Japan and Hawai'i if tougher sanctions are levied against the country. Kimtold ABC Radio Australia that North Korea might test a hydrogen bomb in a show of force.
HAGÅTÑA, Guam (Pacific Daily News, Oct. 16)
A North Korean missile attack on Guam will likely fail because the communist country doesn't have the capabilities to accurately target such weapons, according to U.S. officials. Any attack on Guam also would result in an "overwhelming retaliation" from the United States, according to Delegate Madeleine Bordallo. The top Air Force commander on Guam said U.S. forces are "ready to go yesterday" should an attack happen. Also, such an attack would have to first penetrate U.S. military and allied defenses that includes missile interceptors in bases and ships that line the Asia-Pacific region from South Korea and Japan to Guam. A missile launched from North Korea could reach the island within an hour. An unofficial spokesmanfor North Korea in Japan, Kim Moyong Choi, during an interview with ABC Radio Australia yesterday, said North Korea might attack Guam, Japan and Hawai'i if tougher sanctions are levied against the country. Kimtold ABC Radio Australia that North Korea might test a hydrogen bomb in a show of force.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Arms Race in Asia
N. Korea nuke test fans fears of Asian arms race
Regional stability shaken as Pyongyang's neighbors feel threatened
AP
SEOUL, South Korea - The specter of an Asian atomic arms race loomed over the region Monday after communist North Korea shocked its neighbors by announcing it conducted its first-ever nuclear test.
Raising the nuclear stakes from Pyongyang to Tokyo would put some of the world’s biggest cities in the shadow of atomic weapons. It might also put nuclear arms in the hands of previously reluctant powers like South Korea or Taiwan.
On a wider scale, North Korea’s dabbling with atomic weapons could spur other nuclear powers, including the United States, India or China, to resume their own nuclear testing, a move that raises the risk of proliferation.
“If the test was true, it will severely endanger not only Northeast Asia but also the world stability,” Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said.
Officials from Washington to Seoul had warned of an arms race even before North Korea said it fulfilled its threat to join the elite club of nuclear powers.
'No equalizer like the bomb'
South Korea fears Japan would be the first to go nuclear, triggering countermoves by suspicious Asian neighbors in a cascade that upends regional security.
“There’s no equalizer like the bomb,” said Peter Beck, head of the Seoul office of the International Crisis Group think tank. “It’s safe to say it will lead to an arms race — will push all the governments in the region to increase defense spending.”
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned Thursday that allowing North Korea to test a bomb would provoke far-reaching fallout.
“The lack of cohesion and the inability to marshal sufficient leverage to prevent North Korea from proceeding toward a nuclear program ... it will kind of lower the threshold, and other countries will step forward with it,” Rumsfeld said.
The current North Korean nuclear standoff dates to 2002, when the United States accused North Korea of conducting a secret nuclear program in violation of a 1994 agreement.
North Korea announced Monday it had safely conducted an underground test, claiming the development “will contribute to defending the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the area around it.”
But a top concern is the possibility of North Korea mounting bombs atop missiles aimed at Seoul, Tokyo or even parts of the United States.
Japan to reconsider?
While the North’s ability to accurately deliver a warhead toward its neighbors is in doubt, the communist nation shocked the world in 1998 by firing a long-range ballistic missile over Japan into the Pacific Ocean.
In July it test-launched seven missiles, although a long-range rocket believed capable of reaching American shores exploded shortly after liftoff.
Abhorrence of nuclear weapons runs deep in Japan, where memories of the U.S. atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are burned into the collective consciousness.
But just last month, a think tank run by former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone proposed in a policy paper that Japan “consider the nuclear option.”
Tokyo weighed atomic weapons back in 1995 to counter the threat of a nuclear-armed North Korea. But the government ultimately rejected the idea because it might deprive Japan of U.S. military protection and alarm neighboring countries.
So far, Japan’s post-World War II pacifist Constitution keeps its overseas strike ability in check; it has no aircraft carriers, bombers or long-range missiles. But Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a staunch North Korea critic, wants to amend the Constitution to give Japan’s military greater leeway in international action.
If Japan decides to go nuclear, it wouldn’t take long to convert the nation’s huge stockpile of plutonium from the spent fuel of its nuclear power plants.
Domino effect
That would undoubtedly rattle China and South Korea, which have viewed Tokyo with suspicion since their neighbor invaded and colonized them in the early 20th century.
Both South Korea and Japan have largely relied on the U.S. nuclear umbrella as insurance against attack. But when faced with the verified presence of atomic bombs on the other side of the border, South Korea may consider arming itself.
In 1991, U.S. tactical nuclear weapons were removed from South Korea as part of arms reductions following the Cold War, according to South Korean defense experts. In the same year, the two Koreas signed an accord pledging not to deploy, develop or possess atomic bombs on the peninsula.
But back in the 1970s, Seoul was actively pursuing its own atomic program.
Fearful of a regional nuclear arms race, the United States forced then-dictator Park Chung-hee to drop the plan, partly by threatening economic penalties for a nation that was then poor and still recovering from the 1950-53 Korean War.
Shen Dingli, the executive deputy director of the Institute of International Issues at Fudan University in China, thinks Japan and South Korea are unlikely to seek nuclear arms now for many of the same reasons.
“This is bound to erode their alliance with the United States, thus subjecting the East Asian security situation headed by the U.S. to even greater challenges,” he wrote in a report on North Korea’s latest threat. “The chances of Japan and South Korea developing their own nuclear programs are not great.”
But other countries might still use North Korea’s test as an excuse to build atomic arsenals, says Ralph Cossa, president of the Honolulu-based Pacific Forum.
“If North Korea is ’justified’ because it faces a threat from a bully superpower, Taiwan can make the same argument,” Cossa said.
“Let’s not overlook Southeast Asia either. Burma is talking about obtaining a research reactor and both Indonesia and Vietnam are exploring nuclear energy options, although these dominos are a long way from falling,” he added.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Regional stability shaken as Pyongyang's neighbors feel threatened
AP
SEOUL, South Korea - The specter of an Asian atomic arms race loomed over the region Monday after communist North Korea shocked its neighbors by announcing it conducted its first-ever nuclear test.
Raising the nuclear stakes from Pyongyang to Tokyo would put some of the world’s biggest cities in the shadow of atomic weapons. It might also put nuclear arms in the hands of previously reluctant powers like South Korea or Taiwan.
On a wider scale, North Korea’s dabbling with atomic weapons could spur other nuclear powers, including the United States, India or China, to resume their own nuclear testing, a move that raises the risk of proliferation.
“If the test was true, it will severely endanger not only Northeast Asia but also the world stability,” Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said.
Officials from Washington to Seoul had warned of an arms race even before North Korea said it fulfilled its threat to join the elite club of nuclear powers.
'No equalizer like the bomb'
South Korea fears Japan would be the first to go nuclear, triggering countermoves by suspicious Asian neighbors in a cascade that upends regional security.
“There’s no equalizer like the bomb,” said Peter Beck, head of the Seoul office of the International Crisis Group think tank. “It’s safe to say it will lead to an arms race — will push all the governments in the region to increase defense spending.”
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned Thursday that allowing North Korea to test a bomb would provoke far-reaching fallout.
“The lack of cohesion and the inability to marshal sufficient leverage to prevent North Korea from proceeding toward a nuclear program ... it will kind of lower the threshold, and other countries will step forward with it,” Rumsfeld said.
The current North Korean nuclear standoff dates to 2002, when the United States accused North Korea of conducting a secret nuclear program in violation of a 1994 agreement.
North Korea announced Monday it had safely conducted an underground test, claiming the development “will contribute to defending the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the area around it.”
But a top concern is the possibility of North Korea mounting bombs atop missiles aimed at Seoul, Tokyo or even parts of the United States.
Japan to reconsider?
While the North’s ability to accurately deliver a warhead toward its neighbors is in doubt, the communist nation shocked the world in 1998 by firing a long-range ballistic missile over Japan into the Pacific Ocean.
In July it test-launched seven missiles, although a long-range rocket believed capable of reaching American shores exploded shortly after liftoff.
Abhorrence of nuclear weapons runs deep in Japan, where memories of the U.S. atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are burned into the collective consciousness.
But just last month, a think tank run by former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone proposed in a policy paper that Japan “consider the nuclear option.”
Tokyo weighed atomic weapons back in 1995 to counter the threat of a nuclear-armed North Korea. But the government ultimately rejected the idea because it might deprive Japan of U.S. military protection and alarm neighboring countries.
So far, Japan’s post-World War II pacifist Constitution keeps its overseas strike ability in check; it has no aircraft carriers, bombers or long-range missiles. But Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a staunch North Korea critic, wants to amend the Constitution to give Japan’s military greater leeway in international action.
If Japan decides to go nuclear, it wouldn’t take long to convert the nation’s huge stockpile of plutonium from the spent fuel of its nuclear power plants.
Domino effect
That would undoubtedly rattle China and South Korea, which have viewed Tokyo with suspicion since their neighbor invaded and colonized them in the early 20th century.
Both South Korea and Japan have largely relied on the U.S. nuclear umbrella as insurance against attack. But when faced with the verified presence of atomic bombs on the other side of the border, South Korea may consider arming itself.
In 1991, U.S. tactical nuclear weapons were removed from South Korea as part of arms reductions following the Cold War, according to South Korean defense experts. In the same year, the two Koreas signed an accord pledging not to deploy, develop or possess atomic bombs on the peninsula.
But back in the 1970s, Seoul was actively pursuing its own atomic program.
Fearful of a regional nuclear arms race, the United States forced then-dictator Park Chung-hee to drop the plan, partly by threatening economic penalties for a nation that was then poor and still recovering from the 1950-53 Korean War.
Shen Dingli, the executive deputy director of the Institute of International Issues at Fudan University in China, thinks Japan and South Korea are unlikely to seek nuclear arms now for many of the same reasons.
“This is bound to erode their alliance with the United States, thus subjecting the East Asian security situation headed by the U.S. to even greater challenges,” he wrote in a report on North Korea’s latest threat. “The chances of Japan and South Korea developing their own nuclear programs are not great.”
But other countries might still use North Korea’s test as an excuse to build atomic arsenals, says Ralph Cossa, president of the Honolulu-based Pacific Forum.
“If North Korea is ’justified’ because it faces a threat from a bully superpower, Taiwan can make the same argument,” Cossa said.
“Let’s not overlook Southeast Asia either. Burma is talking about obtaining a research reactor and both Indonesia and Vietnam are exploring nuclear energy options, although these dominos are a long way from falling,” he added.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Monday, October 09, 2006
A US Invasion of Korea
A US `invasion' of Korea
The Boston Globe
By Catherine Lutz October 8, 2006
In May, South Korean police and soldiers descended on a schoolhouse where rice farmers and their supporters were resisting eviction. The police bloodied heads, destroyed the school, and backhoed rice fields and irrigation systems to prevent spring planting. They were sent by the Korean Ministry of Defense, at the behest of the US government, to claim a large swath of land to expand Camp Humphrey . Already covering 2 square miles, the base is slated to swallow an additional 2,851 acres.
Part of a grand plan of global military base restructuring announced by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2003, the Pyongtaek base is meant to take in soldiers and equipment from closing military installations near the de militarized zone and in Seoul. However, the bases' relocation to Pyongtaek is part of a plan to use the bases to strike at will anywhere in Asia and to contain China. It is this ``expeditionary" or aggressive role of the bases that is behind concurrent US negotiations with South Korea, seeking ``strategic flexibility" to use the forces based there throughout Asia. Such an agreement would change the original defensive purpose of the base. So it concerns people across the region, who see remilitarization, arms races, and intensified danger where the United States simply claims realignment. Recent US and allied military exercises off Guam, itself targeted for a massive US military buildup, were of unprecedented size, and North Korea's missile launch might be seen as a response to that provocation.
While the arguments for this restructuring suggest the United States and Korea are mutual and equal allies, Korea in fact remains a semi sovereign state under US control in many respects. Most strikingly, Korean troops come under the command of an American officer in wartime. US military plans in Asia, then, necessarily implicate the Koreans and draw them into conflict with their neighbors. Imagining China as the new national enemy is a process well underway in Washington, and the Koreans know all too well that their surgical twinning to US strategic plans will make them China's enemy as well.
All of this is playing out within the context of a difficult relationship between the more than 30,000 US soldiers based around Korea and the local citizens who see them as a source of prostitution, crime, and pollution. Koreans can point to two young girls crushed by US tanks in 2002, multiple rapes and rape-murders of Korean women, and a recent leaked report showing stratospheric levels of soil and water contamination at closing US bases.
In Daechuri, the farmers have been holding a candlelight vigil every night for the last two years in a Quonset hut on the school grounds, under the thunderous thut-thut-thut of US helicopters passing in and out of Camp Humphrey . Supporters have come in from around the country by the thousands, members of groups from across a wide range of Korea's civil society, still vibrant with an enthusiasm for the democracy they achieved only in 1987 after years of brutal dictatorship (armed and supported by the United States). While a majority of Koreans want to see the US military leave, powerful business interests, conservative Christians, and an older generation convinced of the value of the US presence continue to support Washington's military plans and Korean annual payments of at least $625 million toward their execution.
The justification for the US military buildup across Asia is the advance of political and economic freedom. The residents of Daechuri might be forgiven for being suspicious of such claims. Some of the village's oldest residents with whom I spoke last fall remember the Japanese evicting their parents for a military base during Korea's pre war annexation. The US Army took over and expanded the base in World War II, and now, for some, their third eviction in the name of a misconstrued vision of military rather than human security is imminent.
Halting the eviction of Daechuri's farmers would be a good first step toward demilitarizing the peninsula and the region. Their homes are being destroyed in the name of America 's citizens, and we have more power than anyone to reverse the escalating rhetoric and reality of arms in Asia by calling on the US government to halt its regarrisoning of Korea, Guam, and Asia-Pacific region.
Catherine Lutz, a professor of anthropology at Brown University and its Watson Institute for International Studies, is the author of ``Homefront: A Military City and the American 20th Century."
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
The Boston Globe
By Catherine Lutz October 8, 2006
In May, South Korean police and soldiers descended on a schoolhouse where rice farmers and their supporters were resisting eviction. The police bloodied heads, destroyed the school, and backhoed rice fields and irrigation systems to prevent spring planting. They were sent by the Korean Ministry of Defense, at the behest of the US government, to claim a large swath of land to expand Camp Humphrey . Already covering 2 square miles, the base is slated to swallow an additional 2,851 acres.
Part of a grand plan of global military base restructuring announced by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2003, the Pyongtaek base is meant to take in soldiers and equipment from closing military installations near the de militarized zone and in Seoul. However, the bases' relocation to Pyongtaek is part of a plan to use the bases to strike at will anywhere in Asia and to contain China. It is this ``expeditionary" or aggressive role of the bases that is behind concurrent US negotiations with South Korea, seeking ``strategic flexibility" to use the forces based there throughout Asia. Such an agreement would change the original defensive purpose of the base. So it concerns people across the region, who see remilitarization, arms races, and intensified danger where the United States simply claims realignment. Recent US and allied military exercises off Guam, itself targeted for a massive US military buildup, were of unprecedented size, and North Korea's missile launch might be seen as a response to that provocation.
While the arguments for this restructuring suggest the United States and Korea are mutual and equal allies, Korea in fact remains a semi sovereign state under US control in many respects. Most strikingly, Korean troops come under the command of an American officer in wartime. US military plans in Asia, then, necessarily implicate the Koreans and draw them into conflict with their neighbors. Imagining China as the new national enemy is a process well underway in Washington, and the Koreans know all too well that their surgical twinning to US strategic plans will make them China's enemy as well.
All of this is playing out within the context of a difficult relationship between the more than 30,000 US soldiers based around Korea and the local citizens who see them as a source of prostitution, crime, and pollution. Koreans can point to two young girls crushed by US tanks in 2002, multiple rapes and rape-murders of Korean women, and a recent leaked report showing stratospheric levels of soil and water contamination at closing US bases.
In Daechuri, the farmers have been holding a candlelight vigil every night for the last two years in a Quonset hut on the school grounds, under the thunderous thut-thut-thut of US helicopters passing in and out of Camp Humphrey . Supporters have come in from around the country by the thousands, members of groups from across a wide range of Korea's civil society, still vibrant with an enthusiasm for the democracy they achieved only in 1987 after years of brutal dictatorship (armed and supported by the United States). While a majority of Koreans want to see the US military leave, powerful business interests, conservative Christians, and an older generation convinced of the value of the US presence continue to support Washington's military plans and Korean annual payments of at least $625 million toward their execution.
The justification for the US military buildup across Asia is the advance of political and economic freedom. The residents of Daechuri might be forgiven for being suspicious of such claims. Some of the village's oldest residents with whom I spoke last fall remember the Japanese evicting their parents for a military base during Korea's pre war annexation. The US Army took over and expanded the base in World War II, and now, for some, their third eviction in the name of a misconstrued vision of military rather than human security is imminent.
Halting the eviction of Daechuri's farmers would be a good first step toward demilitarizing the peninsula and the region. Their homes are being destroyed in the name of America 's citizens, and we have more power than anyone to reverse the escalating rhetoric and reality of arms in Asia by calling on the US government to halt its regarrisoning of Korea, Guam, and Asia-Pacific region.
Catherine Lutz, a professor of anthropology at Brown University and its Watson Institute for International Studies, is the author of ``Homefront: A Military City and the American 20th Century."
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
The Question of Guam
United Nations Petitioners on the Question of Guam
GUAHU SI JULIAN AGUON, Chamoru Nation, said the indigenous people of Guam, the longest-colonized island in the Pacific Ocean, were preparing for the United States military realignment in the region that sought to homeport 60 per cent of its Pacific fleet in and around the island starting next year. With no input from the Chamoru people and as part of its realignment plan, the United States would flood Guam with 55,000 people. The Navy had recently suggested that six more nuclear submarines would be added to the three already stationed in Guam and there was talk of developing a global strike force. That build-up complemented the Air Force and Navy forces already occupying one third of the island and the influx would have devastating consequences on the Chamoru people, who comprised only 37 per cent of the 171,000 people living in Guam.
There had been no social or environmental impact study to assess the burdens of the build-up and it was reasonable to think that Guam would suffer similar problems of rape and violence as had Okinawa, he said. Guam officials were waiting with bated breath to learn whether any of the $10.3 billion settled upon would be spent on Guam's infrastructure as virtually every public sector in Guam was threatened with privatization. Public education was under duress and the burden on the school system was compounded by the United States' failure to compensate Guam for shouldering the costs of its free association compacts with Micronesian States. What was happening today was like an awful re-run of the Second World War. There was no free press on Guam and its people were not unified around the military build-up. The island needed help to attract international attention. The Committee should pass a resolution condemning the massive military transfer and build-up of Guam as a grave breach of duty on the part of the administering Power.
KERRI ANN NAPUTI BORJA, Organization of People for Indigenous Rights, said the aggressive campaign by the United States to institute political and military superiority in the Pacific after the Second World War had resulted in land confiscations that had claimed more than 50 per cent of the land and created reservations for the Chamorro people. The unilaterally passed congressional Guam Organic Act, which had made the island's inhabitants United States citizens in 1950, had also legitimized United States ownership of confiscated lands. It was a sad commentary that the administering Power, year after year, abstained from voting or voted against United Nations resolutions addressing the question of Guam.
She said a process of interim political status with limited internal self-government had been initiated after the locally mandated 1987 plebiscite, which had resulted in commonwealth status, a choice by registered United States voters. The resulting draft Guam Commonwealth Act had been rejected by the United States Congress in 1997 because of provisions on Chamorro self-determination, controls over local immigration and other aspects of United States control over the Territory. Military personnel and their families were eligible to vote in local elections.
Following the failure of the commonwealth proposal, the territorial Government had begun a decolonization process by enacting into law a Chamorro Registry that set the registration mechanism for the self-determination vote, she said. However, there had been little progress towards the exercise of Chamorro self-determination. The stated position that the term "non-self-governing" was inappropriate for those who could establish their own constitution did not reflect the reality. The right to elect a non-voting United States-paid delegate to the United States Congress did not equate with political freedom. A resolution was required by which the General Assembly would reaffirm that the Guam question was one of decolonization to be completed by the Territory's Chamorro people.
VICTORIA LOLA M. LEÓN GUERRERO, Guahan Indigenous Collective, said her homeland was in grave danger as young Chamoru doctors, teachers and future leaders left the island to be replaced by United States marines, military aircraft and submarines and foreign construction workers. The exodus could be ended by including in the draft resolution that the United States military build-up on Guahan was a direct impediment to decolonization and the right of indigenous Chamorus to decide their own future. The island's natural resources were its people's most precious asset. Every effort must be made to educate the people about community involvement in decision-making, which would impact on their survival.
She said the legacy of the Second World War had led to the toxic pollution of the land and surrounding waters by nuclear and other carcinogenic waste. There was a shortage of competitive jobs for young Chamoru people. The United States Department of Defence had unveiled its plan to move 8,000 marines and their 9,000 dependents from Okinawa and Japan to Guahan, which would have a great impact on the island's current population and change its cultural, political, social and ecological environment. The draft resolution should therefore include a provision that military activities and arrangements by the colonial Power impeded the implementation of the decolonization declaration.
SABINA FLORES PÉREZ (Guam), speaking on behalf of the International People's Coalition against Military Pollution (IPCAMP), said the recent United States military build-up on Guam posed the latest threat to human rights. The estimated influx of 35,000 military personnel, dependents and administrative staff would alter the island's demographics and political atmosphere. The build-up would transform Guam into a forward base with the planned expansion of runways and wharf storage facilities and the establishment of a global strike force. Unilateral decisions about the island's future were being made primarily outside Guam, without the people's participation or consent, which signified the exploitation of its political status as a colony.
She noted that Guam's strategic interest had evolved since 1898 when its harbour represented a key nodal point linking United States mercantile interests with Oriental economic possibilities. Under that colonial context, water, land, culture and the spirit of the Chamoru people were being stripped away. The Fourth Committee should include in the draft resolution on the question of Guam encouragement to the administering Power to fund Guam's decolonization process and clean up toxic military sites among other things.
TIFFANY ROSE NAPUTI LACSADO, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), said United States cultural hegemony had created ripples throughout the Chamoru diaspora and did not allow for the survival of Chamoru language and traditions. An entire generation was living with the legacy of pillage that their parents and grandparents had faced in the Second World War, which had robbed generations of their most basic right: access to their language and traditions.
Erased from collective memory was the fact that the United States, by signing the United Nations Charter, was obligated to ensure Guam's self-determination and decolonization, she said. The psychosocial impact of the military was nothing less than total dependence. It plagued the Chamoru's land, bloodline, mind and spirit. The United Nations should become a more active participant in Guam's decolonization process and the Fourth Committee should take direct action to stop the military occupation of Guam by engaging directly with the Guam Commission on Decolonization office and grass roots groups. The sum effect of United States cultural hegemony and militarism was to permanently deny Chamoru people their right to self-determination.
FANAI CASTRO, Chamoru Cultural Development and Research Institute, quoting from a history of the Chamoru, said it was a testimony to how they had survived despite hundreds of years of colonization, genocide and war. However, that history was now threatened by the "worldwide western hegemony". The testimonies presented today were stories that had too often been kept out of sight. More than anything, the Chamoru sought an end to the chaos of war as they had been victimized for too long.
She recalled that the administering Power, the United States, had promised the United Nations that the self-determination of the Chamoru would not be denied. The Organization held the power of voice to break the cycle of colonialism and in that noble endeavour the indigenous voice must be an equal one because its heritage was being systematically destroyed for the sake of keeping colonial order.
GUAHU SI JULIAN AGUON, Chamoru Nation, said the indigenous people of Guam, the longest-colonized island in the Pacific Ocean, were preparing for the United States military realignment in the region that sought to homeport 60 per cent of its Pacific fleet in and around the island starting next year. With no input from the Chamoru people and as part of its realignment plan, the United States would flood Guam with 55,000 people. The Navy had recently suggested that six more nuclear submarines would be added to the three already stationed in Guam and there was talk of developing a global strike force. That build-up complemented the Air Force and Navy forces already occupying one third of the island and the influx would have devastating consequences on the Chamoru people, who comprised only 37 per cent of the 171,000 people living in Guam.
There had been no social or environmental impact study to assess the burdens of the build-up and it was reasonable to think that Guam would suffer similar problems of rape and violence as had Okinawa, he said. Guam officials were waiting with bated breath to learn whether any of the $10.3 billion settled upon would be spent on Guam's infrastructure as virtually every public sector in Guam was threatened with privatization. Public education was under duress and the burden on the school system was compounded by the United States' failure to compensate Guam for shouldering the costs of its free association compacts with Micronesian States. What was happening today was like an awful re-run of the Second World War. There was no free press on Guam and its people were not unified around the military build-up. The island needed help to attract international attention. The Committee should pass a resolution condemning the massive military transfer and build-up of Guam as a grave breach of duty on the part of the administering Power.
KERRI ANN NAPUTI BORJA, Organization of People for Indigenous Rights, said the aggressive campaign by the United States to institute political and military superiority in the Pacific after the Second World War had resulted in land confiscations that had claimed more than 50 per cent of the land and created reservations for the Chamorro people. The unilaterally passed congressional Guam Organic Act, which had made the island's inhabitants United States citizens in 1950, had also legitimized United States ownership of confiscated lands. It was a sad commentary that the administering Power, year after year, abstained from voting or voted against United Nations resolutions addressing the question of Guam.
She said a process of interim political status with limited internal self-government had been initiated after the locally mandated 1987 plebiscite, which had resulted in commonwealth status, a choice by registered United States voters. The resulting draft Guam Commonwealth Act had been rejected by the United States Congress in 1997 because of provisions on Chamorro self-determination, controls over local immigration and other aspects of United States control over the Territory. Military personnel and their families were eligible to vote in local elections.
Following the failure of the commonwealth proposal, the territorial Government had begun a decolonization process by enacting into law a Chamorro Registry that set the registration mechanism for the self-determination vote, she said. However, there had been little progress towards the exercise of Chamorro self-determination. The stated position that the term "non-self-governing" was inappropriate for those who could establish their own constitution did not reflect the reality. The right to elect a non-voting United States-paid delegate to the United States Congress did not equate with political freedom. A resolution was required by which the General Assembly would reaffirm that the Guam question was one of decolonization to be completed by the Territory's Chamorro people.
VICTORIA LOLA M. LEÓN GUERRERO, Guahan Indigenous Collective, said her homeland was in grave danger as young Chamoru doctors, teachers and future leaders left the island to be replaced by United States marines, military aircraft and submarines and foreign construction workers. The exodus could be ended by including in the draft resolution that the United States military build-up on Guahan was a direct impediment to decolonization and the right of indigenous Chamorus to decide their own future. The island's natural resources were its people's most precious asset. Every effort must be made to educate the people about community involvement in decision-making, which would impact on their survival.
She said the legacy of the Second World War had led to the toxic pollution of the land and surrounding waters by nuclear and other carcinogenic waste. There was a shortage of competitive jobs for young Chamoru people. The United States Department of Defence had unveiled its plan to move 8,000 marines and their 9,000 dependents from Okinawa and Japan to Guahan, which would have a great impact on the island's current population and change its cultural, political, social and ecological environment. The draft resolution should therefore include a provision that military activities and arrangements by the colonial Power impeded the implementation of the decolonization declaration.
SABINA FLORES PÉREZ (Guam), speaking on behalf of the International People's Coalition against Military Pollution (IPCAMP), said the recent United States military build-up on Guam posed the latest threat to human rights. The estimated influx of 35,000 military personnel, dependents and administrative staff would alter the island's demographics and political atmosphere. The build-up would transform Guam into a forward base with the planned expansion of runways and wharf storage facilities and the establishment of a global strike force. Unilateral decisions about the island's future were being made primarily outside Guam, without the people's participation or consent, which signified the exploitation of its political status as a colony.
She noted that Guam's strategic interest had evolved since 1898 when its harbour represented a key nodal point linking United States mercantile interests with Oriental economic possibilities. Under that colonial context, water, land, culture and the spirit of the Chamoru people were being stripped away. The Fourth Committee should include in the draft resolution on the question of Guam encouragement to the administering Power to fund Guam's decolonization process and clean up toxic military sites among other things.
TIFFANY ROSE NAPUTI LACSADO, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), said United States cultural hegemony had created ripples throughout the Chamoru diaspora and did not allow for the survival of Chamoru language and traditions. An entire generation was living with the legacy of pillage that their parents and grandparents had faced in the Second World War, which had robbed generations of their most basic right: access to their language and traditions.
Erased from collective memory was the fact that the United States, by signing the United Nations Charter, was obligated to ensure Guam's self-determination and decolonization, she said. The psychosocial impact of the military was nothing less than total dependence. It plagued the Chamoru's land, bloodline, mind and spirit. The United Nations should become a more active participant in Guam's decolonization process and the Fourth Committee should take direct action to stop the military occupation of Guam by engaging directly with the Guam Commission on Decolonization office and grass roots groups. The sum effect of United States cultural hegemony and militarism was to permanently deny Chamoru people their right to self-determination.
FANAI CASTRO, Chamoru Cultural Development and Research Institute, quoting from a history of the Chamoru, said it was a testimony to how they had survived despite hundreds of years of colonization, genocide and war. However, that history was now threatened by the "worldwide western hegemony". The testimonies presented today were stories that had too often been kept out of sight. More than anything, the Chamoru sought an end to the chaos of war as they had been victimized for too long.
She recalled that the administering Power, the United States, had promised the United Nations that the self-determination of the Chamoru would not be denied. The Organization held the power of voice to break the cycle of colonialism and in that noble endeavour the indigenous voice must be an equal one because its heritage was being systematically destroyed for the sake of keeping colonial order.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Base Found Illegal in Hawai'i
Stryker base here is found illegal
Plaintiffs claim the Army must halt related work while preparing a supplemental study
» A look at the Stryker situation
By Gregg K. Kakesako
gkakesako@starbulletin.com
A federal appellate court found yesterday that the Army had violated environmental laws by not considering all alternatives in establishing a Stryker Combat Brigade in Hawaii.
The 2-1 vote by a three-judge panel assigned to the San Francisco 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was seen as a victory for the nonprofit environmental group Earthjustice. Earthjustice attorney David Henkin said the federal appeals court ruling meant "the Army must cease all Stryker-related activities, including construction and Stryker training, until the court can rule on what activities, if any, will be allowed while a supplemental environmental impact statement is prepared."
Lt. Col. John Williams, Army spokesman, said the Army would continue to abide with "the last legal decision," an apparent reference to a decision made by U.S. District Judge David Ezra last year that allowed the Army to begin the transformation of the 25th Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team.
Although Williams said he did not dispute Henkin's interpretation, he said Army attorneys "will thoroughly review the court's decision and take action as appropriate."
Williams would not say what steps the Army would take next. However, the preparation of a supplemental EIS followed by public hearings could take several years, based on the Army's record in dealing with these types of environmental studies -- including the Stryker brigade and the continued used of Makua Valley as a firing range.
The ruling could place in limbo at least $693 million in 28 construction projects at Schofield Barracks and the Big Island's Pohakuloa Training Area.
That money does not include what already has been spent in bringing the 328 Stryker combat vehicles to Hawaii and retraining soldiers in the 25th Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team.
The cost of each of the Army's seven Stryker brigades has been placed at $1.5 billion.
The Army also agreed earlier this year to pay Parker Ranch $31.5 million for 2,400 acres near the Pohakuloa Training Area to accommodate training for the Strykers.
The federal appeals court decision means the Army has to prepare a second EIS. Moreover, it is two years delinquent on an EIS justifying the continued use of Makua Valley as a firing range that was supposed to have been completed in 2004.
The return of Makua has long been advocated by Hawaiian activists, many of whom were parties in the Stryker court appeal and have filed numerous lawsuits to stop all military training there.
The last time the military used live ammunition in the 4,190-acre valley was August 2004.
The Stryker supplemental EIS has to include a variety of locations for the 3,800-member combat brigade that is being established at Schofield Barracks, the appeals court said.
"The 9th Circuit's decision is not only right on the law," said Henkin, "but also makes Hawaiian organizations -- Ilioulaokalani Coalition, Na Imi Pono and Kipuka -- which have contended that the Army failed to consider other alternatives to stationing a Stryker brigade in Hawaii."
The Army "leaps to the assumption that transformation in Hawaii or no action are the only alternatives," the court said. "This is where the impermissible 'narrowing' takes place. The Army violated NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) by not considering alternatives that include transformation of the 2nd Brigade outside of Hawaii."
The federal appeals court also rejected the Army's arguments that Hawaii's strategic location was unique, since there are Stryker units in Alaska and Washington that could have supported the 2nd Brigade. In addition, federal appeals judges were not swayed by Army arguments that Hawaii's jungle terrain justified stationing Strykers in Hawaii, because the combat vehicles are best suited for urban combat.
The appeals judges reversed an April 2005 by Ezra, who sided with the Army.
The Army had hoped to be able to send the 2nd Brigade Stryker Combat Team into war duty next fall.
Plaintiffs claim the Army must halt related work while preparing a supplemental study
» A look at the Stryker situation
By Gregg K. Kakesako
gkakesako@starbulletin.com
A federal appellate court found yesterday that the Army had violated environmental laws by not considering all alternatives in establishing a Stryker Combat Brigade in Hawaii.
The 2-1 vote by a three-judge panel assigned to the San Francisco 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was seen as a victory for the nonprofit environmental group Earthjustice. Earthjustice attorney David Henkin said the federal appeals court ruling meant "the Army must cease all Stryker-related activities, including construction and Stryker training, until the court can rule on what activities, if any, will be allowed while a supplemental environmental impact statement is prepared."
Lt. Col. John Williams, Army spokesman, said the Army would continue to abide with "the last legal decision," an apparent reference to a decision made by U.S. District Judge David Ezra last year that allowed the Army to begin the transformation of the 25th Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team.
Although Williams said he did not dispute Henkin's interpretation, he said Army attorneys "will thoroughly review the court's decision and take action as appropriate."
Williams would not say what steps the Army would take next. However, the preparation of a supplemental EIS followed by public hearings could take several years, based on the Army's record in dealing with these types of environmental studies -- including the Stryker brigade and the continued used of Makua Valley as a firing range.
The ruling could place in limbo at least $693 million in 28 construction projects at Schofield Barracks and the Big Island's Pohakuloa Training Area.
That money does not include what already has been spent in bringing the 328 Stryker combat vehicles to Hawaii and retraining soldiers in the 25th Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team.
The cost of each of the Army's seven Stryker brigades has been placed at $1.5 billion.
The Army also agreed earlier this year to pay Parker Ranch $31.5 million for 2,400 acres near the Pohakuloa Training Area to accommodate training for the Strykers.
The federal appeals court decision means the Army has to prepare a second EIS. Moreover, it is two years delinquent on an EIS justifying the continued use of Makua Valley as a firing range that was supposed to have been completed in 2004.
The return of Makua has long been advocated by Hawaiian activists, many of whom were parties in the Stryker court appeal and have filed numerous lawsuits to stop all military training there.
The last time the military used live ammunition in the 4,190-acre valley was August 2004.
The Stryker supplemental EIS has to include a variety of locations for the 3,800-member combat brigade that is being established at Schofield Barracks, the appeals court said.
"The 9th Circuit's decision is not only right on the law," said Henkin, "but also makes Hawaiian organizations -- Ilioulaokalani Coalition, Na Imi Pono and Kipuka -- which have contended that the Army failed to consider other alternatives to stationing a Stryker brigade in Hawaii."
The Army "leaps to the assumption that transformation in Hawaii or no action are the only alternatives," the court said. "This is where the impermissible 'narrowing' takes place. The Army violated NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) by not considering alternatives that include transformation of the 2nd Brigade outside of Hawaii."
The federal appeals court also rejected the Army's arguments that Hawaii's strategic location was unique, since there are Stryker units in Alaska and Washington that could have supported the 2nd Brigade. In addition, federal appeals judges were not swayed by Army arguments that Hawaii's jungle terrain justified stationing Strykers in Hawaii, because the combat vehicles are best suited for urban combat.
The appeals judges reversed an April 2005 by Ezra, who sided with the Army.
The Army had hoped to be able to send the 2nd Brigade Stryker Combat Team into war duty next fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)