Imperial Delusions: Ignoring the Lessons of 9/11

Published on Friday, September 9, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

by Robert Jensen

Ten years ago, critics of America’s mad rush to war were right, but it didn’t matter.

Within hours after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it was clear that political leaders were going to use the attacks to justify war in Central Asia and the Middle East. And within hours, those of us critical of that policy began to offer principled and practical arguments against aggressive war as a response to the crimes.

It didn’t matter because neither the public nor policymakers were interested in principled or practical arguments. People wanted revenge, and the policymakers seized the opportunity to use U.S. military power. Critical thinking became a mark not of conscientious citizenship but of dangerous disloyalty.

We were right, but the wars came.

The destructive capacity of the U.S. military meant quick “victories” that just as quickly proved illusory. As the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq dragged on, it became clearer that the position staked out by early opponents was correct -- the wars not only were illegal (conforming to neither international nor constitutional law) and immoral (fought in ways that guaranteed large-scale civilian casualties and displacement), but a failure on any pragmatic criteria. The U.S. military has killed some of the people who were targeting the United States and destroyed some of their infrastructure and organization, but a decade later we are weaker and our sense of safety more fragile. The ability to dominate militarily proved to be both inadequate and transitory, as predicted.

Ten years later, we are still right and it still doesn’t matter.

There’s a simple reason for this: Empires rarely learn in time, because power tends to dull people’s capacity for critical self-reflection. While ascending to power, empires believe themselves to be invincible. While declining in power, they cling desperately to old myths of remembered glory.

Today the United States is morally bankrupt and spiritually broken. The problem is not that we have strayed from our founding principles, but that we are still operating on those principles -- delusional notions about manifest destiny, American exceptionalism, the right to take more than our share of the world’s resources by whatever means necessary. As the United States grew in wealth and power, bounty for the chosen came at the cost of misery for the many.

After World War II, as the United States became the dominant power not just in the Americas but on the world stage, the principles didn’t change. U.S. foreign policy sought to deepen and extend U.S. power around the world, especially in the energy-rich and strategically crucial Middle East; always with an eye on derailing any Third World societies’ attempts to pursue a course of independent development outside the U.S. sphere; and containing the possibility of challenges to U.S. dominance from other powerful states.

Does that summary sound like radical hysteria? Recall this statement from President Jimmy Carter’s 1980 State of the Union address: “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” Democrats and Republicans, before and after, followed the same policy.

The George W. Bush administration offered a particularly intense ideological fanaticism, but the course charted by the Obama administration is much the same. Consider this 2006 statement by Robert Gates, who served as Secretary of Defense in both administrations: “I think the message that we are sending to everyone, not just Iran, is that the United States is an enduring presence in this part of the world. We have been here for a long time. We will be here for a long time and everybody needs to remember that -- both our friends and those who might consider themselves our adversaries.”

If the new boss sounds a lot like the old boss, it’s because the problem isn’t just bad leaders but a bad system. That’s why a critique of today’s wars sounds a lot like critiques of wars past. Here’s Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assessment of the imperial war of his time: “[N]o one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over.”

Will our autopsy report read “global war on terror”?

That sounds harsh, and it’s tempting to argue that we should refrain from political debate on the 9/11 anniversary to honor those who died and to respect those who lost loved ones. I would be willing to do that if the cheerleaders for the U.S. empire would refrain from using the day to justify the wars of aggression that followed 9/11. But given the events of the past decade, there is no way to take the politics out of the anniversary.

We should take time on 9/11 to remember the nearly 3,000 victims who died that day, but as responsible citizens, we also should face a harsh reality: While the terrorism of fanatical individuals and groups is a serious threat, much greater damage has been done by our nation-state caught up in its own fanatical notions of imperial greatness.

That’s why I feel no satisfaction in being part of the anti-war/anti-empire movement. Being right means nothing if we failed to create a more just foreign policy conducted by a more humble nation.

Ten years later, I feel the same thing that I felt on 9/11 -- an indescribable grief over the senseless death of that day and of days to come.

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center . His latest book is Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Jensen is also the author of The Heart of Whiteness: Race, Racism, and White Privilege and Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity; and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang). He can be reached atrjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu and his articles can be found online here

Washington's Sudden Embrace of Al Jazeera Won't Erase Past US Crimes Against the Network

Published on Tuesday, February 1, 2011 by The Nation

by Jeremy Scahill

If it weren't for Al Jazeera, much of the unfolding Egyptian revolution would never have been televised. Its Arabic and English language channels have provided the most comprehensive coverage of any network in any language hands-down. Despite the Mubarak regime's attempts to shut it down, Al Jazeera's brave reporters and camera crews have persevered. Six Al Jazeera journalists were detained briefly on Monday, their equipment seized. The US responded swiftly to their detention with the State Department calling for their release. "We are concerned by the shutdown of Al Jazeera in Egypt and arrest of its correspondents," State Department spokesperson PJ Crowley tweeted. "Egypt must be open and the reporters released."

The Obama White House has been intently monitoring al Jazeera's coverage of the Egyptian revolt. The network, already famous worldwide, is now a household name in the US. Thousands of Americans—many of whom likely had never watched the network before—are livestreaming Al Jazeera on the internet and over their phones. With a handful of exceptions, most US cities and states have no channel that broadcasts Al Jazeera. That's because cowardly US cable providers refuse to grant the channel a distribution platform, largely for fear of being perceived as supporting or enabling a network that for years has been portrayed negatively by US officials.

For people who have followed Al Jazeera's history with the US, the fact that it is now perceived by the White House and the American public as a force for democracy and freedom is an ironic, some would say hypocritical, development. The contrast between Washington's posture toward Al Jazeera from the Bush era to the Obama presidency could not be more stark.

During the Bush administration, nothing contradicted the absurd claim that the US invaded Iraq to spread democracy throughout the Middle East more decisively than Washington's ceaseless attacks on Al Jazeera, the institution that did more than any other to break the stranglehold over information previously held by authoritarian forces, whether monarchs, military strongmen, occupiers or ayatollahs. Yet, far from calling for its journalists to be respected and freed from imprisonment and unlawful detention, the Bush administration waged war against Al Jazeera and its journalists.

The US bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001. In March 2003, two of its financial correspondents were kicked off the trading floor of NASDAQ and the NY Stock Exchange. "In light of Al-Jazeera's recent conduct during the war, in which they have broadcast footage of US POWs in alleged violation of the Geneva Convention, they are not welcome to broadcast from our facility at this time," said NASDAQ's spokesperson. Later NASDAQ backed off that claim and said the networks accreditation had been revoked for "security reasons."

In April 2003, US forces shelled the Basra hotel where Al Jazeera journalists were the only guests and killed Jazeera's Iraq correspondent Tareq Ayoub a few days later in Baghdad. The US also imprisoned several Al Jazeera reporters (including at Guantánamo), some of whom say they were tortured. Among these was Sami al-Haj, an Al Jazeera cameraman who spent seven years at Guantanamo and was repeatedly interrogated by US operatives attempting to falsely link Al Jazeera to al Qaeda. In addition to the military attacks, the US-backed Iraqi government periodically banned Al Jazeera from reporting in Iraq. Indeed Al Jazeera was shut down in Iraq under both Saddam Hussein and the US-backed government.

Then in late November 2005 Britain's Daily Mirror reported that during an April 2004 White House meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, George W. Bush floated the idea of bombing Al Jazeera's international headquarters in Qatar. This allegation was based on leaked "Top Secret" minutes of the Bush-Blair summit. At the time of Bush's meeting with Blair, the Administration was in the throes of a very public, high-level temper tantrum directed against Al Jazeera. The meeting took place on April 16, at the peak of the first US siege of Falluja, and Al Jazeera was one of the few news outlets broadcasting from inside the city. Its exclusive footage was being broadcast by every network from CNN to the BBC.

The Falluja offensive, one of the bloodiest assaults of the US occupation, was a turning point. In two weeks that April, thirty marines were killed as local guerrillas resisted US attempts to capture the city. Some 600 Iraqis died, many of them women and children. Al Jazeera broadcast from inside the besieged city, beaming images to the world. On live TV the network gave graphic documentary evidence disproving US denials that it was killing civilians. It was a public relations disaster, and the United States responded by attacking the messenger.

Just a few days before Bush allegedly proposed bombing the network, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Falluja, Ahmed Mansour, reported live on the air, "Last night we were targeted by some tanks, twice... but we escaped. The US wants us out of Falluja, but we will stay." On April 9 Washington demanded that Al Jazeera leave the city as a condition for a cease-fire. The network refused. Mansour wrote that the next day "American fighter jets fired around our new location, and they bombed the house where we had spent the night before, causing the death of the house owner Mr. Hussein Samir. Due to the serious threats we had to stop broadcasting for few days because every time we tried to broadcast the fighter jets spotted us we became under their fire."

On April 11 senior military spokesperson Mark Kimmitt declared, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies." On April 15 Donald Rumsfeld echoed those remarks in distinctly undiplomatic terms, calling Al Jazeera's reporting "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.... It's disgraceful what that station is doing." It was the very next day, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan. "He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere," a source told the Mirror. "There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do--and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."

Al Jazeera's real transgression during the "war on terror" was a simple one: being there. That is what Al Jazeera is doing today in Egypt and why it is so dangerous to the Mubarak regime. While critical of US policy, Al Jazeera is not anti-American—it is independent. In fact, it has angered almost every Arab government at one point or another and has been kicked out of or sanctioned by many Arab countries (the one country which Al Jazeera arguably does not cover independently is its host nation of Qatar). It was the first Arab station to broadcast interviews with Israeli officials and is hardly the Al Qaeda mouthpiece the Bush Administration wanted us to believe it was. Now that is abundantly clear to Americans who over the past week have come to depend on Al Jazeera for accurate news on the developments in Egypt.

The real threat Al Jazeera poses to authoritarian regimes is in its unembedded journalism. That is why the Bush Administration viewed Al Jazeera as a threat, it is why Mubarak's regime is trying to shut it down and that is why the network is so important to the unfolding revolutions in the Middle East. It is the same role the network plays in reporting on the disastrous US war in Afghanistan.

Part of why Al Jazeera has become acceptable is that, unlike throughout much of the Bush era, it now has a full 24-hour English language news channel filled with veteran reporters who came to the network from CNN, the BBC and other Western news outlets. When it was an Arabic language only network, it was a lot easier to demonize and malign because fact-checking US officials' fabrications and pronouncements required a real effort.

At the end of the day, the real test of whether there is a substantive change in Washington's stance toward independent, unembedded journalists and journalism will likely not involve Al Jazeera, but some other news outlet or journalist. And that test will be real only when that journalist or media outlets' rights are in direct conflict with Washington's agenda.

Copyright © 2011 The Nation

Jeremy Scahill is the author of the New York Times bestseller Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. He is currently a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute.

Lawyers: Marine monument decree unlawful

By Haidee V. Eugenio
Reporter

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Former President George H.W. Bush did not have the authority under the Antiquities Act to manage fishing activity in huge swaths of the Pacific Ocean, including the areas around the CNMI's three northernmost islands, based on an analysis of two lawyers writing in an American Bar Association newsletter.

The authors-James P. Walsh and Gwen Fanger of the San Francisco office of the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP-published their analysis in the August 2009 edition of ABA's Marine Resources Committee Newsletter.

A copy of the newsletter can be accessed at http://www.abanet.org/environ/committees/marine/newsletter/aug09/MarineRes_Aug09.pdf.

Walsh and Fanger said Bush created the Pacific marine protected areas using the authority under the Antiquities Act “without in-depth scientific and environmental analysis, and without formal public comment.”

“Despite the alleged need to protect the marine areas because of environmental concerns, none of the Pacific MPAs [marine protected areas] were accompanied by any scientific analysis regarding the actual threat of fishing activity to the health of the marine ecosystems in the Pacific MPAs,” they said.

The lawyers said the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act have clear procedures for crafting the protections necessary for marine protected areas within the exclusive economic zone, with full public participations and transparency, which is lacking in the Antiquities Act Proclamation process.

“While the general objective of protecting the oceans is commendable, disregarding applicable law to achieve that objective is not. The ends, no matter how politically correct, do not justify ignoring and sidestepping established law,” said the lawyers.

They said the Antiquities Act contains no congressional authority to unilaterally create monuments beyond the 3-mile territorial limit traditionally applied to domestic statutes, particularly with respect to fishing activities in the water column that are not related to lands, submerged or otherwise.

Walsh and Fanger also said the Magnuson-Stevens Act and NMSA trump the vague authority of the Antiquities Act with respect to management of free-swimming fish outside U.S. territorial jurisdiction but within the exclusive economic zone.

The lawyers said the Antiquities Act was Bush's most powerful top-down regulatory tool in his sweeping ocean policy.

Just before he left office, Bush, on Jan. 6, 2009, created the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument surrounding the CNMI's islands of Farallon de Pajaros, Maug and Asuncion, and the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument in American Samoa.

Another point stressed by the lawyers is that “pressures for change in ocean policy seem to emanate primarily from a few private trust funds, their administrators, and trust family leaders who are pursuing aggressive programs to influence specific outcomes through public 'campaigns.'”

One such trust is the Pew Charitable Trusts, a non-profit organization that, among other things, has actively pursued the expansion of MPAs.

The authors said “much of the push for the Marianas Trench Monument MPA was publicly associated with the Pew Charitable Trusts.”

The Friends of the Monument, which is composed of CNMI residents, was the main proponent of the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument, a 95,000-square mile marine protected area. Pew was one of the biggest supporters of the Friends of the Monument.

On the policy side, Walsh and Fanger said, there are at least three questions about the true purpose and effectiveness of the Pacific MPAs.

They said the open ocean is a constantly moving and changing fluid mass, which respects no boundaries, and it is quite unclear how the creation on paper of the static Pacific MPA can possibly protect these mobile ocean waters.

“For example, what will the creation of the Pacific MPAs really do to combat global warming or prevent ocean acidification?” they asked.

Second, they said the only new constraint on human activity in the Pacific MPAs is with respect to fishing, which has not been shown to cause a serious adverse impact.

They said there is the question of adequate enforcement and research, in terms of both cost and resources, given the enormous size of the area to be protected.

“It is probably likely that much of it will not be given much attention,” said the lawyers.

The total geographic area of the Pacific MPAs comprises 335,348 square miles of “emergent and submerged lands and waters,” mostly made up of ocean waters surrounding island areas with either very small or no resident populations.

Prior to the creation of the Pacific MPAs in 2009, Bush created in 2006 the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument.

Amend Antiquities Act-Wespac

By Jayvee L. Vallejera
Saturday, January 10, 2009

The Honolulu-based Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council is urging the U.S. Congress to amend the Antiquities Act to require congressional approval of proposed monuments.

This comes in the wake of President George W. Bush's declaration Tuesday of three vast swaths in the Pacific as national marine monuments, using his executive powers under the hundred-year-old Act.

In a statement issued Thursday, Wespac voiced concern that Bush's use of the Antiquities Act to create the new marine monuments bypasses the National Environmental Policy Act, which mandates an environmental review and prior consultation with indigenous people and other members of the public.

“The Antiquities Act should be amended to require congressional approval of proposed monuments as it has been done for Wyoming and Alaska and to require compliance to NEPA,” Wespac executive director Kitty Simonds said.

Wespac was one of those who had initially opposed the designation of the marine monuments.

The new marine monuments are composed of the three northernmost islands of the Northern Mariana Islands-Uracas, Asuncion, and Maug-and the Marianas Trench, the Rose Atoll in American Samoa, and a string of islands in the Pacific called the Line Islands, which include the Johnston Atoll and Wake Island. Bush's Tuesday proclamation bans commercial fishing in these areas but allows for recreational, sustenance and traditional indigenous fishing.

The Hawaii longline fishery currently fishes around Palmyra, Kingman and Johnston Atolls. The American purse seine fishery also operate within the U.S. Pacific remote island areas, and CNMI fishermen have harvested in the three northern islands of their island chain.

With commercial fishing now prohibited in these areas, Wespac believes this could put more pressure on other fishing grounds.

“The significant loss of fishing areas available to commercial fishermen in Hawaii and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands can be counterproductive to sustainable fishery goals,” Simonds said. “Reduction of available fishing areas often leads to increased fishing pressure in other areas.”

Despite misgivings, Wespac chair Sean Martin said, “The Council looks forward to continuing its work under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the presidential proclamations to protect everyone's interest in these areas,” said Wespac.

Wespac develops and amends fishery management plans for the U.S. Pacific Islands under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. These plans and amendments are transmitted to the Secretary of Commerce for approval and implemented by the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.

With the new marine monuments, nearly a quarter of the U.S. exclusive economic zone waters surrounding the Pacific islands are now designated as marine protected areas, and the U.S. Pacific Islands account for half of the MPAs in the entire United States.

Bordallo: Monument designation hurts 'local sovereignty'

WEDNESDAY, 07 JANUARY 2009 22:53
BY MAR-VIC CAGURANGAN | VARIETY NEWS STAFF

Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo vowed yesterday to work with her colleagues in the Committee on Natural Resources to ensure that all stakeholders are consulted on the development of a management plan for the three new national marine monuments that President Bush officially designated on Tuesday.

Bush proclaimed the Marianas Trench and the waters and corals surrounding three uninhabited islands in the CNMI, Rose Atoll in American Samoa and seven islands strung along the equator in the central Pacific Ocean as sanctuaries protected under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

"While the portion of the new monument in the waters near Guam is confined to submerged features and is less restrictive than originally proposed, I remain concerned about the effect of this monument designation on local sovereignty," Bordallo said in a press statement.

The president's directive allows the government to immediately phase out waste dumping, as well as commercial fishing and other extractive uses.

However, recreational fishing, tourism and scientific research with a federal permit could still be allowed within the marine sanctuaries that Bush described as "three beautiful and biologically diverse areas of the Pacific Ocean."

Prohibited activities would not apply to military activities and exercises.

Disappointment


Bordallo expressed disappointment that Bush made the decision without acknowledging the input from local communities.

"I recognize that his intent is to protect our natural resources and our ocean ecosystem while also attempting to address the concerns of our fishermen on Guam, but I do not believe that this process was as inclusive and consultative as we would have preferred," she said.

"The Mariana Trench is an extraordinarily geologically rich resource and a special area of our ocean for undersea life that can best be protected going forward with increased consultation and cooperation between federal and local authorities," the congresswoman added.

Bordallo said she looks forward to "increased consultation" on the development of a management plan under the administration of President-elect Barack Obama who will officially take the helm of the White House on Jan 20.

Bush directs the secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to prepare management plans within their respective authorities and "promulgate implementing regulations that address any further specific actions necessary for the proper care and management of the objects identified" in the proclamation.

Blue legacy


The national monuments capped off an eight-year comprehensive ocean conservation strategy, which is touted to be Bush's "Blue Legacy."

According to the proclamation, the monument management plans would include programs to address "traditional access by indigenous persons….for culturally significant subsistence, cultural and religious uses within the monument."

It will also include a program to assess and promote monument-related scientific exploration and research, tourism, as well as recreational and economic activities and opportunities in the CNMI.

Marine monuments will support military’s needs

THURSDAY, 08 JANUARY 2009 00:00 BY GEMMA Q. CASAS - VARIETY NEWS STAFF

President Bush says the newly declared marine sanctuaries in the Pacific, which include the CNMI’s Marianas Trench Marine National Monument, will be used to help the U.S. armed forces fulfill its need to get adequate training, readiness and global mobility in and around the region to keep peace and security around the world.

Under the authority granted by the U.S. 1906 Antiquities Act, Bush signed three declarations on Jan. 6 placing the Marianas Trench, the waters around the three uninhabited northernmost islands of the CNMI and 21 undersea volcanoes, the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument in the central Pacific Ocean and the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument in American Samoa under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.

“On this occasion of the establishment of the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument, the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, and the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument, I confirm that the policy of the United States shall be to continue measures established in the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument to protect the training, readiness, and global mobility of U.S. armed forces, and ensure protection of navigation rights and high seas freedoms under the law of the sea, which are essential to the peace and prosperity of civilized nations,” the president said.

“The security of America, the prosperity of its citizens, and the protection of the ocean environment are complementary and reinforcing priorities. As the United States takes measures to conserve and protect the living and non-living resources of the ocean, it shall ensure preservation of the navigation rights and high seas freedoms enjoyed by all nations under the law of the sea,” he added.

The three new Pacific monuments measure about 195,000 square miles and are the biggest marine sanctuaries in the world.

James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the Bush administration welcomes the presence of the military in and around the Marianas monument “because they will be some of our best eyes and ears as to what’s going on with the resource.”

Connaughton said the military buildup on Guam in the coming years will need the protected areas to do scientific research and other projects.

“The military will be flying their missions, and sailing their ships, and running their submarines in and around these areas. But I want to observe the active military activity will be taking place south of the Northern Islands, and so we have set this up in a way where it’s going to be fully compatible with those activities,” he added.

Under the nine-page declaration for the CNMI, the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument will be managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, in consultation with the Department of Defense.

Within three months after Jan. 6, an advisory council will be created.

The monument declaration essentially allows “the right of innocent passage in territorial seas, without requirement for prior notification to or permission from a coastal state.

It also grants the following rights to the U.S:

•The right of transit passage for ships, submarines, and aircraft in straits used for international navigation; a right that may not be suspended, denied, hampered, or impaired.

•The right of archipelagic sea lanes passage in designated sea lanes and air routes, and passage routes normally used for international navigation in archipelagic nations.

• The exercise of high seas freedoms in exclusive economic zones, including the conduct of military activities, exercises, and surveys.

Marianas Trench declared marine national monument

By John Davis
Published Jan 7, 2009

Using a law enacted more than a century ago, President George W. Bush declared the Marianas Trench and two other areas in the Central Pacific marine national monuments. As one of his last major acts as commander in chief, Bush gave close to 200,000 square miles the special designation, which includes the Marianas Trench - the deepest point on earth.

Said the president, "This decision came after a lot of consultation, consultation with local officials, consultation with prominent scientists, consultation with environmental advocates, consultation with the United States military and the fishing community."

Evidently not included however in the consultations, at least as much as she would have hoped, was Guam congressional delegate Madeleine Bordallo. She told KUAM News via phone, "We were a little disappointed with the manner in which the president signed this into law and that was through the Antiquities Act and rather than going through a process going through Congress."

The president in making the declaration of the marine national monuments said it was the capstone of his eight-year commitment to strong environmental protection and conservation, adding the monuments are receiving our nation's highest level of environmental recognition and conservation. The declaration prohibits resource destruction, or extraction, waste dumping, and commercial fishing.

"They will allow for research, free passage and recreation," said Bush, "including the possibility of recreational fishing one day."

According to the president's executive order, the departments of the Interior and Commerce, as well as the government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, have been tasked to come up with rules and regulations to manage and monitor the Marianas monument. Those rules and regs will include the authorization for traditional access by indigenous people for culturally significant subsidence, cultural and religious uses within the monument.

CNMI delegate Gregorio Sablan said of the decision, "Regrettably the president has used his executive powers under Antiquities Act, he's done this so now we'll have to do work closely with White House, the people of Guam and the CNMI have a say in the development of policies that will manage the program. The monument per se isn't a bad thing, the devil is in the details. So we need to be careful on how we write-up those details."

The CNMI government and the federal agencies have been given two years to prepare the management plans, which will perpetuate this blue legacy that President Bush has left behind. "As further research is conducted in these depths, we will learn more about life at the bottom of the sea and about the history of our planet."

Bush pushes for marine reserves

By PETER N. SPOTTS
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

In its waning weeks, the Bush administration is sorting through options that could lead to the largest marine conservation reserves in United States history.

At issue: Proposals to protect at least one of two vast reaches of ocean that host some of the most pristine coral-reef and under-sea mountain ecosystems in the Pacific. One candidate, a loose cluster of islands and atolls in the central Pacific called the Line Islands, covers a patch of ocean larger than Mexico. The other, a section of the Northern Mariana Islands, is larger than Arizona.

The administration has been heavily criticized for its stance on environmental issues such as global warming and for its last-minute efforts to ease some environmental regulations. So its interest in a bold marine-conservation move may seem surprising. But the president “has had a strong interest in the health of the oceans,” says Dennis Heinemann, a senior vice president with Ocean Conservancy, a marine-conservation group in Washington.

In 2006, President Bush established a vast marine reserve along the northwest Hawaiian Islands, the Papahanaumokuakea National Marine Monument. The monument spans an area larger than all of the country's national parks combined.

It's unclear at the moment whether the White House will take the same regulatory approach now. Mr. Bush could establish vast no-take zones, perhaps with exceptions to allow indigenous people to fish there. Or, he could merely endorse the concept of preserving these areas and punt the decision to the incoming Obama administration.

Still, hopes are high that Bush will grant full protection to these areas. “The condition of the oceans is degrading, and it's really been degrading for coral reefs. It's important to preserve these last few relatively untouched parts of the ocean,” Dr. Heinemann says.

The latest effort builds on the 2006 Hawaii designation, says Jay Nelson, who heads the global ocean legacy program at the Pew Environment Group in Washington. Following that designation, the White House asked federal agencies, nongovernment groups, and the research community for more candidates. These included deep-sea coral networks off the US Southeast Coast and a proposal to establish a string of marine protected areas along the continental shelf from Florida to Belize.

In the end, the Marianas and Line Islands were the last candidates standing.

The islands, atolls, and seamounts that would be conserved are remote. But they may also represent unique opportunities for research. In addition to its reefs, a northern Marianas reserve would include a section of the Marianas Trench, formed by the collision of two plates of the Earth's crust and home to the deepest spot on the seafloor. The area hosts 19 species of whales and dolphins. Life thrives in the extreme environments around hydrothermal vents. The seascape includes enormous mud volcanoes and pools of boiling sulfur.

The Line Islands, meanwhile, are feeding stations for migratory fish with an unexpected twist on the traditional food pyramid. “It's an amazing inverted pyramid design,” in which most living organisms sit atop the food chain instead of at the bottom, says Nancy Knowlton, a marine scientist with the Smithsonian Institution Museum of Natural History. Although organisms lower on the food chain are fewer, they reproduce more quickly and so can support a relatively large number of diners. The system gives researchers a good baseline to understand what coral-reef systems used to look like, she says.

The Line Islands also serve as a way station for 21 species of migratory birds and some 19 species of seabird, who come to feed as large fish on a feeding frenzy drive their prey to the surface. “This shows a direct ecological connection between land and sea,” notes William Chandler, vice president for government affairs at the Marine Conservation Biology Institute office in Washington.

The effort is drawing support from the tourist industry, who see the region's reefs as an asset that needs to be safeguarded, as well as from conservation groups and marine scientists.

But the proposal has generated its share of concerns. Some supporters worry that conservation measures won't be tight enough.

Meanwhile, locals have expressed concerns that restrictions will be too tight. Indigenous people in American Samoa and the Marianas were concerned they would be banned from fishing and other traditional practices. There are other worries about Washington impinging on undersea mining projects for minerals on the seafloor off the Marianas Trench. These local concerns are being addressed, says James Connaughton, head of the president's Council on Environmental Quality.

“There are a lot of people who are not quite sure what we might or might not do who are envisioning the worst from their particular perspective,” he says. The assessment team were able to reassure many people that the worst won't happen.

One concern shared by local fishermen and US Pentagon officials centered on navigation rights through any proposed reserve, particularly around the Marianas. But the president's directive to assess the potential marine reserve sites reaffirmed these navigation rights.

The White House faces a deadline of Inauguration Day next month for making any decision on the reserves. But many conservationists say they hope a decision comes by the end of the year.

Bush to decide on NMI monument before term ends

Wednesday, 22 October 2008 00:00 By Gemma Q. Casas - Variety News Staff

PRESIDENT Bush will decide whether to designate a marine monument in the CNMI before he leaves the White House on Jan. 20, 2009.



James Connaughton, the president’s senior environmental advisor and chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said Bush and first lady Laura Bush have been briefed a few times about the Mariana Trench Marine National Monument project, which involves designating 115,000 square miles of waters around the islands of Uracas, Maug and Asuncion as a federally protected area.

“President Bush and [Mrs.] Bush…are very interested and excited in calling the world’s attention to the central Pacific Region in a way that the world hasn’t focused on this region before,” Connaugton told the Variety in an interview yesterday.

Connaughton is among four White House officials who will make the final recommendation to the president regarding the CNMI marine monument proposal.

“We will complete our assessment by the end of this month. The secretaries of Defense, the Interior, Commerce and me will formulate recommendations. Any final decision will come from President Bush and I will not speak for President Bush at this point,” Connaughton said.

He added, “There is no question he will make a decision before he leaves office and that decision could be ‘Proceed with the monument that has met the concerns expressed by officials’; or ‘Set and place a process for further evaluation for the program,’ which might take years.”

Connaughton said the National Oceanic Atmosphere Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey have considered designating a protected marine area in the Marianas region for years.

He said they want to assure the local people that the proposal is well-intentioned.

“We’re building on a very solid foundation of work,” he added.

According to Connaughton, the study to back up their recommendations on the marine monument proposal will be “comprehensive.”

“It’s looking at the biology, the natural resources. It’s looking at the geology and we’re also trying to understand the cultural resources. There is a historical component to this. We’re also taking into account the social and economic benefits. We will pull together all the information we have and we will use that as a basis for deciding whether additional action will be beneficial,” he said.