Resolution demands apology from Japan
By Mar-Vic Cagurangan
The Marianas Variety
SENATOR Ben Pangelinan, D-Barrigada, is seeking the inclusion of Guam in a congressional resolution demanding an apology and compensation from the Japanese government for the Imperial Army's use of sex slaves ― euphemistically known as "comfort women" ― during World War II.
Pangelinan yesterday introduced Resolution 62, expressing support for House Resolution 121 filed by Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif., before the 110th Congress.
Honda's resolution demands the Japanese government formally "acknowledge, apologize, and accept historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner" for the Japanese army's coercion of young women into sexual slavery during Japan's colonial and wartime occupation of Asia and the Pacific Islands from the 1930s through the duration of World War II.
Pangelinan said Guam, the only U.S. territory occupied by Japanese armed forces, was directly affected by such "atrocious treatment."
"The people of Guam were subjected to death, injury, rape, forced labor, forced march, and internment throughout the occupation," Pangelinan said.
"It is my fervent hope that my resolution conveys our solidarity with Congressman Honda's House Resolution 121 in ensuring that Guam be acknowledged and recognized also," he added.
It wasn't the first time that a demand for an apology has been raised on Guam. Guam activists have been pressing the government of Guam to force Japan into acknowledging the comfort women issue. But the issue splits the local government.
When former Guam Supreme Court Chief Justice Benjamin Cruz and Sen. Tony Unpingco, then chairmen of the Guam War Claims and Compensation Commission, prepared the war claims report to Congress two years ago, they declined to include the comfort women issue despite demands from some Democrats and the families of sex slavery victims.
Unpingco, incidentally, is coauthor of Pangelinan's Bill 62.
Honda filed the resolution last January, partly to renew pressure on Japan ahead of the closure of the Asian Women's Fund, a private foundation created in 1995. The creation of the fund was seen as a significant concession from Japan, which has always claimed that postwar treaties absolved it of all individual claims from World War II.
By the time the Fund closed as scheduled last month, only a fraction of the former sex slaves had been compensated. The fund compensated only 285 comfort women in the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan, out of an estimated 50,000 to 200,000 women forced into serving in brothels run by the Japanese military.
"I am concerned about conflicting stories that Japan has downplayed this issue and that its new leadership might rescind a 1993 government statement apologizing for its role in running comfort stations throughout Asia," Pangelinan said.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Defending Japan's Constitution
Who will defend Japan's Constitution?
April 29, 2007
Special to The Japan Times
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced at the beginning of April that the government was establishing a "panel of experts" to examine the question of whether to "revise the current interpretation of the Constitution," in order to permit Japan to engage in collective self-defense activities.
This is an outrageous proposition from the perspective of constitutional law, and yet the announcement appears to have been met with little more than a murmur. Regardless of whether one may feel strongly that Japan ought to participate in collective self-defense operations, or that Article 9 should be amended, this latest step in the emasculation of Article 9 seriously endangers the normative power and integrity of the entire Constitution.
First, let us recall that there is already a strong movement toward an extensive revision of the Constitution, in accordance with the amendment process provided for in the Constitution. The government is currently pushing a referendum law through the legislature for the purpose of implementing that process.
While the DPJ opposes the current version of the proposed referendum law in its detail, it is not opposed in principle. While there continue to be voices of dissent in both parties, the leadership of both the LDP and the DPJ seek to amend Article 9 specifically to permit Japan's participation in collective self-defense and other international peace and security operations. If they are able to persuade a sufficient number of both houses of the Diet and the population of Japan, the Constitution will be so amended. If they cannot, then it is the will of the nation that it not be so amended.
Second, it is entirely nonsensical for a government to speak of "revising an interpretation" of a constitution as a matter of formal policy. Constitutions can be revised through amendment, and the interpretations of constitutions may evolve incrementally over time through court decisions, but governments do not "revise" or establish "new" interpretations of a constitution. Interpretation of the Constitution of Japan is the purview of the courts, and the amending process provided for in the Constitution is the sole mechanism for formally changing the Constitution itself.
The amending process of a constitution is set in place both to ensure an orderly mechanism for change, but also to ensure that the pre-commitments to the fundamental principles established in the constitution cannot be too easily changed. The Constitution of Japan provides for a process that requires, in addition to the consent of two thirds of both houses of the Diet, the vote of the people of Japan to endorse any proposed revision. The government cannot short-circuit that process by way of some back-room "re-interpretation."
Which brings us to the third problematic aspect of the prime minister's announcement. Aside from the fact that it does an end run around the amending process, the "revision" study is being conducted by an extra-constitutional body appointed by the executive. Of the three branches of government, the executive is the least empowered to have any say in how the Constitution is to be interpreted. It should be recalled that the Constitution provides that the legislature (the Diet) is the highest organ of state (Art. 41); that the Constitution is the supreme law of the nation, and that no law, ordinance or other act of government that is contrary to the Constitution is valid (Art. 98); and that the courts are vested with the authority to interpret the Constitution and determine the constitutionality of any law, order, regulation or other official act (Art. 81).
It is not the role of the executive to be mandating interpretations of the Constitution, and any action that the government may take on the basis of some new "re-interpretation" may still be held to be unconstitutional and invalid by the courts. The body to which the executive has turned to do the actual work of analyzing the issue of interpretation, is one that is not provided for in the Constitution at all -- the "panel of experts" is an extra-constitutional body that has no authority whatsoever to interpret the Constitution.
Finally, the "revision" that is sought is patently contrary to any reasonable interpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution. Article 9 provides, in part, that "the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes." It also provides that the "right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized."
Using Japanese military forces, including Japan-based antimissile defense systems and Japanese naval vessels operating with allied forces in international waters, to engage the military forces of other countries when Japan is not directly under attack, can only ever be interpreted as the use of force for means of settling international disputes.
Moreover, Japan would most certainly expect to enjoy all the rights, protections and obligations under the laws of war that belligerents are entitled to under international law in such circumstances, a status that Article 9 specifically renounces. The Supreme Court of Japan has held that while Japan retains a right to self-defense under Article 9, it is limited to only such measures that are for the protection of Japan (in the so-called Sunakawa case).
The Cabinet Legislation Bureau has consistently maintained that Article 9 forbids participation in collective self-defense or the deployment of troops abroad for military operations. For the government to now try to argue that notwithstanding what the Constitution plainly states, and what the courts have said it means, and what past governments have accepted as binding, that Japan can now do the opposite, is to do great violence to the Constitution of Japan.
There is an amendment process for a reason, and it can be used to achieve the objectives of having Japan play a more robust role in the area of international collective security. Careful study leading up to such amendments will also ensure that other checks and balances can be built into the revised Constitution to ensure that there is sufficient democratic accountability and civilian control as Japan engages in more extensive international operations. To try to circumvent that process undermines the entire structure of the Constitution.
If Article 9 can be merely interpreted away, why not other provisions? A democracy allows its Constitution to be undermined at its peril, and the erosion of constitutional controls on a country seeking greater military influence will almost certainly alarm its neighbors.
Craig Martin, a Canadian lawyer and a graduate of Osaka University Graduate School of Law, is currently working on a doctorate at the University of Pennsylvania, focusing on the interaction of international and constitutional constraints on the use of armed force.
The Japan Times: Sunday, April 29, 2007
(C) All rights reserved
April 29, 2007
Special to The Japan Times
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced at the beginning of April that the government was establishing a "panel of experts" to examine the question of whether to "revise the current interpretation of the Constitution," in order to permit Japan to engage in collective self-defense activities.
This is an outrageous proposition from the perspective of constitutional law, and yet the announcement appears to have been met with little more than a murmur. Regardless of whether one may feel strongly that Japan ought to participate in collective self-defense operations, or that Article 9 should be amended, this latest step in the emasculation of Article 9 seriously endangers the normative power and integrity of the entire Constitution.
First, let us recall that there is already a strong movement toward an extensive revision of the Constitution, in accordance with the amendment process provided for in the Constitution. The government is currently pushing a referendum law through the legislature for the purpose of implementing that process.
While the DPJ opposes the current version of the proposed referendum law in its detail, it is not opposed in principle. While there continue to be voices of dissent in both parties, the leadership of both the LDP and the DPJ seek to amend Article 9 specifically to permit Japan's participation in collective self-defense and other international peace and security operations. If they are able to persuade a sufficient number of both houses of the Diet and the population of Japan, the Constitution will be so amended. If they cannot, then it is the will of the nation that it not be so amended.
Second, it is entirely nonsensical for a government to speak of "revising an interpretation" of a constitution as a matter of formal policy. Constitutions can be revised through amendment, and the interpretations of constitutions may evolve incrementally over time through court decisions, but governments do not "revise" or establish "new" interpretations of a constitution. Interpretation of the Constitution of Japan is the purview of the courts, and the amending process provided for in the Constitution is the sole mechanism for formally changing the Constitution itself.
The amending process of a constitution is set in place both to ensure an orderly mechanism for change, but also to ensure that the pre-commitments to the fundamental principles established in the constitution cannot be too easily changed. The Constitution of Japan provides for a process that requires, in addition to the consent of two thirds of both houses of the Diet, the vote of the people of Japan to endorse any proposed revision. The government cannot short-circuit that process by way of some back-room "re-interpretation."
Which brings us to the third problematic aspect of the prime minister's announcement. Aside from the fact that it does an end run around the amending process, the "revision" study is being conducted by an extra-constitutional body appointed by the executive. Of the three branches of government, the executive is the least empowered to have any say in how the Constitution is to be interpreted. It should be recalled that the Constitution provides that the legislature (the Diet) is the highest organ of state (Art. 41); that the Constitution is the supreme law of the nation, and that no law, ordinance or other act of government that is contrary to the Constitution is valid (Art. 98); and that the courts are vested with the authority to interpret the Constitution and determine the constitutionality of any law, order, regulation or other official act (Art. 81).
It is not the role of the executive to be mandating interpretations of the Constitution, and any action that the government may take on the basis of some new "re-interpretation" may still be held to be unconstitutional and invalid by the courts. The body to which the executive has turned to do the actual work of analyzing the issue of interpretation, is one that is not provided for in the Constitution at all -- the "panel of experts" is an extra-constitutional body that has no authority whatsoever to interpret the Constitution.
Finally, the "revision" that is sought is patently contrary to any reasonable interpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution. Article 9 provides, in part, that "the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes." It also provides that the "right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized."
Using Japanese military forces, including Japan-based antimissile defense systems and Japanese naval vessels operating with allied forces in international waters, to engage the military forces of other countries when Japan is not directly under attack, can only ever be interpreted as the use of force for means of settling international disputes.
Moreover, Japan would most certainly expect to enjoy all the rights, protections and obligations under the laws of war that belligerents are entitled to under international law in such circumstances, a status that Article 9 specifically renounces. The Supreme Court of Japan has held that while Japan retains a right to self-defense under Article 9, it is limited to only such measures that are for the protection of Japan (in the so-called Sunakawa case).
The Cabinet Legislation Bureau has consistently maintained that Article 9 forbids participation in collective self-defense or the deployment of troops abroad for military operations. For the government to now try to argue that notwithstanding what the Constitution plainly states, and what the courts have said it means, and what past governments have accepted as binding, that Japan can now do the opposite, is to do great violence to the Constitution of Japan.
There is an amendment process for a reason, and it can be used to achieve the objectives of having Japan play a more robust role in the area of international collective security. Careful study leading up to such amendments will also ensure that other checks and balances can be built into the revised Constitution to ensure that there is sufficient democratic accountability and civilian control as Japan engages in more extensive international operations. To try to circumvent that process undermines the entire structure of the Constitution.
If Article 9 can be merely interpreted away, why not other provisions? A democracy allows its Constitution to be undermined at its peril, and the erosion of constitutional controls on a country seeking greater military influence will almost certainly alarm its neighbors.
Craig Martin, a Canadian lawyer and a graduate of Osaka University Graduate School of Law, is currently working on a doctorate at the University of Pennsylvania, focusing on the interaction of international and constitutional constraints on the use of armed force.
The Japan Times: Sunday, April 29, 2007
(C) All rights reserved
Guam Included for First Time in Pacific Islands Forum
Guam included for first time in Pacific Islands Forum
by Michele Catahay, KUAM News
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Governor Felix Camacho, during his recent trip to the mainland, received some positive news at the Eighth Pacific Islands Conference of Leaders in the nation's capitol. Guam's governor will be part of the state delegation to the Pacific Islands Forum, which will be the first time the territory will attend.
Camacho told KUAM News on Monday, "We have always been not allowed to attend even as observers and our argument is that although we are U.S. governors, that we are in the Pacific and we have vested interest in what happens. Decisions that are made out there affect us, so we should have a voice."
The conference in Washington, DC was hosted by the U.S. State Department. The main topic discussed was the impending military buildup and how the opportunities for labor and employment can spill over to the other islands in the region. In addition, the East-West Center out of Honolulu, Hawaii has agreed to conduct a study on the labor opportunities for Guam and other islands in the region.
The fund for the study will come from the Department of the Interior.
by Michele Catahay, KUAM News
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Governor Felix Camacho, during his recent trip to the mainland, received some positive news at the Eighth Pacific Islands Conference of Leaders in the nation's capitol. Guam's governor will be part of the state delegation to the Pacific Islands Forum, which will be the first time the territory will attend.
Camacho told KUAM News on Monday, "We have always been not allowed to attend even as observers and our argument is that although we are U.S. governors, that we are in the Pacific and we have vested interest in what happens. Decisions that are made out there affect us, so we should have a voice."
The conference in Washington, DC was hosted by the U.S. State Department. The main topic discussed was the impending military buildup and how the opportunities for labor and employment can spill over to the other islands in the region. In addition, the East-West Center out of Honolulu, Hawaii has agreed to conduct a study on the labor opportunities for Guam and other islands in the region.
The fund for the study will come from the Department of the Interior.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Body of John Flores Returns
Body of fallen soldier John Flores returning Wednesday
by Sabrina Salas Matanane, KUAM News
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The body of U.S. Army Private First Class John D. Flores of Barrigada will arrive home early Wednesday morning. He is the latest casualty from the Marianas identified by the Department of Defense to have died while serving in Iraq. Flores was assigned to the 1st Infantry Division in Germany and died on May 3 in Baghdad of wounds suffered when his unit came in contact with enemy forces using small arms fire.
Flores is survived by his wife Charlene and daughter Chloe.
Flores' death marks the eighth volunteer serviceman to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend freedom since the war in Iraq began in 2003. In 2006 Kasper Dudkiewicz and Jesse Joel Jesus Castro, both 23, were lost - Dudkiewicz, 23, was killed in Mosul when his humvee was involved in a collision; Castro and four soldiers from his combat unit was killed by an improvised explosive while on patrol in Kirkuk.
by Sabrina Salas Matanane, KUAM News
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The body of U.S. Army Private First Class John D. Flores of Barrigada will arrive home early Wednesday morning. He is the latest casualty from the Marianas identified by the Department of Defense to have died while serving in Iraq. Flores was assigned to the 1st Infantry Division in Germany and died on May 3 in Baghdad of wounds suffered when his unit came in contact with enemy forces using small arms fire.
Flores is survived by his wife Charlene and daughter Chloe.
Flores' death marks the eighth volunteer serviceman to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend freedom since the war in Iraq began in 2003. In 2006 Kasper Dudkiewicz and Jesse Joel Jesus Castro, both 23, were lost - Dudkiewicz, 23, was killed in Mosul when his humvee was involved in a collision; Castro and four soldiers from his combat unit was killed by an improvised explosive while on patrol in Kirkuk.
Another Chamorro Dead in Iraq
Soldier comes home
By Gaynor Dumat-ol Daleno
Pacific Daily News
gdumat-ol@guampdn.com
May 16, 2007
The body of the latest Guam son to die in Iraq was expected to have arrived home earlier this morning.
Army Pfc. John D. Flores was 21.
He joined the Army in hopes of building a foundation for his young family's future. But Flores was killed May 3 in Baghdad, according to the Army.
He was father to 18-month old Chloe and husband to Charlene, who became the soldier's wife only a little more than a year ago.
The fallen hero will be buried with full military honors Saturday afternoon at the Guam Veterans Cemetery.
Flores's arrival was scheduled for 1:10 a.m. today, confirmed his mother-in-law, Cindy Kazuo.
The fallen soldier also leaves behind his mother, Christine Wertz, and other members of his extended family.
Flores was killed when his unit came under attack by enemy forces.
He is the 10th Guamanian and 18th person from the Micronesia region to be killed since the war on terror began, Pacific Daily News files state.
If you wish to join Flores's extended family in giving him a final good-bye, you can do so during the Saturday morning schedule for paying last respects, the afternoon funeral Mass at Santa Barbara Church in Dededo or the burial at the Guam Veterans Cemetery later that afternoon.
He will be accorded full military honors at his burial.
"We're opening this to anyone who wish him a final farewell," Kazuo said.
By Gaynor Dumat-ol Daleno
Pacific Daily News
gdumat-ol@guampdn.com
May 16, 2007
The body of the latest Guam son to die in Iraq was expected to have arrived home earlier this morning.
Army Pfc. John D. Flores was 21.
He joined the Army in hopes of building a foundation for his young family's future. But Flores was killed May 3 in Baghdad, according to the Army.
He was father to 18-month old Chloe and husband to Charlene, who became the soldier's wife only a little more than a year ago.
The fallen hero will be buried with full military honors Saturday afternoon at the Guam Veterans Cemetery.
Flores's arrival was scheduled for 1:10 a.m. today, confirmed his mother-in-law, Cindy Kazuo.
The fallen soldier also leaves behind his mother, Christine Wertz, and other members of his extended family.
Flores was killed when his unit came under attack by enemy forces.
He is the 10th Guamanian and 18th person from the Micronesia region to be killed since the war on terror began, Pacific Daily News files state.
If you wish to join Flores's extended family in giving him a final good-bye, you can do so during the Saturday morning schedule for paying last respects, the afternoon funeral Mass at Santa Barbara Church in Dededo or the burial at the Guam Veterans Cemetery later that afternoon.
He will be accorded full military honors at his burial.
"We're opening this to anyone who wish him a final farewell," Kazuo said.
Landless Locals
Taman: Don’t Forget Landless Locals
By Emmanuel T. Erediano
Variety News Staff
Monday, 14 May 07
---------------------
REPRESENTATIVE Candido B. Taman on Friday said he voted against the resolution granting a 25-year lease of public land to Marianas Resort Development Co. Inc. because there are still thousands of landless locals waiting for homestead lots.
Taman, R-Saipan, said the government invites investors but seems to have forgotten homestead lot applicants.
Department of Public Lands homestead division director Jerome K. Aldan said there are 3,489 pending applications for homestead lots.
Applicants who comply with requirements, rules and regulations are granted a 929 square- meter lot for residential purposes.
Although the homestead division still hopes it will be able to accommodate the applicants, records show that lots for 11 homestead projects have yet to be issued to applicants, the number of which continues to increase.
Two homestead projects that started in 2003 have issued lots to 42 applicants.
The projects include the 1.9 hectare homestead project in Kagman IV and the seven-hectare area in Dandan II.
Taman said the government should balance the interests of investors and the local people when it comes to giving out public land.
The Senate and the House of Representatives have adopted a joint resolution granting the approval of MRDC’s request to lease 136.5 hectares of public land on Tinian for an 18-hole golf course as well as a hotel and casino that will be constructed in the next two years.
“If we can give MRDC a total of 1.3 million square meters of public land for its casino operation, why can we not provide our own people with 929 square meters of it for a home?” Taman said.
By Emmanuel T. Erediano
Variety News Staff
Monday, 14 May 07
---------------------
REPRESENTATIVE Candido B. Taman on Friday said he voted against the resolution granting a 25-year lease of public land to Marianas Resort Development Co. Inc. because there are still thousands of landless locals waiting for homestead lots.
Taman, R-Saipan, said the government invites investors but seems to have forgotten homestead lot applicants.
Department of Public Lands homestead division director Jerome K. Aldan said there are 3,489 pending applications for homestead lots.
Applicants who comply with requirements, rules and regulations are granted a 929 square- meter lot for residential purposes.
Although the homestead division still hopes it will be able to accommodate the applicants, records show that lots for 11 homestead projects have yet to be issued to applicants, the number of which continues to increase.
Two homestead projects that started in 2003 have issued lots to 42 applicants.
The projects include the 1.9 hectare homestead project in Kagman IV and the seven-hectare area in Dandan II.
Taman said the government should balance the interests of investors and the local people when it comes to giving out public land.
The Senate and the House of Representatives have adopted a joint resolution granting the approval of MRDC’s request to lease 136.5 hectares of public land on Tinian for an 18-hole golf course as well as a hotel and casino that will be constructed in the next two years.
“If we can give MRDC a total of 1.3 million square meters of public land for its casino operation, why can we not provide our own people with 929 square meters of it for a home?” Taman said.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Guam Leaders Optimistic About War Reparations
Leaders optimistic about WWII reparations
by Clynt Ridgell, KUAM News
Saturday, May 12, 2007
http://www.kuam.com/news/22494.aspx
While House Resolution 1595, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, made it passed the House of Representatives with a two-thirds vote this week it must still garner a majority of the votes in the U.S. Senate. Two of the individuals who were instrumental in Guam's quest for war reparations discussed the importance of this landmark moment in our island's history.
Senator Tony Unpingco (R) and former chief justice and senator Benjamin J. Cruz were appointed to the Guam War Claims Review Commission in September 2003. The membership was established by Congress to gather facts about Guam residents who lived through the Japanese occupation to help determine whether or not they've been compensated in the same way as other U.S. citizens who were in similar situations. It was in December of that same year when several hearings were held at the Guam Legislature, allowing survivors to share their stories with the Commission about the struggles they had to endure during the occupation.
The Commission then compiled a report acknowledging the suffering and loyalty of Guamanians during the occupation. The Commission ultimately found that Guam citizens did not receive parity when compared to other American citizens who suffered similar hardships elsewhere. Seeing this process and delays in Guam's quest for war reparations, Unpingco remains cautiously optimistic that the Act will make it past the Senate.
He encourages all Guamanians to once again fight for what is right, saying, "We need to have everyone here on Guam to really if they have any influence in the senate to write to them, otherwise the closure will be the same as it was just introduced will die." In fact, HR 1595 did suffer an untimely demise in the 109th Congress, but hopefully won't in the current Congress.
Cruz also remains hopeful about its passage this time around, noting that the compensation levels include the following:
- $25,000 for death, payable to heirs
- $15,000 for rape or severe injury (like a loss of a limb)
- $12,000 for forced labor and other personal injury
- $10,000 for forced march or internment
- $7,000 to all heirs of those persons who survived the war but have since passed away, payable to spouse, children or parents
Said Cruz, "In this bill, the $12,000 has been reduced to $7,000...I think that's where the problem's going to be in this bill if the Senate has hearings and especially the Judiciary Committee has hearings, and they look at that it's going to open up a whole other Pandora's Box of precedence that's my only concern about this bill."
Cruz adds HR 1595 has evolved and probably will continue to evolve while in the Senate, adding that while there are still major hurdles ahead he commends both Congresswoman Madeline Bordallo and former congressman Robert Underwood for their work on the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act.
by Clynt Ridgell, KUAM News
Saturday, May 12, 2007
http://www.kuam.com/news/22494.aspx
While House Resolution 1595, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, made it passed the House of Representatives with a two-thirds vote this week it must still garner a majority of the votes in the U.S. Senate. Two of the individuals who were instrumental in Guam's quest for war reparations discussed the importance of this landmark moment in our island's history.
Senator Tony Unpingco (R) and former chief justice and senator Benjamin J. Cruz were appointed to the Guam War Claims Review Commission in September 2003. The membership was established by Congress to gather facts about Guam residents who lived through the Japanese occupation to help determine whether or not they've been compensated in the same way as other U.S. citizens who were in similar situations. It was in December of that same year when several hearings were held at the Guam Legislature, allowing survivors to share their stories with the Commission about the struggles they had to endure during the occupation.
The Commission then compiled a report acknowledging the suffering and loyalty of Guamanians during the occupation. The Commission ultimately found that Guam citizens did not receive parity when compared to other American citizens who suffered similar hardships elsewhere. Seeing this process and delays in Guam's quest for war reparations, Unpingco remains cautiously optimistic that the Act will make it past the Senate.
He encourages all Guamanians to once again fight for what is right, saying, "We need to have everyone here on Guam to really if they have any influence in the senate to write to them, otherwise the closure will be the same as it was just introduced will die." In fact, HR 1595 did suffer an untimely demise in the 109th Congress, but hopefully won't in the current Congress.
Cruz also remains hopeful about its passage this time around, noting that the compensation levels include the following:
- $25,000 for death, payable to heirs
- $15,000 for rape or severe injury (like a loss of a limb)
- $12,000 for forced labor and other personal injury
- $10,000 for forced march or internment
- $7,000 to all heirs of those persons who survived the war but have since passed away, payable to spouse, children or parents
Said Cruz, "In this bill, the $12,000 has been reduced to $7,000...I think that's where the problem's going to be in this bill if the Senate has hearings and especially the Judiciary Committee has hearings, and they look at that it's going to open up a whole other Pandora's Box of precedence that's my only concern about this bill."
Cruz adds HR 1595 has evolved and probably will continue to evolve while in the Senate, adding that while there are still major hurdles ahead he commends both Congresswoman Madeline Bordallo and former congressman Robert Underwood for their work on the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
New Zealand to Take Advantage of Guam's Economic Boom?
Saturday, 05 May 2007
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4046737a13.html
US wants NZ to join Guam boom
The United States Government is urging New Zealand businesses to take advantage of a planned economic boom on the Pacific island of Guam.
David Cohen, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Insular Affairs, said the US is to spend US$14 billion (NZ$19 billion) investing in Guam as it moves marines from the Japanese island of Okinawa to a new base.
Mr Cohen is responsible for the US' relationship with its territories in the Pacific, such as Guam and American Samoa, as well as economic assistance to nations in association with the US, such as the Marshall Islands.
He said that, by 2010, the population of Guam would increase by 25 per cent to about 205,000 because of the massive increase in troop numbers.
Besides the construction of the base, there would also be a big development of associated infrastructure to cope with the influx of marines.
Mr Cohen said many New Zealand businesses, including Fletcher Building, had wide experience in the South Pacific, and the US was keen for assistance.
New Zealand business people would also find it easy to travel in the region because of the business waiver agreement with the US.
He called on New Zealand businesses to attend the Island Business Opportunities conference to be held in Guam in October.
The conference would detail opportunities in infrastructure investment and incentives to do business in the island nations with which the US has a strong relationship.
Mr Cohen's office is responsible for a budget of US$425 million, which is mostly spent on aid and other assistance to the US' Pacific territories.
The US recently signed a new compact with the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia which allocates US$3.5 billion of assistance to them over 20 years.
Another new compact with Palau is also being negotiated.
Mr Cohen said the US experience with the Micronesian nations had many similarities to New Zealand's relationship with the South Pacific.
Residents of the US territories in the Pacific have rights of citizenship, while the nations in free association have rights of residency.
Mr Cohen said the historical relationship was a double-edged sword that acted as a "safety valve" for those needing employment, but also created a brain-drain effect.
He is in New Zealand for the Pacific Futures conference, being held in Auckland today.
The conference is looking at business opportunities for New Zealanders in the Pacific.
Other speakers include Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4046737a13.html
US wants NZ to join Guam boom
The United States Government is urging New Zealand businesses to take advantage of a planned economic boom on the Pacific island of Guam.
David Cohen, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Insular Affairs, said the US is to spend US$14 billion (NZ$19 billion) investing in Guam as it moves marines from the Japanese island of Okinawa to a new base.
Mr Cohen is responsible for the US' relationship with its territories in the Pacific, such as Guam and American Samoa, as well as economic assistance to nations in association with the US, such as the Marshall Islands.
He said that, by 2010, the population of Guam would increase by 25 per cent to about 205,000 because of the massive increase in troop numbers.
Besides the construction of the base, there would also be a big development of associated infrastructure to cope with the influx of marines.
Mr Cohen said many New Zealand businesses, including Fletcher Building, had wide experience in the South Pacific, and the US was keen for assistance.
New Zealand business people would also find it easy to travel in the region because of the business waiver agreement with the US.
He called on New Zealand businesses to attend the Island Business Opportunities conference to be held in Guam in October.
The conference would detail opportunities in infrastructure investment and incentives to do business in the island nations with which the US has a strong relationship.
Mr Cohen's office is responsible for a budget of US$425 million, which is mostly spent on aid and other assistance to the US' Pacific territories.
The US recently signed a new compact with the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia which allocates US$3.5 billion of assistance to them over 20 years.
Another new compact with Palau is also being negotiated.
Mr Cohen said the US experience with the Micronesian nations had many similarities to New Zealand's relationship with the South Pacific.
Residents of the US territories in the Pacific have rights of citizenship, while the nations in free association have rights of residency.
Mr Cohen said the historical relationship was a double-edged sword that acted as a "safety valve" for those needing employment, but also created a brain-drain effect.
He is in New Zealand for the Pacific Futures conference, being held in Auckland today.
The conference is looking at business opportunities for New Zealanders in the Pacific.
Other speakers include Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann.
Monday, May 07, 2007
North Korea and Guam
Pacific, Korean Commanders Declare ''Overmatch''
Mar 8, 2007
By Michael Bruno/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
The four-star chiefs of the U.S. Pacific and Korea combatant commands declared March 7 that the United States and its allies enjoy an overwhelming "overmatch" of naval and air forces in the region against any challenger, but the Korea commander noted concern with longer-term supplies of air-delivered munitions.
U.S. Navy Adm. William Fallon, head of Pacific Command, and U.S. Army Gen. Burwell Bell, the military commander in South Korea, told the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) that they are not in immediate need of additional weapons, systems or other so-called unfunded priorities.
They also maintained that U.S. commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan operations, particularly ground forces, do not impede their abilities to respond to potential incidents with China, North Korea or other regional contingencies. The United States would lead with its Navy and Air Force, as well as the South Korean army there.
Moreover, despite being given plenty of opportunity to state otherwise, Fallon, who shortly will take over Central Command in the Middle East, also told lawmakers that proposed or potential delays to acquisitions like the Joint Strike Fighter, shipbuilding or other long-term programs do not concern him now as long as investments are kept up so those platforms and systems could be accelerated and expanded if need be.
"We weigh off risks," the admiral said. "You make these tradeoffs."
He also highlighted ongoing positive developments such as X-band and Aegis radars for missile defense, as well as the recently ordered deployment of a dozen F-22 Raptors to Kadena Air Base, Japan (DAILY, Feb. 28).
Nevertheless, under pointed questioning from Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired vice admiral who unseated former HASC vice chair Curt Weldon (R) last November, Bell acknowledged that if a conflict with North Korea extended from days to weeks, he would ask for more strike munitions from U.S. inventories. Ideally, Korean and domestic inventories would be boosted before then anyway, he said.
Overall, U.S. air power apparently would play a major role in such an engagement, according to their dialogue during the hearing. North Korea watches Guam-to-South Korea B-52 exercises closely. While Bell is not too worried about North Korean air forces, whose flight hours and capabilities pale in comparison to U.S. aircraft, he is "very concerned" about roughly 80,000 North Korean special forces personnel who likely would be seeded throughout South Korea via aircraft and other means.
Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), HASC seapower and expeditionary forces chairman, also pressed Bell on Humvees in his area of responsibility. Taylor is convinced all U.S. branches should replace every Humvee with Mine Resistant Ambush Protection (MRAP) vehicles, as the Marine Corps plans to do starting in Iraq. The general responded that while "soft-skinned" Humvees would not be his first choice in a Korean conflict, officials do not anticipate the same problem with roadside bombs that plague U.S. forces elsewhere.
The Senate Armed Services Committee on March 8 will hear from Adm. Timothy Keating, to be the new Pacific commander, as well as Air Force Lt. Gen. Victor Renuart Jr., who will follow Keating as head of Northern Command.
Mar 8, 2007
By Michael Bruno/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
The four-star chiefs of the U.S. Pacific and Korea combatant commands declared March 7 that the United States and its allies enjoy an overwhelming "overmatch" of naval and air forces in the region against any challenger, but the Korea commander noted concern with longer-term supplies of air-delivered munitions.
U.S. Navy Adm. William Fallon, head of Pacific Command, and U.S. Army Gen. Burwell Bell, the military commander in South Korea, told the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) that they are not in immediate need of additional weapons, systems or other so-called unfunded priorities.
They also maintained that U.S. commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan operations, particularly ground forces, do not impede their abilities to respond to potential incidents with China, North Korea or other regional contingencies. The United States would lead with its Navy and Air Force, as well as the South Korean army there.
Moreover, despite being given plenty of opportunity to state otherwise, Fallon, who shortly will take over Central Command in the Middle East, also told lawmakers that proposed or potential delays to acquisitions like the Joint Strike Fighter, shipbuilding or other long-term programs do not concern him now as long as investments are kept up so those platforms and systems could be accelerated and expanded if need be.
"We weigh off risks," the admiral said. "You make these tradeoffs."
He also highlighted ongoing positive developments such as X-band and Aegis radars for missile defense, as well as the recently ordered deployment of a dozen F-22 Raptors to Kadena Air Base, Japan (DAILY, Feb. 28).
Nevertheless, under pointed questioning from Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired vice admiral who unseated former HASC vice chair Curt Weldon (R) last November, Bell acknowledged that if a conflict with North Korea extended from days to weeks, he would ask for more strike munitions from U.S. inventories. Ideally, Korean and domestic inventories would be boosted before then anyway, he said.
Overall, U.S. air power apparently would play a major role in such an engagement, according to their dialogue during the hearing. North Korea watches Guam-to-South Korea B-52 exercises closely. While Bell is not too worried about North Korean air forces, whose flight hours and capabilities pale in comparison to U.S. aircraft, he is "very concerned" about roughly 80,000 North Korean special forces personnel who likely would be seeded throughout South Korea via aircraft and other means.
Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), HASC seapower and expeditionary forces chairman, also pressed Bell on Humvees in his area of responsibility. Taylor is convinced all U.S. branches should replace every Humvee with Mine Resistant Ambush Protection (MRAP) vehicles, as the Marine Corps plans to do starting in Iraq. The general responded that while "soft-skinned" Humvees would not be his first choice in a Korean conflict, officials do not anticipate the same problem with roadside bombs that plague U.S. forces elsewhere.
The Senate Armed Services Committee on March 8 will hear from Adm. Timothy Keating, to be the new Pacific commander, as well as Air Force Lt. Gen. Victor Renuart Jr., who will follow Keating as head of Northern Command.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Fortress Hubs
David Axe
U.S. is building up forces on strategic islands in the Far East
Aviation Week
April 27, 2007
U.S. Air Force KC-135R Stratotanker angles toward Kadena Air Base from the sea, its four turbofans idling as it flares for landing. A Navy P-3C Orion patrol plane is visible through the bluish smoke as the tanker's tires touch the runway. The P-3C accelerates to its place in a long line of aircraft waiting to take off, including F-15C Eagle fighters and, for the first time outside the U.S., brand-new F-22A Raptor stealth fighters on a three-month deployment from Langley, Va. One by one the fighters roar into the bright blue sky over this Japanese island, heading for an ocean range where they will practice aerial combat and tanking, preparing for the day when they might be ordered to sweep the skies of Chinese or North Korean warplanes as part of the defense of Taiwan or a bombing campaign against Kim Jong Il's nuclear facilities.
Thousands of miles from Okinawa, U.S. ground forces are fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, conflicts that have effectively monopolized the nation's deployable land power. But in the Pacific, the Pentagon's focus is on the opposite end of the spectrum of potential conflict: The perceived threats here are large industrial militaries equipped with ships, aircraft and tanks, whose commanders develop strategies for traditional goals like capturing territory. The 300,000-strong U.S. forces arrayed to defeat these threats are, in contrast to those fighting in the war on terror, primarily air and naval.
Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan increasingly promote soft strategies such as reconstruction, humanitarian aid and foreign security-force reform in order to win a conflict with relatively little direct combat. In the Pacific, by contrast, improving U.S. forces means spending big dollars to outfit them with the latest hardware while also expanding the sprawling bases that will serve as "fortress hubs" for future operations in the region. In coming years, Pacific Command is gaining three permanent F-22 squadrons, 16 C-17 Globemaster airlifters, two additional nuclear attack submarines and the first Littoral Combat Ships, in addition to its present forces.
"Arms buildup? I wouldn't use that language," says Air Force Maj. David Griesmer from Pacific Command, which has its headquarters in Hawaii. "There's certainly an acknowledgment that Pacom is half the world. These capabilities need to either go on one side [of the world] or the other. The Asia-Pacific region is growing. It's the way of the future. There's a large amount of economic activity." Plus, he adds, "The six largest militaries are in this area," a reference to China, the U.S., Russia, India, North Korea and South Korea.
To many observers, in fact, the future looks a lot like the past--the Cold War, but with an Asian flair.
Indeed, the linchpin bases for U.S. Pacific strategy are both prizes from World War II to which the Cold War was a grand corollary. Okinawa, Japan's southernmost prefecture and the site of Kadena AB among other U.S. installations, was wrested from Japan during a three-month struggle in 1945, during which at least 200,000 people died. Guam, the other major U.S. hub in the Pacific, was invaded and occupied by Japan between 1941 and 1944. More than 20,000 people died when the U.S. retook the island.
The locations and geographies of the outposts dictate their roles. Despite being crowded and something of a political hot potato, Okinawa's proximity to the Taiwan Strait and the Korean Peninsula--just over an hour's flight to either--and the sheer size of Kadena, one of the largest U.S. air bases in the world, means it is indispensable as a base for short-range aircraft that must react quickly.
At Kadena, alongside 7,000 personnel, the USAF has permanently stationed more than 50 F-15s plus tankers, E-3 Sentry radar planes, HH-60G rescue choppers and Special Forces aircraft, all belonging to the 18th Wing. Elsewhere on Okinawa, the Marines fly F/A-18 Hornet fighters, tankers and helicopters. RC-135 Rivet Joint spy planes and EA-6B Prowler jammers are frequent guests. The Navy's six Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers, including the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63), homeported in Yokosuka, Japan, are also regular visitors to the area with their Hornets, F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, E-2C Hawkeye radar planes and helicopters. And in a crisis, perhaps hundreds of U.S.-based fighter aircraft would converge on Okinawa.
"Because of our capability to stage forces out of here--this is a huge runway--we do believe we have unmatched air power," says Kadena official John Monroe. "That's probably the most important thing about Kadena."
During testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, then Pacom chief, Navy Adm. William Fallon, and Army Gen. Burwell Bell, commander of U.S. forces in South Korea, seconded Monroe's assessment, announcing that U.S. Pacific forces maintain "overmatch" in the region, especially with regard to aircraft and ships. But Bell conceded that bomb and missile stockpiles were a potentially limiting factor.
That's a view the Air Force shares. Hence its investment in a 6,000-acre munitions storage area adjacent to the Kadena runway, the size of which exceeds that of many air bases elsewhere in the world. "We keep munitions for several types of aircraft because we are going to be a forward staging base," Monroe explains.
The F-22 deployment to Kadena, which began in February, is exercising the base's ability to support visiting fighter units in addition to testing the expeditionary skills of F-22 pilots and maintainers from the 27th Fighter Sqdn., which is part of the 1st Fighter Wing. And the deployment is paving the way for permanent basing of three Raptor squadrons in the region, starting with 18 jets for the Alaska-based 3rd Wing this year.
Many regions might have hosted the new fighter's first foreign deployment. But the Pacific is a perfect fit for the Raptor "because it can travel long distances," Griesmer says. The Raptor's range, while classified, exceeds that of most other fighters.
But 27th Fighter Sqdn. commander Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver says that, more than range, the Raptor's ability to penetrate air defenses--thanks to its speed, stealth and sensors--makes it uniquely qualified for Pacific duty as a trailblazer for all those follow-on forces Monroe describes. "There are a lot of countries out there that have developed highly integrated air-defense systems," Tolliver says. "The United States and its allies are used to going to a place and building up things prior to making an offensive. . . . What we need to do is take some of our assets that have special capabilities--B-2s, F-22s, F-117s--and roll back those integrated air-defense systems so we can bring in our joint forces."
From a training perspective, the Pacific is ideal for fighter pilots due to the high concentration of friendly jets for mock dogfighting, and because of the large number of tankers at Kadena and other bases. "Tanker capability is very important," Griesmer says of the Pacific. "Look at the map and see all the blue." But due to tanker shortages in the U.S. owing to the fleet's advanced age, the fighter pilots that might have to rely on aerial refueling during a Pacific surge find it difficult to keep up that perishable skill. "Normally, we tank about once a week because we're sharing tanking assets with other fighters on the East Coast," says Capt. Chris Gentile from the 27th Fighter Sqdn. But at Kadena, he and the other Raptor jockeys tank almost every day.
Distance, and its perils, define Pacific operations. Kadena's proximity to potential battlefields is an advantage for short-range fighters, but a liability too, since it's within range of North Korea's and China's tactical ballistic missiles. The U.S. Navy has deployed rudimentary sea-based missile defenses in the Sea of Japan in the form of Raytheon SM-3 Standard interceptors on board a handful of the 175 ships in the Pacific Fleet. As a backstop, in August the Army stationed a Lockheed Martin PAC-3 anti-missile battery at Kadena to protect the air base.
Guam, more than 1,000 mi. to the south, is protected from ballistic missiles by its distance, allowing the Army to postpone a planned PAC-3 deployment to the island to around 2012. What's more, while local political opposition has long plagued U.S. forces in Japan, the Chamorros of Guam mostly welcome the 12,000 military personnel on the island. "It may be easier for us to be there, as far as the diplomatic issue is concerned," Monroe says "but if we're in Guam, we're out of the fight" due to the distance.
This distance has shaped the force structure on Guam. For three years, the island's Andersen Air Base has hosted rotations of heavy bombers, tankers and patrol planes from the U.S., all assets with long ranges and long loiter times that mitigate the impact of distance on their operations. In February, the USAF activated the 36th Operations Group on the island to smooth the comings and goings of B-52H Stratofortresses, B-1B Lancers and B-2A Spirits. And this year, the Air Force will permanently station RQ-4B Global Hawk spy drones at Andersen. To support these aircraft plus the three attack submarines that began arriving in 2002, two more submarines that are planned and as many as 8,000 Marines from Okinawa, the Pentagon is investing up to $1 billion in construction over the next decade.
Okinawa and Guam thus fulfill complementary roles in U.S. Pacific strategy-the former as a staging base for short-range fighters, the latter as a safer, albeit more distant, base for bombers, drones and submarines.
U.S. is building up forces on strategic islands in the Far East
Aviation Week
April 27, 2007
U.S. Air Force KC-135R Stratotanker angles toward Kadena Air Base from the sea, its four turbofans idling as it flares for landing. A Navy P-3C Orion patrol plane is visible through the bluish smoke as the tanker's tires touch the runway. The P-3C accelerates to its place in a long line of aircraft waiting to take off, including F-15C Eagle fighters and, for the first time outside the U.S., brand-new F-22A Raptor stealth fighters on a three-month deployment from Langley, Va. One by one the fighters roar into the bright blue sky over this Japanese island, heading for an ocean range where they will practice aerial combat and tanking, preparing for the day when they might be ordered to sweep the skies of Chinese or North Korean warplanes as part of the defense of Taiwan or a bombing campaign against Kim Jong Il's nuclear facilities.
Thousands of miles from Okinawa, U.S. ground forces are fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, conflicts that have effectively monopolized the nation's deployable land power. But in the Pacific, the Pentagon's focus is on the opposite end of the spectrum of potential conflict: The perceived threats here are large industrial militaries equipped with ships, aircraft and tanks, whose commanders develop strategies for traditional goals like capturing territory. The 300,000-strong U.S. forces arrayed to defeat these threats are, in contrast to those fighting in the war on terror, primarily air and naval.
Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan increasingly promote soft strategies such as reconstruction, humanitarian aid and foreign security-force reform in order to win a conflict with relatively little direct combat. In the Pacific, by contrast, improving U.S. forces means spending big dollars to outfit them with the latest hardware while also expanding the sprawling bases that will serve as "fortress hubs" for future operations in the region. In coming years, Pacific Command is gaining three permanent F-22 squadrons, 16 C-17 Globemaster airlifters, two additional nuclear attack submarines and the first Littoral Combat Ships, in addition to its present forces.
"Arms buildup? I wouldn't use that language," says Air Force Maj. David Griesmer from Pacific Command, which has its headquarters in Hawaii. "There's certainly an acknowledgment that Pacom is half the world. These capabilities need to either go on one side [of the world] or the other. The Asia-Pacific region is growing. It's the way of the future. There's a large amount of economic activity." Plus, he adds, "The six largest militaries are in this area," a reference to China, the U.S., Russia, India, North Korea and South Korea.
To many observers, in fact, the future looks a lot like the past--the Cold War, but with an Asian flair.
Indeed, the linchpin bases for U.S. Pacific strategy are both prizes from World War II to which the Cold War was a grand corollary. Okinawa, Japan's southernmost prefecture and the site of Kadena AB among other U.S. installations, was wrested from Japan during a three-month struggle in 1945, during which at least 200,000 people died. Guam, the other major U.S. hub in the Pacific, was invaded and occupied by Japan between 1941 and 1944. More than 20,000 people died when the U.S. retook the island.
The locations and geographies of the outposts dictate their roles. Despite being crowded and something of a political hot potato, Okinawa's proximity to the Taiwan Strait and the Korean Peninsula--just over an hour's flight to either--and the sheer size of Kadena, one of the largest U.S. air bases in the world, means it is indispensable as a base for short-range aircraft that must react quickly.
At Kadena, alongside 7,000 personnel, the USAF has permanently stationed more than 50 F-15s plus tankers, E-3 Sentry radar planes, HH-60G rescue choppers and Special Forces aircraft, all belonging to the 18th Wing. Elsewhere on Okinawa, the Marines fly F/A-18 Hornet fighters, tankers and helicopters. RC-135 Rivet Joint spy planes and EA-6B Prowler jammers are frequent guests. The Navy's six Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers, including the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63), homeported in Yokosuka, Japan, are also regular visitors to the area with their Hornets, F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, E-2C Hawkeye radar planes and helicopters. And in a crisis, perhaps hundreds of U.S.-based fighter aircraft would converge on Okinawa.
"Because of our capability to stage forces out of here--this is a huge runway--we do believe we have unmatched air power," says Kadena official John Monroe. "That's probably the most important thing about Kadena."
During testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, then Pacom chief, Navy Adm. William Fallon, and Army Gen. Burwell Bell, commander of U.S. forces in South Korea, seconded Monroe's assessment, announcing that U.S. Pacific forces maintain "overmatch" in the region, especially with regard to aircraft and ships. But Bell conceded that bomb and missile stockpiles were a potentially limiting factor.
That's a view the Air Force shares. Hence its investment in a 6,000-acre munitions storage area adjacent to the Kadena runway, the size of which exceeds that of many air bases elsewhere in the world. "We keep munitions for several types of aircraft because we are going to be a forward staging base," Monroe explains.
The F-22 deployment to Kadena, which began in February, is exercising the base's ability to support visiting fighter units in addition to testing the expeditionary skills of F-22 pilots and maintainers from the 27th Fighter Sqdn., which is part of the 1st Fighter Wing. And the deployment is paving the way for permanent basing of three Raptor squadrons in the region, starting with 18 jets for the Alaska-based 3rd Wing this year.
Many regions might have hosted the new fighter's first foreign deployment. But the Pacific is a perfect fit for the Raptor "because it can travel long distances," Griesmer says. The Raptor's range, while classified, exceeds that of most other fighters.
But 27th Fighter Sqdn. commander Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver says that, more than range, the Raptor's ability to penetrate air defenses--thanks to its speed, stealth and sensors--makes it uniquely qualified for Pacific duty as a trailblazer for all those follow-on forces Monroe describes. "There are a lot of countries out there that have developed highly integrated air-defense systems," Tolliver says. "The United States and its allies are used to going to a place and building up things prior to making an offensive. . . . What we need to do is take some of our assets that have special capabilities--B-2s, F-22s, F-117s--and roll back those integrated air-defense systems so we can bring in our joint forces."
From a training perspective, the Pacific is ideal for fighter pilots due to the high concentration of friendly jets for mock dogfighting, and because of the large number of tankers at Kadena and other bases. "Tanker capability is very important," Griesmer says of the Pacific. "Look at the map and see all the blue." But due to tanker shortages in the U.S. owing to the fleet's advanced age, the fighter pilots that might have to rely on aerial refueling during a Pacific surge find it difficult to keep up that perishable skill. "Normally, we tank about once a week because we're sharing tanking assets with other fighters on the East Coast," says Capt. Chris Gentile from the 27th Fighter Sqdn. But at Kadena, he and the other Raptor jockeys tank almost every day.
Distance, and its perils, define Pacific operations. Kadena's proximity to potential battlefields is an advantage for short-range fighters, but a liability too, since it's within range of North Korea's and China's tactical ballistic missiles. The U.S. Navy has deployed rudimentary sea-based missile defenses in the Sea of Japan in the form of Raytheon SM-3 Standard interceptors on board a handful of the 175 ships in the Pacific Fleet. As a backstop, in August the Army stationed a Lockheed Martin PAC-3 anti-missile battery at Kadena to protect the air base.
Guam, more than 1,000 mi. to the south, is protected from ballistic missiles by its distance, allowing the Army to postpone a planned PAC-3 deployment to the island to around 2012. What's more, while local political opposition has long plagued U.S. forces in Japan, the Chamorros of Guam mostly welcome the 12,000 military personnel on the island. "It may be easier for us to be there, as far as the diplomatic issue is concerned," Monroe says "but if we're in Guam, we're out of the fight" due to the distance.
This distance has shaped the force structure on Guam. For three years, the island's Andersen Air Base has hosted rotations of heavy bombers, tankers and patrol planes from the U.S., all assets with long ranges and long loiter times that mitigate the impact of distance on their operations. In February, the USAF activated the 36th Operations Group on the island to smooth the comings and goings of B-52H Stratofortresses, B-1B Lancers and B-2A Spirits. And this year, the Air Force will permanently station RQ-4B Global Hawk spy drones at Andersen. To support these aircraft plus the three attack submarines that began arriving in 2002, two more submarines that are planned and as many as 8,000 Marines from Okinawa, the Pentagon is investing up to $1 billion in construction over the next decade.
Okinawa and Guam thus fulfill complementary roles in U.S. Pacific strategy-the former as a staging base for short-range fighters, the latter as a safer, albeit more distant, base for bombers, drones and submarines.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Original Landowners Protest
Activists protest outside new nature center
by Jean Hudson, KUAM News
Sunday, April 29, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opening ceremony on Saturday for the new Nature Center at the National Wildlife Refuge in Ritidian was met with protest. The refurbished Navy facility sits on property that was once owned by Chamorro families, and when the military needed the properties for national defense, the properties were taken away through the condemnation process. But a few original landowners or their descendants say they weren't justly compensated, and one senator is trying to put a balance between the families and the purpose of the refuge.
Senator Jim Espaldon (R), who delivered opening remarks for Saturday's opening ceremony for the Nature Center, says the policy of the local government is to support the local people in its quest to right some wrongs in the past. But the freshman policymaker also presented a harsh reality, saying, "Land is a very dear and close to the heart-type of issue for the people of this island and especially now as we face a dramatic change in our island with the oncoming of the military buildup. We're going to see a lot more new businesses come in and we're going to see the dilution of the Chamorro people on their own island to become a minority in their own land."
The senator acknowledged that he was walking a very thin line when he attended the ceremony. Espaldon has oversight over the committees on Judiciary and Cultural Affairs, and sometimes those two matters conflict. Espaldon said, "What responsibilities do we have in terms of our culture? Do we allow people who come to our island to dictate how we are going to live and what kind of quality of life we're going to enjoy on this island? Or do we share with them exactly how we want this island to be and again it's not going to be an extreme, because yes even though we say this is exactly how it is - there's middle ground."
Members of The Chamorro Nation alongside original landowners and their families are protesting the presence of the Nature Center. Olympia Cruz says her family owned a little more than 7.5 acres of property in the Ritidian area, telling KUAM News, "They keep saying that we sold it. We never sold the land. I don't know where they get the ideal. And they say that we got compensated. Show us what compensation we had."
In reply, Senator Espaldon said, "Whether they were compensated justly or not is questionable. When you're under eminent domain proceedings and the government tells us that we need this land, you need to move, we will pay you for it - they have all the marbles on their side, what can you say?"
Catherine McCollum says her grandfather's Ritidian properties were also condemned. She stated, "The land was condemned, I believe, in 1963 and even then the only compensation they paid my grandfather was for a house was here. But continuation for compensation it never happened." Again, the senator said, "The local people have been very patriotic. They have always supported many of the doctrines and many of the principles that the American civilization was founded upon. But in the process every once in a while the consideration for the local people get lost."
Refuge manager Chris Bandy agreed with the senator, concurring that the refuge's purpose is to preserve the habitat for the benefit of future generations. He said, "It's something we'll have to work through. I think Senator Espaldon spoke well to the issue that we're all here. The refuge is not going to go away. We expect to have habitat here for your grandchildren and great-grandchildren. If some day the land becomes sovereign or the land reverts back to the people, as he said it'll be in as good a condition or better condition than when it was utilized in the 1960's."
"One thing that is reality today," said Espaldon, "is that even though it is our aspiration to get this land back from the federal government return it perhaps to the local people, the fact of the matter is that it is today under the control of the federal control and it is a wildlife refuge and it has the ability to preserve a good part of our cultural identity."
by Jean Hudson, KUAM News
Sunday, April 29, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opening ceremony on Saturday for the new Nature Center at the National Wildlife Refuge in Ritidian was met with protest. The refurbished Navy facility sits on property that was once owned by Chamorro families, and when the military needed the properties for national defense, the properties were taken away through the condemnation process. But a few original landowners or their descendants say they weren't justly compensated, and one senator is trying to put a balance between the families and the purpose of the refuge.
Senator Jim Espaldon (R), who delivered opening remarks for Saturday's opening ceremony for the Nature Center, says the policy of the local government is to support the local people in its quest to right some wrongs in the past. But the freshman policymaker also presented a harsh reality, saying, "Land is a very dear and close to the heart-type of issue for the people of this island and especially now as we face a dramatic change in our island with the oncoming of the military buildup. We're going to see a lot more new businesses come in and we're going to see the dilution of the Chamorro people on their own island to become a minority in their own land."
The senator acknowledged that he was walking a very thin line when he attended the ceremony. Espaldon has oversight over the committees on Judiciary and Cultural Affairs, and sometimes those two matters conflict. Espaldon said, "What responsibilities do we have in terms of our culture? Do we allow people who come to our island to dictate how we are going to live and what kind of quality of life we're going to enjoy on this island? Or do we share with them exactly how we want this island to be and again it's not going to be an extreme, because yes even though we say this is exactly how it is - there's middle ground."
Members of The Chamorro Nation alongside original landowners and their families are protesting the presence of the Nature Center. Olympia Cruz says her family owned a little more than 7.5 acres of property in the Ritidian area, telling KUAM News, "They keep saying that we sold it. We never sold the land. I don't know where they get the ideal. And they say that we got compensated. Show us what compensation we had."
In reply, Senator Espaldon said, "Whether they were compensated justly or not is questionable. When you're under eminent domain proceedings and the government tells us that we need this land, you need to move, we will pay you for it - they have all the marbles on their side, what can you say?"
Catherine McCollum says her grandfather's Ritidian properties were also condemned. She stated, "The land was condemned, I believe, in 1963 and even then the only compensation they paid my grandfather was for a house was here. But continuation for compensation it never happened." Again, the senator said, "The local people have been very patriotic. They have always supported many of the doctrines and many of the principles that the American civilization was founded upon. But in the process every once in a while the consideration for the local people get lost."
Refuge manager Chris Bandy agreed with the senator, concurring that the refuge's purpose is to preserve the habitat for the benefit of future generations. He said, "It's something we'll have to work through. I think Senator Espaldon spoke well to the issue that we're all here. The refuge is not going to go away. We expect to have habitat here for your grandchildren and great-grandchildren. If some day the land becomes sovereign or the land reverts back to the people, as he said it'll be in as good a condition or better condition than when it was utilized in the 1960's."
"One thing that is reality today," said Espaldon, "is that even though it is our aspiration to get this land back from the federal government return it perhaps to the local people, the fact of the matter is that it is today under the control of the federal control and it is a wildlife refuge and it has the ability to preserve a good part of our cultural identity."
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Terror Threat for Guam
Report warns Guam, CNMI
Post-9/11 report details terror threat
By Gaynor Dumat-ol Daleno
Pacific Daily News
gdumat-ol@guampdn.com
Guam and the Northern Marianas offer a "ready-made environment" for terror groups to launch attacks on U.S. facilities and personnel, according to a report that assessed security vulnerabilities on the islands in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks.
With the nation's security at stake and the islands vulnerable to terror groups, the report states that "the level of safeguards and federal control" on the islands has not measured up.
A federal government regional security specialist prepared the report five years ago, but it has resurfaced in light of the federal conspiracy case filed earlier last week against Mark D. Zachares.
Zachares, a former Northern Marianas Cabinet official and ex-congressional staffer, said he used his job while still employed in the U.S. Congress to seek a copy of the report at the request of now disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Zachares pleaded guilty on April 24 and is cooperating with authorities in the widening investigation into public corruption and Abramoff's lobbying activities. Abramoff has pleaded guilty to corruption and fraud charges.
The prosecution's case against Zachares in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia states that he used his various positions as congressional staffer to obtain insider information for Abramoff in exchange for a "steady stream" of gifts from the lobbyist and his associates.
Zachares in plea documents admitted that he accepted $10,000 in two wire transfers, a golfing trip to Scotland that included luxury accommodations, and a $160,000 Gulfstream charter jet service; and $30,000 worth of tickets to sporting events and concerts in the Washington, D.C., area.
Zachares is cooperating with prosecutors and, according to his plea agreement, has to provide "substantial assistance" in the ongoing federal investigation.
The security assessment report wasn't meant to be seen by lobbyists like Abramoff, who at the time was being paid by the Northern Marianas government to fight any federal attempt to take away immigration powers from the CNMI government.
'High-risk environment'
Local immigration control in the CNMI has helped the local economy tap into foreign workers' skills for lower than U.S. minimum wage, but at the same time, CNMI control of immigration has become a loophole in the tight federal screening of foreigners entering other parts of the United States, including Guam, according to previous PDN interviews with authorities.
The 2002 report states if the "high-risk environment is allowed to stand, it will continue to threaten federal and public interests and seriously jeopardize the national security of the United States."
Guam Delegate Madeleine Bordallo last week said: "It is an egregious breach of the public trust for a federal employee to provide a classified government report to a lobbyist for private gain.
"I would not go so far as to say our nation's security was compromised," the delegate said, "but I would say that classified information is classified for a reason."
Since the Abramoff public corruption scandal broke more than a year ago, the Democrats in the U.S. Congress have tightened the House rules, but Democrats say more should be done to "eradicate the corrupt lobbying practices that the Abramoff scandals represent."
Abramoff was paid about $7 million by the Northern Marianas government between 1998 and 2002, according to Zachares' plea documents.
Meissner report
The 2002 security report strongly recommended tighter scrutiny of foreigners entering the islands, in part by applying U.S. immigration law in the Northern Marianas and positioning federal Customs agents at Guam points of entry for passengers and cargo.
The report is labeled "sensitive -- for limited official use only".
R. G. Meissner, a regional security specialist with the U.S. Attorney's Office East District of Virginia prepared the report on April 25, 2002.
The report was prepared at the request of Frederick Black, then-acting U.S. Attorney for the Districts of Guam and the CNMI.
According to the report, Meissner visited both districts in January and February 2002. Meissner said federal law enforcement officials, and a variety of military and territorial officials were consulted.
Previously compiled documents, surveys, reports, newspaper articles and other information pertaining to security-related actions also were reviewed, according to the report.
The CNMI, according to CNMI Attorney General Matthew Gregory, also is "a victim of the Abramoff conspiracy in other ways, not only in the overcharging of lobbying fees, but most significantly in the besmirching of the commonwealth's reputation."
Gregory stated, in a written comment, that the report "is primarily focused on physical security," of federal offices on the islands and emphasizes obtaining additional funding from Washington.
"CNMI immigration is mentioned almost as an afterthought," Gregory stated.
'Single most cause of concern'
The report states that the lack of oversight by federal immigration law enforcers over the screening of foreigners entering the CNMI is "the single most cause of concern" expressed by all federal law enforcement officials who provided input for the report.
Abramoff allegedly used his connections at the Justice Department to suppress the security-risk assessment report, according to a January 2006 statement from California Rep. George Miller and several other Democratic members of Congress.
The report was never acted upon, according to the statement from the congressional Democrats.
"The entire justice system lacks credibility when ... lobbyists are permitted to gain access to information that they cannot legally have," according John Conyers, senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, in the January 2006 joint statement that also included the signature of Bordallo.
The risk assessment report was made at the request of Black, the acting Assistant U.S. Attorney on Guam and the CNMI at the time, according to a Justice Department Office of Inspector General report last year.
Examples cited
Prepared seven months after 9/11, the report lists examples of the presence of certain people or groups on the islands that raise security concerns:
A man who claimed to be Iranian attempted to enter Guam using forged documents, and immediately requested asylum when arrested.
"Federal authorities fear that this individual is from Kabul and has terrorist ties," the report noted.
During a routine discussion between a member of the U.S. Attorney's Office and an official of the Guam airport agency, it was learned that the Guam airport received letters from three different addresses within Iraq.
"Each letter contained a request for maps, posters and promotional materials about Guam and the airport," the security report stated. "The information was compiled and was being readied for dispatch when it was discovered by a supervisor who brought the requests to the attention of higher management. No materials or information were provided."
Al-Qaida concern
Past incidents provide sufficient indication that Guam and the CNMI are being considered as possible targets for terrorist activity, according to the report.
It mentions a "bio-terrorism threat" that was received at several local government locations.
The threat was credited to al-Qaida "as much as one year prior to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center," according to the report.
The identification of possible al-Qaida "cell members and other highly questionable individuals foster additional concern," according to the report.
"Additionally, there is a growing sentiment among federal officials that since the attacks against U.S. sites in Malaysia and Singapore were foiled, Guam and the CNMI have ... been moved up on a list of potential targets in the Pacific. These factors and others create a valid concern," according to the five-year-old security report.
While the report was being prepared, according to Meissner, a federal attorney on Guam was attempting to gather "open-source information" -- for the report -- about bombings in the Philippines.
But in the process of doing the electronic research, according to the report, the federal attorney's anti-hacking software warned that "the online activity was being monitored from a source in Pakistan."
Transnational crime organizations
The report made a host of recommendations, but it's unclear whether the recommendations were ever followed.
Besides beefing up Guam and Northern Marianas border security with federal law enforcers, the report also recommended "continuous on-island oversight of financial transactions ... to curtail the activities of transnational criminal organizations."
The report states there's indication of presence of Japanese, Russian, Chinese and other organized crime groups in the Northern Marianas.
"It would also provide U.S. authorities a means to monitor and prevent a flow of funding to terrorist groups and the countries that sponsor and support their efforts," according to the report.
"The presence of several transnational criminal organizations on Guam and in the CNMI coupled with the lack of federal immigration, customs and interdiction patrols present a critical vulnerability to the federal government and a ready made environment for terrorist groups to perpetrate any number of actions," according to the report.
'Done all they can'
U.S. Attorney Leonardo Rapadas, who covers Guam and replaced Black in the CNMI, said in a written response to e-mailed comments from the PDN: "All matters related to the Abramoff case are being handled by the Task Force from the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C."
But he said federal efforts on the island continue to be geared toward protecting the islands against security threats.
"We want to assure those who reside on Guam and in the CNMI that federal and local authorities have done all they can to protect their safety," Rapadas said. "Our efforts are continuing, we are at all times seeking to strengthen and improve the defenses against terrorist and national security threats."
Originally published April 30, 2007
Post-9/11 report details terror threat
By Gaynor Dumat-ol Daleno
Pacific Daily News
gdumat-ol@guampdn.com
Guam and the Northern Marianas offer a "ready-made environment" for terror groups to launch attacks on U.S. facilities and personnel, according to a report that assessed security vulnerabilities on the islands in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks.
With the nation's security at stake and the islands vulnerable to terror groups, the report states that "the level of safeguards and federal control" on the islands has not measured up.
A federal government regional security specialist prepared the report five years ago, but it has resurfaced in light of the federal conspiracy case filed earlier last week against Mark D. Zachares.
Zachares, a former Northern Marianas Cabinet official and ex-congressional staffer, said he used his job while still employed in the U.S. Congress to seek a copy of the report at the request of now disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Zachares pleaded guilty on April 24 and is cooperating with authorities in the widening investigation into public corruption and Abramoff's lobbying activities. Abramoff has pleaded guilty to corruption and fraud charges.
The prosecution's case against Zachares in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia states that he used his various positions as congressional staffer to obtain insider information for Abramoff in exchange for a "steady stream" of gifts from the lobbyist and his associates.
Zachares in plea documents admitted that he accepted $10,000 in two wire transfers, a golfing trip to Scotland that included luxury accommodations, and a $160,000 Gulfstream charter jet service; and $30,000 worth of tickets to sporting events and concerts in the Washington, D.C., area.
Zachares is cooperating with prosecutors and, according to his plea agreement, has to provide "substantial assistance" in the ongoing federal investigation.
The security assessment report wasn't meant to be seen by lobbyists like Abramoff, who at the time was being paid by the Northern Marianas government to fight any federal attempt to take away immigration powers from the CNMI government.
'High-risk environment'
Local immigration control in the CNMI has helped the local economy tap into foreign workers' skills for lower than U.S. minimum wage, but at the same time, CNMI control of immigration has become a loophole in the tight federal screening of foreigners entering other parts of the United States, including Guam, according to previous PDN interviews with authorities.
The 2002 report states if the "high-risk environment is allowed to stand, it will continue to threaten federal and public interests and seriously jeopardize the national security of the United States."
Guam Delegate Madeleine Bordallo last week said: "It is an egregious breach of the public trust for a federal employee to provide a classified government report to a lobbyist for private gain.
"I would not go so far as to say our nation's security was compromised," the delegate said, "but I would say that classified information is classified for a reason."
Since the Abramoff public corruption scandal broke more than a year ago, the Democrats in the U.S. Congress have tightened the House rules, but Democrats say more should be done to "eradicate the corrupt lobbying practices that the Abramoff scandals represent."
Abramoff was paid about $7 million by the Northern Marianas government between 1998 and 2002, according to Zachares' plea documents.
Meissner report
The 2002 security report strongly recommended tighter scrutiny of foreigners entering the islands, in part by applying U.S. immigration law in the Northern Marianas and positioning federal Customs agents at Guam points of entry for passengers and cargo.
The report is labeled "sensitive -- for limited official use only".
R. G. Meissner, a regional security specialist with the U.S. Attorney's Office East District of Virginia prepared the report on April 25, 2002.
The report was prepared at the request of Frederick Black, then-acting U.S. Attorney for the Districts of Guam and the CNMI.
According to the report, Meissner visited both districts in January and February 2002. Meissner said federal law enforcement officials, and a variety of military and territorial officials were consulted.
Previously compiled documents, surveys, reports, newspaper articles and other information pertaining to security-related actions also were reviewed, according to the report.
The CNMI, according to CNMI Attorney General Matthew Gregory, also is "a victim of the Abramoff conspiracy in other ways, not only in the overcharging of lobbying fees, but most significantly in the besmirching of the commonwealth's reputation."
Gregory stated, in a written comment, that the report "is primarily focused on physical security," of federal offices on the islands and emphasizes obtaining additional funding from Washington.
"CNMI immigration is mentioned almost as an afterthought," Gregory stated.
'Single most cause of concern'
The report states that the lack of oversight by federal immigration law enforcers over the screening of foreigners entering the CNMI is "the single most cause of concern" expressed by all federal law enforcement officials who provided input for the report.
Abramoff allegedly used his connections at the Justice Department to suppress the security-risk assessment report, according to a January 2006 statement from California Rep. George Miller and several other Democratic members of Congress.
The report was never acted upon, according to the statement from the congressional Democrats.
"The entire justice system lacks credibility when ... lobbyists are permitted to gain access to information that they cannot legally have," according John Conyers, senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, in the January 2006 joint statement that also included the signature of Bordallo.
The risk assessment report was made at the request of Black, the acting Assistant U.S. Attorney on Guam and the CNMI at the time, according to a Justice Department Office of Inspector General report last year.
Examples cited
Prepared seven months after 9/11, the report lists examples of the presence of certain people or groups on the islands that raise security concerns:
A man who claimed to be Iranian attempted to enter Guam using forged documents, and immediately requested asylum when arrested.
"Federal authorities fear that this individual is from Kabul and has terrorist ties," the report noted.
During a routine discussion between a member of the U.S. Attorney's Office and an official of the Guam airport agency, it was learned that the Guam airport received letters from three different addresses within Iraq.
"Each letter contained a request for maps, posters and promotional materials about Guam and the airport," the security report stated. "The information was compiled and was being readied for dispatch when it was discovered by a supervisor who brought the requests to the attention of higher management. No materials or information were provided."
Al-Qaida concern
Past incidents provide sufficient indication that Guam and the CNMI are being considered as possible targets for terrorist activity, according to the report.
It mentions a "bio-terrorism threat" that was received at several local government locations.
The threat was credited to al-Qaida "as much as one year prior to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center," according to the report.
The identification of possible al-Qaida "cell members and other highly questionable individuals foster additional concern," according to the report.
"Additionally, there is a growing sentiment among federal officials that since the attacks against U.S. sites in Malaysia and Singapore were foiled, Guam and the CNMI have ... been moved up on a list of potential targets in the Pacific. These factors and others create a valid concern," according to the five-year-old security report.
While the report was being prepared, according to Meissner, a federal attorney on Guam was attempting to gather "open-source information" -- for the report -- about bombings in the Philippines.
But in the process of doing the electronic research, according to the report, the federal attorney's anti-hacking software warned that "the online activity was being monitored from a source in Pakistan."
Transnational crime organizations
The report made a host of recommendations, but it's unclear whether the recommendations were ever followed.
Besides beefing up Guam and Northern Marianas border security with federal law enforcers, the report also recommended "continuous on-island oversight of financial transactions ... to curtail the activities of transnational criminal organizations."
The report states there's indication of presence of Japanese, Russian, Chinese and other organized crime groups in the Northern Marianas.
"It would also provide U.S. authorities a means to monitor and prevent a flow of funding to terrorist groups and the countries that sponsor and support their efforts," according to the report.
"The presence of several transnational criminal organizations on Guam and in the CNMI coupled with the lack of federal immigration, customs and interdiction patrols present a critical vulnerability to the federal government and a ready made environment for terrorist groups to perpetrate any number of actions," according to the report.
'Done all they can'
U.S. Attorney Leonardo Rapadas, who covers Guam and replaced Black in the CNMI, said in a written response to e-mailed comments from the PDN: "All matters related to the Abramoff case are being handled by the Task Force from the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C."
But he said federal efforts on the island continue to be geared toward protecting the islands against security threats.
"We want to assure those who reside on Guam and in the CNMI that federal and local authorities have done all they can to protect their safety," Rapadas said. "Our efforts are continuing, we are at all times seeking to strengthen and improve the defenses against terrorist and national security threats."
Originally published April 30, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
Near Continuous CNMI Presence
The Saipan Tribune
Friday, April 20, 2007
'Near continuous' presence of Marines expected
By Agnes E. Donato
Reporter
The U.S. military held a public meeting on Saipan last night to hear what local residents have to say about the planned relocation of 8,000 Marines to Guam.
The Joint Guam Program Office will hold a similar public meeting on Tinian from 5pm to 9pm today.
The open house public scoping meetings are being conducted to allow for public comment on the Environmental Impact Statement, which the military is writing in support of the proposed military buildup in Guam.
The exact number of people who attended the meeting could not immediately be ascertained as people would come and go. Nearly a hundred people were present during the early part of the public meeting.
JGPO executive director David F. Bice said the Commonwealth, especially Tinian, is expected to house training facilities when the Marines complete their transfer from Okinawa.
Although a permanent relocation of military personnel is unlikely, Tinian and other areas on the islands can expect a “near-continuous” presence of Marines training, Bice said.
“The likelihood and concept that the Marines will look at is to build ranges and facilities there. Not necessarily permanent brick and mortar facilities, but more of an expeditionary base camp-we call them warm bases-where they fall in on and operate out of. So you'd have barracks and maintenance facilities to support the Marines as they're training,” he said in an interview Thursday afternoon.
Bice said the relocation program would open a lot of opportunities for the government and local businesses to partner with the U.S. Department of Defense.
The military will need the government's assistance in providing power and water supply, and possibly road access, to its facilities. The private sector will be called upon to offer services and support.
“We would love to see an expansion in what we call the secondary market. People may not necessarily go and do construction, but there will be great need for information technology and services and support,” Bice said.
He offered this advice to local businesses looking to benefit from the military transfer: “Look into your strategic goals, see how you're set up-your financing, bonding capacity and training capacity. If you do need to retool and retrain your people, start now so they can be aligned to meet future requirements. Construction is going to start in less than three years; that's not very far away, particularly if you're trying to get ready.”
Bice said the military will conduct a series of industry forums o=in Guam in July or August to allow for networking between big industry and local business.
Friday, April 20, 2007
'Near continuous' presence of Marines expected
By Agnes E. Donato
Reporter
The U.S. military held a public meeting on Saipan last night to hear what local residents have to say about the planned relocation of 8,000 Marines to Guam.
The Joint Guam Program Office will hold a similar public meeting on Tinian from 5pm to 9pm today.
The open house public scoping meetings are being conducted to allow for public comment on the Environmental Impact Statement, which the military is writing in support of the proposed military buildup in Guam.
The exact number of people who attended the meeting could not immediately be ascertained as people would come and go. Nearly a hundred people were present during the early part of the public meeting.
JGPO executive director David F. Bice said the Commonwealth, especially Tinian, is expected to house training facilities when the Marines complete their transfer from Okinawa.
Although a permanent relocation of military personnel is unlikely, Tinian and other areas on the islands can expect a “near-continuous” presence of Marines training, Bice said.
“The likelihood and concept that the Marines will look at is to build ranges and facilities there. Not necessarily permanent brick and mortar facilities, but more of an expeditionary base camp-we call them warm bases-where they fall in on and operate out of. So you'd have barracks and maintenance facilities to support the Marines as they're training,” he said in an interview Thursday afternoon.
Bice said the relocation program would open a lot of opportunities for the government and local businesses to partner with the U.S. Department of Defense.
The military will need the government's assistance in providing power and water supply, and possibly road access, to its facilities. The private sector will be called upon to offer services and support.
“We would love to see an expansion in what we call the secondary market. People may not necessarily go and do construction, but there will be great need for information technology and services and support,” Bice said.
He offered this advice to local businesses looking to benefit from the military transfer: “Look into your strategic goals, see how you're set up-your financing, bonding capacity and training capacity. If you do need to retool and retrain your people, start now so they can be aligned to meet future requirements. Construction is going to start in less than three years; that's not very far away, particularly if you're trying to get ready.”
Bice said the military will conduct a series of industry forums o=in Guam in July or August to allow for networking between big industry and local business.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Report Recommends Military Build up in the Pacific
Report Recommends US Military Buildup in Pacific
By Gaynor Dumat-ol Daleno
HAGATNA, Guam (Pacific Daily News, April 13) – The U.S. government "should
give serious consideration" to shifting the balance of its naval forces from
the Atlantic to the Pacific, and beef up its military muscle on Guam as part
of the shift, according to a think-tank's report, released Tuesday in
Washington, D.C.
China's potential to become the U.S. military's next military rival is the
reason for the report's suggestion.
The 129-page report, "U.S.-China Relations: An Affirmative Agenda, A
Responsible Course," was released by a task force of the Council on Foreign
Relations.
Retired Pacific Command chief Adm. Dennis Blair and former U.S. Trade
Representative Carla Hills led the task force.
The report suggested further military buildup on Guam beyond the island's
future role as host to thousands of members of the U.S. Marines who will be
relocated from Okinawa.
The Marines' relocation to Guam is expected to cost US$10 billion that the
U.S. government and Japanese governments are expected to co-pay.
"The United States should sustain and selectively enhance its force posture
in Asia, ensuring it has capabilities commensurate with the region's growing
importance to the U.S. economy and other vital national interests,"
according to the task force's report.
"Improvements to U.S. military facilities on Guam should continue, not only
to relieve some of the burden on Okinawa, but also to upgrade the overall
capabilities of U.S. Pacific forces," according to the report.
The U.S. and China now "have a relationship that was truly unimaginable two
generations ago," according to Council on Foreign Relations President
Richard Haass in a foreword to the report.
But at the same time, the report's overall message also includes this: the
U.S. "should be clear that any aggressive behavior on China's part would be
met with strong opposition," according to Haass.
And to be ready in the event China becomes militarily aggressive, the report
states the U.S. naval forces' focus should shift from the Atlantic.
"The maritime interests of the United States in the future are increasingly
in the Asia-Pacific region, and the stationing of its naval forces should be
aligned with this trend," according to the report.
In the near future, the Washington Times quotes Blair as saying, the task
force does not think China will become a "peer competitor" of the U.S.
military.
But the report also includes partly dissenting views of certain task force
members.
"China has already increased its ability to challenge American military
preponderance in the Western Pacific," wrote task force member Aaron
Friedberg.
And Friedberg added, "maintaining a favorable balance of power will not be
easy, especially at a time when U.S. attention and resources are likely to
remain divided between Asia and the Middle East."
The 30-member task force also includes former Defense Secretary Harold
Brown, and former State Department officials Winston Lord, Wendy Sherman and
Randy Schriver.
By Gaynor Dumat-ol Daleno
HAGATNA, Guam (Pacific Daily News, April 13) – The U.S. government "should
give serious consideration" to shifting the balance of its naval forces from
the Atlantic to the Pacific, and beef up its military muscle on Guam as part
of the shift, according to a think-tank's report, released Tuesday in
Washington, D.C.
China's potential to become the U.S. military's next military rival is the
reason for the report's suggestion.
The 129-page report, "U.S.-China Relations: An Affirmative Agenda, A
Responsible Course," was released by a task force of the Council on Foreign
Relations.
Retired Pacific Command chief Adm. Dennis Blair and former U.S. Trade
Representative Carla Hills led the task force.
The report suggested further military buildup on Guam beyond the island's
future role as host to thousands of members of the U.S. Marines who will be
relocated from Okinawa.
The Marines' relocation to Guam is expected to cost US$10 billion that the
U.S. government and Japanese governments are expected to co-pay.
"The United States should sustain and selectively enhance its force posture
in Asia, ensuring it has capabilities commensurate with the region's growing
importance to the U.S. economy and other vital national interests,"
according to the task force's report.
"Improvements to U.S. military facilities on Guam should continue, not only
to relieve some of the burden on Okinawa, but also to upgrade the overall
capabilities of U.S. Pacific forces," according to the report.
The U.S. and China now "have a relationship that was truly unimaginable two
generations ago," according to Council on Foreign Relations President
Richard Haass in a foreword to the report.
But at the same time, the report's overall message also includes this: the
U.S. "should be clear that any aggressive behavior on China's part would be
met with strong opposition," according to Haass.
And to be ready in the event China becomes militarily aggressive, the report
states the U.S. naval forces' focus should shift from the Atlantic.
"The maritime interests of the United States in the future are increasingly
in the Asia-Pacific region, and the stationing of its naval forces should be
aligned with this trend," according to the report.
In the near future, the Washington Times quotes Blair as saying, the task
force does not think China will become a "peer competitor" of the U.S.
military.
But the report also includes partly dissenting views of certain task force
members.
"China has already increased its ability to challenge American military
preponderance in the Western Pacific," wrote task force member Aaron
Friedberg.
And Friedberg added, "maintaining a favorable balance of power will not be
easy, especially at a time when U.S. attention and resources are likely to
remain divided between Asia and the Middle East."
The 30-member task force also includes former Defense Secretary Harold
Brown, and former State Department officials Winston Lord, Wendy Sherman and
Randy Schriver.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Navy Carrier Goes To San Diego Instead of Guam
Navy carrier goes to San Diego
By Dionesis Tamondong
Pacific Sunday News
dtamondong@guampdn.com
and The Associated Press
April 1, 2007
The Navy yesterday announced its decision to base the USS Carl Vinson in San Diego, choosing the city over three other locations, including Guam.
Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter selected San Diego after evaluating a number of factors, including existing infrastructure, family support facilities and proximity to training areas.
Guam, Hawaii and Washington state were the other areas that military officials were considering to be the new home port for the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
Delegate Madeleine Bordallo yesterday spoke with Winter prior to the announcement.
"I know that the Navy looked closely at each of the homeport locations, including Guam, and that they weighed the benefits and costs of each option," Bordallo stated in a news release. "I strongly support the decision to move an additional carrier to the Pacific, and we know that its presence in the region will benefit Guam."
Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, said the decision reaffirms the Navy's commitment in the region and responds to the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, which called for six of the Navy's 11 carrier strike groups to be in the Pacific.
The Navy currently has five aircraft carriers in the Pacific, including the USS Nimitz and the USS Ronald Reagan based in San Diego. Two others are in Bremerton, Wash. and one at a U.S. Navy base in Yokosuka, Japan.
The transfer of a sixth aircraft carrier to the Pacific will bolster the Navy's capabilities and posture in the Pacific, and bode well for the security of Guam and the region, Bordallo said.
She added that the increased carrier presence in the Pacific also will bring economic benefits for Guam through port visits and training exercises in the region.
The aircraft carrier, with its crew of more than 5,000 sailors and Marines, will be ready to move to its new homeport in early 2010.
The island's business community and the island's leadership had pushed for Guam's selection as a carrier homeport so the island can benefit from new jobs and additional tax revenue.
"I have no doubt that the strategic location of our island is important for our country. The decision to relocate Marines from Okinawa to Guam is evidence of this fact and brings with it its own set of opportunities for our community," Bordallo said.
By Dionesis Tamondong
Pacific Sunday News
dtamondong@guampdn.com
and The Associated Press
April 1, 2007
The Navy yesterday announced its decision to base the USS Carl Vinson in San Diego, choosing the city over three other locations, including Guam.
Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter selected San Diego after evaluating a number of factors, including existing infrastructure, family support facilities and proximity to training areas.
Guam, Hawaii and Washington state were the other areas that military officials were considering to be the new home port for the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
Delegate Madeleine Bordallo yesterday spoke with Winter prior to the announcement.
"I know that the Navy looked closely at each of the homeport locations, including Guam, and that they weighed the benefits and costs of each option," Bordallo stated in a news release. "I strongly support the decision to move an additional carrier to the Pacific, and we know that its presence in the region will benefit Guam."
Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, said the decision reaffirms the Navy's commitment in the region and responds to the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, which called for six of the Navy's 11 carrier strike groups to be in the Pacific.
The Navy currently has five aircraft carriers in the Pacific, including the USS Nimitz and the USS Ronald Reagan based in San Diego. Two others are in Bremerton, Wash. and one at a U.S. Navy base in Yokosuka, Japan.
The transfer of a sixth aircraft carrier to the Pacific will bolster the Navy's capabilities and posture in the Pacific, and bode well for the security of Guam and the region, Bordallo said.
She added that the increased carrier presence in the Pacific also will bring economic benefits for Guam through port visits and training exercises in the region.
The aircraft carrier, with its crew of more than 5,000 sailors and Marines, will be ready to move to its new homeport in early 2010.
The island's business community and the island's leadership had pushed for Guam's selection as a carrier homeport so the island can benefit from new jobs and additional tax revenue.
"I have no doubt that the strategic location of our island is important for our country. The decision to relocate Marines from Okinawa to Guam is evidence of this fact and brings with it its own set of opportunities for our community," Bordallo said.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Privitaization Is Not A Panacea
Privatization is not a magic bullet -- each case must be carefully evaluated
By Frank T. Ishizaki
The Pacific Daily News
March 25, 2007
Privatization is such a popular buzzword that can be both vogue and scary. We need to carefully approach any privatization effort by asking basic questions, weighing risk and benefits, and considering how to deal with current employees. While I believe that certain governmental functions can be partially or fully privatized, we must proceed carefully.
Possible areas for consideration might include: food services; solid waste collection, recycling, and landfill operations; billing and collection of accounts receivable and inventory control; medical services; equipment maintenance and repair; certain human resource functions.
I note that the Pacific Daily News in its editorials over the past few years has been strongly advocating that we privatize the operations of the prison. Four years ago, when I was director of corrections, the governor instructed me to proceed with the privatization of prison operations. As a result, I did extensive research on the subject by contacting key officials from the National Institute of Corrections and consulted with several of my correctional colleagues. One director told me that he oversees several prisons in his state and that there was no significant cost differential between state-operated facilities versus contractor-operated facilities. He further told me that contract management and operational monitoring were his challenges to ensure that privately operated prisons minimize the state's liabilities from failure to maintain health, safety and environmental standards.
After much review, I concluded that privatization of DOC operations was not going to be cost-effective and recommended against the proposal to privatize. In summary, responsibility for the care of inmates and the liabilities associated with any failures in the operation of the prison, to include security, health care, treatment and rehabilitation, cannot be outsourced. The government continues to own those responsibilities in spite of outsourcing operations.
A key component to my rejection of privatization of the prison was that prison management companies (which are, after all, businesses and have a profit motive and are constantly looking at the bottom line) are known to get in the door by submitting low-ball bids in order to win contracts and move, in subsequent years after the bid is awarded, to renegotiate the contract to increase fees by reporting operational losses. In the meantime, the basic prison infrastructure will have been destroyed and any future attempt by the government to reoccupy and operate the prison will be significantly more costly.
In 2003, a visiting official from the NIC told me that he had been on island several years prior to my tenure as director of corrections. At that time, the topic of privatization had been thoroughly discussed and feelers had actually been put out to see if there were any interested bidders. There were no interested "investors/bidders." He informed me that one huge but basic difficulty in privatizing DOC is the infrastructure of the facility. The layout of the structures, which are spread out in "cottage" fashion all over the "campus," does not lend itself to efficient operations. The recommendation would be that new, multi-story facilities be built to replace the existing typhoon-damaged buildings, which currently house, at any given time, up to 600 inmates.
Key components to successful privatization of services are good contract management and operational oversight. We generally have low marks in these areas and risk greater problems if we privatize prison operations. If we cannot find cost savings in a privatization move, why proceed?
As a model, DOC privatized the meal services and was able to immediately reduce the cost of feeding inmates. As this endeavor has been in operation for three years, we now need to evaluate the program to determine if it has met our expectations. To answer some of my questions concerning this particular privatization effort, I recently requested the assistance of Professor Ron McNinch. I wanted him to conduct a privatization assessment of the GTA, GPSS food services, and the DOC food-service contracts. He has volunteered and will be conducting an analysis, with the assistance of his students, as a class project -- at no cost to our government. I eagerly await the results and trust that his report will help us determine if privatization has been successfully carried out in these situations.
In summary, privatization has great potential to improve our effectiveness and efficiency, but we must proceed carefully and intelligently. We must not take a shotgun approach but rather should focus on each entity in question on a case-by-case basis.
Senator Frank T. Ishizaki is a senator in the 29th Guam Legislature, a former chief of police and former director of corrections.
By Frank T. Ishizaki
The Pacific Daily News
March 25, 2007
Privatization is such a popular buzzword that can be both vogue and scary. We need to carefully approach any privatization effort by asking basic questions, weighing risk and benefits, and considering how to deal with current employees. While I believe that certain governmental functions can be partially or fully privatized, we must proceed carefully.
Possible areas for consideration might include: food services; solid waste collection, recycling, and landfill operations; billing and collection of accounts receivable and inventory control; medical services; equipment maintenance and repair; certain human resource functions.
I note that the Pacific Daily News in its editorials over the past few years has been strongly advocating that we privatize the operations of the prison. Four years ago, when I was director of corrections, the governor instructed me to proceed with the privatization of prison operations. As a result, I did extensive research on the subject by contacting key officials from the National Institute of Corrections and consulted with several of my correctional colleagues. One director told me that he oversees several prisons in his state and that there was no significant cost differential between state-operated facilities versus contractor-operated facilities. He further told me that contract management and operational monitoring were his challenges to ensure that privately operated prisons minimize the state's liabilities from failure to maintain health, safety and environmental standards.
After much review, I concluded that privatization of DOC operations was not going to be cost-effective and recommended against the proposal to privatize. In summary, responsibility for the care of inmates and the liabilities associated with any failures in the operation of the prison, to include security, health care, treatment and rehabilitation, cannot be outsourced. The government continues to own those responsibilities in spite of outsourcing operations.
A key component to my rejection of privatization of the prison was that prison management companies (which are, after all, businesses and have a profit motive and are constantly looking at the bottom line) are known to get in the door by submitting low-ball bids in order to win contracts and move, in subsequent years after the bid is awarded, to renegotiate the contract to increase fees by reporting operational losses. In the meantime, the basic prison infrastructure will have been destroyed and any future attempt by the government to reoccupy and operate the prison will be significantly more costly.
In 2003, a visiting official from the NIC told me that he had been on island several years prior to my tenure as director of corrections. At that time, the topic of privatization had been thoroughly discussed and feelers had actually been put out to see if there were any interested bidders. There were no interested "investors/bidders." He informed me that one huge but basic difficulty in privatizing DOC is the infrastructure of the facility. The layout of the structures, which are spread out in "cottage" fashion all over the "campus," does not lend itself to efficient operations. The recommendation would be that new, multi-story facilities be built to replace the existing typhoon-damaged buildings, which currently house, at any given time, up to 600 inmates.
Key components to successful privatization of services are good contract management and operational oversight. We generally have low marks in these areas and risk greater problems if we privatize prison operations. If we cannot find cost savings in a privatization move, why proceed?
As a model, DOC privatized the meal services and was able to immediately reduce the cost of feeding inmates. As this endeavor has been in operation for three years, we now need to evaluate the program to determine if it has met our expectations. To answer some of my questions concerning this particular privatization effort, I recently requested the assistance of Professor Ron McNinch. I wanted him to conduct a privatization assessment of the GTA, GPSS food services, and the DOC food-service contracts. He has volunteered and will be conducting an analysis, with the assistance of his students, as a class project -- at no cost to our government. I eagerly await the results and trust that his report will help us determine if privatization has been successfully carried out in these situations.
In summary, privatization has great potential to improve our effectiveness and efficiency, but we must proceed carefully and intelligently. We must not take a shotgun approach but rather should focus on each entity in question on a case-by-case basis.
Senator Frank T. Ishizaki is a senator in the 29th Guam Legislature, a former chief of police and former director of corrections.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Guam: What the Pentagon Forgets It Already Has
Looking for Friendly Overseas Base, Pentagon Finds It Already Has One
April 7, 2004
New York Times
By JAMES BROOKE
ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, Guam - Washed by a southwesterly Pacific breeze, a line of B-52 Stratofortress bombers stand parked on the hot tarmac here, their tails stenciled with "MT," a reminder that they flew here recently from the snows of Minot, N.D.
Away for more than a decade, the B-52's, the United States' largest bombers, are back in Guam, part of a wide-ranging drive by the Pentagon to make this island, an American territory, a "power projection hub" on the edge of Asia.
"We are openly talking about putting a fighter wing there, a tanker squadron there, a Global Hawk group there," Gen. William J. Begert, Pacific Air Forces commander, said by telephone from Hawaii, almost 4,000 miles east of here. The Global Hawk is an unmanned surveillance plane.
"Guam, first of all, is U.S. territory," General Begert said. "I don't need overflight rights. I don't need landing rights. I always have permission to go to Guam. It might as well be California or New Jersey."
Next year, Washington is to decide on a new round of base closings, the first in a decade. Opening the debate, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reported to Congress on March 23 that the military had 24 percent more base capacity than it needed.
Judging by Mr. Rumsfeld's comments after his trip here last November, Guam will be a winner in the base-closing process. This volcanic, 209-square-mile island, with a population of about 160,000, fits the Pentagon's new strategy of creating "lily pads" to allow for the rapid deployment of military muscle.
"Rumsfeld keeps saying, `What about Guam? Let's build up Guam,' " said an American diplomat in Tokyo, where the defense secretary stopped after visiting here.
The Navy loss its base at Subic Bay, the Philippines, in 1992 after the Philippine Senate refused to extend the lease, and American memories of that remain sharp. The diplomat added, "We don't want to be somewhere where they don't want us, where they can throw us out."
At the naval station here, Rear Adm. Arthur J. Johnson, the commander, said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had raised Guam's strategic value as the Pentagon realized the usefulness of an all-American outpost in Asia. "We invested huge amounts of money in facilities we could not use when we needed them, for example, Saudi Arabia," Admiral Johnson said. "Places where the U.S. is autonomous have come greatly to the fore."
Military officials here declined to discuss how Guam would fit into an American response to the rapid rise of China. But by moving ships and submarines to Guam, the Pentagon cuts "the tyranny of distance," trimming five days off a Pacific crossing from Hawaii, said Richard Halloran, a military analyst based in Hawaii.
"A lot of these moves are intended to deter China," Mr. Halloran, a freelance military writer, said from Honolulu, where the United States Pacific Command is based. "You are not threatening China, not in any way jeopardizing their security. On the other hand, if China becomes belligerent, you are in position to do something about it, particularly with the submarines and an aircraft carrier."
Carl Peterson, a businessman on Guam, said of Washington's low-key military buildup here: "It just sort of happens. Why disclose it? Why tell the Chinese what you are going to do before you do it?"
Later this year, a new nuclear-powered attack submarine is to arrive here, the third to make Guam its home port since 2002. While Washington debates whether a carrier should come here or to Hawaii, Guam's outer harbor is being dredged and World War II-era wharves are to be repaired for more efficient munitions handling.
["Guam's geo-strategic importance cannot be overstated," Adm. Thomas B. Fargo, the senior military officer in the Pacific, with 300,000 soldiers, sailors and marines under his command, said on March 31 in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. "Both Navy and Air Force facilities will continue to figure prominently in Guam's increasing role as a power projection hub."]
Across the naval station here, new housing is being built, part of a near- doubling of military spending on the island from levels of a decade ago.
"Guam is no longer the trailer park of the Pacific," Admiral Johnson said of the new military investment. "Guam has emerged from backwater status to the center of the radar screen. This is rapidly becoming a focus for logistics, for strategic planning."
Washington's investment in Guam is most easily seen from the catwalk of Andersen's 13-story air traffic control tower.
Down below, work is under way on an air-conditioned, typhoon-resistant hangar for B-1 bombers, a huge war reserve material warehouse, a new base exchange shopping center, a new fitness and health center and a new base security center. Out of sight, new underground pipes are delivering aviation fuel directly to parking pads for jets, and the first of 60 munitions storage "igloos" are being built. To foil terrorists, workers are drilling water wells on base and burying power lines off base.
"This is by far the largest amount of construction I have seen at any Air Force base in my years in the service," said Capt. David Vandenburg, a 29-year-old Oklahoman who is chief of base development.
Captain Vandenburg's commander, Col. Paul K. White, said that when he was assigned here a year ago he was leery of Guam because of its sleepy reputation. "But this is a very exciting time to be here," he continued. "If bases are closed, the units will have to go somewhere."
Of the Pentagon's new appreciation for Guam, Mr. Peterson said: "Rumsfeld is high on Guam; he was heard asking, `How are we going to do Guam?' They are not showing their hand. But through innuendo and comments that we pick up on, everybody is suggesting there is going to be so much going on here."
While apartments, fitness centers and military support offices are not glamorous, they are essential for increasing what Capt. David M. Boone, a Navy Seabee, calls Guam's "surge capacity." In a military emergency, the island could quickly swell with planes, submarines, and ships.
"The real trick for me is to figure out how many people are going to be living here 10 years from now," said Captain Boone, who has command of military construction on Guam. "It is a moving target."
Guam has been a supply base since Spanish galleons from Manila stopped here to pick up fresh water and food before crossing the Pacific to Acapulco, Mexico. In the late 19th century, the island was a Spanish coaling station; the United States gained control in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. In recent decades, Air Force pilots dubbed Guam "the world's largest gas station."
But it is increasingly being used for military training. The Marines have rented typhoon-damaged structures for urban warfare exercises. Rural warfare training has been conducted in the southern jungles, forests so thick that one holdout Japanese soldier from World War II was captured only in 1972.
About 150 miles north of here, a small island serves as a bombing range. There is also the wide-open sea and the sky above it, with no one to complain about sonic booms.
"In Minot, the nearest bombing range is in Utah, a two-and-a-half hour flight," said Lt. Col. Robert Hyde, a 37-year-old Mississippian who commands the base's new unit of six B-52's. Referring to his training here with the Navy, Colonel Hyde said, "In North Dakota, obviously, you can't work easily with a carrier battle group."
During the Christmas 1972 bombing of North Vietnam, more than 150 B-52's flew from here. On a recent morning, bulldozers and pavers were upgrading the acres of tarmac that make Andersen comparable to a major international airport.
In this treeless landscape, even B-52's look small. In the shade of one the planes' huge, drooping wings, Master Sgt. Ralph Gillikan, a mechanic last stationed at the North Dakota base, surveyed the surrounding sea of concrete and said, "The parking here is good."
April 7, 2004
New York Times
By JAMES BROOKE
ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, Guam - Washed by a southwesterly Pacific breeze, a line of B-52 Stratofortress bombers stand parked on the hot tarmac here, their tails stenciled with "MT," a reminder that they flew here recently from the snows of Minot, N.D.
Away for more than a decade, the B-52's, the United States' largest bombers, are back in Guam, part of a wide-ranging drive by the Pentagon to make this island, an American territory, a "power projection hub" on the edge of Asia.
"We are openly talking about putting a fighter wing there, a tanker squadron there, a Global Hawk group there," Gen. William J. Begert, Pacific Air Forces commander, said by telephone from Hawaii, almost 4,000 miles east of here. The Global Hawk is an unmanned surveillance plane.
"Guam, first of all, is U.S. territory," General Begert said. "I don't need overflight rights. I don't need landing rights. I always have permission to go to Guam. It might as well be California or New Jersey."
Next year, Washington is to decide on a new round of base closings, the first in a decade. Opening the debate, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reported to Congress on March 23 that the military had 24 percent more base capacity than it needed.
Judging by Mr. Rumsfeld's comments after his trip here last November, Guam will be a winner in the base-closing process. This volcanic, 209-square-mile island, with a population of about 160,000, fits the Pentagon's new strategy of creating "lily pads" to allow for the rapid deployment of military muscle.
"Rumsfeld keeps saying, `What about Guam? Let's build up Guam,' " said an American diplomat in Tokyo, where the defense secretary stopped after visiting here.
The Navy loss its base at Subic Bay, the Philippines, in 1992 after the Philippine Senate refused to extend the lease, and American memories of that remain sharp. The diplomat added, "We don't want to be somewhere where they don't want us, where they can throw us out."
At the naval station here, Rear Adm. Arthur J. Johnson, the commander, said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had raised Guam's strategic value as the Pentagon realized the usefulness of an all-American outpost in Asia. "We invested huge amounts of money in facilities we could not use when we needed them, for example, Saudi Arabia," Admiral Johnson said. "Places where the U.S. is autonomous have come greatly to the fore."
Military officials here declined to discuss how Guam would fit into an American response to the rapid rise of China. But by moving ships and submarines to Guam, the Pentagon cuts "the tyranny of distance," trimming five days off a Pacific crossing from Hawaii, said Richard Halloran, a military analyst based in Hawaii.
"A lot of these moves are intended to deter China," Mr. Halloran, a freelance military writer, said from Honolulu, where the United States Pacific Command is based. "You are not threatening China, not in any way jeopardizing their security. On the other hand, if China becomes belligerent, you are in position to do something about it, particularly with the submarines and an aircraft carrier."
Carl Peterson, a businessman on Guam, said of Washington's low-key military buildup here: "It just sort of happens. Why disclose it? Why tell the Chinese what you are going to do before you do it?"
Later this year, a new nuclear-powered attack submarine is to arrive here, the third to make Guam its home port since 2002. While Washington debates whether a carrier should come here or to Hawaii, Guam's outer harbor is being dredged and World War II-era wharves are to be repaired for more efficient munitions handling.
["Guam's geo-strategic importance cannot be overstated," Adm. Thomas B. Fargo, the senior military officer in the Pacific, with 300,000 soldiers, sailors and marines under his command, said on March 31 in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. "Both Navy and Air Force facilities will continue to figure prominently in Guam's increasing role as a power projection hub."]
Across the naval station here, new housing is being built, part of a near- doubling of military spending on the island from levels of a decade ago.
"Guam is no longer the trailer park of the Pacific," Admiral Johnson said of the new military investment. "Guam has emerged from backwater status to the center of the radar screen. This is rapidly becoming a focus for logistics, for strategic planning."
Washington's investment in Guam is most easily seen from the catwalk of Andersen's 13-story air traffic control tower.
Down below, work is under way on an air-conditioned, typhoon-resistant hangar for B-1 bombers, a huge war reserve material warehouse, a new base exchange shopping center, a new fitness and health center and a new base security center. Out of sight, new underground pipes are delivering aviation fuel directly to parking pads for jets, and the first of 60 munitions storage "igloos" are being built. To foil terrorists, workers are drilling water wells on base and burying power lines off base.
"This is by far the largest amount of construction I have seen at any Air Force base in my years in the service," said Capt. David Vandenburg, a 29-year-old Oklahoman who is chief of base development.
Captain Vandenburg's commander, Col. Paul K. White, said that when he was assigned here a year ago he was leery of Guam because of its sleepy reputation. "But this is a very exciting time to be here," he continued. "If bases are closed, the units will have to go somewhere."
Of the Pentagon's new appreciation for Guam, Mr. Peterson said: "Rumsfeld is high on Guam; he was heard asking, `How are we going to do Guam?' They are not showing their hand. But through innuendo and comments that we pick up on, everybody is suggesting there is going to be so much going on here."
While apartments, fitness centers and military support offices are not glamorous, they are essential for increasing what Capt. David M. Boone, a Navy Seabee, calls Guam's "surge capacity." In a military emergency, the island could quickly swell with planes, submarines, and ships.
"The real trick for me is to figure out how many people are going to be living here 10 years from now," said Captain Boone, who has command of military construction on Guam. "It is a moving target."
Guam has been a supply base since Spanish galleons from Manila stopped here to pick up fresh water and food before crossing the Pacific to Acapulco, Mexico. In the late 19th century, the island was a Spanish coaling station; the United States gained control in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. In recent decades, Air Force pilots dubbed Guam "the world's largest gas station."
But it is increasingly being used for military training. The Marines have rented typhoon-damaged structures for urban warfare exercises. Rural warfare training has been conducted in the southern jungles, forests so thick that one holdout Japanese soldier from World War II was captured only in 1972.
About 150 miles north of here, a small island serves as a bombing range. There is also the wide-open sea and the sky above it, with no one to complain about sonic booms.
"In Minot, the nearest bombing range is in Utah, a two-and-a-half hour flight," said Lt. Col. Robert Hyde, a 37-year-old Mississippian who commands the base's new unit of six B-52's. Referring to his training here with the Navy, Colonel Hyde said, "In North Dakota, obviously, you can't work easily with a carrier battle group."
During the Christmas 1972 bombing of North Vietnam, more than 150 B-52's flew from here. On a recent morning, bulldozers and pavers were upgrading the acres of tarmac that make Andersen comparable to a major international airport.
In this treeless landscape, even B-52's look small. In the shade of one the planes' huge, drooping wings, Master Sgt. Ralph Gillikan, a mechanic last stationed at the North Dakota base, surveyed the surrounding sea of concrete and said, "The parking here is good."
Friday, March 16, 2007
More on the Move from Okinawa to Guam
Move to Guam could cost Marine Corps extra $465M a year
By David Allen, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Friday, March 16, 2007
CAMP FOSTER, Okinawa — The move of some 8,000 Marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam by 2014 is expected to cost the Marine Corps an extra $465 million annually.
However, a recent inspector general’s report concluded that the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps are not prepared for the increased annual costs resulting from the planned changes to the force structure in the Pacific.
The 14-page report, released Monday, is the culmination of a yearlong audit and interviews with military officials. It states the Marine Corps is the only branch so far to estimate how much it will cost yearly to move assets to Guam from Okinawa. However, the corps has not included the cost in its budget projections.
“The source of funds for the additional requirements (has) not been resolved between Headquarters, Marine Corps and the Department of the Navy,” the report states.
The Navy and Air Force also will incur additional annual costs by moving assets to Guam, but the services have not determined what they are, the report adds.
“If DOD and the Services do not include the projected increased annual funding requirements in the next Program Objective Memorandums for DFY 2009,” the report read, “the quality of life for servicemembers and their dependents and the readiness of U.S. forces in USPACOM may be adversely affected.”
The United States has reached agreements with Japan and South Korea for a major restructuring of U.S. forces in the Pacific. A reduction of some 12,500 U.S. Forces Korea personnel is expected to be complete by the end of 2008.
The United States and Japan agreed last May to replace Marine Corps Air Station Futenma with a new airfield on Camp Schwab and to close several other Marines bases on Okinawa. That would result in the move of 8,000 Marines and about 9,000 family members to Guam, with Japan picking up about $6 billion of the estimated $10.3 billion cost.
To help cover that cost, Japan officials are considering reducing host-nation support for U.S. forces remaining in Japan. Japan now pays about $3.03 billion a year to maintain U.S. forces and is expected to pay that much until 2008.
“DOD must recognize and plan for a possible substantial increase in funding requirements to support forces remaining in Japan if Japan reduces its host nation support,” the IG report states.
Besides the Marines, the Air Force plans to relocate about 3,500 servicemembers, civilian employees and their families to Guam from various locations, but has not estimated the increased budget requirements for the move, according to the report. Also, the Navy, which closed many facilities on Guam in 1993, will need an increase in funds to “refurbish and adequately maintain facilities” for the influx of Marines and airmen.
By David Allen, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Friday, March 16, 2007
CAMP FOSTER, Okinawa — The move of some 8,000 Marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam by 2014 is expected to cost the Marine Corps an extra $465 million annually.
However, a recent inspector general’s report concluded that the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps are not prepared for the increased annual costs resulting from the planned changes to the force structure in the Pacific.
The 14-page report, released Monday, is the culmination of a yearlong audit and interviews with military officials. It states the Marine Corps is the only branch so far to estimate how much it will cost yearly to move assets to Guam from Okinawa. However, the corps has not included the cost in its budget projections.
“The source of funds for the additional requirements (has) not been resolved between Headquarters, Marine Corps and the Department of the Navy,” the report states.
The Navy and Air Force also will incur additional annual costs by moving assets to Guam, but the services have not determined what they are, the report adds.
“If DOD and the Services do not include the projected increased annual funding requirements in the next Program Objective Memorandums for DFY 2009,” the report read, “the quality of life for servicemembers and their dependents and the readiness of U.S. forces in USPACOM may be adversely affected.”
The United States has reached agreements with Japan and South Korea for a major restructuring of U.S. forces in the Pacific. A reduction of some 12,500 U.S. Forces Korea personnel is expected to be complete by the end of 2008.
The United States and Japan agreed last May to replace Marine Corps Air Station Futenma with a new airfield on Camp Schwab and to close several other Marines bases on Okinawa. That would result in the move of 8,000 Marines and about 9,000 family members to Guam, with Japan picking up about $6 billion of the estimated $10.3 billion cost.
To help cover that cost, Japan officials are considering reducing host-nation support for U.S. forces remaining in Japan. Japan now pays about $3.03 billion a year to maintain U.S. forces and is expected to pay that much until 2008.
“DOD must recognize and plan for a possible substantial increase in funding requirements to support forces remaining in Japan if Japan reduces its host nation support,” the IG report states.
Besides the Marines, the Air Force plans to relocate about 3,500 servicemembers, civilian employees and their families to Guam from various locations, but has not estimated the increased budget requirements for the move, according to the report. Also, the Navy, which closed many facilities on Guam in 1993, will need an increase in funds to “refurbish and adequately maintain facilities” for the influx of Marines and airmen.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Guam Officials Want a Say In Marines' Move
Guam officials want a say in Marines' move from Okinawa
By David Allen, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Saturday, July 15, 2006
NAHA, Okinawa — The chief thing Guam officials are taking home with them after a four-day trip to Okinawa is a need to ensure they have a say in the process of moving some 8,000 Marines and their dependents from Okinawa to their island over the next eight years.
B.J. Cruz, a senator in Guam’s legislature, said at a news conference Thursday that he learned Okinawa leaders have managed to get concessions from the Japanese government “for certain infrastructures.”
“Guam is not in a similar position,” he said, explaining that the master plan for the use of Guam, to be sent to Pacific Command Adm. William J. Fallon, was prepared without local input.
PACOM officials have acknowledged the initial plan did not include local input but say that will come in the next phase of planning.
Cruz, however, said that “there is no assurance that our concerns and our recommendations are going to be implemented.”
He was one of nine Guam officials Japanese Diet member Mikio Shimoji of Naha invited to Okinawa. They visited communities that host U.S. military bases and industries, Battle of Okinawa museums and peace memorials, schools and business districts developed on former base land.
They also got a look at how local communities cope with the large U.S. military presence.
Cruz said Guam officials needed to be careful Marines do not come to their island to the detriment of Guam residents.
“There is only one freshwater lake and the military owns that lake … they sell that water to the local community,” he said. “Since they sell that water to the local community, they can also turn it off. Three of us live in villages where over the last two months we’ve been without water for almost 30 days.”
Cruz said he will press the U.S. government to provide adequate infrastructure for the island’s civilians as well as the military.
Lt. Gov. Kaleo Moylan, who led the Guam delegation, said the trip was to ensure a smooth transition of Marines to Guam. Moylan, who is running against Gov. Felix Camacho for this fall’s Republican gubernatorial nomination, said Okinawa and Guam had parallel post-World War II histories.
“You had military bases placed here without the consent of the local population,” he said. “Guam had a similar experience. Now that we are in the process of realignment … the voices of the people of Guam need to be heard.”
Guam Legislature Vice Speaker Joanne Brown said she “hoped that Guam can minimize the adverse experiences that people of Okinawa encountered” with such a large military presence.
“We’re very concerned about the social impact this will have on our people,” she said. “It’s going to be very, very critical in the next few months and certainly in the next few years for us to ensure that the leadership of Guam … be very, very aggressive.”
She said Guam officials need to be just as aggressive with the U.S. government as Okinawa officials are with Tokyo.
“The federal government has a responsibility to make sure the military buildup does not adversely affect our people,” she said.
Chiyomi Sumida contributed to this report.
By David Allen, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Saturday, July 15, 2006
NAHA, Okinawa — The chief thing Guam officials are taking home with them after a four-day trip to Okinawa is a need to ensure they have a say in the process of moving some 8,000 Marines and their dependents from Okinawa to their island over the next eight years.
B.J. Cruz, a senator in Guam’s legislature, said at a news conference Thursday that he learned Okinawa leaders have managed to get concessions from the Japanese government “for certain infrastructures.”
“Guam is not in a similar position,” he said, explaining that the master plan for the use of Guam, to be sent to Pacific Command Adm. William J. Fallon, was prepared without local input.
PACOM officials have acknowledged the initial plan did not include local input but say that will come in the next phase of planning.
Cruz, however, said that “there is no assurance that our concerns and our recommendations are going to be implemented.”
He was one of nine Guam officials Japanese Diet member Mikio Shimoji of Naha invited to Okinawa. They visited communities that host U.S. military bases and industries, Battle of Okinawa museums and peace memorials, schools and business districts developed on former base land.
They also got a look at how local communities cope with the large U.S. military presence.
Cruz said Guam officials needed to be careful Marines do not come to their island to the detriment of Guam residents.
“There is only one freshwater lake and the military owns that lake … they sell that water to the local community,” he said. “Since they sell that water to the local community, they can also turn it off. Three of us live in villages where over the last two months we’ve been without water for almost 30 days.”
Cruz said he will press the U.S. government to provide adequate infrastructure for the island’s civilians as well as the military.
Lt. Gov. Kaleo Moylan, who led the Guam delegation, said the trip was to ensure a smooth transition of Marines to Guam. Moylan, who is running against Gov. Felix Camacho for this fall’s Republican gubernatorial nomination, said Okinawa and Guam had parallel post-World War II histories.
“You had military bases placed here without the consent of the local population,” he said. “Guam had a similar experience. Now that we are in the process of realignment … the voices of the people of Guam need to be heard.”
Guam Legislature Vice Speaker Joanne Brown said she “hoped that Guam can minimize the adverse experiences that people of Okinawa encountered” with such a large military presence.
“We’re very concerned about the social impact this will have on our people,” she said. “It’s going to be very, very critical in the next few months and certainly in the next few years for us to ensure that the leadership of Guam … be very, very aggressive.”
She said Guam officials need to be just as aggressive with the U.S. government as Okinawa officials are with Tokyo.
“The federal government has a responsibility to make sure the military buildup does not adversely affect our people,” she said.
Chiyomi Sumida contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)