RP group likely to grow further
Tuesday, 29 December 2009 04:10
by Therese Hart | Variety News Staff
FOREIGN workers hired under the H2B program to fill the workforce void during the military buildup are likely to stay behind and make Guam their home, according to the draft environmental impact statement.
Based on multiple interviews with construction contractors familiar with Guam projects, it is expected that a large proportion of H2B workers will originate from the Philippines.
Furthermore, since two-thirds of Guam’s foreign-born population is from the Philippines, it is expected that most “stay-behind” workers and related future population growth would originate from there, stated the report.
Increased migration
The immersion of the migrant worker into the Guam population will further encourage increased migration, resulting in a population boom on island, the study said.
Many working immigrants are younger people who have children over time, so that their population impacts accrue gradually, the buildup planners stated in the report.
Typical to socioeconomic impact assessment and assumed in this analysis is the assumption that migrant households have an average household size either like the place where they come, or the place where they are going, in this case, Guam, which captures the probable long term population size.
The “out-migration” of these populations is also an issue. The question that remains to be answered is whether the temporary H-2B worker population will leave Guam when their time of employment ends. The report assumes that the H-2B population will leave as military construction concludes. However, there is a concern that out-migration might not be so prompt.
While employers of H2B workers are required to prove that workers have left Guam once the particular project the worker was brought in for is completed, there are anecdotal reports of “stay-behind” H2B workers who have married Guam residents and in that way become permanent residents.
’Stay-behind migrants’
There are also concerns that migrants from freely associated states and the CNMI who come to Guam for construction-period jobs but either do not become employed or lose those jobs may stay on Guam as well, according to the report.
FAS and CNMI migrants have the status of U.S. citizens and can migrate within the U.S. without constraint. Developing an estimated number of “stay-behind” H2B workers is problematic because the factors involved are each difficult to measure and produce ambiguous results. Nonetheless, studies do show that stay-behind workers can be expected.
Finally, the Guam Department of Labor has concerns that immigration flows stemming from temporary workers can generate more immigrants than there were visas originally allocated.
It was also noted that U.S. immigration policy can inherently lead to increased immigration over-time, wherein family members apply to have relatives immigrate, increasing the number of immigrants.
Showing posts with label Philippines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philippines. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Indefinite hold
Indefinite hold
Written by Margaret Jao-Grey
Not Business as Usual / margiegrey_ph@yahoo.com
Sunday, 27 December 2009 17:55
Did you know 1: Uh-oh. The processing of 20,000 Filipino workers expected to work in Guam next year is now on indefinite hold. That means the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration may have to significantly revise downwards its rosy projections for next year.
Right now, the Japanese and the Americans aren’t seeing eye-to-eye on the conditions leading to the relocation of 8,000 Okinawa-based US Marines and their 9,000 dependents to American territory.
As it is, Japan, which is footing the bulk of the $10 billion needed for the relocation, has already handed over the first installment of $350 million to the US government (read: no refunds allowed should the relocation not take place) as scheduled). For its part, the US Congress has drastically reduced its first counterpart funding from $300 million to $89 million.
Written by Margaret Jao-Grey
Not Business as Usual / margiegrey_ph@yahoo.com
Sunday, 27 December 2009 17:55
Did you know 1: Uh-oh. The processing of 20,000 Filipino workers expected to work in Guam next year is now on indefinite hold. That means the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration may have to significantly revise downwards its rosy projections for next year.
Right now, the Japanese and the Americans aren’t seeing eye-to-eye on the conditions leading to the relocation of 8,000 Okinawa-based US Marines and their 9,000 dependents to American territory.
As it is, Japan, which is footing the bulk of the $10 billion needed for the relocation, has already handed over the first installment of $350 million to the US government (read: no refunds allowed should the relocation not take place) as scheduled). For its part, the US Congress has drastically reduced its first counterpart funding from $300 million to $89 million.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
RP contractors eye part of $15-B Guam project
RP contractors eye part of $15-B Guam project
By BERNIE CAHILES-MAGKILAT
November 25, 2009, 5:04pm
Filipino contractors are now vying to partake in the $15 billion U.S. military build-up in Guam, but are urged to undertake more training for workers to ensure there is enough manpower pool for the booming domestic construction industry.
This was revealed at a business forum Wednesday on “Opportunities in Guam for the Philippine Construction Industry” organized by the Philippine Constructors Association Inc. and the Bureau of Export Trade Promotion of the Department of Trade and Industry where Guam government officials have indicated the preference for Filipino skilled workers.
Guam Senator Judith P. Guthertz,, chairperson on Guam military build-up an homeland security, said Guam could hire 15,000 Filipino workers starting 2101 until 2014 when the build-up is supposed to be completed.
In expressing preference for Filipino workers, Guthertz traced the history of Guam and the Philippines revealing that Guam used to be a province of the Philippines during the Spanish colonization. At least 30 percent of Guam’s population is of Filipino ancestry and that Filipinos were in the forefront in the reconstruction of Guam after the World War II.
“We just don’t have enough manpower for massive military build-up,” Guthertz said.
She said the H2 Visa, which restricts the entry of foreign skilled workers, has been lifted by the U.S. government for Guam paving the way for the entry of foreign workers.
Guthertz, an alumna of the University of the Philippines, also doubted the projected 6,000 workers would really possible because these workers have settled already in Hawaii only to uproot their families to work in Guam.
The other sources of manpower for the Guam build-up would come from other neighboring islands in the Pacific but would not still suffice the huge requirement.
Guthertz said that for every $1 billion investments for infrastructure projects, this requires 5,000 workers.
The projected 15,000 jobs that would be created until 2014 do not yet include the projects to be funded by the Japanese government, which agreed to fund the relocation facilities for the U.S. navy that would be transferred from the U.S. naval base in Okinawa.
There would be over 8,600 US marines that would be relocated to Guam plus the US navy for an estimated 28 percent increase in Guam’s 173,000 population.
The military build-up would require new road networks, water and sewerage, power, housing, hospitals and other infrastructure. There will also be build-up off base.
By BERNIE CAHILES-MAGKILAT
November 25, 2009, 5:04pm
Filipino contractors are now vying to partake in the $15 billion U.S. military build-up in Guam, but are urged to undertake more training for workers to ensure there is enough manpower pool for the booming domestic construction industry.
This was revealed at a business forum Wednesday on “Opportunities in Guam for the Philippine Construction Industry” organized by the Philippine Constructors Association Inc. and the Bureau of Export Trade Promotion of the Department of Trade and Industry where Guam government officials have indicated the preference for Filipino skilled workers.
Guam Senator Judith P. Guthertz,, chairperson on Guam military build-up an homeland security, said Guam could hire 15,000 Filipino workers starting 2101 until 2014 when the build-up is supposed to be completed.
In expressing preference for Filipino workers, Guthertz traced the history of Guam and the Philippines revealing that Guam used to be a province of the Philippines during the Spanish colonization. At least 30 percent of Guam’s population is of Filipino ancestry and that Filipinos were in the forefront in the reconstruction of Guam after the World War II.
“We just don’t have enough manpower for massive military build-up,” Guthertz said.
She said the H2 Visa, which restricts the entry of foreign skilled workers, has been lifted by the U.S. government for Guam paving the way for the entry of foreign workers.
Guthertz, an alumna of the University of the Philippines, also doubted the projected 6,000 workers would really possible because these workers have settled already in Hawaii only to uproot their families to work in Guam.
The other sources of manpower for the Guam build-up would come from other neighboring islands in the Pacific but would not still suffice the huge requirement.
Guthertz said that for every $1 billion investments for infrastructure projects, this requires 5,000 workers.
The projected 15,000 jobs that would be created until 2014 do not yet include the projects to be funded by the Japanese government, which agreed to fund the relocation facilities for the U.S. navy that would be transferred from the U.S. naval base in Okinawa.
There would be over 8,600 US marines that would be relocated to Guam plus the US navy for an estimated 28 percent increase in Guam’s 173,000 population.
The military build-up would require new road networks, water and sewerage, power, housing, hospitals and other infrastructure. There will also be build-up off base.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Ramos Calls On Guam, CNMI To Join 'ANEAN': An Association Of North East Asian Nations
Ramos Calls On Guam, CNMI To Join 'ANEAN': An Association Of North East Asian Nations
Former Philippine President's Vision For This Rising Regional Power Bloc Unlocks Tremendous Opporunities For Self Discovery On Guam
Written by Jeff Marchesseault, Guam News Factor Staff Writer
Monday, 23 November 2009 08:32
GUAM - Imagine Guam and the Northern Marianas as American players in a regional alliance that includes the Philippines, Okinawa, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Hainan, and the mainland China provinces of Guangdong and Fujian.
The object of the vision: optimizing trade and transnational governance. Former Philippine President Fidel V. Ramos spelled it out in a Sunday opinion published by the Manila Bulletin.
Ramos argues that, "There are synergistic, advantageous combinations in the emerging Central East Asia Growth Polygon (CEAGPOL)...CEAGPOL could be the forerunner -- and building block -- of Northeast Asia's version of ASEAN or 'ANEAN,' meaning the 'Association of Northeast Asian Nations.' Economic heavyweight North East Asia is the world's last remaining regional bloc still without an inter-governmental organization of the likes of ASEAN and the EU."
(*ASEAN = Association of Southeast Asian Nations. *EU = European Union)
Guam: America's 'Linchpin To Dominance'
Ramos also tells how and why Guam is such an important American force in Asia's Northeast. His rhetoric hints that it is the United States' undivided sense of purpose and its use of interdependent relationships advancing mutual interests that makes America and Guam such a force to be reckoned with in Northeast Asia. Not only is Guam a Territory of the U.S. from which defensive power is projected and with which foreign nations actively do business, but the U.S. Departments of Defense and State have grown increasingly adept at building regional alliances that tie desired outcomes to cooperation. Here's an example. If there's a disaster in the Far East, armed forces based on Guam are quick to respond and help while respecting local chains of command.
Overall, the purpose of America's friendships and alliances in Pacific Asia is to provide security for U.S. interests -- be it trade, investment, travel, intelligence, idea sharing, or defense. And the beautiful thing is that our allies share our interests. So they have a reason to assign substantial human, capital and industrial resources towards sustaining a relationship with a nation that President Obama calls the "guardian of freedom."
Here's how Ramos sees Guam fitting into his visionary Northeast Asian alliance:
Guam: Geopolitical scenario a century later. Our close neighbor Guam is a strategic outpost developed by American leaders and strategists since the 1890s. Guam's overall value to American deployments towards Asia and Middle East has tremendously increased. Not only has the island become a strategic US Pacific base. Washington is now making Guam the linchpin of its overall design to insure dominance in the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean.
Guam is extremely critical to American quick response to any sizable natural disaster, civilian emergency or military crisis, given that the US continues to be the "guardian of freedom" (according to President Barack Obama).
Firm leadership to plug holes of a leaky Philippines. If Guam is America's "unsinkable aircraft carrier," why do many observers see the Philippines – with all our land-sea-air resources and human assets – as a fragile ship about to go under? It's because ours is a leaky vessel, with no clear direction due to divided leadership.
The vision of a better future from which nations and peoples can benefit equitably – regardless of political ideology, religious faith, cultural background, socio-economic condition, and ethnic origin – is the unceasing, ultimate aspiration of all.
This universal hope should provide strategic guidance to the decisions/policies of today's leaders and their successors.
We must organize a caring and sharing international community – for it to become a family of truly principled nations daring enough to take concerted action against threats to humankind's survival. Today's complex world must be managed through efficient transnational governance.
An Opportunity For Participation
Former President Ramos' vision of an Association of Northeast Asian Nations is a remarkable, outside-the-box solution to the problems that inevitably surface every day in the realms of trade and transnational governance -- and would deal with those problems in the context in which they fester, instead of within the traditional formal strictures of sovereign-to-sovereign diplomacy.
Ostensibly, ANEAN would pair representative parts of giant nations on the one hand with smaller nations on the other to explore and dialogue about issues that directly affect all ANEAN members, then recommend and forge regional policies that solve problems on the Northeast Asia level, right where the action is.
Any questions about the ministerial authority of representative provinces or territories of bigger nations could be settled domestically and these provinces and territories could even opt to participate in ANEAN at the working group or observer level if necessary.
Perhaps the more important takeaway from Mr. Ramos' vision is that he (1) opens a portal to thinking creatively and productively about the future of the region and (2) that he helps us all to remember and realize that destinations across Northeast Asia don't exist all by their lonesomes in tight little silos -- nor do their problems always mirror the problems at the epicenter of world power. Nevertheless, the existence of one Northeast Asian destination affects the existence of the others. It is up to each nation, government and municipality within this region to decide whether it will maximize opportunities for mutual enrichment on every level.
Former Philippine President's Vision For This Rising Regional Power Bloc Unlocks Tremendous Opporunities For Self Discovery On Guam
Written by Jeff Marchesseault, Guam News Factor Staff Writer
Monday, 23 November 2009 08:32
GUAM - Imagine Guam and the Northern Marianas as American players in a regional alliance that includes the Philippines, Okinawa, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Hainan, and the mainland China provinces of Guangdong and Fujian.
The object of the vision: optimizing trade and transnational governance. Former Philippine President Fidel V. Ramos spelled it out in a Sunday opinion published by the Manila Bulletin.
Ramos argues that, "There are synergistic, advantageous combinations in the emerging Central East Asia Growth Polygon (CEAGPOL)...CEAGPOL could be the forerunner -- and building block -- of Northeast Asia's version of ASEAN or 'ANEAN,' meaning the 'Association of Northeast Asian Nations.' Economic heavyweight North East Asia is the world's last remaining regional bloc still without an inter-governmental organization of the likes of ASEAN and the EU."
(*ASEAN = Association of Southeast Asian Nations. *EU = European Union)
Guam: America's 'Linchpin To Dominance'
Ramos also tells how and why Guam is such an important American force in Asia's Northeast. His rhetoric hints that it is the United States' undivided sense of purpose and its use of interdependent relationships advancing mutual interests that makes America and Guam such a force to be reckoned with in Northeast Asia. Not only is Guam a Territory of the U.S. from which defensive power is projected and with which foreign nations actively do business, but the U.S. Departments of Defense and State have grown increasingly adept at building regional alliances that tie desired outcomes to cooperation. Here's an example. If there's a disaster in the Far East, armed forces based on Guam are quick to respond and help while respecting local chains of command.
Overall, the purpose of America's friendships and alliances in Pacific Asia is to provide security for U.S. interests -- be it trade, investment, travel, intelligence, idea sharing, or defense. And the beautiful thing is that our allies share our interests. So they have a reason to assign substantial human, capital and industrial resources towards sustaining a relationship with a nation that President Obama calls the "guardian of freedom."
Here's how Ramos sees Guam fitting into his visionary Northeast Asian alliance:
Guam: Geopolitical scenario a century later. Our close neighbor Guam is a strategic outpost developed by American leaders and strategists since the 1890s. Guam's overall value to American deployments towards Asia and Middle East has tremendously increased. Not only has the island become a strategic US Pacific base. Washington is now making Guam the linchpin of its overall design to insure dominance in the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean.
Guam is extremely critical to American quick response to any sizable natural disaster, civilian emergency or military crisis, given that the US continues to be the "guardian of freedom" (according to President Barack Obama).
Firm leadership to plug holes of a leaky Philippines. If Guam is America's "unsinkable aircraft carrier," why do many observers see the Philippines – with all our land-sea-air resources and human assets – as a fragile ship about to go under? It's because ours is a leaky vessel, with no clear direction due to divided leadership.
The vision of a better future from which nations and peoples can benefit equitably – regardless of political ideology, religious faith, cultural background, socio-economic condition, and ethnic origin – is the unceasing, ultimate aspiration of all.
This universal hope should provide strategic guidance to the decisions/policies of today's leaders and their successors.
We must organize a caring and sharing international community – for it to become a family of truly principled nations daring enough to take concerted action against threats to humankind's survival. Today's complex world must be managed through efficient transnational governance.
An Opportunity For Participation
Former President Ramos' vision of an Association of Northeast Asian Nations is a remarkable, outside-the-box solution to the problems that inevitably surface every day in the realms of trade and transnational governance -- and would deal with those problems in the context in which they fester, instead of within the traditional formal strictures of sovereign-to-sovereign diplomacy.
Ostensibly, ANEAN would pair representative parts of giant nations on the one hand with smaller nations on the other to explore and dialogue about issues that directly affect all ANEAN members, then recommend and forge regional policies that solve problems on the Northeast Asia level, right where the action is.
Any questions about the ministerial authority of representative provinces or territories of bigger nations could be settled domestically and these provinces and territories could even opt to participate in ANEAN at the working group or observer level if necessary.
Perhaps the more important takeaway from Mr. Ramos' vision is that he (1) opens a portal to thinking creatively and productively about the future of the region and (2) that he helps us all to remember and realize that destinations across Northeast Asia don't exist all by their lonesomes in tight little silos -- nor do their problems always mirror the problems at the epicenter of world power. Nevertheless, the existence of one Northeast Asian destination affects the existence of the others. It is up to each nation, government and municipality within this region to decide whether it will maximize opportunities for mutual enrichment on every level.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Trim East Asia presence, US urged
Trim East Asia presence, US urged
Monday, 23 November 2009
BY LLANESCA T. PANTI REPORTER
TOKYO: The United States should consider reducing its military presence in the East Asian region, an official said here over the weekend. According to Kazuo Kodama, spokesman for Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the United States would still be capable of ensuring security in the region even if it realigned its forces because it possesses strategic weapons.
His advice came at a time when Japan was reviewing an agreement with the US on Washington’s bases stationed in Okinawa and pushing for a US bases relocation roadmap.
“Even if they [US] transferred the bases or realigned the deployment in nearby countries, let’s say outside Okinawa or even outside Japan such as in Guam, they could still easily respond to the security concerns of the nearby countries whenever needed because they are well-equipped,” Kodama told Asian journalists.
Like Japan, the Philippines used to host US bases until the Philippine Senate voted against it in 1991. The absence of US forces, however, did not last a decade when Manila entered into a Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with Washington in 1999.
The VFA allows US troops to train and advise the Philippine military in its fight against terrorism, but it prohibits participation of US forces in combat operations.
It also lets deployment of US forces to Mindanao under the Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines, which provides immediate medical assistance to Filipino soldiers who are wounded in the battlefield.
Communist and separatist insurgencies in southern Philippines have lingered for nearly four decades.
Kodama disclosed that US bases in Okinawa are located near shopping malls and as such, have become a burden for Okinawans.
“We want to reduce American footprint by relocating the US bases since [the bases] have become dangerous for the people. Japan thinks that the time has come to explore that possibility,” he said.
In the case of the Philippines, the VFA drew flak when US Marine Lance Corporal Daniel Smith was initially found guilty of raping a Filipino woman known only as “Nicole” in 2006. Smith was briefly detained in a Philippine jail before being transferred in the US Embassy in Manila. He was later acquitted by the Philippines’ Court of Appeals in April 2009 and is believed to have returned to the US.
Kodama, however, stressed that Japan, as well as the rest of the East Asian region, still needs US forces for security.
He cited North Korea’s nuclear power and continued missile tests and territorial disputes such as those between China and Russia and between China and Taiwan.
“The deployment of US forces in East Asia helps in maintaining security and stability. We do not dispute that statement. Let us not forget that the ‘Cold War’ is not yet over here,” Kodama said.
Monday, 23 November 2009
BY LLANESCA T. PANTI REPORTER
TOKYO: The United States should consider reducing its military presence in the East Asian region, an official said here over the weekend. According to Kazuo Kodama, spokesman for Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the United States would still be capable of ensuring security in the region even if it realigned its forces because it possesses strategic weapons.
His advice came at a time when Japan was reviewing an agreement with the US on Washington’s bases stationed in Okinawa and pushing for a US bases relocation roadmap.
“Even if they [US] transferred the bases or realigned the deployment in nearby countries, let’s say outside Okinawa or even outside Japan such as in Guam, they could still easily respond to the security concerns of the nearby countries whenever needed because they are well-equipped,” Kodama told Asian journalists.
Like Japan, the Philippines used to host US bases until the Philippine Senate voted against it in 1991. The absence of US forces, however, did not last a decade when Manila entered into a Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with Washington in 1999.
The VFA allows US troops to train and advise the Philippine military in its fight against terrorism, but it prohibits participation of US forces in combat operations.
It also lets deployment of US forces to Mindanao under the Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines, which provides immediate medical assistance to Filipino soldiers who are wounded in the battlefield.
Communist and separatist insurgencies in southern Philippines have lingered for nearly four decades.
Kodama disclosed that US bases in Okinawa are located near shopping malls and as such, have become a burden for Okinawans.
“We want to reduce American footprint by relocating the US bases since [the bases] have become dangerous for the people. Japan thinks that the time has come to explore that possibility,” he said.
In the case of the Philippines, the VFA drew flak when US Marine Lance Corporal Daniel Smith was initially found guilty of raping a Filipino woman known only as “Nicole” in 2006. Smith was briefly detained in a Philippine jail before being transferred in the US Embassy in Manila. He was later acquitted by the Philippines’ Court of Appeals in April 2009 and is believed to have returned to the US.
Kodama, however, stressed that Japan, as well as the rest of the East Asian region, still needs US forces for security.
He cited North Korea’s nuclear power and continued missile tests and territorial disputes such as those between China and Russia and between China and Taiwan.
“The deployment of US forces in East Asia helps in maintaining security and stability. We do not dispute that statement. Let us not forget that the ‘Cold War’ is not yet over here,” Kodama said.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Thursday: Non-Military Forum Will Update Locals On How Life Will Change On Guam
Thursday: Non-Military Forum Will Update Locals On How Life Will Change On Guam
Guthertz To Welcome Guests & Participants From Philippines, U.S., And Guam
By Jeff Marchesseault
GUAM - Locals from every walk are welcome to attend the first official, large-scale non-military forum aimed at updating the public on how their everyday lives will be affected by the buildup.
Hosted by Senator Judi Guthertz at the Guam Legislature, the two-day affair starts Thursday. Admission is free.
Here is the latest news from Senator Guthtertz' office:
RP Labor Undersecretary to Confirms Attendance at "Hinasson Taotao Guåhan."
HÅGATÑA – The Undersecretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, Republic of the Philippines will arrive on Guam tomorrow to attend the 2009 Island Conference on Public Administration, "The Military Buildup and Beyond: Hinasson Taotao Guåhan (The Guam Perspective)."
Conference organizers today confirmed the attendance of the Honorable Romeo C. Lagman of the RP Labor Department. Secretary Lagman will present a Keynote Address during the Friday session of the conference. He will touch on "The Philippine Perspective on the Guam Buildup."
"We welcome Secretary Lagman to the island and are honored to have him address the people of Guam during the conference," stated Acting Speaker Rory J. Respicio. "Secretary Lagman will provide a wealth of information on the expectations and ability of the RP government to help temporarily balance our workforce." Senator Guthertz, chairperson of the legislative Committee on the Guam Military Buildup added, "The level and quality of speakers scheduled for the conference is quite exciting. Secretary Lagman will certainly enhance our day's proceedings with extremely helpful information. We look forward to his presentation as well as that of all presenters."
Because of our island's limited population, the buildup will require the expertise of skilled and professional workers from off-island to augment Guam's current labor pool. It is expected that the Philippines will be a significant source for temporary workers under the H1 and H2 programs. Secretary Lagman is expected to provide insight on how the RP could temporarily augment our current labor pool, ensuring that contractors can meet the demands of the buildup for skilled workers and professionals.
Tomorrow, I Liheslaturan Guahan will open its doors to the 2009 Island Conference on Public Administration – "The Military Buildup and Beyond: Hinasson Taotao Guåhan (The Guam Perspective)," hosted by the Committee on the Guam Military Buildup and the Committee on Federal Affairs, in conjunction with the University of Guam School of Business and Public Administration. Registration begins at 7:30a.m.
Guthertz To Welcome Guests & Participants From Philippines, U.S., And Guam
By Jeff Marchesseault
GUAM - Locals from every walk are welcome to attend the first official, large-scale non-military forum aimed at updating the public on how their everyday lives will be affected by the buildup.
Hosted by Senator Judi Guthertz at the Guam Legislature, the two-day affair starts Thursday. Admission is free.
Here is the latest news from Senator Guthtertz' office:
RP Labor Undersecretary to Confirms Attendance at "Hinasson Taotao Guåhan."
HÅGATÑA – The Undersecretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, Republic of the Philippines will arrive on Guam tomorrow to attend the 2009 Island Conference on Public Administration, "The Military Buildup and Beyond: Hinasson Taotao Guåhan (The Guam Perspective)."
Conference organizers today confirmed the attendance of the Honorable Romeo C. Lagman of the RP Labor Department. Secretary Lagman will present a Keynote Address during the Friday session of the conference. He will touch on "The Philippine Perspective on the Guam Buildup."
"We welcome Secretary Lagman to the island and are honored to have him address the people of Guam during the conference," stated Acting Speaker Rory J. Respicio. "Secretary Lagman will provide a wealth of information on the expectations and ability of the RP government to help temporarily balance our workforce." Senator Guthertz, chairperson of the legislative Committee on the Guam Military Buildup added, "The level and quality of speakers scheduled for the conference is quite exciting. Secretary Lagman will certainly enhance our day's proceedings with extremely helpful information. We look forward to his presentation as well as that of all presenters."
Because of our island's limited population, the buildup will require the expertise of skilled and professional workers from off-island to augment Guam's current labor pool. It is expected that the Philippines will be a significant source for temporary workers under the H1 and H2 programs. Secretary Lagman is expected to provide insight on how the RP could temporarily augment our current labor pool, ensuring that contractors can meet the demands of the buildup for skilled workers and professionals.
Tomorrow, I Liheslaturan Guahan will open its doors to the 2009 Island Conference on Public Administration – "The Military Buildup and Beyond: Hinasson Taotao Guåhan (The Guam Perspective)," hosted by the Committee on the Guam Military Buildup and the Committee on Federal Affairs, in conjunction with the University of Guam School of Business and Public Administration. Registration begins at 7:30a.m.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Guam, Olongapo now ‘sisters’
Guam, Olongapo now ‘sisters’
Monday, 16 November 2009 04:27
Varitey[sic] News Staff
(Legislature)-- Guam and the City of Olongapo now have a strategic and official relationship. Guam Speaker Judith T. Won Pat, and Olongapo City Mayor James “Bong” Gordon, Jr. signed the memorandum of understanding establishing the relationship last Friday.
“I am so excited about the future we have with Olongapo City,” said Sen. Eddie Calvo, author of Resolution 170, which allowed Guam to enter the sister-city relationship.
“Not only do we have so much in common with Olongapo City, but many of our people can trace their ancestry there and to the Zambales province. This is a remarkable partnership, and one that will only strengthen our sisterhood with the Philippines.”
Our two communities will use the relationship to enhance Guam’s workforce, sustain economic development and promote trade. The resolution stressed the Guam military buildup and how Guam and Olongapo can help each other to maximize opportunities presented by the buildup.
Calvo presented to Gordon the symbolic key to the island of Guam shortly after the signing of the memorandum, which marked the first time the legislature has entered the island into a sister-city relationship.
Monday, 16 November 2009 04:27
Varitey[sic] News Staff
(Legislature)-- Guam and the City of Olongapo now have a strategic and official relationship. Guam Speaker Judith T. Won Pat, and Olongapo City Mayor James “Bong” Gordon, Jr. signed the memorandum of understanding establishing the relationship last Friday.
“I am so excited about the future we have with Olongapo City,” said Sen. Eddie Calvo, author of Resolution 170, which allowed Guam to enter the sister-city relationship.
“Not only do we have so much in common with Olongapo City, but many of our people can trace their ancestry there and to the Zambales province. This is a remarkable partnership, and one that will only strengthen our sisterhood with the Philippines.”
Our two communities will use the relationship to enhance Guam’s workforce, sustain economic development and promote trade. The resolution stressed the Guam military buildup and how Guam and Olongapo can help each other to maximize opportunities presented by the buildup.
Calvo presented to Gordon the symbolic key to the island of Guam shortly after the signing of the memorandum, which marked the first time the legislature has entered the island into a sister-city relationship.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Sister-city ties to be signed
Sister-city ties to be signed
Friday, 13 November 2009 04:24
Varitey[sic] News Staff
(Legislature) -- Guam and the City of Olongapo will enter into a historic sister-city relationship today at 10 a.m. in the legislature’s public hearing room.
Speaker Judith Won Pat, and Mayor James “Bong” Gordon of the City of Olongapo will sign a memorandum of understanding making the relationship official.
The sister-city relationship was made possible through Sen. Eddie Baza Calvo’s Resolution 60, which received a bipartisan support.
Stronger ties with Olongapo City seek to open the door to increased tourism, cultural exchanges, work-force development and business investments.
As the island gears up for the impending relocation of 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam, local leaders focus on what the territorial government can learn from Olongapo City, once host to the largest US military installation and is now a booming site for the Subic Bay Free Port Zone.
Guam considers the Philippines as the primary source of manpower to fill the labor gap when the military buildup starts kicking in.
Friday, 13 November 2009 04:24
Varitey[sic] News Staff
(Legislature) -- Guam and the City of Olongapo will enter into a historic sister-city relationship today at 10 a.m. in the legislature’s public hearing room.
Speaker Judith Won Pat, and Mayor James “Bong” Gordon of the City of Olongapo will sign a memorandum of understanding making the relationship official.
The sister-city relationship was made possible through Sen. Eddie Baza Calvo’s Resolution 60, which received a bipartisan support.
Stronger ties with Olongapo City seek to open the door to increased tourism, cultural exchanges, work-force development and business investments.
As the island gears up for the impending relocation of 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam, local leaders focus on what the territorial government can learn from Olongapo City, once host to the largest US military installation and is now a booming site for the Subic Bay Free Port Zone.
Guam considers the Philippines as the primary source of manpower to fill the labor gap when the military buildup starts kicking in.
Friday, October 30, 2009
PACOM's 'Allied Nations' Strategy Will Drive Guam's Base Tactics
PACOM's 'Allied Nations' Strategy Will Drive Guam's Base Tactics
Adm. Willard: Multilateralism Is The Name Of The Game
Written by Jeff Marchesseault, Guam News Factor Staff Writer
Friday, 30 October 2009 15:37
GUAM - As Guam prepares for the military buildup, we can expect new and refurbished forces based here in the Territory to integrate evermore seamlessly into a pan-Pacific alliance of nations that are mutually committed to protecting human and economic freedom.
According to a recent interview of Adm. Robert F. Willard, the new Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, multilateralism and multinational alliance is the name of the game in a world where multiple threats call for multiple partners.
"We are looking for as many partners ... as we can find in the region," Willard said in an interview with the American Forces Press Service.
Here is the original AFPS story from October 28, 2009:
U.S. Dept Of Defense - Willard Looks To Partnerships In Pacific
Navy Adm. Robert F. Willard made his Hollywood debut as the Soviet MiG pilot who challenged Tom Cruise's character - known by the call sign "Maverick" - to an exhilarating dogfight before meeting his demise in the 1986 "Top Gun" blockbuster.
While serving as operations and executive officer at the Navy's "Top Gun" Fighter Weapons School at the time, Willard was aerial coordinator for the movie. That got him a short, but pivotal, on-screen appearance as the pilot of an F-14 fighter jet painted black and embellished for the movie with a MiG-style fin flash on its tail.
"I kept looking back over my shoulder, and another missile was on its way," Willard recalled of the dogfight scene in which he ultimately was shot down. "It was very exciting."
More than two decades later, in his new role as the top U.S. officer in the Pacific, Willard doesn't have the luxury of being able to fixate on a single, Warsaw Pact-type threat. His vast region of responsibility, which stretches across half the world's surface and includes half its population in 36 countries, enjoys a relative peace. But its tensions, like its volatile geology, are bubbling just at or slightly below the surface.
North Korea's missile and nuclear weapons programs and China's military buildup and lack of transparency loom large. Terrorist activity threatens Indonesia, the Philippines and most recently, India. Other challenges range from piracy to the proliferation of technology for weapons of mass destruction.
Willard sat down with reporters last week in Seoul, South Korea, just two days after assuming command, to discuss these and other challenges and his vision for U.S. Pacific Command.
"I love this region of the world," he said. "The Asia-Pacific region, to me, is extremely complex [and] has a great history associated with it."
As he spoke, Willard had yet to set foot into his new headquarters office at Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii, perched on a mountain with a majestic view of Pearl Harbor. After consultative sessions in South Korea last week and an off-site defense chiefs conference in Hawaii this week, Willard said, he was looking forward to getting settled into his new office and getting down to business with his new staff.
North Korea is high on his priority list.
"A nuclear-armed North Korea, and a North Korea that chooses to provoke and ... may be on the brink of succession - all those things make North Korea worthy of our attention now," he said. "North Korea needs to be watched very closely."
Meanwhile, China is expanding its military might at "an unprecedented rate," Willard said, exceeding U.S. intelligence estimates every year for the past decade. Equally troubling, China also has obtained "asymmetric capabilities that are concerning to the region," including anti-access capabilities, ballistic missiles and sophisticated weaponry.
And even the historically rock-solid alliance with Japan is demanding more attention these days, as Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's new government reassesses security agreements made by previous administrations.
Willard told reporters he's intent on strengthening the five U.S. alliances in the region and bringing new partners, including China, into the fold.
China abruptly halted all military-to-military engagement when the United States announced arms sales to Taiwan in October 2008. But now that China has demonstrated a willingness to re-engage, Willard wants to increase the interface and take the relationship to a new level.
"China is not our enemy," he said. "We look forward to a constructive relationship with China and their constructive contribution to the security of the Asia-Pacific region."
Willard said he'll work to promote more multilateralism in a region that historically has been characterized by bilateral relationships with the United States. "Ten years ago, the Asia-Pacific was, by and large, a place where ... countries were very comfortable talking one-on-one with the United States or with other partners, but rarely together," he said.
Although that's been improving, Willard said, current challenges facing the region demand even closer cooperation. He pointed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the power of like-minded nations engaging together, as valuable lessons for the Pacific.
"We are looking for as many partners ... as we can find in the region," he said.
As he takes on these challenges, Willard brings to the job extensive experience in the Pacific, both operationally, as a Navy pilot, and in command positions.
Most recently, he spent two and a half years commanding U.S. Pacific Fleet, the world's largest fleet command, with its 180 ships, 1,500 aircraft and 125,000 sailors and Marines. He previously commanded the Fighter Squadron 51 "Screaming Eagles"; the amphibious flagship USS Tripoli; the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln out of Everett, Wash.; Carrier Group 5 aboard USS Kitty Hawk; and 7th Fleet in Yokosuka, Japan.
While he's already putting his experience to work, Willard conceded that the top Pacom job demands an entirely different focus.
"This is a more strategic level of command than the components are, and as a consequence, it will be a little different level of engagement," he said. "It's a new experience for me, and I very much look forward to it."
To help in preparing himself, Willard spent the past couple months consulting with think-tank and Asia experts and working with a small transition team to ensure a smooth transition to his new post.
He noted during his Oct. 19 assumption of command ceremony the vast changes that have taken place in Asia and the Pacific in recent decades. The one constant, he said, has been Asia's growing importance, not just to the region, but to the world.
Willard said he'll work tirelessly to ensure Pacom lives up to the challenges, and sends an unmistakable message of U.S. commitment to Asia and the Pacific.
"Our nation's interests are here," he said.
Adm. Willard: Multilateralism Is The Name Of The Game
Written by Jeff Marchesseault, Guam News Factor Staff Writer
Friday, 30 October 2009 15:37
GUAM - As Guam prepares for the military buildup, we can expect new and refurbished forces based here in the Territory to integrate evermore seamlessly into a pan-Pacific alliance of nations that are mutually committed to protecting human and economic freedom.
According to a recent interview of Adm. Robert F. Willard, the new Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, multilateralism and multinational alliance is the name of the game in a world where multiple threats call for multiple partners.
"We are looking for as many partners ... as we can find in the region," Willard said in an interview with the American Forces Press Service.
Here is the original AFPS story from October 28, 2009:
U.S. Dept Of Defense - Willard Looks To Partnerships In Pacific
Navy Adm. Robert F. Willard made his Hollywood debut as the Soviet MiG pilot who challenged Tom Cruise's character - known by the call sign "Maverick" - to an exhilarating dogfight before meeting his demise in the 1986 "Top Gun" blockbuster.
While serving as operations and executive officer at the Navy's "Top Gun" Fighter Weapons School at the time, Willard was aerial coordinator for the movie. That got him a short, but pivotal, on-screen appearance as the pilot of an F-14 fighter jet painted black and embellished for the movie with a MiG-style fin flash on its tail.
"I kept looking back over my shoulder, and another missile was on its way," Willard recalled of the dogfight scene in which he ultimately was shot down. "It was very exciting."
More than two decades later, in his new role as the top U.S. officer in the Pacific, Willard doesn't have the luxury of being able to fixate on a single, Warsaw Pact-type threat. His vast region of responsibility, which stretches across half the world's surface and includes half its population in 36 countries, enjoys a relative peace. But its tensions, like its volatile geology, are bubbling just at or slightly below the surface.
North Korea's missile and nuclear weapons programs and China's military buildup and lack of transparency loom large. Terrorist activity threatens Indonesia, the Philippines and most recently, India. Other challenges range from piracy to the proliferation of technology for weapons of mass destruction.
Willard sat down with reporters last week in Seoul, South Korea, just two days after assuming command, to discuss these and other challenges and his vision for U.S. Pacific Command.
"I love this region of the world," he said. "The Asia-Pacific region, to me, is extremely complex [and] has a great history associated with it."
As he spoke, Willard had yet to set foot into his new headquarters office at Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii, perched on a mountain with a majestic view of Pearl Harbor. After consultative sessions in South Korea last week and an off-site defense chiefs conference in Hawaii this week, Willard said, he was looking forward to getting settled into his new office and getting down to business with his new staff.
North Korea is high on his priority list.
"A nuclear-armed North Korea, and a North Korea that chooses to provoke and ... may be on the brink of succession - all those things make North Korea worthy of our attention now," he said. "North Korea needs to be watched very closely."
Meanwhile, China is expanding its military might at "an unprecedented rate," Willard said, exceeding U.S. intelligence estimates every year for the past decade. Equally troubling, China also has obtained "asymmetric capabilities that are concerning to the region," including anti-access capabilities, ballistic missiles and sophisticated weaponry.
And even the historically rock-solid alliance with Japan is demanding more attention these days, as Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's new government reassesses security agreements made by previous administrations.
Willard told reporters he's intent on strengthening the five U.S. alliances in the region and bringing new partners, including China, into the fold.
China abruptly halted all military-to-military engagement when the United States announced arms sales to Taiwan in October 2008. But now that China has demonstrated a willingness to re-engage, Willard wants to increase the interface and take the relationship to a new level.
"China is not our enemy," he said. "We look forward to a constructive relationship with China and their constructive contribution to the security of the Asia-Pacific region."
Willard said he'll work to promote more multilateralism in a region that historically has been characterized by bilateral relationships with the United States. "Ten years ago, the Asia-Pacific was, by and large, a place where ... countries were very comfortable talking one-on-one with the United States or with other partners, but rarely together," he said.
Although that's been improving, Willard said, current challenges facing the region demand even closer cooperation. He pointed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the power of like-minded nations engaging together, as valuable lessons for the Pacific.
"We are looking for as many partners ... as we can find in the region," he said.
As he takes on these challenges, Willard brings to the job extensive experience in the Pacific, both operationally, as a Navy pilot, and in command positions.
Most recently, he spent two and a half years commanding U.S. Pacific Fleet, the world's largest fleet command, with its 180 ships, 1,500 aircraft and 125,000 sailors and Marines. He previously commanded the Fighter Squadron 51 "Screaming Eagles"; the amphibious flagship USS Tripoli; the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln out of Everett, Wash.; Carrier Group 5 aboard USS Kitty Hawk; and 7th Fleet in Yokosuka, Japan.
While he's already putting his experience to work, Willard conceded that the top Pacom job demands an entirely different focus.
"This is a more strategic level of command than the components are, and as a consequence, it will be a little different level of engagement," he said. "It's a new experience for me, and I very much look forward to it."
To help in preparing himself, Willard spent the past couple months consulting with think-tank and Asia experts and working with a small transition team to ensure a smooth transition to his new post.
He noted during his Oct. 19 assumption of command ceremony the vast changes that have taken place in Asia and the Pacific in recent decades. The one constant, he said, has been Asia's growing importance, not just to the region, but to the world.
Willard said he'll work tirelessly to ensure Pacom lives up to the challenges, and sends an unmistakable message of U.S. commitment to Asia and the Pacific.
"Our nation's interests are here," he said.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
While Guam Waits For WWII Reparations, U.S. Pays Out $100M To Filipino War Vets
While Guam Waits For WWII Reparations, U.S. Pays Out $100M To Filipino War Vets
By Jeff Marchesseault
GUAM - They suffered the same indignity as Guam's World War II survivors. Their unflagging loyalty to the United States through the violent crucible of war met no recompense for over six decades. In the long interval, most of their class died.
But earlier this year, that all began to change for the Philippines' surviving war veterans. Thanks to $198 million set aside in the Recovery Act, the U.S. has already paid half of that amount to Filipino veterans. About 70,000 of these remaining retired soldiers are receiving lump checks for $9,000 each if they are citizens of the Philippines and $15,000 if they are U.S. citizens.
According to a GMA News alert:
A total of $102 million had been distributed to some of the 34,000 Filipino World War II veterans who applied for the lump sum benefits package given by the US government, a Philippine official said Tuesday.
This news is likely to further inflame those on Guam who are fighting for reparations for the unincorporated U.S. territory's equally loyal war survivors and their families. Just last week the island learned that the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act would not be included in the $680 billion FY2010 Defense Authorization Act. Local leaders have been lobbying Congress for many years for comprehensive compensation while the island has watched its 'greatest generation' pass away.
GMA reports that only four months remain for Filipino war veterans to claim their checks.
By Jeff Marchesseault
GUAM - They suffered the same indignity as Guam's World War II survivors. Their unflagging loyalty to the United States through the violent crucible of war met no recompense for over six decades. In the long interval, most of their class died.
But earlier this year, that all began to change for the Philippines' surviving war veterans. Thanks to $198 million set aside in the Recovery Act, the U.S. has already paid half of that amount to Filipino veterans. About 70,000 of these remaining retired soldiers are receiving lump checks for $9,000 each if they are citizens of the Philippines and $15,000 if they are U.S. citizens.
According to a GMA News alert:
A total of $102 million had been distributed to some of the 34,000 Filipino World War II veterans who applied for the lump sum benefits package given by the US government, a Philippine official said Tuesday.
This news is likely to further inflame those on Guam who are fighting for reparations for the unincorporated U.S. territory's equally loyal war survivors and their families. Just last week the island learned that the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act would not be included in the $680 billion FY2010 Defense Authorization Act. Local leaders have been lobbying Congress for many years for comprehensive compensation while the island has watched its 'greatest generation' pass away.
GMA reports that only four months remain for Filipino war veterans to claim their checks.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Military Showcases Itself with Relief Work
Military mobilizes relief aid across Asia and the Pacific
By Gregg K. Kakesako
Honolulu Star Bulletin
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Oct 03, 2009
The USS Denver, equipped with heavy-lift CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters and a contingent of Marines, is moving from the Philippines to Indonesia to be part of the relief effort after an earthquake killed more than 1,000 people.
Adm. Timothy Keating, in charge of all military forces in the Pacific, briefed reporters in a conference call from his Camp Smith headquarters yesterday about military aid for natural disasters in Indonesia, the Philippines and the Samoas.
So far, the Pacific Command redirected about a dozen Special Forces soldiers, who were already going to Indonesia on a scheduled training exercise, to help with an Indonesian Army damage assessment, Keating said. A Navy admiral is being sent to Indonesia to oversee the response efforts, he said.
The United States has provided $300,000 for emergency relief, dispatched a team to assess needs and has set aside an additional $3 million for assistance pending the full assessment.
The Denver had been part of the amphibious ready group, including the dock landing ships USS Harpers Ferry and USS Tortuga, which were diverted from a previous scheduled training mission with the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Brigade to Manila to provide emergency relief assistance following Tropical Storm Ketsana, which struck Sept. 25, said Maj. Brad Gordon, Pacific Command spokesman.
The Harpers Ferry, the Tortuga and the Marines will remain off the northern coast of Luzon because of the threat posed this weekend by a second storm, Typhoon Perma.
Gordon said that there have been 400 medical and dental assistance cases in the Philippines as of yesterday, and more than 4,300 food packages that can each feed four people have been distributed.
As for American Samoa, Gordon said there have been five C-17 Globemaster jet cargo relief flights from Hickam Air Force Base carrying supplies, food, power generation equipment, search and emergency vehicles, and rescue and mortuary affairs teams. Gordon said that several more C-17 relief missions from Hickam to ferry Red Cross relief workers to American Samoa are planned.
Keating said the USS Bonhomme Richard Amphibious Readiness Group is east of Guam ready to respond if Typhoon Melor proves to be a threat in the Northern Mariana Islands.
By Gregg K. Kakesako
Honolulu Star Bulletin
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Oct 03, 2009
The USS Denver, equipped with heavy-lift CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters and a contingent of Marines, is moving from the Philippines to Indonesia to be part of the relief effort after an earthquake killed more than 1,000 people.
Adm. Timothy Keating, in charge of all military forces in the Pacific, briefed reporters in a conference call from his Camp Smith headquarters yesterday about military aid for natural disasters in Indonesia, the Philippines and the Samoas.
So far, the Pacific Command redirected about a dozen Special Forces soldiers, who were already going to Indonesia on a scheduled training exercise, to help with an Indonesian Army damage assessment, Keating said. A Navy admiral is being sent to Indonesia to oversee the response efforts, he said.
The United States has provided $300,000 for emergency relief, dispatched a team to assess needs and has set aside an additional $3 million for assistance pending the full assessment.
The Denver had been part of the amphibious ready group, including the dock landing ships USS Harpers Ferry and USS Tortuga, which were diverted from a previous scheduled training mission with the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Brigade to Manila to provide emergency relief assistance following Tropical Storm Ketsana, which struck Sept. 25, said Maj. Brad Gordon, Pacific Command spokesman.
The Harpers Ferry, the Tortuga and the Marines will remain off the northern coast of Luzon because of the threat posed this weekend by a second storm, Typhoon Perma.
Gordon said that there have been 400 medical and dental assistance cases in the Philippines as of yesterday, and more than 4,300 food packages that can each feed four people have been distributed.
As for American Samoa, Gordon said there have been five C-17 Globemaster jet cargo relief flights from Hickam Air Force Base carrying supplies, food, power generation equipment, search and emergency vehicles, and rescue and mortuary affairs teams. Gordon said that several more C-17 relief missions from Hickam to ferry Red Cross relief workers to American Samoa are planned.
Keating said the USS Bonhomme Richard Amphibious Readiness Group is east of Guam ready to respond if Typhoon Melor proves to be a threat in the Northern Mariana Islands.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
US Troops in the Philippines
Shooting by American troops lawful-military
By Tarra Quismundo
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Posted date: September 20, 2009
THE PHILIPPINE military maintained Saturday that American soldiers acted within the bounds of the law when they fired their machine guns in self-defense following an explosion believed targeted at them at the Jolo pier in Sulu on Monday.
The avowal was in reaction to the claim by the leftist group, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), which said that United States forces, stationed in Mindanao as part of anti-terror operations jointly undertaken with the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), were cleared of any liability too quickly while questions on their continued presence here had yet to be settled.
“It is part of their right to defend themselves. They are targets for liquidation or harm by terrorists. It’s normal that they also take precautionary measures to defend themselves,” said Lieutenant Colonel Romeo Brawner Jr., military spokesman.
He said the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which sets the parameters covering the conduct of soldiers while engaged in training exercises and intelligence or technical assistance in the country, did not bar American troops from carrying firearms.
“They are allowed to carry guns. The VFA only says they cannot engage in combat, but they have the right to defend themselves,” said Brawner, adding that a Philippine investigation found nothing unlawful about the discharge of firearms from US guns.
“We also expect that it is a natural tendency for soldiers when under attack … that the immediate reaction is to seek cover, determine the source of attack and fire back,” Brawner told the Philippine Daily Inquirer when reached by phone Saturday.
Bayan, which had long called for the abrogation of the VFA, expressed concern over the VFA Commission’s speedy resolution of the incident wherein it concluded that the discharge was “a justified response” to a threat.
While US military officials said that their troops fired just a single burst, civilian witnesses said arms were let loose for about 20 minutes and described the US soldiers’ response as an “overreaction.” The fusillade damaged a mosque.
“The presidential VFA Commission seems to be working on damage control. It is amazing that in a matter of 24 hours, they have cleared the US forces from any liability, despite numerous eyewitness accounts,” Bayan secretary general Renato Reyes Jr. said in a statement.
“The impression we’re getting is that a coverup is in the works,” he said.
But Brawner said that the investigation went through a process and that local officials took part in it.
Denying an unfair investigation was conducted, Brawner said: “In the first place, in order for a liability to be established, there should be a complaint. But there was no complainant.”
By Tarra Quismundo
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Posted date: September 20, 2009
THE PHILIPPINE military maintained Saturday that American soldiers acted within the bounds of the law when they fired their machine guns in self-defense following an explosion believed targeted at them at the Jolo pier in Sulu on Monday.
The avowal was in reaction to the claim by the leftist group, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), which said that United States forces, stationed in Mindanao as part of anti-terror operations jointly undertaken with the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), were cleared of any liability too quickly while questions on their continued presence here had yet to be settled.
“It is part of their right to defend themselves. They are targets for liquidation or harm by terrorists. It’s normal that they also take precautionary measures to defend themselves,” said Lieutenant Colonel Romeo Brawner Jr., military spokesman.
He said the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which sets the parameters covering the conduct of soldiers while engaged in training exercises and intelligence or technical assistance in the country, did not bar American troops from carrying firearms.
“They are allowed to carry guns. The VFA only says they cannot engage in combat, but they have the right to defend themselves,” said Brawner, adding that a Philippine investigation found nothing unlawful about the discharge of firearms from US guns.
“We also expect that it is a natural tendency for soldiers when under attack … that the immediate reaction is to seek cover, determine the source of attack and fire back,” Brawner told the Philippine Daily Inquirer when reached by phone Saturday.
Bayan, which had long called for the abrogation of the VFA, expressed concern over the VFA Commission’s speedy resolution of the incident wherein it concluded that the discharge was “a justified response” to a threat.
While US military officials said that their troops fired just a single burst, civilian witnesses said arms were let loose for about 20 minutes and described the US soldiers’ response as an “overreaction.” The fusillade damaged a mosque.
“The presidential VFA Commission seems to be working on damage control. It is amazing that in a matter of 24 hours, they have cleared the US forces from any liability, despite numerous eyewitness accounts,” Bayan secretary general Renato Reyes Jr. said in a statement.
“The impression we’re getting is that a coverup is in the works,” he said.
But Brawner said that the investigation went through a process and that local officials took part in it.
Denying an unfair investigation was conducted, Brawner said: “In the first place, in order for a liability to be established, there should be a complaint. But there was no complainant.”
Thursday, September 10, 2009
University Of Guam Lecture: A Philippine Perspective On US Strategic Policy In The Pacific
University of the Philippines Scholar Presents Inaugural Lecture at UOG CLASS Philippine Studies Lecture Series
Written by Guam News Factor Staff Writer
Thursday, 10 September 2009 16:05
GUAM - The University of Guam's College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences presents the first in the Philippine Studies Lecture Series featuring Dr. Clarita Carlos, a professor of Political Science at the University of the Philippines, on Thursday, September 10 at 6:00 p.m. in the CLASS Lecture Hall.
Dr. Carlos's lecture is entitled, "US strategic policy in the Asia Pacific: A Philippine perspective." Dr. Carlos earned her doctorate in political science from the University of the Philippines and did post-doctoral work in Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis at the University of California Los Angeles as a Senior Fulbright Fellow; and post-doctoral work in Political Psychology at Cornell University in New York as a Fulbright Visiting Fellow. She has been a consultant on constitutional reforms, anti-corruption , security and defense issues to the Philippine Senate and Philippine House of Representatives for many years, and is a former president of the National Defense College.
Doors will open at 5:30 p.m., light refreshments will be served.
This event is made possible with a donation from the Nueva Ecija Family Association.
In addition to her faculty role at UP, Dr. Carlos is also president of the Center for Asia Pacific Studies, and director of the Philippine National Red Cross. She is the author of several books on Filipino political parties, electoral reform, and many other issues.
For more information contact Dr. Lilnabeth Somera at 735-2704 or someralp@uguam.uog.edu This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
This news announcement was prepared from a media release provided by the University of Guam.
Written by Guam News Factor Staff Writer
Thursday, 10 September 2009 16:05
GUAM - The University of Guam's College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences presents the first in the Philippine Studies Lecture Series featuring Dr. Clarita Carlos, a professor of Political Science at the University of the Philippines, on Thursday, September 10 at 6:00 p.m. in the CLASS Lecture Hall.
Dr. Carlos's lecture is entitled, "US strategic policy in the Asia Pacific: A Philippine perspective." Dr. Carlos earned her doctorate in political science from the University of the Philippines and did post-doctoral work in Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis at the University of California Los Angeles as a Senior Fulbright Fellow; and post-doctoral work in Political Psychology at Cornell University in New York as a Fulbright Visiting Fellow. She has been a consultant on constitutional reforms, anti-corruption , security and defense issues to the Philippine Senate and Philippine House of Representatives for many years, and is a former president of the National Defense College.
Doors will open at 5:30 p.m., light refreshments will be served.
This event is made possible with a donation from the Nueva Ecija Family Association.
In addition to her faculty role at UP, Dr. Carlos is also president of the Center for Asia Pacific Studies, and director of the Philippine National Red Cross. She is the author of several books on Filipino political parties, electoral reform, and many other issues.
For more information contact Dr. Lilnabeth Somera at 735-2704 or someralp@uguam.uog.edu This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
This news announcement was prepared from a media release provided by the University of Guam.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Family, human rights issues top forum agenda
Monday, 07 September 2009 03:09 by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff
HUMAN rights and family issues as they relate to the presence of military bases are among the main issues that will be discussed at the 7th meeting of the International Network of Women Against Militarism from Sept. 14 to 19.
Hosted by the University of Guam in Mangilao and Carmel on the Hill Center, this year’s conference theme is “Resistance, Resilience and Respect for Human Rights.” Attending the conference are women from Japan, Okinawa, Hawaii, South Korea, Philippines, Australia, Republic of Belau, Marshall Islands, Guam, Saipan, United States, and Puerto Rico.
The International Network of Women Against Militarism has been meeting since 1997 to share information and strategize about the negative effects of U.S. military operations.
These effects include military violence against women and girls, the plight of mixed-race Amerasian children abandoned by U.S. military fathers, environmental contamination, cultural degradation and the distortion of local economies. They focus on how military institutions, values, policies and operations impact communities, especially women.
Women across the globe have endured tremendous struggles to protect their families and survive during times of war and unrest. It is from these struggles that women have gained the strength to fight for peace.
Workshops and public forums on human trafficking and prostitution, political arrangements with the U.S., rethinking peace and security, exploring alternatives for economic sustainability, environmental contamination and toxicity will be featured throughout.
A central focus of the gathering is the issue of the U.S. military presence on Guam. Referred to as the “tip of the spear,” Guam is immersed in an unprecedented military build-up as the U.S. plans to relocate thousands of Marines and their dependents from Okinawa. The conference comes at a critical time in island’s history, and aims to bring international attention to the concerns being raised about the proposed build-up.
Additionally, there will also be a historical tour of the island; a community vigil to honor the past and heal for the future; a public art event featuring local and international artists; and other networking opportunities.
Those interested in the conference may register until Thursday. For additional information, visit www.genuinesecurity.blogspot.com.
HUMAN rights and family issues as they relate to the presence of military bases are among the main issues that will be discussed at the 7th meeting of the International Network of Women Against Militarism from Sept. 14 to 19.
Hosted by the University of Guam in Mangilao and Carmel on the Hill Center, this year’s conference theme is “Resistance, Resilience and Respect for Human Rights.” Attending the conference are women from Japan, Okinawa, Hawaii, South Korea, Philippines, Australia, Republic of Belau, Marshall Islands, Guam, Saipan, United States, and Puerto Rico.
The International Network of Women Against Militarism has been meeting since 1997 to share information and strategize about the negative effects of U.S. military operations.
These effects include military violence against women and girls, the plight of mixed-race Amerasian children abandoned by U.S. military fathers, environmental contamination, cultural degradation and the distortion of local economies. They focus on how military institutions, values, policies and operations impact communities, especially women.
Women across the globe have endured tremendous struggles to protect their families and survive during times of war and unrest. It is from these struggles that women have gained the strength to fight for peace.
Workshops and public forums on human trafficking and prostitution, political arrangements with the U.S., rethinking peace and security, exploring alternatives for economic sustainability, environmental contamination and toxicity will be featured throughout.
A central focus of the gathering is the issue of the U.S. military presence on Guam. Referred to as the “tip of the spear,” Guam is immersed in an unprecedented military build-up as the U.S. plans to relocate thousands of Marines and their dependents from Okinawa. The conference comes at a critical time in island’s history, and aims to bring international attention to the concerns being raised about the proposed build-up.
Additionally, there will also be a historical tour of the island; a community vigil to honor the past and heal for the future; a public art event featuring local and international artists; and other networking opportunities.
Those interested in the conference may register until Thursday. For additional information, visit www.genuinesecurity.blogspot.com.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
US Troop Role in Philippines
US troops’ combat role in RP revealed
By Nikko Dizon
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:23:00 08/27/2009
MANILA, Philippines-The woman who blew the whistle on a fund mess involving the RP-US Balikatan exercises said American soldiers were purportedly “embedded” with Filipino troops in combat situations in Mindanao, and that the United States had taken part in the “planning of combat operations” against terrorist and Moro targets.
With nuns from the Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines serving as her bodyguards, retired Navy Lt. Nancy Gadian Wednesday faced the media in a press conference organized by the militant Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan).
Copies of her affidavit detailing her observations while stationed in Mindanao and affirming her belief that US troops were based permanently in the country were distributed at the press conference.
Gadian’s lawyer, Evalyn Ursua, said the affidavit would be submitted to the Senate on Thursday. Gadian has expressed willingness to testify at the joint congressional hearing on the continued stay of American troops in the country.
“The [US] soldiers who are deployed in Mindanao are part of the Special Operations Command. This is a unit of highly capable and technically skilled individuals. They will not be deployed here if they are not combat-ready,” Gadian said.
She admitted that she had no personal knowledge on the US soldiers’ purported involvement in actual warfare, but said in her affidavit that Filipino soldiers had confirmed to her “that US troops are embedded in Philippine troops who are engaged in actual combat in Mindanao.”
She also said in her affidavit that she had attended “a couple of situation briefings” where members of the US Special Operations Command gave the Philippine military “intelligence reports on the location of the Abu Sayyaf and secessionist groups in Mindanao.”
Asked to comment, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) spokesperson Lt. Col. Romeo Brawner Jr. said Gadian would have to prove her claims in the “proper court.”
At press time, the US Embassy had yet to respond to a text message seeking comment, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Commission on the Visiting Forces Agreement had yet to issue a statement.
Violation of Constitution
At the press conference, Gadian asserted that the US military had taken part in the planning of Philippine combat operations.
Aided by their “highly sophisticated equipment, they give information to the AFP counterpart,” she said.
“They have special intelligence equipment and in many instances that I was in the briefings in the conference room, the US counterpart would say where … the enemies are, either Abu Sayyaf or Muslim secessionist,” Gadian said.
“In [the Balikatan] 2002-1, the focus was on the Abu Sayyaf, and we know that they had a role in the neutralization of high-ranking personalities of the Abu Sayyaf,” she said.
Ursua said the participation of US troops in combat planning or their providing intelligence information was a violation of the 1987 Constitution.
“The most fundamental [provision] is national sovereignty … and our Constitution prohibits the presence of US troops. What Ms Gadian is saying is, for the past seven years their presence in the Philippines has been permanent and continuous,” the lawyer said.
She added: “The intelligence [operations], how do they justify that? That is part of the prohibition. They are allowed to use intelligence equipment all over, wherever they want. How do you justify that legally?”
US structures
The US military has also built permanent and temporary structures in several AFP camps in Mindanao, Gadian said.
These structures are often “off limits” to AFP personnel, and Filipino soldiers, including generals and other ranking officials, can enter only upon invitation and are limited to certain areas, she said.
In her affidavit, Gadian explained that the permanent structures “are those with fixed foundations made of concrete and cannot be easily removed.”
She said that since 2002, the Americans had temporary, as well as two permanent, structures in Camp Basilio Navarro, the headquarters of the AFP Western Mindanao Command (Wesmincom) in Calarian, Zamboanga City.
The headquarters of the US Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTF-P) is also at Camp Navarro.
Said Gadian in her affidavit: “The American camp in Camp Navarro consists of two permanent structures, built by the Americans, located near the office of the Headquarters Service Group of the [Wesmincom].
“The two permanent structures are fenced off by barbed wires and guarded by US Marines. Filipinos have no access to those two structures except that on occasions, a few Filipino officers are invited inside the bigger structure [but still on a limited access] which has the name of the [JSOTF-P].”
4 AFP camps
Gadian said the Americans had also built and maintained temporary and permanent structures in the Edwin Andrews Air Base for their personnel and equipment, including tanks and communication facilities.
“This area is fenced and secured by Filipinos and Americans hired by Dyn Corp., an American private military contractor. Filipinos have no access to this area,” she said.
According to Gadian, the Americans have access to the air base’s airstrip, and their planes come and go almost every other day. Their aircraft-C-12, C-130 and Chinook-are parked at the base operations center.
Gadian named the four AFP camps where the US troops maintain “temporary structures”-Camp Malagutay in Barangay Malagutay, Zamboanga City, the training camp of the Philippine Army; the Philippine Naval Station in Batu-Bato, Panglima Sugala, Tawi-Tawi; the Naval Forces Wesmincom in Lower Calarian in Camp Navarro; and Camp General Bautista in Busbus, Jolo, Sulu.
Wood, GI sheets
In Camp Malagutay, the Americans’ office is a structure made of wood and GI sheets with a container van beside it, Gadian said.
It occupies 200-300 square meters of land, fenced off and “generally not accessible to Filipinos,” but the Americans have access to the Philippine Army’s training facilities, she said.
Gadian said she first saw the temporary structure, also made of wood and GI sheets, in the Philippine Naval Station in 2004.
Staffed by seven US Navy personnel, the structure occupies some 200 sq m and houses advanced satellite communication equipment, she said. Rubber boats and land vehicles are parked in the vicinity.
Gadian said the Americans had been operating their structure at the Naval Forces in Wesmincom since 2002.
In Camp General Bautista, they have temporary structures occupying some 1,000 sq m that house personnel of the US Special Operations Command Pacific “365 days a year,” Gadian said in her affidavit.
“In all, the US troops stationed inside Camp Navarro and other parts of Mindanao total about 500 at each particular time, on a rotating basis of three months each. These troops are stationed in Mindanao even without any Balikatan exercises going on,” she said.
At the press conference, Gadian said she and mostly AFP junior officers and enlisted personnel had wondered about the US structures in the Philippines, as well as the US warships (called “frigates”) seen within the country’s “exclusive economic zone.”
She said that on a superior’s instructions, some Filipino soldiers were once brought to a warship where they even sold bottles of a popular local rum for $3 each to the US troops.
In her affidavit, she explained that frigates were for “war and equipped with missiles,” and were utilized as a “fleet in being” or a show of force.
Free ride
Gadian lamented at the press conference that Filipino soldiers had gained very little benefits from the RP-US Balikatan exercises.
At most, she said, Filipino soldiers got a “free ride” in state-of-the-art US aircraft.
As for the humanitarian missions, Gadian said that while it was true that US troops had built school buildings and roads for Filipinos, these were infrastructure that the Philippine government should provide its constituents.
She pointed out that Filipino women were being forced into prostitution by the continued US presence in Mindanao.
Gadian also denounced the arrogance with which US troops treated Filipino soldiers like herself.
She recalled an American soldier signaling to her using his fingers instead of calling her by her name. She said she was incensed and told him: “Don’t treat me like a dog. This is our country.”
Source: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090827-222208/US-troops-combat-role-in-RP-revealed
By Nikko Dizon
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:23:00 08/27/2009
MANILA, Philippines-The woman who blew the whistle on a fund mess involving the RP-US Balikatan exercises said American soldiers were purportedly “embedded” with Filipino troops in combat situations in Mindanao, and that the United States had taken part in the “planning of combat operations” against terrorist and Moro targets.
With nuns from the Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines serving as her bodyguards, retired Navy Lt. Nancy Gadian Wednesday faced the media in a press conference organized by the militant Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan).
Copies of her affidavit detailing her observations while stationed in Mindanao and affirming her belief that US troops were based permanently in the country were distributed at the press conference.
Gadian’s lawyer, Evalyn Ursua, said the affidavit would be submitted to the Senate on Thursday. Gadian has expressed willingness to testify at the joint congressional hearing on the continued stay of American troops in the country.
“The [US] soldiers who are deployed in Mindanao are part of the Special Operations Command. This is a unit of highly capable and technically skilled individuals. They will not be deployed here if they are not combat-ready,” Gadian said.
She admitted that she had no personal knowledge on the US soldiers’ purported involvement in actual warfare, but said in her affidavit that Filipino soldiers had confirmed to her “that US troops are embedded in Philippine troops who are engaged in actual combat in Mindanao.”
She also said in her affidavit that she had attended “a couple of situation briefings” where members of the US Special Operations Command gave the Philippine military “intelligence reports on the location of the Abu Sayyaf and secessionist groups in Mindanao.”
Asked to comment, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) spokesperson Lt. Col. Romeo Brawner Jr. said Gadian would have to prove her claims in the “proper court.”
At press time, the US Embassy had yet to respond to a text message seeking comment, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Commission on the Visiting Forces Agreement had yet to issue a statement.
Violation of Constitution
At the press conference, Gadian asserted that the US military had taken part in the planning of Philippine combat operations.
Aided by their “highly sophisticated equipment, they give information to the AFP counterpart,” she said.
“They have special intelligence equipment and in many instances that I was in the briefings in the conference room, the US counterpart would say where … the enemies are, either Abu Sayyaf or Muslim secessionist,” Gadian said.
“In [the Balikatan] 2002-1, the focus was on the Abu Sayyaf, and we know that they had a role in the neutralization of high-ranking personalities of the Abu Sayyaf,” she said.
Ursua said the participation of US troops in combat planning or their providing intelligence information was a violation of the 1987 Constitution.
“The most fundamental [provision] is national sovereignty … and our Constitution prohibits the presence of US troops. What Ms Gadian is saying is, for the past seven years their presence in the Philippines has been permanent and continuous,” the lawyer said.
She added: “The intelligence [operations], how do they justify that? That is part of the prohibition. They are allowed to use intelligence equipment all over, wherever they want. How do you justify that legally?”
US structures
The US military has also built permanent and temporary structures in several AFP camps in Mindanao, Gadian said.
These structures are often “off limits” to AFP personnel, and Filipino soldiers, including generals and other ranking officials, can enter only upon invitation and are limited to certain areas, she said.
In her affidavit, Gadian explained that the permanent structures “are those with fixed foundations made of concrete and cannot be easily removed.”
She said that since 2002, the Americans had temporary, as well as two permanent, structures in Camp Basilio Navarro, the headquarters of the AFP Western Mindanao Command (Wesmincom) in Calarian, Zamboanga City.
The headquarters of the US Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTF-P) is also at Camp Navarro.
Said Gadian in her affidavit: “The American camp in Camp Navarro consists of two permanent structures, built by the Americans, located near the office of the Headquarters Service Group of the [Wesmincom].
“The two permanent structures are fenced off by barbed wires and guarded by US Marines. Filipinos have no access to those two structures except that on occasions, a few Filipino officers are invited inside the bigger structure [but still on a limited access] which has the name of the [JSOTF-P].”
4 AFP camps
Gadian said the Americans had also built and maintained temporary and permanent structures in the Edwin Andrews Air Base for their personnel and equipment, including tanks and communication facilities.
“This area is fenced and secured by Filipinos and Americans hired by Dyn Corp., an American private military contractor. Filipinos have no access to this area,” she said.
According to Gadian, the Americans have access to the air base’s airstrip, and their planes come and go almost every other day. Their aircraft-C-12, C-130 and Chinook-are parked at the base operations center.
Gadian named the four AFP camps where the US troops maintain “temporary structures”-Camp Malagutay in Barangay Malagutay, Zamboanga City, the training camp of the Philippine Army; the Philippine Naval Station in Batu-Bato, Panglima Sugala, Tawi-Tawi; the Naval Forces Wesmincom in Lower Calarian in Camp Navarro; and Camp General Bautista in Busbus, Jolo, Sulu.
Wood, GI sheets
In Camp Malagutay, the Americans’ office is a structure made of wood and GI sheets with a container van beside it, Gadian said.
It occupies 200-300 square meters of land, fenced off and “generally not accessible to Filipinos,” but the Americans have access to the Philippine Army’s training facilities, she said.
Gadian said she first saw the temporary structure, also made of wood and GI sheets, in the Philippine Naval Station in 2004.
Staffed by seven US Navy personnel, the structure occupies some 200 sq m and houses advanced satellite communication equipment, she said. Rubber boats and land vehicles are parked in the vicinity.
Gadian said the Americans had been operating their structure at the Naval Forces in Wesmincom since 2002.
In Camp General Bautista, they have temporary structures occupying some 1,000 sq m that house personnel of the US Special Operations Command Pacific “365 days a year,” Gadian said in her affidavit.
“In all, the US troops stationed inside Camp Navarro and other parts of Mindanao total about 500 at each particular time, on a rotating basis of three months each. These troops are stationed in Mindanao even without any Balikatan exercises going on,” she said.
At the press conference, Gadian said she and mostly AFP junior officers and enlisted personnel had wondered about the US structures in the Philippines, as well as the US warships (called “frigates”) seen within the country’s “exclusive economic zone.”
She said that on a superior’s instructions, some Filipino soldiers were once brought to a warship where they even sold bottles of a popular local rum for $3 each to the US troops.
In her affidavit, she explained that frigates were for “war and equipped with missiles,” and were utilized as a “fleet in being” or a show of force.
Free ride
Gadian lamented at the press conference that Filipino soldiers had gained very little benefits from the RP-US Balikatan exercises.
At most, she said, Filipino soldiers got a “free ride” in state-of-the-art US aircraft.
As for the humanitarian missions, Gadian said that while it was true that US troops had built school buildings and roads for Filipinos, these were infrastructure that the Philippine government should provide its constituents.
She pointed out that Filipino women were being forced into prostitution by the continued US presence in Mindanao.
Gadian also denounced the arrogance with which US troops treated Filipino soldiers like herself.
She recalled an American soldier signaling to her using his fingers instead of calling her by her name. She said she was incensed and told him: “Don’t treat me like a dog. This is our country.”
Source: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090827-222208/US-troops-combat-role-in-RP-revealed
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Self-Determination and Realpolitik
Island Stir: Self-Determination and Realpolitik
Friday, 21 August 2009 00:10 by Gerardo Partido
Marianas Variety News Staff
The issue of self-determination has become prominent again after the recent visit to the island by a congressional delegation led by Congressman Nick Rahall of West Virginia.
Congressman Rahall, responding to a question from Sen. Eddie Calvo during a forum, stated that he supports self-determination for Guam and that the federal government would abide with whatever decision island residents make with regard to political status.
Rahall is the chairman of the House committee with direct oversight over Guam. And as Sen. Ben Pangelinan noted in his column last Tuesday, Rahall’s statement was the first declaration of support in recent memory from someone with real power in Congress.
Rahall, however, was probably just being gracious to his hosts. Under the concept of realpolitik, which states that politics are amoral and that things should be looked at realistically, I doubt whether the federal government would give Guam a chance for self-determination, at least not in the immediate future.
As the champion of freedom and democracy in the world, the U.S. may morally and ideologically support self-determination. But under realpolitik, Guam is just too important to U.S. security for the federal government to just allow us to adopt whatever political status we want.
Ever since the U.S. Navy and Air Force were forced out of the Philippines, Guam has become America’s most strategic fortress in this part of the world. Guam truly is the tip of the American spear and this is not just rhetoric.
With China continuing to grow as a superpower and Guam in proximity to the major hotspots in the region, America would never dare risk its control over Guam even at the expense of its ideals.
Under realpolitik, two of the options available to Guam for self-determination (namely independence and free association) may already be counted out.
It is hard to see the U.S. granting Guam independence as it did the Philippines. Look at what happened in the Philippines and how America’s bases were booted out there. America simply can’t take that chance again.
On the other hand, free association and commonwealth may not be desirable to the U.S. either because the military cannot build up its forces here if we have our own independent immigration and labor policy as the CNMI does.
In fact, the impending federalization of the CNMI can be seen as part of the U.S. attempt to increase security and tighten its control.
With the U.S. building up its forces on Guam, it makes no sense, security-wise, for our neighbors in the north to be inundated with Russian and Chinese tourists as well as alien workers. Thus, our tourism leaders can dream all they want but it is highly unlikely that Russia and China will be included in the new visa waiver program.
The federalization of the CNMI, the final implementing rules of which will be released in just a matter of weeks, is really meant to exert more control over the CNMI and by fait accompli link it closer to Guam, with our island as the dominant partner.
The closer integration of Guam and a satellite CNMI is a natural development given the military buildup. This integration would not only make it more convenient to manage security, it would also give the U.S. more areas for military use.
As for statehood, the third self-determination option, Guam can gain a lot of benefits from total integration with the United States.
But the real question under realpolitik is what’s in it for the United States? They already get their benefits from Guam under the island’s current political status as an unincorporated U.S. territory. Would the U.S. want the additional costs and responsibility that statehood would bring?
Of course, the situation is not totally hopeless. As Sen. Pangelinan pointed out, the stars may indeed be aligned for Guam’s self-determination with Rahall’s declaration of support, a more enlightened U.S. leader in President Obama, and a native son as an assistant secretary of the Department of Interior.
But unless we see truly concrete actions from the federal government in support of self-determination, let us welcome Rahall’s promise of support but not expect too much from it.
Friday, 21 August 2009 00:10 by Gerardo Partido
Marianas Variety News Staff
The issue of self-determination has become prominent again after the recent visit to the island by a congressional delegation led by Congressman Nick Rahall of West Virginia.
Congressman Rahall, responding to a question from Sen. Eddie Calvo during a forum, stated that he supports self-determination for Guam and that the federal government would abide with whatever decision island residents make with regard to political status.
Rahall is the chairman of the House committee with direct oversight over Guam. And as Sen. Ben Pangelinan noted in his column last Tuesday, Rahall’s statement was the first declaration of support in recent memory from someone with real power in Congress.
Rahall, however, was probably just being gracious to his hosts. Under the concept of realpolitik, which states that politics are amoral and that things should be looked at realistically, I doubt whether the federal government would give Guam a chance for self-determination, at least not in the immediate future.
As the champion of freedom and democracy in the world, the U.S. may morally and ideologically support self-determination. But under realpolitik, Guam is just too important to U.S. security for the federal government to just allow us to adopt whatever political status we want.
Ever since the U.S. Navy and Air Force were forced out of the Philippines, Guam has become America’s most strategic fortress in this part of the world. Guam truly is the tip of the American spear and this is not just rhetoric.
With China continuing to grow as a superpower and Guam in proximity to the major hotspots in the region, America would never dare risk its control over Guam even at the expense of its ideals.
Under realpolitik, two of the options available to Guam for self-determination (namely independence and free association) may already be counted out.
It is hard to see the U.S. granting Guam independence as it did the Philippines. Look at what happened in the Philippines and how America’s bases were booted out there. America simply can’t take that chance again.
On the other hand, free association and commonwealth may not be desirable to the U.S. either because the military cannot build up its forces here if we have our own independent immigration and labor policy as the CNMI does.
In fact, the impending federalization of the CNMI can be seen as part of the U.S. attempt to increase security and tighten its control.
With the U.S. building up its forces on Guam, it makes no sense, security-wise, for our neighbors in the north to be inundated with Russian and Chinese tourists as well as alien workers. Thus, our tourism leaders can dream all they want but it is highly unlikely that Russia and China will be included in the new visa waiver program.
The federalization of the CNMI, the final implementing rules of which will be released in just a matter of weeks, is really meant to exert more control over the CNMI and by fait accompli link it closer to Guam, with our island as the dominant partner.
The closer integration of Guam and a satellite CNMI is a natural development given the military buildup. This integration would not only make it more convenient to manage security, it would also give the U.S. more areas for military use.
As for statehood, the third self-determination option, Guam can gain a lot of benefits from total integration with the United States.
But the real question under realpolitik is what’s in it for the United States? They already get their benefits from Guam under the island’s current political status as an unincorporated U.S. territory. Would the U.S. want the additional costs and responsibility that statehood would bring?
Of course, the situation is not totally hopeless. As Sen. Pangelinan pointed out, the stars may indeed be aligned for Guam’s self-determination with Rahall’s declaration of support, a more enlightened U.S. leader in President Obama, and a native son as an assistant secretary of the Department of Interior.
But unless we see truly concrete actions from the federal government in support of self-determination, let us welcome Rahall’s promise of support but not expect too much from it.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
International Network of Women Against Militarism Meeting in Guam
7TH MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF WOMEN AGAINST MILITARISM
Resistance, Resilience, and Respect for Human Rights
CHinemma’, Nina’maolek, yan Inarespetu para Direchon Taotao
Location: University of Guam, Mangilao, Guåhan
Dates: September 14-19, 2009
Women across the globe have endured tremendous struggles to protect their families and survive during times of war and unrest. It is from these struggles that women have gained the strength to fight for peace. This September, they will gather on the island of Guam for the 7th Meeting of the International Network of Women Against Militarism themed, “Resistance, Resilience and Respect for Human Rights”.
The five-day conference will bring together women from Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, Hawaii, Philippines, Australia, Republic of Belau, Marshall Islands, Guam, United States, Puerto Rico and Saipan – all of whom have felt the tremendous impacts of US military bases in their homelands.
The International Network of Women Against Militarism has been meeting since 1997 to share information and strategize about the negative effects of US military operations. These effects include military violence against women and girls, the plight of mixed-race Amerasian children abandoned by US military fathers, environmental contamination, cultural degradation and the distortion of local economies. They focus on how military institutions, values, policies and operations impact communities, especially women.
The United States has had a strong military presence on Guam for more than a century, and occupies nearly one-third of the island. Guam, which has been dubbed “the tip of the spear” by the US Department of Defense, is in the midst of an unprecedented military build-up as the US plans to move 17,000 Marines and their dependents from Okinawa to the island. The conference comes at a critical time in Guam’s history, and aims to bring international attention to the concerns being raised about the proposed build-up.
The conference will feature workshops and public forums on human trafficking and prostitution; political arrangements with the United States; rethinking peace and security; exploring alternatives for economic sustainability; environmental contamination and toxicity; and much more.
There will also be a historical tour of the island; a community vigil to honor the past and heal for the future; a public art event featuring local and international artists; and many opportunities to network and establish goals for the future.
For more information please contact: Dr. LisaLinda Natividad at lisanati@yahoo.com or (671) 735-2962.
Sponsoring Organizations: Conscious Living; Famoksaiyan; Fuetsan Famalao’an; Guåhan Coalition for Peace and Justice; Guåhan Indigenous Collective; GUAHAN Project; Global Fund for Women; Office of Minority Health Resource Center; Sage Project, Incorporated; Women and Gender Studies Program, University of Guam.
Resistance, Resilience, and Respect for Human Rights
CHinemma’, Nina’maolek, yan Inarespetu para Direchon Taotao
Location: University of Guam, Mangilao, Guåhan
Dates: September 14-19, 2009
Women across the globe have endured tremendous struggles to protect their families and survive during times of war and unrest. It is from these struggles that women have gained the strength to fight for peace. This September, they will gather on the island of Guam for the 7th Meeting of the International Network of Women Against Militarism themed, “Resistance, Resilience and Respect for Human Rights”.
The five-day conference will bring together women from Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, Hawaii, Philippines, Australia, Republic of Belau, Marshall Islands, Guam, United States, Puerto Rico and Saipan – all of whom have felt the tremendous impacts of US military bases in their homelands.
The International Network of Women Against Militarism has been meeting since 1997 to share information and strategize about the negative effects of US military operations. These effects include military violence against women and girls, the plight of mixed-race Amerasian children abandoned by US military fathers, environmental contamination, cultural degradation and the distortion of local economies. They focus on how military institutions, values, policies and operations impact communities, especially women.
The United States has had a strong military presence on Guam for more than a century, and occupies nearly one-third of the island. Guam, which has been dubbed “the tip of the spear” by the US Department of Defense, is in the midst of an unprecedented military build-up as the US plans to move 17,000 Marines and their dependents from Okinawa to the island. The conference comes at a critical time in Guam’s history, and aims to bring international attention to the concerns being raised about the proposed build-up.
The conference will feature workshops and public forums on human trafficking and prostitution; political arrangements with the United States; rethinking peace and security; exploring alternatives for economic sustainability; environmental contamination and toxicity; and much more.
There will also be a historical tour of the island; a community vigil to honor the past and heal for the future; a public art event featuring local and international artists; and many opportunities to network and establish goals for the future.
For more information please contact: Dr. LisaLinda Natividad at lisanati@yahoo.com or (671) 735-2962.
Sponsoring Organizations: Conscious Living; Famoksaiyan; Fuetsan Famalao’an; Guåhan Coalition for Peace and Justice; Guåhan Indigenous Collective; GUAHAN Project; Global Fund for Women; Office of Minority Health Resource Center; Sage Project, Incorporated; Women and Gender Studies Program, University of Guam.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Bases Of Empire
Chalmers Johnson on the Cost of Empire
Posted on May 15, 2009
By Chalmers Johnson
In her foreword to “The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle Against U.S. Military Posts,” an important collection of articles on United States militarism and imperialism, edited by Catherine Lutz, the prominent feminist writer Cynthia Enloe notes one of our most abject failures as a government and a democracy: “There is virtually no news coverage—no journalists’ or editors’ curiosity—about the pressures or lures at work when the U.S. government seeks to persuade officials of Romania, Aruba or Ecuador that providing U.S. military-basing access would be good for their countries.” The American public, if not the residents of the territories in question, is almost totally innocent of the huge costs involved, the crimes committed by our soldiers against women and children in the occupied territories, the environmental pollution, and the deep and abiding suspicions generated among people forced to live close to thousands of heavily armed, culturally myopic and dangerously indoctrinated American soldiers. This book is an antidote to such parochialism.
Catherine Lutz is an anthropologist at Brown University and the author of an ethnography of an American city that is indubitably part of the American military complex: Fayetteville, N.C., adjacent to Fort Bragg, home of the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School (see “Homefront, A Military City and the American Twentieth Century,” Beacon Press, 2002). On the opening page of her introduction to the current volume, Lutz makes a real contribution to the study of the American empire of bases. She writes, “Officially, over 190,000 troops and 115,000 civilian employees are massed in 909 military facilities in 46 countries and territories” She cites as her source the Department of Defense’s Base Structure Report for fiscal year 2007. This is the Defense Department’s annual inventory of real estate that it owns or leases in the United States and in foreign countries. Oddly, however, the total of 909 foreign bases does not appear in the 2007 BSR. Instead, it gives the numbers of 823 bases located in other people’s countries and 86 sites located in U.S. territories. So Lutz has combined the foreign and territorial bases—which include American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Johnston Atoll, the Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,and Wake Island. Guam is host to at least 30 military sites and Puerto Rico to 41 bases.
Combining the two numbers is a good idea. Some of the most deplorable conditions in the American military empire exist in U.S. territories, notably in Puerto Rico, where the citizens fought a long battle to stop the naval bombardment of Vieques Island, and in Guam, where the government plans to relocate more than 8,000 Marines from Okinawa together with a $13 billion expansion of Air Force and Navy facilities. The result will be an almost 15 percent increase in Guam’s population, which will significantly exceed the capacity of the island’s water and solid-waste systems. (See “U.S. Military Guam Buildup Spurs Worry over Services,” San Diego Union-Tribune, April 12, 2009.) In the book under review here, Lutz also includes an essay on the state of Hawaii, with its 161 military installations (in 2004) covering 6 percent of the state’s land area (22 percent of the state’s most densely populated island, Oahu). The military is easily Hawaii’s largest polluter, including the secret use of depleted uranium ammunition at the Shofield range, evidence of which was uncovered in 2006.
It should be noted that the BSR for fiscal 2008 has been available since the summer of last year and it somewhat alters Lutz’s figures. It gives details on 761 bases in other people’s countries and 104 U.S. territories, which produces a Lutz total of 865. Such small variations from year to year have been typical of the American empire throughout the Cold War. Some 865 bases located in all the continents except Antarctica is not only a staggeringly large number compared even with the great empires of the past, but one the U.S. clearly cannot afford given its severely weakened economic condition.
Nonetheless, there has been no public discussion by the Obama administration over starting to liquidate our overseas bases or beginning to scale back our imperialist presence in the rest of the world. One must also remember that the BSR is an official source that often conflicts with other reports on the numbers of American military personnel located all over the world. It omits many bases that the Department of Defense wants to conceal or play down, notably those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel. For example, just one of the many unlisted bases in Iraq, Ballad Air Base, houses 30,000 troops and 10,000 contractors, and extends across 16 square miles with an additional 12-square-mile “security perimeter.”
One other subject that Lutz touches on in her introduction and that cries out for a book-length study is the political machinations that every American embassy and military base on earth engages in to undermine and change local laws that stand in the way of U.S. military plans. For years the United States has interfered in the domestic affairs of nations to bring about “regime change,” rig elections, free American servicemen who have been charged with extremely serious felonies against local civilians, indoctrinate the local officer corps in American militarist values (as at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation at Fort Benning, Ga.), and preserve and protect the so-called Status of Forces Agreements that the United States imposes on all nations with U.S. bases. These SOFAs give our troops extraterritorial privileges such as freedom from local laws and from passport and travel regulations, and they absolve the U.S. from a country’s anti-pollution requirements, noise restrictions and environmental laws.
Mapping U.S. Power
The first essay in Lutz’s collection is by one of the few genuine veterans of military base studies, Joseph Gerson, the New England director of programs for the American Friends Service Committee. He is the editor (along with Bruce Birchard) of “The Sun Never Sets: Confronting the Network of U.S. Military Bases” (Boston: South End Press, 1991). His essay on “U.S. Foreign Military Bases and Military Colonialism: Personal and Analytical Perspectives” is particularly good on the hypocrisy and opportunism that imperialism imposes on our foreign policy, regardless of our intentions. For example, he notes, in the words of the American Declaration of Independence, the “abuses and usurpations” that King George III of England imposed on us though his “standing armies kept among us, in times of peace.”
Today the “abuses and usurpations” of American standing armies “include more than rape, murder, sexual harassment, robbery, other common crimes, seizure of people’s lands, destruction of property, and the cultural imperialism that have accompanied foreign armies since time immemorial. They now include terrorizing jet blasts of frequent low-altitude and night-landing exercises, helicopters and warplanes crashing into homes and schools and the poisoning of environments and communities with military toxins; and they transform ‘host’ communities into targets for genocidal nuclear as well as ‘conventional’ attacks.” When it comes to opportunism, Gerson notes that the Navy’s Indian Ocean tsunami relief operations of 2005 helped open the way for U.S. forces to return to Thailand and for greater cooperation with the Indonesian military.
John Lindsay-Poland’s essay “U.S. Military Bases in Latin America and the Caribbean” is informed by his extensive background in organizing and supporting struggles for the closure and environmental cleanup of U.S. military bases in Panama and Puerto Rico. His essay is comprehensive and historically detailed, although it appears to have been completed in late 2007 or early 2008 and some of the information has been overtaken by recent events. Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has refused to renew our lease on Manta Air Base when it expires in November 2009; and the U.S. Army’s 2005 attempt to woo Paraguay flopped. After the Americans are expelled from the Manta base in November the only physical facilities of the U.S. military in South America will be in Colombia.
In 2005 and 2006, the United States tried to seduce Paraguay into giving the U.S. a permanent base by sending several hundred soldiers to provide medical assistance and dig wells. As it turned out, these ancient ploys did not work. Suspicions of the American military’s motives were aroused throughout the cone of South America, and the local population pronounced itself fully capable of digging wells unassisted by foreign troops. Lindsay-Poland notes that the “medical attention [in Paraguay] was one-time only, and … U.S. personnel handed out unlabeled medicines indiscriminately, regardless of the differences in medical conditions.”
David Heller and Hans Lammerant have contributed one of the most useful essays in the volume on “U.S. Nuclear Weapons Bases in Europe.” Information on this subject is scarce and the U.S. press is frightened of reporting what little is available for fear of raising a taboo topic. Heller has been actively involved with anti-nuclear and anti-militarist campaigns in Britain, Belgium and other European countries since the early 1990s. Lammerant has long supported the Belgian branch of War Resisters International.
They reveal that there are today still an estimated 350 to 480 free-fall B-61-type tactical nuclear weapons in the territories of the NATO allies, compared with a maximum of 7,300 land, air, and sea-based nuclear weapons based in Europe in 1971. The bombs are housed at eight air bases in six NATO countries, all of which enjoy Bechtel-installed Weapons Storage and Security Systems, type WS-3. These devices are vaults installed in the floors within a “protective aircraft shelter” and allow for the arming of bombs and aircraft inside hangars, offering high degrees of secrecy and (supposedly) security. Heller and Lammerant note that the weapons based in Europe are “secret, deadly, illegal, costly, militarily useless, politically motivated, and deeply, deeply unpopular.” Before they were all withdrawn, ground-launched nuclear missiles were based at Greenham Common and Molesworth in Britain, Comiso in Italy, Florennes in Belgium, and Wuescheim in the former West Germany. Pershing II missiles were based at Schwaebisch-Gmuend, Neu Ulm, and Waldheide-Neckarsulm in West Germany.
One of the themes stressed by Catherine Lutz as editor of this book is the prominent role played by women and women’s organizations in resisting American military imperialism over the years. All of the chapters offer details on the contributions of women to anti-base resistance activities, particularly in the case of the nuclear bases in Europe. Following the U.S. decision to station nuclear weapons at Greenham Common in the south of England, local women created “Women for Life on Earth” and maintained a constant presence in front of the base from 1981 to 2000 (even though the nuclear weapons were secretly removed in 1991).
Heller and Lammerant conclude their essay with details on the early-warning radars, anti-missile bases, military hubs to support operations in Africa, and facilities extant or being constructed at Thule in Greenland, Vardo in Denmark, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Vicenza in northern Italy. On March 17, 2009, the Czech government rejected a proposal by the Pentagon to install a U.S. military radar base in the Czech Republic because the lower house of the Czech parliament seemed certain to vote against it.
Tom Engelhardt’s contribution, “Iraq as a Pentagon Construction Site,” is a cobbled-together version of two essays first published on TomDispatch, of which Engelhardt is editor. All source citations have been removed from the Lutz version, but readers can consult the original essays—“A Basis for Enduring Relationships in Iraq,” Dec. 2, 2007, http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174869/a_basis_for_enduring_relationships_in_iraq; and : “Baseless Considerations,” Nov. 4, 2007, http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174858.
The essays are tours de force on the construction of probably permanent American military bases in occupied Iraq and of the massive fortress—- as large as the Vatican—in the Green Zone of Baghdad that is the “American Embassy.” Engelhardt’s work is a model of how to glean information from the public press on subjects that the American military is trying to keep secret. This is the best research we have to date on the bases in Iraq and the billions of dollars that flowed into the coffers of Halliburton Corp. to build them. [Truth in reporting: Engelhardt is the editor of all three of my books in the Blowback Trilogy.]
Global Resistance
Roland G. Simbulan’s “People’s Movement Responses to Evolving U.S. Military Activities in the Philippines” is a detailed analysis of how the United States has tried to get back into its former colony after the Philippine Senate voted on Sept. 16, 1991, to close all American military facilities and ordered U.S. troops to withdraw. Simbulan is a professor at the University of the Philippines and he played an active role in the “people’s power” movement that overthrew the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos and led to the 1991 rejection of the bases treaty.
Simbulan is justified in calling his country’s active protests against the Americans and their domestic lackeys “the most vibrant social movement in Southeast Asia,” but he is at pains to stress that the Americans are unreconciled to their colonial defeat. They continue with unabated creativity to invent “visiting forces agreements” aimed at restoring the U.S. troops’ old extraterritorial privileges and “joint military exercises” against domestic criminal gangs such as the Abu Sayyaf bandits in Mindanao and other Islamic provinces of the southern Philippines.
After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. has also tried to overstate the threat of Islamic radicalism in the Philippines, even though there has been a slow-burning insurgency by indigenous Muslims for over 20 years, and it has pressured the Philippine government to abandon the anti-nuclear weapons provisions of its 1987 constitution. Americans may also be implicated in a clandestine campaign of selective killings of political activists, peasant and trade union leaders, human rights workers, lawyers and church people “in a pattern that was strikingly similar to that of Operation Phoenix”—the terrorist exercise run by the CIA in Vietnam that took the lives of some 30,000 suspected members of the National Liberation Front. Simbulan has written an important analysis of why the Philippines seems unable to get out from under the shadow of the United States despite the victories of “people power” almost 20 years ago.
David Vine’s and Laura Jeffrey’s article entitled “Give Us Back Diego Garcia: Unity and Division Among Activists in the Indian Ocean,” is a lively treatment of the seemingly hopeless efforts of the indigenous people of the island of Diego Garcia to obtain some measure of justice. In 1964, they were expropriated and forcibly expelled by the British government at the insistence of the U.S. Navy so that it could turn the entire island into an American military base.
This essay builds on Vine’s important monograph “Island of Shame: The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia,” Princeton University Press, 2009. Vine is a professor of anthropology at American University in Washington, D.C. Jeffrey holds a postdoctoral fellowship in anthropology at the University of Edinburgh. She has carried out ethnographic fieldwork among the Chagossians, the exiled people of Diego Garcia, now living in Mauritius and the United Kingdom.
In 1960, U.S. government officials secretly approached their British counterparts about acquiring the tiny island of Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean as a site for a military base. By 1964, the United Kingdom agreed to detach Diego Garcia and the rest of the surrounding Chagos archipelago from its colony Mauritius and several island groups from colonial Seychelles to create a strategic military colony, the British Indian Ocean Territory. In a flagrant violation of human rights, Britain then removed the native inhabitants of Diego Garcia and Chagos, dumping them in Mauritius and Seychelles, 1,300 miles away, where they live today in abject poverty.
By 1973, the United States had completed the nucleus of a super-secret base that would grow faster than any other U.S. base since the Vietnam War. After the attacks of 9/11, the United States used Diego Garcia’s twin parallel runways, each over two miles in length, to launch its fleet of B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers in its assault on Afghanistan, and its 2003 “shock and awe” campaign against Iraq. Diego Garcia also became the site of a secret CIA detention and torture facility for suspected terrorists.
According to John Pike, who runs the military analysis website GlobalSecurity.org, Diego Garcia lies at the center of American imperialist plans in case the nations of East Asia should decide that they have had enough of American military forces based on their territories. According to Pike, “[Diego Garcia] is the single most important military facility we’ve got.” The military’s goal, Pike says, is that “we’ll be able to run the planet from Guam and Diego Garcia by 2015, even if the entire Eastern Hemisphere has drop-kicked us from bases on their territory.” With characteristic hypocrisy, the Pentagon has named the Diego Garcia base “Camp Justice.”
Environmental Issues
Environmental and health issues have become the most important new focus in the long-standing conflicts between the U.S. military and civilian communities. Chief evidence is the victory of popular mobilization and civil disobedience against the Navy’s 60-year-long bombing of Vieques, a 51-square-mile island municipality six miles off the southeast coast of the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico. Katherine T. McCaffrey’s expert treatment of the four-year-long movement to force an end to the bombing of Vieques is one the most important pieces in Lutz’s anthology. The bombing of a Caribbean island inhabited by 10,000 American civilians also exposed Puerto Rico’s lack of sovereignty and the second-class status of its residents within the U.S. polity. Emphasis on environmental issues overcame the Puerto Ricans’ traditional reluctance to politicize their plight and created a broad popular movement that mobilized women and caused the Catholic and Protestant churches to join hands.
On April 19, 1999, the Vieques movement was further strengthened and united when it acquired a martyr. Two U.S. Navy F-18 jet aircraft traveling at supersonic speeds accidentally dropped two 500-pound bombs on the compound that the Navy used to survey the shelling. A civilian security guard, David Sanes, who was patrolling the area, was knocked unconscious and subsequently bled to death. The result was that civilians occupied the site for more than a year, causing the Navy to move its bombing range to North Carolina. Given their access to the site, the occupiers also discovered that the Navy was using depleted uranium ammunition on Vieques. In May 2003, the Navy was finally forced off the island. McCaffrey concludes, “After decades of secrecy surrounding its activities, the military is emerging as the single largest polluter in the United States, single-handedly producing 27,000 toxic-waste sites in this country.”
From Vieques, mobilization based on environmental and health concerns spread to the Navy-controlled island of Kahoolawe in Hawaii, where it was equally successful in forcing the Navy to pull out. Kahoolawe had been occupied and bombed by the U.S. Navy since the outbreak of World War II. Kyle Kajihiro’s essay “Resisting Militarization in Hawaii,” touches on this and other military issues in Hawaii. Kajihiro is the American Friends Service Committee’s program director in Hawaii, who since 1996 has been active in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. His article is less a scholarly analysis of the popular protests against the huge military presence in Hawaii than a well-informed, impassioned brief for the rights of the Kanaka Maoli (native Hawaiians). Kajihiro also points out that for the first time since World War II, tourism is now a bigger part of the Hawaiian economy than the military installations. His essay is a valuable contribution to the comparatively small literature on the problems of militarism within the United States.
The essay by Ayse Gul Altinay and Amy Holmes, “Opposition to the U.S. Military Presence in Turkey in the Context of the Iraq War,” is important for three reasons. First, there is very little published on the bases in Turkey; second, Incirlik Air Base on the outskirts of Adana, Turkey, is the largest U.S. military facility in a strategically vital NATO ally; and third, the decision on March 1, 2003, of the Turkish National Assembly not to deploy Turkish forces in Iraq nor to allow the United States to use Turkey as an invasion route into Iraq was one of the Bush administration’s greatest setbacks. Public opinion polls in January 2003 revealed that 90 percent of Turks opposed U.S. imperialism against Iraq and 83 percent opposed Turkey’s cooperating with the United States. Nonetheless, major U.S. newspapers either ignored or trivialized Turkey’s opposition to U.S. war plans.
Altinay is a professor of anthropology at Sabanci University, Turkey, and the author of “The Myth of the Military Nation: Militarism, Gender, and Education in Turkey” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). Holmes is a doctoral candidate in sociology at the Johns Hopkins University and has written extensively on American bases in Germany and Turkey.
Turkey is not an easy place to do research on American bases. Some 41 percent of bilateral agreements between the U.S. and Turkey between 1947 and 1965 were secret. It was not known that the U.S. had stationed missiles on Turkish territory until the U.S. promised to remove them in return for the USSR’s withdrawing its missiles from Cuba. Incirlik became even more central to U.S. strategy after 1974. In that year, Turkey invaded Cyprus and the United States imposed an arms embargo on its ally. As a result, Turkey closed all 27 U.S. bases in the country except for one, Incirlik. As Altinay and Holmes write, “It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of the Incirlik Air Base for U.S. power projection in the Middle East, particularly since the early 1990s; for more than a decade, the entire Iraq policy of the United States hinged on Incirlik.”
My choice of the best article in the Lutz volume is Kozue Akibayashi’s and Suzuyo Takazato‘s “Okinawa: Women’s Struggle for Demilitarization.” The persecution of the native population of the island of Okinawa, Japan’s most southerly and poorest prefecture, by the American occupiers and the Japanese government since at least the Battle of Okinawa in 1945 has been told often and is reasonably well known in mainland Japan and among the U.S. armed forces. Akibayashi and Takazato expertly retell the essence of the story here, but what makes the article a standout is their emphasis on the mistreatment of Okinawan women and girls and their theoretically sophisticated conclusions.
Akibayashi is a researcher at the Institute for Gender Studies of Ochanomizu University in Tokyo. Takazato is one of the best-known activists in the struggle of Okinawan women to escape the threat of sexual violence by American military personnel. She is an elected member of the City Council in Naha, the capital of Okinawa, and one of the founders of Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence, which was created in the wake of the gang rape on Sept. 4, 1995 of a 12-year-old Okinawa schoolgirl by two U.S. Marines and a sailor. The purpose of Takazato’s organization was to prevent a recurrence of attacks by the U.S. military on Okinawan women and to protect the young victim of Sept. 4 from unwanted publicity. The organization subsequently created the Rape Emergency Intervention Counseling Center in Okinawa, and has worked to end the U.S. military occupation of the island chain. Unfortunately, despite heroic efforts to get American military commanders to enforce discipline among their troops and strong representations to the Japanese government to take an interest in the plight of the Okinawans, little has changed. This has led Akibayashi and Takazato to two significant conclusions.
(1) “Integral elements of misogyny infect military training. …The military is a violence-producing institution to which sexual and gender violence are intrinsic. … The essence of military forces is their pervasive, deep-rooted contempt for women, which can be seen in military training that completely denies femininity and praises hegemonic masculinity.”
(2) “The OWAAMV [Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence] movement illustrates from a gender perspective that ‘the protected,’ who are structurally deprived of political power, are in fact not protected by the militarized security policies; rather their livelihoods are made insecure by these very policies. The movement has also illuminated the fact that ‘gated’ bases do not confine military violence to within the bases. Those hundred-of-miles-long fences around the bases are there only to assure the readiness of the military and military operations by excluding and even oppressing the people living outside the gated bases.”
These two propositions—misogyny in the official education of American troops and hypocrisy in describing the benefits to locals of foreign military bases—are significant. I believe that they should inform future research on the American empire around the world to see if they can be verified in many different contexts and to further develop their various implications. Meanwhile, these erudite essays should cause Americans to reflect on the nature of U.S. imperialism just at the point where it is most probably starting to decline due to economic constraints and popular exhaustion with the wars and deaths it has caused.
Chalmers Johnson is the author of “Blowback” (2000), “The Sorrows of Empire” (2004), and “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic” (2006), and editor of “Okinawa: Cold War Island” (1999).
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20090514_chalmers_johnson_on_the_cost_of_empire/
Posted on May 15, 2009
By Chalmers Johnson
In her foreword to “The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle Against U.S. Military Posts,” an important collection of articles on United States militarism and imperialism, edited by Catherine Lutz, the prominent feminist writer Cynthia Enloe notes one of our most abject failures as a government and a democracy: “There is virtually no news coverage—no journalists’ or editors’ curiosity—about the pressures or lures at work when the U.S. government seeks to persuade officials of Romania, Aruba or Ecuador that providing U.S. military-basing access would be good for their countries.” The American public, if not the residents of the territories in question, is almost totally innocent of the huge costs involved, the crimes committed by our soldiers against women and children in the occupied territories, the environmental pollution, and the deep and abiding suspicions generated among people forced to live close to thousands of heavily armed, culturally myopic and dangerously indoctrinated American soldiers. This book is an antidote to such parochialism.
Catherine Lutz is an anthropologist at Brown University and the author of an ethnography of an American city that is indubitably part of the American military complex: Fayetteville, N.C., adjacent to Fort Bragg, home of the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School (see “Homefront, A Military City and the American Twentieth Century,” Beacon Press, 2002). On the opening page of her introduction to the current volume, Lutz makes a real contribution to the study of the American empire of bases. She writes, “Officially, over 190,000 troops and 115,000 civilian employees are massed in 909 military facilities in 46 countries and territories” She cites as her source the Department of Defense’s Base Structure Report for fiscal year 2007. This is the Defense Department’s annual inventory of real estate that it owns or leases in the United States and in foreign countries. Oddly, however, the total of 909 foreign bases does not appear in the 2007 BSR. Instead, it gives the numbers of 823 bases located in other people’s countries and 86 sites located in U.S. territories. So Lutz has combined the foreign and territorial bases—which include American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Johnston Atoll, the Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,and Wake Island. Guam is host to at least 30 military sites and Puerto Rico to 41 bases.
Combining the two numbers is a good idea. Some of the most deplorable conditions in the American military empire exist in U.S. territories, notably in Puerto Rico, where the citizens fought a long battle to stop the naval bombardment of Vieques Island, and in Guam, where the government plans to relocate more than 8,000 Marines from Okinawa together with a $13 billion expansion of Air Force and Navy facilities. The result will be an almost 15 percent increase in Guam’s population, which will significantly exceed the capacity of the island’s water and solid-waste systems. (See “U.S. Military Guam Buildup Spurs Worry over Services,” San Diego Union-Tribune, April 12, 2009.) In the book under review here, Lutz also includes an essay on the state of Hawaii, with its 161 military installations (in 2004) covering 6 percent of the state’s land area (22 percent of the state’s most densely populated island, Oahu). The military is easily Hawaii’s largest polluter, including the secret use of depleted uranium ammunition at the Shofield range, evidence of which was uncovered in 2006.
It should be noted that the BSR for fiscal 2008 has been available since the summer of last year and it somewhat alters Lutz’s figures. It gives details on 761 bases in other people’s countries and 104 U.S. territories, which produces a Lutz total of 865. Such small variations from year to year have been typical of the American empire throughout the Cold War. Some 865 bases located in all the continents except Antarctica is not only a staggeringly large number compared even with the great empires of the past, but one the U.S. clearly cannot afford given its severely weakened economic condition.
Nonetheless, there has been no public discussion by the Obama administration over starting to liquidate our overseas bases or beginning to scale back our imperialist presence in the rest of the world. One must also remember that the BSR is an official source that often conflicts with other reports on the numbers of American military personnel located all over the world. It omits many bases that the Department of Defense wants to conceal or play down, notably those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel. For example, just one of the many unlisted bases in Iraq, Ballad Air Base, houses 30,000 troops and 10,000 contractors, and extends across 16 square miles with an additional 12-square-mile “security perimeter.”
One other subject that Lutz touches on in her introduction and that cries out for a book-length study is the political machinations that every American embassy and military base on earth engages in to undermine and change local laws that stand in the way of U.S. military plans. For years the United States has interfered in the domestic affairs of nations to bring about “regime change,” rig elections, free American servicemen who have been charged with extremely serious felonies against local civilians, indoctrinate the local officer corps in American militarist values (as at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation at Fort Benning, Ga.), and preserve and protect the so-called Status of Forces Agreements that the United States imposes on all nations with U.S. bases. These SOFAs give our troops extraterritorial privileges such as freedom from local laws and from passport and travel regulations, and they absolve the U.S. from a country’s anti-pollution requirements, noise restrictions and environmental laws.
Mapping U.S. Power
The first essay in Lutz’s collection is by one of the few genuine veterans of military base studies, Joseph Gerson, the New England director of programs for the American Friends Service Committee. He is the editor (along with Bruce Birchard) of “The Sun Never Sets: Confronting the Network of U.S. Military Bases” (Boston: South End Press, 1991). His essay on “U.S. Foreign Military Bases and Military Colonialism: Personal and Analytical Perspectives” is particularly good on the hypocrisy and opportunism that imperialism imposes on our foreign policy, regardless of our intentions. For example, he notes, in the words of the American Declaration of Independence, the “abuses and usurpations” that King George III of England imposed on us though his “standing armies kept among us, in times of peace.”
Today the “abuses and usurpations” of American standing armies “include more than rape, murder, sexual harassment, robbery, other common crimes, seizure of people’s lands, destruction of property, and the cultural imperialism that have accompanied foreign armies since time immemorial. They now include terrorizing jet blasts of frequent low-altitude and night-landing exercises, helicopters and warplanes crashing into homes and schools and the poisoning of environments and communities with military toxins; and they transform ‘host’ communities into targets for genocidal nuclear as well as ‘conventional’ attacks.” When it comes to opportunism, Gerson notes that the Navy’s Indian Ocean tsunami relief operations of 2005 helped open the way for U.S. forces to return to Thailand and for greater cooperation with the Indonesian military.
John Lindsay-Poland’s essay “U.S. Military Bases in Latin America and the Caribbean” is informed by his extensive background in organizing and supporting struggles for the closure and environmental cleanup of U.S. military bases in Panama and Puerto Rico. His essay is comprehensive and historically detailed, although it appears to have been completed in late 2007 or early 2008 and some of the information has been overtaken by recent events. Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has refused to renew our lease on Manta Air Base when it expires in November 2009; and the U.S. Army’s 2005 attempt to woo Paraguay flopped. After the Americans are expelled from the Manta base in November the only physical facilities of the U.S. military in South America will be in Colombia.
In 2005 and 2006, the United States tried to seduce Paraguay into giving the U.S. a permanent base by sending several hundred soldiers to provide medical assistance and dig wells. As it turned out, these ancient ploys did not work. Suspicions of the American military’s motives were aroused throughout the cone of South America, and the local population pronounced itself fully capable of digging wells unassisted by foreign troops. Lindsay-Poland notes that the “medical attention [in Paraguay] was one-time only, and … U.S. personnel handed out unlabeled medicines indiscriminately, regardless of the differences in medical conditions.”
David Heller and Hans Lammerant have contributed one of the most useful essays in the volume on “U.S. Nuclear Weapons Bases in Europe.” Information on this subject is scarce and the U.S. press is frightened of reporting what little is available for fear of raising a taboo topic. Heller has been actively involved with anti-nuclear and anti-militarist campaigns in Britain, Belgium and other European countries since the early 1990s. Lammerant has long supported the Belgian branch of War Resisters International.
They reveal that there are today still an estimated 350 to 480 free-fall B-61-type tactical nuclear weapons in the territories of the NATO allies, compared with a maximum of 7,300 land, air, and sea-based nuclear weapons based in Europe in 1971. The bombs are housed at eight air bases in six NATO countries, all of which enjoy Bechtel-installed Weapons Storage and Security Systems, type WS-3. These devices are vaults installed in the floors within a “protective aircraft shelter” and allow for the arming of bombs and aircraft inside hangars, offering high degrees of secrecy and (supposedly) security. Heller and Lammerant note that the weapons based in Europe are “secret, deadly, illegal, costly, militarily useless, politically motivated, and deeply, deeply unpopular.” Before they were all withdrawn, ground-launched nuclear missiles were based at Greenham Common and Molesworth in Britain, Comiso in Italy, Florennes in Belgium, and Wuescheim in the former West Germany. Pershing II missiles were based at Schwaebisch-Gmuend, Neu Ulm, and Waldheide-Neckarsulm in West Germany.
One of the themes stressed by Catherine Lutz as editor of this book is the prominent role played by women and women’s organizations in resisting American military imperialism over the years. All of the chapters offer details on the contributions of women to anti-base resistance activities, particularly in the case of the nuclear bases in Europe. Following the U.S. decision to station nuclear weapons at Greenham Common in the south of England, local women created “Women for Life on Earth” and maintained a constant presence in front of the base from 1981 to 2000 (even though the nuclear weapons were secretly removed in 1991).
Heller and Lammerant conclude their essay with details on the early-warning radars, anti-missile bases, military hubs to support operations in Africa, and facilities extant or being constructed at Thule in Greenland, Vardo in Denmark, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Vicenza in northern Italy. On March 17, 2009, the Czech government rejected a proposal by the Pentagon to install a U.S. military radar base in the Czech Republic because the lower house of the Czech parliament seemed certain to vote against it.
Tom Engelhardt’s contribution, “Iraq as a Pentagon Construction Site,” is a cobbled-together version of two essays first published on TomDispatch, of which Engelhardt is editor. All source citations have been removed from the Lutz version, but readers can consult the original essays—“A Basis for Enduring Relationships in Iraq,” Dec. 2, 2007, http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174869/a_basis_for_enduring_relationships_in_iraq; and : “Baseless Considerations,” Nov. 4, 2007, http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174858.
The essays are tours de force on the construction of probably permanent American military bases in occupied Iraq and of the massive fortress—- as large as the Vatican—in the Green Zone of Baghdad that is the “American Embassy.” Engelhardt’s work is a model of how to glean information from the public press on subjects that the American military is trying to keep secret. This is the best research we have to date on the bases in Iraq and the billions of dollars that flowed into the coffers of Halliburton Corp. to build them. [Truth in reporting: Engelhardt is the editor of all three of my books in the Blowback Trilogy.]
Global Resistance
Roland G. Simbulan’s “People’s Movement Responses to Evolving U.S. Military Activities in the Philippines” is a detailed analysis of how the United States has tried to get back into its former colony after the Philippine Senate voted on Sept. 16, 1991, to close all American military facilities and ordered U.S. troops to withdraw. Simbulan is a professor at the University of the Philippines and he played an active role in the “people’s power” movement that overthrew the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos and led to the 1991 rejection of the bases treaty.
Simbulan is justified in calling his country’s active protests against the Americans and their domestic lackeys “the most vibrant social movement in Southeast Asia,” but he is at pains to stress that the Americans are unreconciled to their colonial defeat. They continue with unabated creativity to invent “visiting forces agreements” aimed at restoring the U.S. troops’ old extraterritorial privileges and “joint military exercises” against domestic criminal gangs such as the Abu Sayyaf bandits in Mindanao and other Islamic provinces of the southern Philippines.
After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. has also tried to overstate the threat of Islamic radicalism in the Philippines, even though there has been a slow-burning insurgency by indigenous Muslims for over 20 years, and it has pressured the Philippine government to abandon the anti-nuclear weapons provisions of its 1987 constitution. Americans may also be implicated in a clandestine campaign of selective killings of political activists, peasant and trade union leaders, human rights workers, lawyers and church people “in a pattern that was strikingly similar to that of Operation Phoenix”—the terrorist exercise run by the CIA in Vietnam that took the lives of some 30,000 suspected members of the National Liberation Front. Simbulan has written an important analysis of why the Philippines seems unable to get out from under the shadow of the United States despite the victories of “people power” almost 20 years ago.
David Vine’s and Laura Jeffrey’s article entitled “Give Us Back Diego Garcia: Unity and Division Among Activists in the Indian Ocean,” is a lively treatment of the seemingly hopeless efforts of the indigenous people of the island of Diego Garcia to obtain some measure of justice. In 1964, they were expropriated and forcibly expelled by the British government at the insistence of the U.S. Navy so that it could turn the entire island into an American military base.
This essay builds on Vine’s important monograph “Island of Shame: The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia,” Princeton University Press, 2009. Vine is a professor of anthropology at American University in Washington, D.C. Jeffrey holds a postdoctoral fellowship in anthropology at the University of Edinburgh. She has carried out ethnographic fieldwork among the Chagossians, the exiled people of Diego Garcia, now living in Mauritius and the United Kingdom.
In 1960, U.S. government officials secretly approached their British counterparts about acquiring the tiny island of Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean as a site for a military base. By 1964, the United Kingdom agreed to detach Diego Garcia and the rest of the surrounding Chagos archipelago from its colony Mauritius and several island groups from colonial Seychelles to create a strategic military colony, the British Indian Ocean Territory. In a flagrant violation of human rights, Britain then removed the native inhabitants of Diego Garcia and Chagos, dumping them in Mauritius and Seychelles, 1,300 miles away, where they live today in abject poverty.
By 1973, the United States had completed the nucleus of a super-secret base that would grow faster than any other U.S. base since the Vietnam War. After the attacks of 9/11, the United States used Diego Garcia’s twin parallel runways, each over two miles in length, to launch its fleet of B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers in its assault on Afghanistan, and its 2003 “shock and awe” campaign against Iraq. Diego Garcia also became the site of a secret CIA detention and torture facility for suspected terrorists.
According to John Pike, who runs the military analysis website GlobalSecurity.org, Diego Garcia lies at the center of American imperialist plans in case the nations of East Asia should decide that they have had enough of American military forces based on their territories. According to Pike, “[Diego Garcia] is the single most important military facility we’ve got.” The military’s goal, Pike says, is that “we’ll be able to run the planet from Guam and Diego Garcia by 2015, even if the entire Eastern Hemisphere has drop-kicked us from bases on their territory.” With characteristic hypocrisy, the Pentagon has named the Diego Garcia base “Camp Justice.”
Environmental Issues
Environmental and health issues have become the most important new focus in the long-standing conflicts between the U.S. military and civilian communities. Chief evidence is the victory of popular mobilization and civil disobedience against the Navy’s 60-year-long bombing of Vieques, a 51-square-mile island municipality six miles off the southeast coast of the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico. Katherine T. McCaffrey’s expert treatment of the four-year-long movement to force an end to the bombing of Vieques is one the most important pieces in Lutz’s anthology. The bombing of a Caribbean island inhabited by 10,000 American civilians also exposed Puerto Rico’s lack of sovereignty and the second-class status of its residents within the U.S. polity. Emphasis on environmental issues overcame the Puerto Ricans’ traditional reluctance to politicize their plight and created a broad popular movement that mobilized women and caused the Catholic and Protestant churches to join hands.
On April 19, 1999, the Vieques movement was further strengthened and united when it acquired a martyr. Two U.S. Navy F-18 jet aircraft traveling at supersonic speeds accidentally dropped two 500-pound bombs on the compound that the Navy used to survey the shelling. A civilian security guard, David Sanes, who was patrolling the area, was knocked unconscious and subsequently bled to death. The result was that civilians occupied the site for more than a year, causing the Navy to move its bombing range to North Carolina. Given their access to the site, the occupiers also discovered that the Navy was using depleted uranium ammunition on Vieques. In May 2003, the Navy was finally forced off the island. McCaffrey concludes, “After decades of secrecy surrounding its activities, the military is emerging as the single largest polluter in the United States, single-handedly producing 27,000 toxic-waste sites in this country.”
From Vieques, mobilization based on environmental and health concerns spread to the Navy-controlled island of Kahoolawe in Hawaii, where it was equally successful in forcing the Navy to pull out. Kahoolawe had been occupied and bombed by the U.S. Navy since the outbreak of World War II. Kyle Kajihiro’s essay “Resisting Militarization in Hawaii,” touches on this and other military issues in Hawaii. Kajihiro is the American Friends Service Committee’s program director in Hawaii, who since 1996 has been active in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. His article is less a scholarly analysis of the popular protests against the huge military presence in Hawaii than a well-informed, impassioned brief for the rights of the Kanaka Maoli (native Hawaiians). Kajihiro also points out that for the first time since World War II, tourism is now a bigger part of the Hawaiian economy than the military installations. His essay is a valuable contribution to the comparatively small literature on the problems of militarism within the United States.
The essay by Ayse Gul Altinay and Amy Holmes, “Opposition to the U.S. Military Presence in Turkey in the Context of the Iraq War,” is important for three reasons. First, there is very little published on the bases in Turkey; second, Incirlik Air Base on the outskirts of Adana, Turkey, is the largest U.S. military facility in a strategically vital NATO ally; and third, the decision on March 1, 2003, of the Turkish National Assembly not to deploy Turkish forces in Iraq nor to allow the United States to use Turkey as an invasion route into Iraq was one of the Bush administration’s greatest setbacks. Public opinion polls in January 2003 revealed that 90 percent of Turks opposed U.S. imperialism against Iraq and 83 percent opposed Turkey’s cooperating with the United States. Nonetheless, major U.S. newspapers either ignored or trivialized Turkey’s opposition to U.S. war plans.
Altinay is a professor of anthropology at Sabanci University, Turkey, and the author of “The Myth of the Military Nation: Militarism, Gender, and Education in Turkey” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). Holmes is a doctoral candidate in sociology at the Johns Hopkins University and has written extensively on American bases in Germany and Turkey.
Turkey is not an easy place to do research on American bases. Some 41 percent of bilateral agreements between the U.S. and Turkey between 1947 and 1965 were secret. It was not known that the U.S. had stationed missiles on Turkish territory until the U.S. promised to remove them in return for the USSR’s withdrawing its missiles from Cuba. Incirlik became even more central to U.S. strategy after 1974. In that year, Turkey invaded Cyprus and the United States imposed an arms embargo on its ally. As a result, Turkey closed all 27 U.S. bases in the country except for one, Incirlik. As Altinay and Holmes write, “It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of the Incirlik Air Base for U.S. power projection in the Middle East, particularly since the early 1990s; for more than a decade, the entire Iraq policy of the United States hinged on Incirlik.”
My choice of the best article in the Lutz volume is Kozue Akibayashi’s and Suzuyo Takazato‘s “Okinawa: Women’s Struggle for Demilitarization.” The persecution of the native population of the island of Okinawa, Japan’s most southerly and poorest prefecture, by the American occupiers and the Japanese government since at least the Battle of Okinawa in 1945 has been told often and is reasonably well known in mainland Japan and among the U.S. armed forces. Akibayashi and Takazato expertly retell the essence of the story here, but what makes the article a standout is their emphasis on the mistreatment of Okinawan women and girls and their theoretically sophisticated conclusions.
Akibayashi is a researcher at the Institute for Gender Studies of Ochanomizu University in Tokyo. Takazato is one of the best-known activists in the struggle of Okinawan women to escape the threat of sexual violence by American military personnel. She is an elected member of the City Council in Naha, the capital of Okinawa, and one of the founders of Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence, which was created in the wake of the gang rape on Sept. 4, 1995 of a 12-year-old Okinawa schoolgirl by two U.S. Marines and a sailor. The purpose of Takazato’s organization was to prevent a recurrence of attacks by the U.S. military on Okinawan women and to protect the young victim of Sept. 4 from unwanted publicity. The organization subsequently created the Rape Emergency Intervention Counseling Center in Okinawa, and has worked to end the U.S. military occupation of the island chain. Unfortunately, despite heroic efforts to get American military commanders to enforce discipline among their troops and strong representations to the Japanese government to take an interest in the plight of the Okinawans, little has changed. This has led Akibayashi and Takazato to two significant conclusions.
(1) “Integral elements of misogyny infect military training. …The military is a violence-producing institution to which sexual and gender violence are intrinsic. … The essence of military forces is their pervasive, deep-rooted contempt for women, which can be seen in military training that completely denies femininity and praises hegemonic masculinity.”
(2) “The OWAAMV [Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence] movement illustrates from a gender perspective that ‘the protected,’ who are structurally deprived of political power, are in fact not protected by the militarized security policies; rather their livelihoods are made insecure by these very policies. The movement has also illuminated the fact that ‘gated’ bases do not confine military violence to within the bases. Those hundred-of-miles-long fences around the bases are there only to assure the readiness of the military and military operations by excluding and even oppressing the people living outside the gated bases.”
These two propositions—misogyny in the official education of American troops and hypocrisy in describing the benefits to locals of foreign military bases—are significant. I believe that they should inform future research on the American empire around the world to see if they can be verified in many different contexts and to further develop their various implications. Meanwhile, these erudite essays should cause Americans to reflect on the nature of U.S. imperialism just at the point where it is most probably starting to decline due to economic constraints and popular exhaustion with the wars and deaths it has caused.
Chalmers Johnson is the author of “Blowback” (2000), “The Sorrows of Empire” (2004), and “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic” (2006), and editor of “Okinawa: Cold War Island” (1999).
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20090514_chalmers_johnson_on_the_cost_of_empire/
Monday, November 17, 2008
Buildup Could Bring Many Filipinos
Buildup could bring many Filipinos
Joe Murphy
Guam PDN
November 17, 2008
Guam is heading for a sea of change. The key behind this, obviously, is the military buildup. That is coming, and if you don't like it I would suggest moving to Palau.
How will all this affect you? Greatly.
I just read a blog from the Asian Journal that puts one part of this typhoon-type change in perspective. It was written by Malou Liwang Aguilar of the AJ Press. It stated: "In the next few years, the number of Filipinos in Guam will possibly increase with the strategic move of U.S. military bases from Okinawa, Japan. At present, approximately one-fourth (or larger) of the island's population are either Filipinos or of Filipino descent.
"This move opens new opportunities for Filipinos in the island, as an estimated $13 billion will be spent for construction of facilities and housing for military personnel in the span of four years.
"This also means that 20,000 to 30,000 Overseas Filipino Workers can find jobs in Guam. Known for their work ethic and English proficiency, Filipino construction workers are preferred by Guam companies, according to the Philippine Association of Service Exporters Inc.
"But Guam is no stranger to Pinoys. In fact, 35 percent of Guam's population is of Filipino descent, according to Guam Gov. Felix Camacho, during his speech at the 'Living the Dream' event sponsored by the Republican National Convention held in St. Paul, Minn. Camacho, who is also part Filipino, emphasized the significant contribution of the API vote and urged his fellow APIs to get involved.
"Also, Filipino businesses thrive in the island. Chinese-Filipino tycoons like Lucio Tan, Henry Sy and George Ty are major investors. Tan owns one of the largest mall in the island, Micronesia Mall, (as well as) the Tropicana Hotel, American Bakery, Toppy Furniture and iConnect, a mobile communications company. His banks, Allied Bank and Philippine National Bank, also have branches, while Philippine Airlines regularly flies between Manila and Guam."
By the year 2014, approximately 8,000 U.S. Marines and 9,000 family members will relocate to Guam. It is said to be the biggest military buildup in the history of the United States. The expansion could include a new Marine base, an Army ballistic missile defense facility and expanded Air Force and Navy bases by 2014, according to an initial Defense Department time line.
However, news of the military buildup has raised fears among some Chamorros that their culture and population will be diluted. In a recent interview, Chamorro leader Debbie Quinata said that she's not sure that the tiny island can cope with the military influx.
With 40,000 people -- about a 25 percent increase -- expected to move to the island in less than a decade, that is certainly a big challenge to all issues that matter to Guam.
That was why during the Republican convention, Camacho reached out to U.S. presidential candidate Sen. John McCain to discuss the issues. "I've met with John McCain, to discuss issues that matter to Guam."
The governor's office is lobbying for financial assistance from the federal government over the next few years, money that is to be spent outside the bases' fence lines. This would mean roads, seaport, utility improvements and other projects.
In a visit to Guam last year, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney stressed Guam's role in the U.S. bases' relocation.
"The U.S. can move quickly and effectively to protect our friends, to defend our interests, to bring relief in times of emergency, and to keep the sea lanes open for commerce, and close it to terrorists," he said. "This island may be small, but it has tremendous importance to the peace and security of the world."
Yet even with Guam's significant role to the U.S. military, Camacho pointed out to McCain that Washington, D.C., could give Guam better treatment.
"We are also Americans, and we need to change the way Guam is treated," Camacho said.
But no matter how you cut it, you are never going to make everybody happy.
Billions of dollars will be spent in Guam by the military, the American government and the Japanese government. That should make the businessmen joyful.
Millions of dollars, if not billions, will be spent to upgrade our roads and highways, and transportation in general.
We also can rest assured that the U.S. government isn't going to just drop the Marines off here. They will need better air transportation. They will need water and power and a garbage dump.
The people of Guam, if they can see into the future, should know that the Marines, their families and associated workers will pay more in taxes, and thus provide a bigger, better tax base, which should help our schools.
Communication should get better too, with better TV and movies. We will have more restaurants and night spots.
It is going to hurt somewhat that the traffic, already bad, will worsen.
More jobs will be created for local people, and more taxes will be paid into GovGuam, broadening that base.
The people of Guam have always been on the low end of the gross national product, but I think this will change, too. I see clearly that new and better houses will be built. The island people should have more money to spend on vacations and education.
Health care will become an essential issue, and we may get a new, up-to-date hospital built.
If we watch the military buildup, and don't complain too much, maybe we can count on a plebiscite that would grant this island more freedom than it has now, in the form of a commonwealth.
Joe Murphy is a former editor of the Pacific Daily News.
Joe Murphy
Guam PDN
November 17, 2008
Guam is heading for a sea of change. The key behind this, obviously, is the military buildup. That is coming, and if you don't like it I would suggest moving to Palau.
How will all this affect you? Greatly.
I just read a blog from the Asian Journal that puts one part of this typhoon-type change in perspective. It was written by Malou Liwang Aguilar of the AJ Press. It stated: "In the next few years, the number of Filipinos in Guam will possibly increase with the strategic move of U.S. military bases from Okinawa, Japan. At present, approximately one-fourth (or larger) of the island's population are either Filipinos or of Filipino descent.
"This move opens new opportunities for Filipinos in the island, as an estimated $13 billion will be spent for construction of facilities and housing for military personnel in the span of four years.
"This also means that 20,000 to 30,000 Overseas Filipino Workers can find jobs in Guam. Known for their work ethic and English proficiency, Filipino construction workers are preferred by Guam companies, according to the Philippine Association of Service Exporters Inc.
"But Guam is no stranger to Pinoys. In fact, 35 percent of Guam's population is of Filipino descent, according to Guam Gov. Felix Camacho, during his speech at the 'Living the Dream' event sponsored by the Republican National Convention held in St. Paul, Minn. Camacho, who is also part Filipino, emphasized the significant contribution of the API vote and urged his fellow APIs to get involved.
"Also, Filipino businesses thrive in the island. Chinese-Filipino tycoons like Lucio Tan, Henry Sy and George Ty are major investors. Tan owns one of the largest mall in the island, Micronesia Mall, (as well as) the Tropicana Hotel, American Bakery, Toppy Furniture and iConnect, a mobile communications company. His banks, Allied Bank and Philippine National Bank, also have branches, while Philippine Airlines regularly flies between Manila and Guam."
By the year 2014, approximately 8,000 U.S. Marines and 9,000 family members will relocate to Guam. It is said to be the biggest military buildup in the history of the United States. The expansion could include a new Marine base, an Army ballistic missile defense facility and expanded Air Force and Navy bases by 2014, according to an initial Defense Department time line.
However, news of the military buildup has raised fears among some Chamorros that their culture and population will be diluted. In a recent interview, Chamorro leader Debbie Quinata said that she's not sure that the tiny island can cope with the military influx.
With 40,000 people -- about a 25 percent increase -- expected to move to the island in less than a decade, that is certainly a big challenge to all issues that matter to Guam.
That was why during the Republican convention, Camacho reached out to U.S. presidential candidate Sen. John McCain to discuss the issues. "I've met with John McCain, to discuss issues that matter to Guam."
The governor's office is lobbying for financial assistance from the federal government over the next few years, money that is to be spent outside the bases' fence lines. This would mean roads, seaport, utility improvements and other projects.
In a visit to Guam last year, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney stressed Guam's role in the U.S. bases' relocation.
"The U.S. can move quickly and effectively to protect our friends, to defend our interests, to bring relief in times of emergency, and to keep the sea lanes open for commerce, and close it to terrorists," he said. "This island may be small, but it has tremendous importance to the peace and security of the world."
Yet even with Guam's significant role to the U.S. military, Camacho pointed out to McCain that Washington, D.C., could give Guam better treatment.
"We are also Americans, and we need to change the way Guam is treated," Camacho said.
But no matter how you cut it, you are never going to make everybody happy.
Billions of dollars will be spent in Guam by the military, the American government and the Japanese government. That should make the businessmen joyful.
Millions of dollars, if not billions, will be spent to upgrade our roads and highways, and transportation in general.
We also can rest assured that the U.S. government isn't going to just drop the Marines off here. They will need better air transportation. They will need water and power and a garbage dump.
The people of Guam, if they can see into the future, should know that the Marines, their families and associated workers will pay more in taxes, and thus provide a bigger, better tax base, which should help our schools.
Communication should get better too, with better TV and movies. We will have more restaurants and night spots.
It is going to hurt somewhat that the traffic, already bad, will worsen.
More jobs will be created for local people, and more taxes will be paid into GovGuam, broadening that base.
The people of Guam have always been on the low end of the gross national product, but I think this will change, too. I see clearly that new and better houses will be built. The island people should have more money to spend on vacations and education.
Health care will become an essential issue, and we may get a new, up-to-date hospital built.
If we watch the military buildup, and don't complain too much, maybe we can count on a plebiscite that would grant this island more freedom than it has now, in the form of a commonwealth.
Joe Murphy is a former editor of the Pacific Daily News.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Threats to Journalism in the Philippines
DISGRUNTLED COUNCIL LAUNCHES PERSONAL ATTACK ON JOURNALIST IN THE PHILIPPINES
www.ifj-asia.org
MANILA (IFJ/Pacific Media Watch): The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) strongly condemns the decision by the Zamboanga City Council in the Philippines to declare senior veteran journalist Al Jacinto “persona non grata” on August 7 in response to unfavourable news reports.
According to the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), an IFJ affiliate, the declaration was connected to articles published by Jacinto on GMANews.tv regarding conflict between religious and ethnic groups in relation to the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE), a new geographical territory proposed by the Philippines government.
The BJE agreement is part of ongoing peace negotiations between the government and local separatist groups in Zamboanga, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
“Personal condemnation of a journalist as “persona non grata” on the basis of their reporting through a formal council resolution is an act of harassment and an attack on press freedom,” the IFJ Asia-Pacific said.
“All parties involved must understand the important duty of journalists to report fairly on all sides, and intimidation of this kind can not be tolerated.”
The IFJ joins the NUJP in demanding the Zamboanga City Council issue a formal apology to Jacinto for the inflammatory statement and for instigating unnecessary anti-media sentiment.
The statement came after the murders of two journalists in the Philippines last week. Martin Roxas, anchorman for Radio Mindanao Network (RMN) was shot on August 7. Dennis Cuesta, program director for the RMN dxMD program, died in hospital on Saturday August 9 from injuries sustained from a shooting on August 4, the NUJP reports.
“As the Philippines media mourns the murder of two broadcast journalists last week, the IFJ is dismayed at this unwarranted incitement of anti-media sentiment by authority figures not only towards Jacinto but all journalists in the Philippines.”
* For further information contact IFJ Asia-Pacific on +612 9333 0919. The IFJ represents more than 600,000 journalists in 122 countries worldwide.
* Comment on this item: pacific.mediawatch@aut.ac.nz
www.ifj-asia.org
MANILA (IFJ/Pacific Media Watch): The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) strongly condemns the decision by the Zamboanga City Council in the Philippines to declare senior veteran journalist Al Jacinto “persona non grata” on August 7 in response to unfavourable news reports.
According to the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), an IFJ affiliate, the declaration was connected to articles published by Jacinto on GMANews.tv regarding conflict between religious and ethnic groups in relation to the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE), a new geographical territory proposed by the Philippines government.
The BJE agreement is part of ongoing peace negotiations between the government and local separatist groups in Zamboanga, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
“Personal condemnation of a journalist as “persona non grata” on the basis of their reporting through a formal council resolution is an act of harassment and an attack on press freedom,” the IFJ Asia-Pacific said.
“All parties involved must understand the important duty of journalists to report fairly on all sides, and intimidation of this kind can not be tolerated.”
The IFJ joins the NUJP in demanding the Zamboanga City Council issue a formal apology to Jacinto for the inflammatory statement and for instigating unnecessary anti-media sentiment.
The statement came after the murders of two journalists in the Philippines last week. Martin Roxas, anchorman for Radio Mindanao Network (RMN) was shot on August 7. Dennis Cuesta, program director for the RMN dxMD program, died in hospital on Saturday August 9 from injuries sustained from a shooting on August 4, the NUJP reports.
“As the Philippines media mourns the murder of two broadcast journalists last week, the IFJ is dismayed at this unwarranted incitement of anti-media sentiment by authority figures not only towards Jacinto but all journalists in the Philippines.”
* For further information contact IFJ Asia-Pacific on +612 9333 0919. The IFJ represents more than 600,000 journalists in 122 countries worldwide.
* Comment on this item: pacific.mediawatch@aut.ac.nz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)