Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts

Monday, October 24, 2011

US Seeks to Establish Naval Base on Jeju Island in Spite of Protests

Tuesday, 18 October 2011 00:00 John Lasker from TowardFreedom.com

At protest against base on Jeju Island

At protest against base on Jeju Island























On beautiful Jeju Island, south of the Korean peninsula, the South Korean Navy is building a base that will soon harbor some of the world’s most advanced weapons.

But the mystery is: who inspired the base to be built on this island of pristine waters and stunning volcanic peaks in the first place?

Peace activist Bruce Gagnon says all one needs to do is call the South Korean embassy in Washington and ask.

“We have had four of our people tell us when they called the (South Korean) embassy to protest the naval base, they were told, ‘Don’t call us, call your own government,’” said Gagnon. “The US is forcing South Korea to build this base so to harbor Aegis destroyers. The base is a key part of Obama’s ‘Forward Base’ strategy for missile defense. This is a very provocative act.”

Gagnon is the director Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, which is referred to as the “Global Network” amongst its 150 affiliates across the planet. The Global Network’s mission is to raise awareness about US’s emerging missile defense “arsenal” – an arsenal they believe is a “Trojan Horse” the US is secretly and quietly rolling into the global courtyard.

Missile-defense technology, such as the Aegis-class destroyer that South Korea said will be stationed on Jeju Island, is “dual use” technology, claims the Global Network. An Aegis-class destroyer is equipped with the Aegis system of high-powered radar and missiles that can shoot-down intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and other warheads. But this same Aegis technology, created mainly by aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, has offensive capabilities as well, such as the ability to shoot down satellite constellations the world has become so dependent on.

The Global Network’s dual-use theory is backed by plenty of incriminating evidence. The Pentagon has spent over $100 billion researching missile defense technology that has never proven itself in real combat. This $100 billion technology can also be deceived by balloon decoys that look like warheads, a fatal flaw the Pentagon has desperately tried to keep secret. While billions were being pumped into so-called missile defense during the past three decades, many high-ranking officers from the US military and US Congressmen publicly stated the nation that controls space, controls earth.

Intimidation in the Pacific and at the White House

Gagnon says the emerging Jeju island naval base, currently a construction site under heavy protest by Jeju island locals, is situated just a few miles from a Pacific sea route China uses to import oil, and that building the base is a provocative act towards China.

“China ships 80 percent of its oil through this transit line,” says Gagnon. “[And if a hostile confrontation were to occur] the US can successfully choke off their ability to transport oil. The US essentially holds the keys to China’s economic engine.”

What is equally disturbing, says Gagnon, is how two US defense contractors and their stock holders are salivating at the chance to make a buck off the threat of war between super powers.

Gagnon believes one reason the US is strong-arming South Korea to build this base on Jeju Island – a World Heritage Site designated by the UN, no less – is so General Dynamics and one of America’s largest shipyards, Bath Iron Works of Maine, can continue to score huge defense contracts from either the Pentagon or South Korea. Gagnon foresees a future where Jeju Island becomes a base where US-built Aegis-equipped destroyers are also harbored.

Both General Dynamics and Bath Iron Works are two major defense contractors that build the destroyers that can be equipped with the Aegis system, and during the last two decades, the US Aegis-equipped fleet has gone beyond 60 ships.

Gagnon believes pressuring Obama to build more Aegis-class ships is the Chicago-based Crown family who helped fund the President’s political ambitions in the years leading up to his 2008 victory. The Crown family, worth $4 billion according to Forbes, is best known for nurturing General Dynamics over the past 60 years into one of the largest weapons-makers in the world. Family members today sit on its board of directors as they grow fatter and fatter from millions-of-dollars worth of General Dynamics’ stock they’ve hoarded.

According to Salon, the Crown family chipped in $500,000 for Obama’s 2008 presidential run.

Gagnon says the Crown family now wants some payback.

“He owes them,” says Gagnon about Obama and his relationship with the Crowns.

Sputtering Orbiter? Assange Reveals the Truth

There is no doubt, says Gagnon, that Sino-American posturing in the Pacific has ignited an arms race for the 21st century, as the US continues testing its missile-defense arsenal in the Pacific.

Recall in 2007, when China shot down one of its own satellites. The US followed suit in 2008 by using an Aegis-class destroyer to shoot down an apparent “malfunctioning” satellite as it orbited over Hawaii. WikiLeaks would later reveal the Bush White House essentially had lied about the sputtering orbiter.

The real story, as told by a once secret US cable that was exposed by the elusive Assange, is that the US shot down its own satellite as a direct response to China’s display of space weapon capability the year before in 2007.

Meanwhile, peace activists of Jeju Island are being arrested and harassed by South Korean police. Ironically, the “Island of World Peace,” as dubbed by its own political leaders, is turning into an “Island of No Free Speech”.

For the past year, scores of Jeju Island peace activists, who have elicited help from Gloria Steinem and Noam Chomsky, have camped-out to block construction of the 400,000-square meter base that will harbor over 20 ships and submarines.

On July 15th, undercover police raided the tiny fishing village of Gangjeong where much of the protest strategy is originating. Three key figures of the protest were arrested, including Global Network member Sung-Hee Choi of Gangjeong, who was imprisoned for three months. She was holding a banner that read, "We need international solidarity. Please protest against the South Korean authorities with letters, press interviews and others."

Sung-Hee Choi, an artist, continues to blog about the protests. She wrote the following on Christmas day of last year.

“Snowflakes fell onto the beautiful coast rocks and sea, displaying a mysterious view as the sea horizon became clouded. It was a terrible feeling to think that the most beautiful rocks and sea in the Jeju Island might be covered with concrete if the naval base construction is enforced.”

John Lasker is a freelance journalist from Ohio.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

America's Pacific Century


October 18, 2011 by from DMZhawaii.org

Secretary of State Clinton lays out the US policy in the Pacific. As the subtitle states, “The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.” This will mean more militarization in our region despite the social and environmental costs, increased military tensions, and a high price tag in a time of fiscal crisis. This is the real APEC agenda: maintaining the Pacific as an “American Lake”:


America’s Pacific Century

Op-Ed

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Foreign Policy Magazine
October 11, 2011

The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.

As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region.

The Asia-Pacific has become a key driver of global politics. Stretching from the Indian subcontinent to the western shores of the Americas, the region spans two oceans — the Pacific and the Indian — that are increasingly linked by shipping and strategy. It boasts almost half the world’s population. It includes many of the key engines of the global economy, as well as the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. It is home to several of our key allies and important emerging powers like China, India, and Indonesia.

At a time when the region is building a more mature security and economic architecture to promote stability and prosperity, U.S. commitment there is essential. It will help build that architecture and pay dividends for continued American leadership well into this century, just as our post-World War II commitment to building a comprehensive and lasting transatlantic network of institutions and relationships has paid off many times over — and continues to do so. The time has come for the United States to make similar investments as a Pacific power, a strategic course set by President Barack Obama from the outset of his administration and one that is already yielding benefits.

With Iraq and Afghanistan still in transition and serious economic challenges in our own country, there are those on the American political scene who are calling for us not to reposition, but to come home. They seek a downsizing of our foreign engagement in favor of our pressing domestic priorities. These impulses are understandable, but they are misguided. Those who say that we can no longer afford to engage with the world have it exactly backward — we cannot afford not to. From opening new markets for American businesses to curbing nuclear proliferation to keeping the sea lanes free for commerce and navigation, our work abroad holds the key to our prosperity and security at home. For more than six decades, the United States has resisted the gravitational pull of these “come home” debates and the implicit zero-sum logic of these arguments. We must do so again.

Beyond our borders, people are also wondering about America’s intentions — our willingness to remain engaged and to lead. In Asia, they ask whether we are really there to stay, whether we are likely to be distracted again by events elsewhere, whether we can make — and keep — credible economic and strategic commitments, and whether we can back those commitments with action. The answer is: We can, and we will.

Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology. Our economic recovery at home will depend on exports and the ability of American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia. Strategically, maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is increasingly crucial to global progress, whether through defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, countering the proliferation efforts of North Korea, or ensuring transparency in the military activities of the region’s key players.

Just as Asia is critical to America’s future, an engaged America is vital to Asia’s future. The region is eager for our leadership and our business — perhaps more so than at any time in modern history. We are the only power with a network of strong alliances in the region, no territorial ambitions, and a long record of providing for the common good. Along with our allies, we have underwritten regional security for decades — patrolling Asia’s sea lanes and preserving stability — and that in turn has helped create the conditions for growth. We have helped integrate billions of people across the region into the global economy by spurring economic productivity, social empowerment, and greater people-to-people links. We are a major trade and investment partner, a source of innovation that benefits workers and businesses on both sides of the Pacific, a host to 350,000 Asian students every year, a champion of open markets, and an advocate for universal human rights.

President Obama has led a multifaceted and persistent effort to embrace fully our irreplaceable role in the Pacific, spanning the entire U.S. Government. It has often been a quiet effort. A lot of our work has not been on the front pages, both because of its nature — long-term investment is less exciting than immediate crises — and because of competing headlines in other parts of the world.

As Secretary of State, I broke with tradition and embarked on my first official overseas trip to Asia. In my seven trips since, I have had the privilege to see firsthand the rapid transformations taking place in the region, underscoring how much the future of the United States is intimately intertwined with the future of the Asia-Pacific. A strategic turn to the region fits logically into our overall global effort to secure and sustain America’s global leadership. The success of this turn requires maintaining and advancing a bipartisan consensus on the importance of the Asia-Pacific to our national interests; we seek to build upon a strong tradition of engagement by presidents and secretaries of state of both parties across many decades. It also requires smart execution of a coherent regional strategy that accounts for the global implications of our choices.

What does that regional strategy look like? For starters, it calls for a sustained commitment to what I have called “forward-deployed” diplomacy. That means continuing to dispatch the full range of our diplomatic assets — including our highest-ranking officials, our development experts, our interagency teams, and our permanent assets — to every country and corner of the Asia-Pacific region. Our strategy will have to keep accounting for and adapting to the rapid and dramatic shifts playing out across Asia. With this in mind, our work will proceed along six key lines of action: strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights.

By virtue of our unique geography, the United States is both an Atlantic and a Pacific power. We are proud of our European partnerships and all that they deliver. Our challenge now is to build a web of partnerships and institutions across the Pacific that is as durable and as consistent with American interests and values as the web we have built across the Atlantic. That is the touchstone of our efforts in all these areas.

Our treaty alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand are the fulcrum for our strategic turn to the Asia-Pacific. They have underwritten regional peace and security for more than half a century, shaping the environment for the region’s remarkable economic ascent. They leverage our regional presence and enhance our regional leadership at a time of evolving security challenges.

As successful as these alliances have been, we can’t afford simply to sustain them — we need to update them for a changing world. In this effort, the Obama Administration is guided by three core principles. First, we have to maintain political consensus on the core objectives of our alliances. Second, we have to ensure that our alliances are nimble and adaptive so that they can successfully address new challenges and seize new opportunities. Third, we have to guarantee that the defense capabilities and communications infrastructure of our alliances are operationally and materially capable of deterring provocation from the full spectrum of state and nonstate actors.

The alliance with Japan, the cornerstone of peace and stability in the region, demonstrates how the Obama Administration is giving these principles life. We share a common vision of a stable regional order with clear rules of the road — from freedom of navigation to open markets and fair competition. We have agreed to a new arrangement, including a contribution from the Japanese Government of more than $5 billion, to ensure the continued enduring presence of American forces in Japan, while expanding joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance activities to deter and react quickly to regional security challenges, as well as information sharing to address cyberthreats. We have concluded an Open Skies Agreement that will enhance access for businesses and people-to-people ties, launched a strategic dialogue on the Asia-Pacific, and been working hand in hand as the two largest donor countries in Afghanistan.

Similarly, our alliance with South Korea has become stronger and more operationally integrated, and we continue to develop our combined capabilities to deter and respond to North Korean provocations. We have agreed on a plan to ensure successful transition of operational control during wartime and anticipate successful passage of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. And our alliance has gone global, through our work together in the G-20 and the Nuclear Security Summit and through our common efforts in Haiti and Afghanistan.

We are also expanding our alliance with Australia from a Pacific partnership to an Indo-Pacific one, and indeed a global partnership. From cybersecurity to Afghanistan to the Arab Awakening to strengthening regional architecture in the Asia-Pacific, Australia’s counsel and commitment have been indispensable. And in Southeast Asia, we are renewing and strengthening our alliances with the Philippines and Thailand, increasing, for example, the number of ship visits to the Philippines and working to ensure the successful training of Filipino counterterrorism forces through our Joint Special Operations Task Force in Mindanao. In Thailand — our oldest treaty partner in Asia — we are working to establish a hub of regional humanitarian and disaster relief efforts in the region.

As we update our alliances for new demands, we are also building new partnerships to help solve shared problems. Our outreach to China, India, Indonesia, Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia, Mongolia, Vietnam, Brunei, and the Pacific Island countries is all part of a broader effort to ensure a more comprehensive approach to American strategy and engagement in the region. We are asking these emerging partners to join us in shaping and participating in a rules-based regional and global order.

One of the most prominent of these emerging partners is, of course, China. Like so many other countries before it, China has prospered as part of the open and rules-based system that the United States helped to build and works to sustain. And today, China represents one of the most challenging and consequential bilateral relationships the United States has ever had to manage. This calls for careful, steady, dynamic stewardship, an approach to China on our part that is grounded in reality, focused on results, and true to our principles and interests.

We all know that fears and misperceptions linger on both sides of the Pacific. Some in our country see China’s progress as a threat to the United States; some in China worry that America seeks to constrain China’s growth. We reject both those views. The fact is that a thriving America is good for China and a thriving China is good for America. We both have much more to gain from cooperation than from conflict. But you cannot build a relationship on aspirations alone. It is up to both of us to more consistently translate positive words into effective cooperation — and, crucially, to meet our respective global responsibilities and obligations. These are the things that will determine whether our relationship delivers on its potential in the years to come. We also have to be honest about our differences. We will address them firmly and decisively as we pursue the urgent work we have to do together. And we have to avoid unrealistic expectations.

Over the last two-and-a-half years, one of my top priorities has been to identify and expand areas of common interest, to work with China to build mutual trust, and to encourage China’s active efforts in global problem-solving. This is why Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and I launched the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the most intensive and expansive talks ever between our governments, bringing together dozens of agencies from both sides to discuss our most pressing bilateral issues, from security to energy to human rights.

We are also working to increase transparency and reduce the risk of miscalculation or miscues between our militaries. The United States and the international community have watched China’s efforts to modernize and expand its military, and we have sought clarity as to its intentions. Both sides would benefit from sustained and substantive military-to-military engagement that increases transparency. So we look to Beijing to overcome its reluctance at times and join us in forging a durable military-to-military dialogue. And we need to work together to strengthen the Strategic Security Dialogue, which brings together military and civilian leaders to discuss sensitive issues like maritime security and cybersecurity.

As we build trust together, we are committed to working with China to address critical regional and global security issues. This is why I have met so frequently — often in informal settings — with my Chinese counterparts, State Councilor Dai Bingguo and Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, for candid discussions about important challenges like North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and developments in the South China Sea.

On the economic front, the United States and China need to work together to ensure strong, sustained, and balanced future global growth. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the United States and China worked effectively through the G-20 to help pull the global economy back from the brink. We have to build on that cooperation. U.S. firms want fair opportunities to export to China’s growing markets, which can be important sources of jobs here in the United States, as well as assurances that the $50 billion of American capital invested in China will create a strong foundation for new market and investment opportunities that will support global competitiveness. At the same time, Chinese firms want to be able to buy more high-tech products from the United States, make more investments here, and be accorded the same terms of access that market economies enjoy. We can work together on these objectives, but China still needs to take important steps toward reform. In particular, we are working with China to end unfair discrimination against U.S. and other foreign companies or against their innovative technologies, remove preferences for domestic firms, and end measures that disadvantage or appropriate foreign intellectual property. And we look to China to take steps to allow its currency to appreciate more rapidly, both against the dollar and against the currencies of its other major trading partners. Such reforms, we believe, would not only benefit both our countries (indeed, they would support the goals of China’s own five-year plan, which calls for more domestic-led growth), but also contribute to global economic balance, predictability, and broader prosperity.

Of course, we have made very clear, publicly and privately, our serious concerns about human rights. And when we see reports of public-interest lawyers, writers, artists, and others who are detained or disappeared, the United States speaks up, both publicly and privately, with our concerns about human rights. We make the case to our Chinese colleagues that a deep respect for international law and a more open political system would provide China with a foundation for far greater stability and growth — and increase the confidence of China’s partners. Without them, China is placing unnecessary limitations on its own development.

At the end of the day, there is no handbook for the evolving U.S.-China relationship. But the stakes are much too high for us to fail. As we proceed, we will continue to embed our relationship with China in a broader regional framework of security alliances, economic networks, and social connections.

Among key emerging powers with which we will work closely are India and Indonesia, two of the most dynamic and significant democratic powers of Asia, and both countries with which the Obama administration has pursued broader, deeper, and more purposeful relationships. The stretch of sea from the Indian Ocean through the Strait of Malacca to the Pacific contains the world’s most vibrant trade and energy routes. Together, India and Indonesia already account for almost a quarter of the world’s population. They are key drivers of the global economy, important partners for the United States, and increasingly central contributors to peace and security in the region. And their importance is likely to grow in the years ahead.

President Obama told the Indian parliament last year that the relationship between India and America will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century, rooted in common values and interests. There are still obstacles to overcome and questions to answer on both sides, but the United States is making a strategic bet on India’s future — that India’s greater role on the world stage will enhance peace and security, that opening India’s markets to the world will pave the way to greater regional and global prosperity, that Indian advances in science and technology will improve lives and advance human knowledge everywhere, and that India’s vibrant, pluralistic democracy will produce measurable results and improvements for its citizens and inspire others to follow a similar path of openness and tolerance. So the Obama administration has expanded our bilateral partnership; actively supported India’s Look East efforts, including through a new trilateral dialogue with India and Japan; and outlined a new vision for a more economically integrated and politically stable South and Central Asia, with India as a linchpin.

We are also forging a new partnership with Indonesia, the world’s third-largest democracy, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, and a member of the G-20. We have resumed joint training of Indonesian special forces units and signed a number of agreements on health, educational exchanges, science and technology, and defense. And this year, at the invitation of the Indonesian government, President Obama will inaugurate American participation in the East Asia Summit. But there is still some distance to travel — we have to work together to overcome bureaucratic impediments, lingering historical suspicions, and some gaps in understanding each other’s perspectives and interests.

Even as we strengthen these bilateral relationships, we have emphasized the importance of multilateral cooperation, for we believe that addressing complex transnational challenges of the sort now faced by Asia requires a set of institutions capable of mustering collective action. And a more robust and coherent regional architecture in Asia would reinforce the system of rules and responsibilities, from protecting intellectual property to ensuring freedom of navigation, that form the basis of an effective international order. In multilateral settings, responsible behavior is rewarded with legitimacy and respect, and we can work together to hold accountable those who undermine peace, stability, and prosperity.

So the United States has moved to fully engage the region’s multilateral institutions, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, mindful that our work with regional institutions supplements and does not supplant our bilateral ties. There is a demand from the region that America play an active role in the agenda-setting of these institutions — and it is in our interests as well that they be effective and responsive.

That is why President Obama will participate in the East Asia Summit for the first time in November. To pave the way, the United States has opened a new U.S. Mission to ASEAN in Jakarta and signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with ASEAN. Our focus on developing a more results-oriented agenda has been instrumental in efforts to address disputes in the South China Sea. In 2010, at the ASEAN Regional Forum in Hanoi, the United States helped shape a regionwide effort to protect unfettered access to and passage through the South China Sea, and to uphold the key international rules for defining territorial claims in the South China Sea’s waters. Given that half the world’s merchant tonnage flows through this body of water, this was a consequential undertaking. And over the past year, we have made strides in protecting our vital interests in stability and freedom of navigation and have paved the way for sustained multilateral diplomacy among the many parties with claims in the South China Sea, seeking to ensure disputes are settled peacefully and in accordance with established principles of international law.

We have also worked to strengthen APEC as a serious leaders-level institution focused on advancing economic integration and trade linkages across the Pacific. After last year’s bold call by the group for a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific, President Obama will host the 2011 APEC Leaders’ Meeting in Hawaii this November. We are committed to cementing APEC as the Asia-Pacific’s premier regional economic institution, setting the economic agenda in a way that brings together advanced and emerging economies to promote open trade and investment, as well as to build capacity and enhance regulatory regimes. APEC and its work help expand U.S. exports and create and support high-quality jobs in the United States, while fostering growth throughout the region. APEC also provides a key vehicle to drive a broad agenda to unlock the economic growth potential that women represent. In this regard, the United States is committed to working with our partners on ambitious steps to accelerate the arrival of the Participation Age, where every individual, regardless of gender or other characteristics, is a contributing and valued member of the global marketplace.

In addition to our commitment to these broader multilateral institutions, we have worked hard to create and launch a number of “minilateral” meetings, small groupings of interested states to tackle specific challenges, such as the Lower Mekong Initiative we launched to support education, health, and environmental programs in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, and the Pacific Islands Forum, where we are working to support its members as they confront challenges from climate change to overfishing to freedom of navigation. We are also starting to pursue new trilateral opportunities with countries as diverse as Mongolia, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, and South Korea. And we are setting our sights as well on enhancing coordination and engagement among the three giants of the Asia-Pacific: China, India, and the United States.

In all these different ways, we are seeking to shape and participate in a responsive, flexible, and effective regional architecture — and ensure it connects to a broader global architecture that not only protects international stability and commerce but also advances our values.

Our emphasis on the economic work of APEC is in keeping with our broader commitment to elevate economic statecraft as a pillar of American foreign policy. Increasingly, economic progress depends on strong diplomatic ties, and diplomatic progress depends on strong economic ties. And naturally, a focus on promoting American prosperity means a greater focus on trade and economic openness in the Asia-Pacific. The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama’s goal of doubling exports by 2015, we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia. Last year, American exports to the Pacific Rim totaled $320 billion, supporting 850,000 American jobs. So there is much that favors us as we think through this repositioning.

When I talk to my Asian counterparts, one theme consistently stands out: They still want America to be an engaged and creative partner in the region’s flourishing trade and financial interactions. And as I talk with business leaders across our own nation, I hear how important it is for the United States to expand our exports and our investment opportunities in Asia’s dynamic markets.

Last March in APEC meetings in Washington, and again in Hong Kong in July, I laid out four attributes that I believe characterize healthy economic competition: open, free, transparent, and fair. Through our engagement in the Asia-Pacific, we are helping to give shape to these principles and showing the world their value.

We are pursuing new cutting-edge trade deals that raise the standards for fair competition even as they open new markets. For instance, the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will eliminate tariffs on 95 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial exports within five years and support an estimated 70,000 American jobs. Its tariff reductions alone could increase exports of American goods by more than $10 billion and help South Korea’s economy grow by 6 percent. It will level the playing field for U.S. auto companies and workers. So, whether you are an American manufacturer of machinery or a South Korean chemicals exporter, this deal lowers the barriers that keep you from reaching new customers.

We are also making progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will bring together economies from across the Pacific — developed and developing alike — into a single trading community. Our goal is to create not just more growth, but better growth. We believe trade agreements need to include strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation. They should also promote the free flow of information technology and the spread of green technology, as well as the coherence of our regulatory system and the efficiency of supply chains. Ultimately, our progress will be measured by the quality of people’s lives — whether men and women can work in dignity, earn a decent wage, raise healthy families, educate their children, and take hold of the opportunities to improve their own and the next generation’s fortunes. Our hope is that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for future agreements — and grow to serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific.

Achieving balance in our trade relationships requires a two-way commitment. That’s the nature of balance — it can’t be unilaterally imposed. So we are working through APEC, the G-20, and our bilateral relationships to advocate for more open markets, fewer restrictions on exports, more transparency, and an overall commitment to fairness. American businesses and workers need to have confidence that they are operating on a level playing field, with predictable rules on everything from intellectual property to indigenous innovation.

Asia’s remarkable economic growth over the past decade and its potential for continued growth in the future depend on the security and stability that has long been guaranteed by the U.S. military, including more than 50,000 American servicemen and servicewomen serving in Japan and South Korea. The challenges of today’s rapidly changing region — from territorial and maritime disputes to new threats to freedom of navigation to the heightened impact of natural disasters — require that the United States pursue a more geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable force posture.

We are modernizing our basing arrangements with traditional allies in Northeast Asia — and our commitment on this is rock solid — while enhancing our presence in Southeast Asia and into the Indian Ocean. For example, the United States will be deploying littoral combat ships to Singapore, and we are examining other ways to increase opportunities for our two militaries to train and operate together. And the United States and Australia agreed this year to explore a greater American military presence in Australia to enhance opportunities for more joint training and exercises. We are also looking at how we can increase our operational access in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean region and deepen our contacts with allies and partners.

How we translate the growing connection between the Indian and Pacific oceans into an operational concept is a question that we need to answer if we are to adapt to new challenges in the region. Against this backdrop, a more broadly distributed military presence across the region will provide vital advantages. The United States will be better positioned to support humanitarian missions; equally important, working with more allies and partners will provide a more robust bulwark against threats or efforts to undermine regional peace and stability.

But even more than our military might or the size of our economy, our most potent asset as a nation is the power of our values — in particular, our steadfast support for democracy and human rights. This speaks to our deepest national character and is at the heart of our foreign policy, including our strategic turn to the Asia-Pacific region.

As we deepen our engagement with partners with whom we disagree on these issues, we will continue to urge them to embrace reforms that would improve governance, protect human rights, and advance political freedoms. We have made it clear, for example, to Vietnam that our ambition to develop a strategic partnership requires that it take steps to further protect human rights and advance political freedoms. Or consider Burma, where we are determined to seek accountability for human rights violations. We are closely following developments in Nay Pyi Taw and the increasing interactions between Aung San Suu Kyi and the government leadership. We have underscored to the government that it must release political prisoners, advance political freedoms and human rights, and break from the policies of the past. As for North Korea, the regime in Pyongyang has shown persistent disregard for the rights of its people, and we continue to speak out forcefully against the threats it poses to the region and beyond.

We cannot and do not aspire to impose our system on other countries, but we do believe that certain values are universal — that people in every nation in the world, including in Asia, cherish them — and that they are intrinsic to stable, peaceful, and prosperous countries. Ultimately, it is up to the people of Asia to pursue their own rights and aspirations, just as we have seen people do all over the world.

In the last decade, our foreign policy has transitioned from dealing with the post-Cold War peace dividend to demanding commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. As those wars wind down, we will need to accelerate efforts to pivot to new global realities.

We know that these new realities require us to innovate, to compete, and to lead in new ways. Rather than pull back from the world, we need to press forward and renew our leadership. In a time of scarce resources, there’s no question that we need to invest them wisely where they will yield the biggest returns, which is why the Asia-Pacific represents such a real 21st-century opportunity for us.

Other regions remain vitally important, of course. Europe, home to most of our traditional allies, is still a partner of first resort, working alongside the United States on nearly every urgent global challenge, and we are investing in updating the structures of our alliance. The people of the Middle East and North Africa are charting a new path that is already having profound global consequences, and the United States is committed to active and sustained partnerships as the region transforms. Africa holds enormous untapped potential for economic and political development in the years ahead. And our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere are not just our biggest export partners; they are also playing a growing role in global political and economic affairs. Each of these regions demands American engagement and leadership.

And we are prepared to lead. Now, I’m well aware that there are those who question our staying power around the world. We’ve heard this talk before. At the end of the Vietnam War, there was a thriving industry of global commentators promoting the idea that America was in retreat, and it is a theme that repeats itself every few decades. But whenever the United States has experienced setbacks, we’ve overcome them through reinvention and innovation. Our capacity to come back stronger is unmatched in modern history. It flows from our model of free democracy and free enterprise, a model that remains the most powerful source of prosperity and progress known to humankind. I hear everywhere I go that the world still looks to the United States for leadership. Our military is by far the strongest, and our economy is by far the largest in the world. Our workers are the most productive. Our universities are renowned the world over. So there should be no doubt that America has the capacity to secure and sustain our global leadership in this century as we did in the last.

As we move forward to set the stage for engagement in the Asia-Pacific over the next 60 years, we are mindful of the bipartisan legacy that has shaped our engagement for the past 60. And we are focused on the steps we have to take at home — increasing our savings, reforming our financial systems, relying less on borrowing, overcoming partisan division — to secure and sustain our leadership abroad.

This kind of pivot is not easy, but we have paved the way for it over the past two-and-a-half years, and we are committed to seeing it through as among the most important diplomatic efforts of our time.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Alleged Inhumane Conditions for Post-9/11 Suspects Sparks Global Scrutiny of U.S. Detention Policies



Ten years after the 9/11 attacks, detention policies in the United States are facing increasing scrutiny both here and abroad. American citizen Tarek Mehanna is set to stand trial this month on charges of "conspiring to support terrorism" and "providing material support to terrorists." Mehanna is accused of trying to serve in al-Qaeda’s "media wing." He was 27 years old when he was arrested in October 2009 and has been held in solitary confinement since then. Mehanna was originally courted by the FBI to become an informant. Meanwhile, the European Court of Human Rights is hearing a case on the legality of extradition of terror suspects to the United States on the grounds that inmates are subjected to inhumane conditions of confinement and routine violations of due process. This could become a landmark case in human rights law, potentially damaging the international reputation of the U.S. legal system. To discuss detention policies since 9/11 in the United States, we’re joined by Tarek Mehanna’s brother, Tamer, and Gareth Peirce, one of Britain’s best-known human rights attorneys. She’s represented numerous prisoners held at the U.S. military base at Guantánamo Bay, as well as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Guests:

Gareth Peirce, one of Britain’s best-known human rights attorneys. She has represented numerous prisoners held at the U.S. military base at Guantánamo Bay, as well as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. She is author of Dispatches from the Dark Side: On Torture and the Death of Justice.
Tamer Mehanna, the brother of U.S. terror suspect Tarek Mehanna, who has been held in pre-trial 23-hour solitary confinement since October 21, 2009.

Full Transcript Here

Monday, October 10, 2011

Living Along the Fenceline in Jeju

October 6, 2011 by from DMZhawaii.org

The Stars and Stripes reports that “Naval base puts S. Korea’s ‘island of world peace’ in hot spot”:

JEJU ISLAND, South Korea — This country’s southernmost major island is a study in contrasts.

A popular tourist destination, Jeju boasts some of the world’s most beautiful scenery and is one of 28 finalists in an international competition for selection as one of the “New 7 Wonders of Nature.” Yet it’s also home to a number of cheesy tourist stops, including Jeju Love Land, a sexual theme park.

In 2005, the South Korean government officially recognized Jeju as the “island of world peace,” and then-President Roh Moo-hyun said he would do his best to make it a “center of peace in Northeast Asia.” But South Korea is now building a naval base on the island for the expressed purpose of enhancing its ability to police its vital shipping lanes and respond faster to any North Korean threats.

Critics suggest that once the base opens in 2014, the U.S. will use it extensively, with the goal of keeping an eye on China. That, they say, could make the “island of world peace” a target the next time hostilities erupt in the region.

[...]

The base could also prompt China to hasten the buildup of its naval firepower, further heightening tensions on the Korean peninsula, [Yang Mu-jin, a professor of politics and unification studies at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul] said.

The South Korean government has tried to downplay the social and political implications of the base and have even drawn comparisons to the U.S. military in Hawai’i as an example of good military-civilian relations:

“The project is not aimed at building a military-only base for war,” the ministry’s August report said. “It is targeted at preventing war by strengthening maritime sovereignty, realizing peace and supporting other naval warships of South Korea.”

Pointing to other “successful civilian-military harbor complexes” like those in San Diego and Hawaii, the defense ministry said the naval base and the island of world peace “both can coexist in (a) mutually complimentary manner.”

But in Hawaiʻi, we know that this is rubbish. The military has taken a terrible toll on local communities and the environment. It was the force that drove the regime change and occupation of the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaiʻi. The South Korean Defense Ministry erroneously referred to “successful civilian-military harbor complexes” in Hawaiʻi. Pearl Harbor is not accessible for civilian use. Warning signs along the shoreline of Ke Awalau o Pu’uloa make it clear that despite Hawai’i's otherwise strong shoreline public access laws, the water is off limits.

Meanwhile, the documentary film “Living Along the Fenceline”, which was screened at the 12th annual Women’s Film Festival in Jeju, exposes the social and environmental costs of military bases around the world, including Hawaiʻi. Director Lina Hoshino and Co-producers Gwyn Kirk and Deborah Lee attended the film festival. The Jeju Weekly reports:

One expat asked the most provocative question of the evening. He asked Ms. Kirk if she thought Jeju Island and its forthcoming naval base represented an inevitable pattern around the world for the creation of more military bases. Ms. Kirk answered she believed the US will inevitably want to build more bases if US imperialism continues to grow. She conveyed that if we can imagine a different kind of future that actively addresses climate change, use of resources, etc… then it is not inevitable. We need a change in leadership and attitude in the US and US allies, including South Korea, who should refuse to have a US military base in the country.

Answering another question, Ms. Kirk said today the United States government spends half of its tax dollars on the world military system, not including the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A grassroots campaign advocates spreading the money from the defense budget to other social programs including education, health care, care for children, the elderly, and people with disabilities, and domestic violence shelters. Unfortunately, these programs are being cut because of the economic crisis. But, the military budget remains intact.

Secondly, Ms. Kirk said there is another campaign to educate people about the military worldwide. People are unaware about the US’s worldwide military presence and are often shocked by the actual number of bases. This film is part of this education campaign.

Ms. Kirk hopes the film inspires people to think about what a military base means in their communities. She said it is important for people to be clear what happens when a military base is installed in a new location. She said, “It is tempting to think military bases will bring jobs. The reality is military spending generates the fewest amount of jobs of any government spending.” The military is a capital intensive industry, not a human capital intensive industry. The same amount of money spent on a military base spent on education or health care would generate far more jobs.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Has US Empire Benefited the World?

By Ivan Eland from Commondreams.org

In a recent column, Thomas Friedman, probably the most influential “internationalist” — read: proponent of U.S. interventionism in faraway places — has finally discovered that the United States must soon turn inward and put domestic economic growth first because of its massive public debt, huge federal budget deficit, and looming fiscal crisis caused by a dramatic automatic escalation in entitlements spending.

Eureka, the foreign policy rapture has begun!

The real problem with Friedman’s piece is not him reaching a conclusion that was obvious even before the onset of the Great Recession of 2008, but that he laments how dangerous the world will be without the steady guiding hand of the United States.

Friedman writes, and most Americans will be eager to believe, that the diminished interventionism of the now “frugal superpower” will be bad for the world because:

“[T]he most unique and important feature of U.S. foreign policy over the last century has been the degree to which America’s diplomats and naval, air, and ground forces provided global public goods — from open seas to open trade and from containment to counterterrorism — that benefited many others besides us.

“U.S. power has been the key force maintaining global stability, and providing global governance, for the last 70 years. That role will not disappear, but it will certainly shrink.”

Then Friedman, whose muse is Michael Mandelbaum of Johns Hopkins University, quotes Mandelbaum as opining:

“When Britain could no longer provide global governance, the United States stepped in to replace it. No country now stands ready to replace the United States, so the loss to international peace and prosperity has the potential to be greater as America pulls back than when Britain did.”

But have the British Empire and the American Empire been all that good for the world? The world somehow got by before they came along.

The American public and many of its foreign policy experts praise the British Empire for ensuring stability, when they probably should examine its violent and often brutal colonial subjugation of what it regarded as inferior races for economic gain.

Adolf Hitler admired the British Empire, but thought it too brutal.

As for the American Empire, it is littered with foreign policy interventions that caused more international problems than they solved.

American entry into World War I led to a string of disasters that the world has never fully recovered from. Without the decisive U.S. entry into the first European war in its history in contravention of the Monroe Doctrine, a win by Germany, then merely a constitutional monarchy with a bombastic king, in a 10-round decision would have led only to the incremental adjustment of European borders to German advantage.

Instead, U.S. entry to tip the balance of the war inadvertently brought about an allied victory that rubbed Germany’s nose in the dirt — demanding a war guilt clause for a conflict in which blame should have been shared across Europe, requiring harsh reparations on an economically drained nation, and deposing Kaiser Wilhelm II.

The latter demand paved the way for the rise of Adolf Hitler, who exploited the war guilt clause, reparations, and the economic depression to rise to power and attempt to conquer Europe. World War II was merely a resumption of World War I two decades later.

The likely U.S. entry into World War I also kept the Russian provisional government (succeeding the fallen czar) involved in the conflict — increasing the probability of winning and providing much needed aid to do so.

Had the Russian government sued for peace earlier, Vladimir Lenin could not have used the unpopular war to bring a communist government to power. The post-World War II Cold War was borne out of the ashes of World War I.

During that Cold War, the U.S. created the national security state, the first large peacetime army in American history, and a far-flung empire of military bases, unneeded alliances (especially after the advent of nuclear weapons to protect the homeland), foreign military interventions, and large amounts of foreign aid.

Instead of spending much money and many lives (in brushfire wars in the developing world) to conduct an expansive worldwide Cold War against communism, a cheaper approach to accelerate the Soviet Empire’s collapse — as many empires have fallen over the course of history, by financial exhaustion — would have been smarter.

With a less interventionist and less costly U.S. foreign policy, Soviet finances would have been depleted even faster than they were by the costs of providing aid and governance to basket cases they took over in the developing world.

During the Cold War, the U.S. also encouraged the spread of radical Islam around the world to counter godless communism, including providing aid to the anti-Soviet mujahedeen to “give the USSR another Vietnam.” As an unintended consequence of supporting such Islamic militancy, the U.S. created the biggest threat to its homeland since the War of 1812 — al-Qaeda.

Indirectly, the U.S. also helped encourage another strand of radical Islam in Iran. In 1953, it helped overthrow the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran, which led to the restoration of the autocratic shah. Radical Islam has gained support in many Muslim countries because the only dissent that is permitted against authoritarian governments is in the mosques.

The United States has supported such autocrats, for example, the shah’s Iran and Egypt’s Mubarak today. The shah’s oppression led to the radical Khomeini revolution and to Iran being a problem to its neighbors.

The United States then helped Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran as a counterweight and eventually built up another future enemy. And these are only a few of the many examples of ill-fated U.S. meddling in faraway, non-strategic countries and regions of the world.

Of course, as Friedman alludes, the United States created the system of open trade, yet trade happens naturally and U.S. efforts merely institutionalized it. An era of free trade had preceded restricted markets during World War I and the Great Depression.

But to accurately portray U.S. interventionist empire-building, especially after World War II, is not to “always blame America first.” In fact, disagreeing with the government’s foreign policy is different from hating American’s society and way of life.

The founders of the United States, who are regularly idolized by most Americans, would roll over in their graves at the mutation of their traditional, peaceful, and restrained foreign policy into a militaristic, globe-girdling empire that is exhausting the country economically and ruining the republic that they created.

Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

US senator open to options on Japan base dispute

US senator open to options on Japan base dispute

By MALCOLM FOSTER
(AP) – 35 minutes ago

TOKYO — A member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee said Monday he's open to hearing options on how to resolve a dispute over the relocation of a contentious U.S. Marine base on the Japanese island of Okinawa.

Starting a weeklong tour in Japan and Guam, Sen. Jim Webb also called Toyota's recent recall problems — the subject of two congressional hearings next week — a "business issue" that wouldn't affect political ties between Japan and the United States.

U.S.-Japan relations soured after the new Tokyo government put on hold a plan to move Futenma Marine airfield on the southern island of Okinawa — part of a broader 2006 agreement with Washington to reorganize the 47,000 U.S. troops in Japan — because of local opposition.

Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, who swept into power last August, has said he plans to make a decision on Futenma by May.

Webb, who has made numerous visits to Okinawa over the last 40 years, first as a Marine during the Vietnam War and later as a U.S. defense planner and government official, said the main purpose of his visit was to listen to the views of the Japanese government and people of Okinawa, where many resent the heavy U.S. military presence.

"There could be a number of practical options," Webb said about ways to resolve the Futenma issue. "I don't want to outline those options today because I don't want to cut short the discussions that we're going to have."

Webb said a solution needed to be found quickly "on the Futenma issue for the well-being of the citizens in that area."

"I am open to listening to all suggestions from the Japanese government and also the people of Okinawa," he told journalists at a press conference.

The Obama administration has insisted the Hatoyama government proceed with the 2006 plan to move Futenma to Nago, a city in a less crowded part of Okinawa that recently elected an anti-base mayor.

Webb said he did not recommend moving Futema's facilities outside of Okinawa, as many local residents want, but he also suggested he didn't necessarily support the Obama's administration's position.

"We're not a parliamentary system, so I am not obligated to support the administration in a specific way," he said.

Camacho to make final address: Residents want governor to discuss military buildup

Camacho to make final address: Residents want governor to discuss military buildup

By Amritha Alladi • Pacific Daily News • February 15, 2010

Gov. Felix Camacho will present his last State of the Island address today.

Some Guam residents shopping in Hagåtña yesterday gave the governor a medium rating for his last term. They're hoping he devotes significant time in today's speech to talk about what exactly the government of Guam has done in preparation for the military buildup, and how it plans to ensure the buildup is carried out in the safest way possible for Guam residents.

"I think he needs to address the point that the federal government, the United States, is a highly powerful government to deal with, and that the military in any case would not need any type of support from our government whatsoever," said Tom Delgado of Mangilao. "They will decide how much they're going to develop here on Guam, and for (the local government) to expect any kind of financial support is kind of ridiculous."

On a scale of one to 10, Delgado gave Camacho a four.

"He's never on island to address the issues that most of our people are concerned with," he said. "With the budget, with education, and I'm really disappointed with that."

And in terms of accountability, Delgado said the governor hasn't lived up to the expectations of those who put him in office.

"When he ran for office, he was talking about holding people accountable, downsizing the administration, and he's totally done opposite of that. So I'm sure that most of the people who voted for him under those terms are quite disappointed about his hypocrisy," Delgado said.

Bamba controversy

Specifically, the controversy over the actions of the governor's chief of staff, George Bamba, has tainted the governor's promise of accountability, Delgado said.

According to Pacific Daily News files, Bamba used military buildup-related grant money to pay for a port community outreach project that wasn't put out to bid.

The Office of the Attorney General last week released a procurement review finding the procurement was illegal. It suggested the governor should take appropriate action against Bamba; however, Camacho said he didn't agree with the AG's report. He said the procurement process, and not the individual, was at fault.

"He will always defend George Bamba to the utmost," Delgado said. "I mean he selected (him), so it would be kind of hypocritical if our governor -- who put these people in our community service -- if he would reprimand them in any case."

Meeting goals

Others felt the governor has truly tried to be transparent.

"He's doing everything possible. I believe that's his goal," said Inarajan resident Joe Afaisen, a GovGuam employee.

Afaisen said he feels the governor has done as good a job as he can with the resources he's been provided.

"The police are given the necessary tools. It's enough to provide the services to consumers," he said. "The island continues to move forward."

Indifference

Tamuning resident Ken San Nicolas didn't seem to think so.

He found the governor's "indifference" more frustrating than negative action, he suggested.

"I think Felix Camacho was indifferent during his two terms. I don't know what he's really going to talk about (in his State of the Island address)," San Nicolas said. "Maybe it wasn't any better than Carl (Gutierrez)'s term, but indifference is like the worst thing he could have done. There was, like, no productivity."

San Nicolas said Camacho was "not at all" holding his administration accountable, citing the Bamba example specifically.

But he gave Camacho a rating of six.

For San Nicolas, it comes down to whether Camacho sufficiently addresses the issue of the buildup today, especially as the comment period for the draft EIS comes to a close this week.

"I want to hear him talk about what kind of real progress we've made in the last four years," San Nicolas said. "We've known about (the buildup) for a while. I can't say that he's procrastinating. I don't think he procrastinated. I just don't think he did anything."

"The buildup is coming in right now, and we're nowhere," he added.

"Nothing's really happened."

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Get your DEIS comments in!

Get your DEIS comments in!

Posted: Feb 14, 2010 2:22 PM
Updated: Feb 14, 2010 4:41 PM

by Michele Catahay

Guam - Island residents have until this Thursday to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Marines' relocation from Okinawa to Guam. Back in 2006 an agreement was signed between Japan and the United States to move a portion of the U.S. Marine Corps Station in Okinawa to Guam. The plan would essentially transform the island in the Western Pacific into a giant arm of the Department of Defense.

According to the DoD's DEIS, by 2014 the island is anticipated to see its population of roughly 150,000 people increase significantly to 230,000 at its peak. That's an increase of 80,000 people within four years. The EIS outlines alternatives to develops and construct facilities and infrastructure to support the move. It also evaluates the impact of a new deep draft wharf to support a transient nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

The EIS also explores the impact of plans by the Army to develop facilities and infrastructure to operate a missile defense system. This would include relocating approximately 600 military personnel and their 900 dependents to Guam. While the island has until this Thursday to comment, the Guam Boonie Stompers along with the We Are Guahan Coalition hosted a clean up in Pagat, which happens to be one of the areas proposed to build a firing range for training.

Guam Boonie Stompers president David Lotz said his organization, "has a petition drive to submit to the buildup DEIS to keep these trails open, and I feel that's important for the community and even for the military to work towards preserving the island's heritage...if you look at the Quadrennial Defense Review, it actually says it's going to transform the island into a military base and it has to be very seriously looked at. Who is really going to control the future of the island? Is it the military or the people of guam?"

Yona resident Ulysses Story says negative impacts outweigh the positive ones for the island, saying, "To me, I think its traffic and another thing is racism. I mean, people, I think Chamorro people like to preserve their culture and bringing in people that are trying to assimilate them but they don't want to so I think it'll cause some conflict on racism."

Chalan Pago resident Ida San Nicolas says she's in support of the buildup, saying the military has a strong ability to help boast the local economy. "My child is 16 and it is his generation that it affects. My son has confronted me about it, and he has some issues with it but for me, we should let them speak also not just us and just saying what we think. All the jobs are for them and that's what I like is to be able to have some jobs," said San Nicolas.

Mangilao resident Aphea Imperial says while there may be some environmental impacts noted in the DEIS, she says the buildup will provide more opportunities for the island community, noting, "There are a lot of opportunities for the community like there are going to be a lot of jobs but there are also bad sides to it like our ecosystems, and it's just going to be overpopulated and guam is so small and i think it's good. i see military people and they help out a lot."

Again, you have until this Thursday to comment on the Draft EIS. To view the voluminous document, log on to GuamBuildupEIS.us.

Troop transition is equally U.S./Japan responsibility

Troop transition is equally U.S./Japan responsibility

Posted: Feb 11, 2010 4:55 PM
Updated: Feb 11, 2010 4:55 PM

by Janjeera Hail

Guam - The visiting Japanese delegation during this afternoon's presentation addressed the Guam Legislature through their interpreter, saying Japan shares and equal responsibility for the plan for the U.S. Marines' relocation.

"So I believe both myself and congresswoman are share the responsibility to bring the voice of Guam to the people to the Japanese Diet, so that's first of all the history and the cultured of Guam will be protected; that the nature of Guam will also be protected and that Guam's economy will continue to develop," the translator said.

The delegation left Guam at 5 this afternoon.

Guam to replace Futenma?

Guam to replace Futenma?

Japan fact-finding team to review buildup progress

By Dionesis Tamondong • Pacific Daily News • February 11, 2010

A 23-member Japan delegation led by Yorihisa Matsuno, deputy chief Cabinet secretary in the Japan Diet, was scheduled to arrive late last night for its fact-finding mission here.

The Japan Consulate Office on Tuesday said the group of officials was to arrive later that night.

They are here to review the progress of military buildup preparations and see whether Guam may be a suitable option to relocate the Marine Corps Futenma Air Station and more U.S. troops. The delegation is scheduled to meet with officials from the governor's office and military installations around the island.

The relocation of the base to northern Okinawa is part of a 2006 agreement between Japan and the United States to realign American troops in Japan. The agreement also calls for reducing the presence of U.S. troops in Okinawa and moving about 8,000 Marines and their 9,000 dependents to Guam.

Some of Japan's new elected officials have said they want more time to review the U.S.-Japan agreement, with some having called for moving all U.S. troops off Okinawa completely, with Guam being one of the alternative sites.

The delegation's visit takes place as the Guam Legislature convenes today to discuss a resolution regarding concerns over the buildup.

Resolution 275, to be presented to President Obama and other ranking federal officials, calls for more time to review the military's proposed buildup plans and to have them redo certain sections of those plans.

Speaker Judith Won Pat said she hopes the Japanese delegation takes note of today's legislative discussions. She said she was disappointed that local lawmakers weren't notified of any courtesy visit by the delegation.

"We've been actively involved in public hearings regarding the buildup. We have a lot of information we can share with them," she said.