Naval Base Tears Apart Korean Village

Published on Friday, August 19, 2011 by Foreign Policy in Focus

by Christine Ahn from Commondreams.org

“The land and sea isn’t something you bought,” explained Kang Ae-Shim. “Why are you selling something that was there long before you were born?”

At a time of severe economic recession, the global community can no longer afford to spend billions of dollars daily on a misguided notion of military security that only increases the threat of military action, loss of human life, environmental contamination, and the loss of precious biodiversity. (photo: The Daily Ornellas)

Kang Ae Shim is a haenyo, one of the legendary Korean women sea divers from Jeju Island who can hold their breath for up to two minutes while foraging the ocean floor for seafood. But today Kang and others are fighting to save their island from the pending construction of a South Korean naval base in Gangjeong village, which threatens to tear apart the age-old sisterhood of thehaenyo and destroy the pristine ecology of Jeju’s shores. The government and construction contractors are attempting to stamp out the outcry by arresting, beating, fining, and threatening villagers and activists.

In April, renowned South Korean film critic Yang Yoon Mo was arrested for erecting and living in a tent on the coast for years to impede construction. Yang subsequently went on hunger strike for 71 days, 57 of which were spent in prison. In May, Choi Sung-hee, an artist and peace activist living with the villagers, was arrested for demonstrating and standing in the way of cement trucks to prevent them from pouring concrete over lava rock along the coastline. In June, Gangjeong village chief Kang Dong-kyun and peace activist Song Kang-ho confronted a large Samsung construction vessel in a small tugboat. When Song attempted to board the vessel, he was beaten and thrown back into the tugboat.

In July, I traveled to Gangjeong to witness the courageous fishing and farming community fight to keep their beautiful coastline from becoming the site of a naval base.

During my five days there I interviewed the villagers, including farmers, haenyo, and the village chief, as well as others from Jeju Island supporting the resistance. I learned three things: the process that led to Gangjeong becoming the base site was grossly undemocratic; the community fabric is being torn apart; and the Korean War is still playing out in this struggle on Jeju Island.

The Wall

The morning after my nighttime arrival, I was stunned to see an approximately 30-foot tall fence surrounding the massive area of the proposed base. According to the villagers, the navy seized 160,000 pyong or 130 acres of farmland — equivalent to 169 football fields — from the port to the river. Inside the fenced-in area are remnants of greenhouses, torn-up farmland, huge cement planks, and abandoned tractors and other large machinery. The farm road to the coastline where the anti-base resistance has established a camp is bordered by amazingly rich and fertile soil, which during the Japanese occupation was allegedly the only soil on the volcanic island that could grow rice.

But the base’s impact isn’t limited to land. Off the coast of Jeju is the absolutely stunning Tiger Island and its sparkling surrounding waters, a UNESCO ecological reserve. According to Koh Yoo-Ki, an environmental policy analyst from Jeju, the planned naval base construction would destroy 98 acres of ocean floor inhabited by soft coral reef and nine endangered species.

The Jeju Island government had designated the coastline as a preservation area in 1991, but in December of 2009 then-Jeju Governor Kim Tae Hwan nullified the 1991 designation to make way for the naval base. “I cannot understand how there was five different protections for this area,” says Koh. “Before this naval base project, the state invested tons of money to preserve this area. Scholars used to come from the mainland to research corals. Now all of this has been undone.”

Undemocratic Process

According to an August 7 letter to the editor in The New York Times, the South Korean embassy in Washington wrote, “The construction site was selected after accommodating opinions of local residents in a legitimate process, including town hall meetings.” The villagers say it was far from legitimate, democratic, or just.

On April 24, 2007, former village chief Yoon Tae Jun announced his approval of the planned base and said that an application to the Jeju governor, would be made. Typically a meeting to discuss similar civic action is held after a one-week waiting period, but this time it was scheduled for only three days later. On April 26, only 87 of the 1,050 Gangjeong residents – less than 10 percent – were present. Approximately half of those present were elderlyhaenyo, which according to Gangjeong farmer Jung Young-hee was strange since these women rarely, if ever, participated in village committee meetings. In an unprecedented manner, a vote to endorse the base was held by clapping. Never before in Gangjeong history had a vote been conducted this way. Yoon said he would hold another village committee meeting within 10 days and promised that if more people opposed the base, he would revoke his approval. But he never followed through.

On May 14, Jeju governor Kim Tae Hwan announced that Gangjeong village would be the site. The outraged villagers mobilized, forced the village chief out of power, and held a referendum on the proposed base in August 2007. According to Gangjeong village chief Kang Dong-Kyun, “On Aug 20 we held another referendum. 94 percent opposed the base. 725 people participated. 680 voted against, only 36 for, and nine votes were defective. The central government only recognized the first vote by the villagers committee; the second one wasn’t recognized.”

In January 2009, the Ministry of Defense approved the construction plan, and in April Gangjeong village filed a lawsuit in response, arguing that the nullification of the preservation area should be recalled, which the judge denied. The villagers appealed, and the case is now pending in the Supreme Court. A decision is likely due sometime this winter.

Bribing the Elderly

According to a 65-year-old haenyo from Gangjeong who opposes the base, the former village chief Yoon and a representative from the fishermen’s cooperative convened a meeting ofhaenyo before the April vote, and claimed they would be compensated if they supported the base project. When I asked her why she thought the haenyo supported the base, she said, “If there was no money, they would all protest the base.”

She went on to describe a deliberate effort by government and naval officials to bribe severalhaenyo. She said that the gentlemen were waiting to take the elderly haenyo out for meals after they had just returned from diving for several hours. The men told the haenyo that the navy would build a hospital for the elder haenyo. her husband chimed in, “These elderly women didn’t know. [The Navy] used money to lure them. This is unethical and wrong to take advantage of them.”

Before Gangjeong was selected as the designated naval site, the Korean authorities approached two other villages –Hwasoon and Wimi –as early as 2002, but the residents, largely haenyo and fishermen who militantly opposed the base, blocked the initiative.

By round three, the Navy had become more sophisticated. “With the experience they had, the government went after the haenyo first in Gangjeong,” explains Lee Kyung-Sun, the general secretary of the Jeju Women’s Association. “They were cowardly for going after them,” says Lee, who insists that the haenyo should not be blamed if they supported the base, and that the focus ought to be on the government’s tactics. “Haenyo are victims too. They were tricked,” she said. “I still respect the haenyo. They have supported their family and the village, and they have preserved this area.”

Community Torn Apart

The row over the naval base has cleaved the community of Gangjeong haenyo who have worked together for over 40 years into two opposing groups. The 65-year-old haenyo from Gangjeong says that a few haenyo in opposition to the base refuse to enter the water with base supporters. “Now there is no conversation between the two groups,” she laments.

Kang Ae-Shim, a 56-year old haenyo from the neighboring village of Bopan explained, “The money that the haenyo was given is what you can make in one year.” She described how thehaenyo from Gangjeong and Bopan physically fought in the water — the very same women who for years ate dinner and sang together at noraebang (karaoke). But the Gangjeong base decision changed that dynamic. The haenyo from Gangjeong “don’t have much to say because they are ashamed,” says Kang. There is a saying that it’s better to go into the ocean rather than go to one’s own mother’s home to borrow money. “All the things that come from the ocean, the abalone, the snails — these are not just a matter of life, they are medicine that strengthens the life spirit.” Kang argues that pollution from the naval base will threaten the haenyo’s livelihood.

Gangjeong villagers told me of a recent survey revealing that 50 percent of haenyo were suicidal and 70 percent are extremely psychologically stressed. Hyun Ae-Ja, the former Jeju representative to the National Assembly who has chained herself to a tree blocking police and construction trucks from entering the farm road believes that “ultimately the Jeju naval base will bring the destruction of the community and life.”

The Never-ending Korean War

The unresolved Korean War has served as justification for the continued militarism of the Korean peninsula, including the build-up of nuclear weapons in North Korea, massive military spending on both sides of the DMZ, intensified U.S.-ROK military exercises, and the expansion of military bases, like the one under construction on Jeju. The irony here is that South Korea is forcibly destroying the livelihoods of farmers, fishermen, women sea divers, and the rich marine ecosystems –on which we all depend for our human security –in the name of “national security.”

According to the South Korean embassy, “The Jeju base was built solely for the defense of the Republic of Korea and has no connections to American military installations. There are no plans to use the base for American missile defense, nor have Korea and the United States had any discussion regarding this issue.”

But many defense analysts challenge this claim. According to the Monterey Institute’s arm control specialist Jeffrey Lewis in article in The New York Times, “the new Aegis destroyers to be based in Jeju would help defend South Korea against Chinese missiles and help defend Japan against missiles from both China and North Korea, [but they] “won’t provide much defense for South Korea against North Korean missiles… Very few North Korean missiles would rise high enough on their way toward South Korea to give South Korean destroyers a shot.” Also in a rejoinder to the Embassy’s New York Times letter, Matt Hoey, a missile defense analyst at the Military Space Transparency Project, argues, “The Aegis sea-based missile defense system planned for Jeju is networked to United States space systems and ground-based X-band radar.”

Furthermore, earlier this spring, when I and several other Americans called the Korean Embassy in Washington to register our concerns, we all received similar versions of the same prepared response, “Don’t call us; call the U.S. State or Defense Departments; they are the ones who are pressuring us to build this base.” And it’s not just ordinary Americans who have been told that the United States is involved with the Jeju base. Even former U.S. Senator Fritz Hollings wrote in a June 15, 2011 op-ed in the Huffington Post that the Obama administration is “establishing a naval base with South Korea on Jeju Island.”

At a time of severe economic recession, the global community can no longer afford to spend billions of dollars daily on a misguided notion of military security that only increases the threat of military action, loss of human life, environmental contamination, and the loss of precious biodiversity.

Under Siege

On the morning we departed the mayor of Seogwipo announced that the police could seal off access to the public agricultural road to the coastline, blocking off primary access to anti-base protesters. National Defense Minister Cho Hyun-oh promised Jeju’s police commissioner as many resources as was needed to remove the base resistance camp. Police and undercover vans now monitor the three entrances to the base site 24 hours a day.

Since I left Gangjeong there has been an intense stand-off. Hundreds of police attempted to come through the farm road where several women chained themselves to trees to block their access. Thanks to the increasing pressure by civil society on the South Korean government to release the villagers and activists from prison, all have now been released, including the artist and activist Choi Sung-hee.

But as the global community’s awareness of the issue rises, so has Seoul’s crackdown on the peaceful protestors. On August 15th a reported 700 riot police from the mainland landed on Jeju with three water cannons, 16 large buses, and 10 riot control vehicles. Nevertheless, the villagers and activists have remained courageous and resolved to resist through nonviolent disobedience for their village, land, and sea. We must not relent as long as the villagers don’t.

Christine Ahn is the executive director of the Korea Policy Institute and aForeign Policy In Focus columnist.

Self-Determination is Liberation

Self Determination is Liberation

Governor Eddie Baza Calvo
The Pacific Daily News
June 17, 2011

Editor's note: The following remarks will be delivered on Gov. Eddie Calvo's behalf to the United Nation's Special Committee on Decolonization.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the United Nations, the people of Guam need your help. We are bearing a great burden. Colonialism has weighed down upon our people for nearly 500 years. This half millennium of external rule has taken its toll.

Our Chamorro ancestors came to Guam centuries before the Polynesians arrived in Hawaii. Our chiefs held law over the land before the kings of Europe. Our latte stones were built as the Mayans built their pyramids. Yet the only written history of this advanced and unique people are the accounts of foreigners -- of Spanish conquistadors and priests.

Our island suffered over 230 years of Spanish colonial rule. Chamorros were devastated by new diseases, war and oppression. After the Spanish-American War, the United States claimed Guam, and rule began under the naval government. Once again, Chamorros had no representation, and no say in their future.
Japan's foray into imperialism during World War II was especially brutal for Guam, when Chamorros suffered atrocities from the Japanese army. Our women were raped. Our men were beheaded. Chamorro families were marched into caves and exterminated like vermin.

After three years of pain and suffering, America finally stormed the beaches of our island on July 1944 to take back the island. The occasion is known as Liberation Day, but while we were liberated from slavery and war, the Chamorros were still suppressed under colonialism. One of Guam's liberators, a brave American, Darrell Doss, said it best:
"Fifty-nine years ago, on July 21, 1944, I and more than 57,000 Marines, soldiers and sailors came ashore on the beaches of Asan and Agat, and were honored to be referred to as 'liberators.' But in the end, we failed to accomplish what we had come to do -- liberate you. More correctly, our government failed both of us by not granting the people of Guam full citizenship. Another injustice is not allowing Guam to have equal say, as we in the states do, in governing your island home. Please remember, we men who landed on your shores July 21, 1944, shall never be fully satisfied until you are fully liberated."
Worse yet, the Chamorro people have yet to even receive reparations for the atrocities they suffered. The United States has already acknowledged the need to address wrongdoings during World War II, which is why Japanese-Americans who were forcibly removed from their homes during the war have been compensated. These reparations were justified.
Thousands of Japanese-Americans underwent forced internment, the motivations racist and ignorant. But what of our greatest generation on Guam? The Chamorros of World War II endured slavery, occupation, murder, and genocide. Yet the U.S. government is silent in its obligations to war reparations. Our island anxiously awaits the day when our people can receive the same amount of respect as fellow Americans who endured unimaginable evil during that time. The silence from the administering power on this issue reinforces the point that Guam can no longer remain a colony in perpetuity.

Ladies and gentlemen, for nearly half a millennium the Chamorro people have been unable to reach their full socio-economic potential because of our political status. Now, more than ever, it is important to move forward, while there are still Chamorros left to express our right to self-determination.
I am thankful our administering power, the United States, recognizes this right and need. The Obama administration has agreed to match local funding I have allocated for our decolonization efforts. The government of Guam is committed to a plebiscite. I personally would like to see a vote taken in the next General Election or the election after. What's most important is to make sure our Chamorros make an educated decision on the political status they want to move toward.
To say, "exercising this human right is long overdue" is a gross understatement. For far too long, the Chamorro people have been told to be satisfied with a political status that doesn't respect their wishes first. For far too long the native people of Guam have been dealing with inequality of government. We have been dealing with taxation without full representation, with quasi-citizenship and partial belonging.

Now it is time for us to realize our full political destiny, so we can take control and lead and live the way that is best for our people. I am urging this body to support our human rights as citizens of this world, to help us become citizens of a place -- of our place in this world.

Kao siña un ayuda ham ni' manChamoru. Siña un rikoknisa i direchon-måmi para dinitetminan maisa. Ayuda ham humago' i guinifen-måmi. Manespisiåt ham. Mambanidosu ham. ManChamoru ham.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Guam.

Lack of Integrity over Buildup

Guthertz to Pfannenstiel: There Appears to be a Lack of Integrity in Navy's Dealing With Guam on Buildup

Last Updated on Thursday, 07 July 2011 10:55
Written by Kevin Kerrigan
Thursday, 07 July 2011 09:24
Guam News

Guam - Senator Judi Guthertz has written to Assistant Navy Secretary Jackalyne Pfannenstiel about her concerns over what Guthertz believes to be an apparent "lack of integrity in the U.S. Government in its dealing with the people of Guam regarding the military buildup."

In her letter, the Senator, who Chairs the Legislature's Buildup Committee, cites the contradiction between a U.S. State Department cable and the Department of Defense's Environmental Impact Statement.

READ Senator Guthertz's letter

The July 2009 cable is from the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo to the U.S. State Department. It was leaked by Wikileaks.

The cable reports on a meeting DoD's former Japan Director Suzanne Basalla had with Japanese Officials during which Basalla is reported to have told Japanese officials that "while the political value of the 2014 target completion date is clear, the United States has been very frank with Japan that the date is increasingly unrealistic ... The U.S. side looks forward to discussing with Japan ways in which to best manage ‘beyond 2014’ messaging.”

4 months after this cable was sent to the Department of State, the Department of Defense released its draft EIS based upon the 2014 completion date which predicted 79,000 new residents on Guam by 2014. "The residents of Guam were alarmed by this and other numbers" writes Guthertz to Pfannenstiel, adding that "the negative reaction that resulted led to much community division."

In light of what the leaked cable reveals, Guthertz calls the November 2009 release of the draft EIS "false and purposefully un-updated" and blames the EIS for leaving "our community confused and divided."

And she asks "Why was it that the Japanese were told in July of 2009, but it was kept secret from the people of Guam - fellow American citizens - until the release of the Record of Decision in July of 2010?"

The Senator also writes that if the leadership of the Guam military buildup were to appear before the Guam Legislature's Ethics Committee she believes that they "would be found guilty of gross ethical violations."

"This is not the way to treat American citizens. The Americans living in Guam deserve to know the truth about the military buildup plan at the same time, if not sooner, than a foreign government."

A Legal Appraisal of Self-Determination

Julian Aguon for Marianas Variety
Monday, June 27, 2011

(Editor's Note: Julian Aguon is an attorney who specializes in international law, and has authored several books and law journal articles on the subjects of self-determination, decolonization, and international human rights law. He teaches International Law at the University of Guam and has lectured extensively on these and other issues on four continents. This is the first of a series on his legal appraisal of Guam’s quest for self-determination.)

THE imprecision let loose on this island is more dangerous now than it has ever been, and writers, like myself, are being called to battle in a way we were not before.

In these high-stakes times – when the chips we are gambling with are children, coral reefs, limestone forests, narratives, whole imaginations – writers are called upon to do more than use our words; we are called to wield them. And in a time when words have been so methodically drained of meaning, it is irresponsible, if not indictable, to be imprecise.

The recent clamor around self-determination has demonstrated the danger of haphazardly flinging words around. The onslaught of opinion about the right of self-determination – namely what it is and who holds it – has reached a deafening roar.

We can hardly hear ourselves think. But in the end, opinions about the law are not the law. And despite the aggressive assertions of some, self-determination, at least as a matter of law, is not entirely up for debate. For instance, self-determination is not principally a race-based issue. Neither is it a purely political (as opposed to legal) one.

The right of self-determination has a certain shape and contour on which nearly the whole world has agreed. Self-determination is well-established in both the legal literature and actual practice of countries, and is an exalted normative domain in the contemporary international legal system. The recent clamor, then, is cruel. It does not help the people of Guam make sense of self-determination. It clouds, not clarifies, the law in this area. The following is a brief legal appraisal of self determination under international law, which is offered in an attempt to erase some of the confusion surrounding the fundamental human right.


What is the right of self-determination?

Upon the founding of the United Nations at the end of World War II and continuing thereafter, the international community increasingly recognized that the plight of colonized peoples, and later of indigenous peoples, must be terminated and their self-determination assured. The UN Charter itself, being both a political compact and an organic document, made but cursory references to this norm.

Its Article 1 calls for the development of “friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” Article 55 then states that the United Nations shall promote, among other values, “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.”

Article 73, which addresses the rights of peoples in non-self-governing territories (like Guam) who have not yet attained a full measure of self-government, commands states administering them to “recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount.” These Administering Powers accept as a “sacred trust” the obligation to develop self-government in the territories, taking due account of the political aspirations of the people. Toward this end, subsection (e) of Article 73 commands Administering Powers to submit annual reports to the United Nations on the steps they have taken and the progress they have made to move the territories toward self-government.

The interpretation of these Charter articles has been set out in major declarations adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

For instance, the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, or Resolution 1514, states that “[t]he subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.” Although the general rule is that declarations and resolutions of the General Assembly are not in themselves binding, to the extent that they illuminate and record the position of the international community on any given subject, they may be, and are frequently invoked as, evidence of the practice of states, which is a source of customary international law.

ICJ

Moreover, where General Assembly resolutions concern general norms of international law, their acceptance by a majority vote both constitutes evidence of the opinions of governments on any given subject and provides a basis for the progressive development of the law.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 1975 advisory opinion in the Western Sahara case adopted this perspective when it relied heavily on General Assembly resolutions to establish basic legal principles concerning the right of peoples to self-determination.

Major international conventions, or treaties, have lent further meaning and growth to the concept of self-determination. Both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (known collectively as the 1966 Human Rights Covenants) enshrine self-determination as a right. Approved by the General Assembly in 1966, and legally binding as of 1976, these treaties bind those countries that ratify them. The first article in each covenant, identically worded, indicates the fundamental importance of the right of self-determination in international law and sets out its classic wording: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

Finally, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, also known as Resolution 2625 (XXV), provides that all peoples have the right to determine their political status without external interference, and that every state has the duty to respect this right.

Unlike the 1966 Covenants, which bind only those states that ratify them, Resolution 2625 is considered a datum of customary international law binding on all countries.

Water Wise Residents

The Michigan Citizen

Residents of Brightmoor Anxiously Wait for Rain

Eric T. Campbell
Sunday, April 17, 2011


Monique Adams and son Brandon almost ready to take their rain barrel home. ERIC T. CAMPBELL PHOTO

Detroit - Activists in Detroit communities are reclaiming their neighborhoods by harvesting natural resources.

For several years, Brightmoor residents have responded to newly vacant lots by planting crops. This spring, they will meet water needs by utilizing rainwater that would normally runoff into the city’s sewers.

Brightmoor learned the benefits of collecting rainwater in modified barrels at an April 9 outdoor workshop sponsored by the Michigan Sierra Club. The event was part of a program designed to create green infrastructure solutions, according to Sierra Club’s Melissa Damschke.

“We’re helping to prevent water from going down drains, which prevents sewage overflows,” said Damaschke, who organized the workshop.

“An inch of rainfall a day is way too much for our wastewater plant.”

Damaschke says water, not all of it treated, is released into the Detroit and Rouge Rivers when levels at the wastewater plant become too high. So collecting rainwater before that stage does a great service to the local environment.

Close to 50 Brightmoor residents participated in the workshop. They left with 55-gallon, terra cotta colored containers and a new appreciation for cloudy days.

Monique Adams, attending with her son Brandon, says they will use the collected water for all purposes, including watering a newly planted vegetable garden.

“Washing the car, watering the flowers, these barrels will help with anything we need water for,” Adams said.

Bramelle Street residents Charman Richard and Ray Porter say they would use collected water to sustain her butterfly garden she has planned for her property, next to her herbs, flowers and crabapple tree.

The event was held in a field next to the house of Clara Cupp, a 22-year resident of Dacosta Street. Her garden is one of many family gardens springing up in Brightmoor. The area supports seven community gardens and a growing sense of civic responsibility, according to Riet Schumack, co-founder of the Neighbors Building Brightmoor Association.

“Whenever the city tears a house down, we try to go in and at least plant a potato patch,” says Schumack. The Brighmoor Association now has a large group of block captains. Participation is increasing seasonally.

“We have found that when you do a big event, people’s curiosity is piqued,” Schumack continues. “Big projects are the way to get people involved.”

Rhonda Anderson and Michelle Rodriguez, both of the Sierra Club, explained to Brightmoor residents how to disconnect the down spout from the gutter and direct it into the rain barrel; and how the higher the containers sit, the greater the pressure to push the water out of the barrel. The barrels are fitted with spigots on the bottom to connect to water hoses and mesh covers the opening in the lid to keep mosquitoes, leaves and other debris from entering.

Melvin Williams, Sr., a board member of the Storehouse of Hope organization, says his awareness of rain barrel technology started with a home water audit he witnessed at a North End home in March. For that event, Michigan Sierra Club partnered with the People’s Water Board Coalition. Williams says he will keep a close tally of the water he collects this growing season and how it affects his water bill.

Brightmoor’s Shumack says during the 2010 growing season, she collected an estimated 275 gallons of rainwater every month — more than enough to keep the community garden adjacent to her house happy.

The Michigan Sierra Club received a $75,000 grant from the Erb Family Foundation to fund the rain barrel workshop. The 55-gallon barrels used for the Brightmoor workshop were purchased by the Sierra Club from Detroit’s Maxi Container Inc., a family-owned local business for over 100 years. Joshua Rubin’s great grandfather started the business building, reusing and repairing wooden storage barrels.

Now, Joshua and his father Richard are taking the industrial container business and adding a greener profile. They’ve been importing the plastic barrels from the European spice market for reuse and refitting them as rain barrels for almost three years. Joshua says most of them would otherwise end up in a landfill.

“Promoting sustainability has become an important part of what we do,” Rubin said.

“We like to work with non-profits and schools to help promote recycling. There’s really no other good use for these barrels.”

Maxi Containers sells the huge density, polyethylene rain barrels to the public for $60. They have expanded their line to include other utility items such as a barrel composter and a metal drum wood burning stove.

No one yet knows how rain barrels will affect the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department’s downward cycle of raising rates to cover an aging infrastructure, which leads to more shutoffs and fewer customers. For now, the rain barrel is succeeding in spreading the word about sewer runoff and water savings for consumers.

For more information on home water audit training call the Michigan Sierra Club 313.965.0055.

Maxi Container Inc. is located at 6000 Caniff, Detroit, MI. 48212. They can be contacted at 800.727.MAXI or at www.maxicontainer.com.

http://michigancitizen.com/barrels-lower-water-bills-p9709-1.htm

Powerful U.S. Senators Arrive in Guam; Guam Governor Calls on U.S. Senate to End Its Bipartisan Colonialism

Office of the Governor of Guam


Powerful U.S. Senators Arrive in Guam; Guam Governor Calls on U.S. Senate to End Its Bipartisan Colonialism


Immediate Release: April 18, 2011

(Hagatna, Guam) Guam Governor Eddie Baza Calvo, one of the 55 United States governors, found out this morning that fifteen percent of the U.S. Senate landed on Guam in secrecy today. The contingent includes the Senate Majority and Minority leaders and other powerful U.S. Senators. These U.S. Senators, both Democrat and Republican, have decided to thumb their noses at the island and its government. The Governor, who is a member of the National Governors Association and the Republican Governors Association, releases the following statement about how this snub can severely affect Guam colonial-federal relations as the U.S. government pushes a $15 billion realignment of Asian-Pacific forces on Guam:

“This morning, Guam Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo asked whether I would be greeting the 15 U.S. Senators scheduled to arrive at Guam’s Andersen Air Force Base today. We were both surprised and extremely upset that no one in the federal establishment informed Guam of their visit. We called the Navy to verify this stopover and we were told that the U.S. Senators will not entertain any meeting or discussions with Guam leaders or the Guamanian people. Instead of landing at the A.B. Won Pat International Airport, Guam, they have decided to shield their visit in secrecy and land within the confines of Andersen Air Force Base.

“In the 100 years we have been a colony of the United States, the U.S. government hardly did anything to resolve our colonial status. What kind of democracy allows colonialism to flourish? I am livid the U.S. Senate, a body created by the will of the people of 13 colonies who wanted freedom and democracy, would turn its back on the Guamanian people. It is obvious we are not part of their constituency, and they do not consider us a valuable part of the American family. This only serves to inflame our long-held belief that we are an American colony of second-class citizens who matter only when our geopolitical position is needed by the U.S. government.

“This is a sad state of affairs. This is the third time in the last year that Congress has made it clear that we are of no importance to the nation. This snub follows Congress trying to sell our own resources to us at Fena and Congress taking away our Delegate’s voting power in House committees. These U.S. Senators are only hurting American interests abroad. Look at the great relationship we’ve built with the U.S. military. Congress’s actions only undermine that work. Why? If Guam was so important to U.S. strategic interests, then why would the nation’s leaders continue snubbing Guamanians?

“If the Senate wants to thumb its nose at Guamanians, then perhaps it is time for Guamanians to call in every injustice ever committed upon our people by the U.S. government. And we can start with the Insular Cases of the same U.S. Supreme Court of the 1900s that said people of color were separate but equal. How many times have Guamanians answered the call to serve? How many have died for a democracy that doesn’t even fully apply to us? How many more times must Guamanians accept colonial treatment before Congress ever recognizes that our voices count, too? How much more oppression can our people take before they get fed up and tell the Congress to take their buildup somewhere else?

“We can have the greatest relationship with the U.S. military and the Department of the Interior, but if Congress continues ignoring Guam like the colony it is, we will never truly enjoy the America that the Marines of 1944 fought and died to bring to Guam. What happened to the pledge of a “One Guam” policy? It’s clear these U.S. Senators have no intention of uniting our best interests. To them, there is an American inside a military fenceline, and an American colony outside of it. They want nothing to do with that colony. Here is yet another compelling reason the Guam Legislature, Lt. Governor Tenorio and I are working together to call for a vote of self determination. We cannot continue on as a colony of the United States. We should either be a part of the U.S., with voting membership in the House and Senate and the right to vote for President, or we should govern ourselves. This is a message we will share with U.S. Senators Jim Webb and Carl Levin when they visit with us next week. At least these gentlemen have the consideration and decency to meet with their fellow Americans in Guam.

“I want Guamanians living in the U.S. States where these U.S. Senators are from to remember what these U.S. Senators did to Guam in the next national elections.”

Guam is an organized unincorporated territory of the United States, a colonial status that has not changed. Its residents are called Guamanians and were granted U.S. citizenship by an act of Congress called the Organic Act of 1948. Only certain provisions of the Constitution's Bill of Rights apply to the residents of Guam, called Guamanians. Guamanians have among the highest enlistment rates in the U.S. military. There are 183,000 Guamanians living in Guam. An unknown number reside throughout the U.S. mainland, Hawaii and Alaska. A 2000 census of those who call themselves Chamorro (the ethnicity indigenous to Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) or part-Chamorro says that 33,849 Chamorros alone live in California. This does not include the broader number of Guamanians of other ethnic backgrounds who live in California. According to the 2000 Census, nearly 100,000 Chamorros live in the 50 States and Puerto Rico.




Office of the Governor of Guam
Ricardo J. Bordallo Governor's Complex | Adelup, Guam 96910
Tel: (671) 472-8931/6 | Fax: (671) 477-4826 | http://governor.guam.gov

Crackdown on ‘Guam’ products

TUESDAY, 12 APRIL 2011 05:09 BY THERESE HART | VARIETY NEWS STAFF

AFTER yesterday’s roundtable discussion regarding the deficiencies in the Guam Product Seal Law, Senator Judi Guthertz is expected to introduce legislation today which will fix the most obvious loophole that allows off-island products to use “Guam” in their packaging.

Some distributors who bring in off-island products using the name “Guam,” but clearly displaying the manufacturing origin, will no longer be able to take advantage of this loophole.

Guthertz’s bill is expected to give these distributors the opportunity to sell off their products in the local markets given their products’ shelf life. But afterwards, they will no longer be able to bring these products into Guam’s port of entry.

Guthertz said that section in the law will be amended in her bill. The senator said there are other issues that need to be addressed with the Attorney General’s Office.

Law

The Guam Product Seal Law has two provisions, which state it is unlawful for any business establishment to state or imply in an advertisement display of any type, including packaging, that a manufactured product is made on Guam if the product does not have a Guam product seal on it; and that it is unlawful for any business establishment to sell a product that has the words “Guam” or “Chamorro” or a derivation of such words on the product, as such product was not manufactured on Guam, unless the place where the product was manufactured is clearly labeled on the product.

“That last statement is one of the technical issues which creates some of the problems right now,” said Guthertz.

James Bonanno, owner of Island Manufacturing & Wholesale which distributes locally manufactured products, said even with the current law, the labeling requirement is not being enforced.

Representatives from Customs and Quarantine said when they come across off-island products that have “Guam” on its packaging, these products pass Customs because the packaging clearly states its manufacturing origin.

Guthertz’s bill, if enacted into law, would disallow copycat products that mislead visitors and the general public into believing the products that are offered to them are actually made in Guam.

Denise Selk, who manufactures Coco Joe’s cookies, shared that customers may be thinking, “Are these made in Guam and packaged in China?” Selk also said a company that brings in off-island cookies manufactured in China has been copying her company’s packaging and flavors of cookies, which is not right.

Selk and other local manufacturers would like a resolution to the problems and hopes that closing the loopholes will provide the incentive for new entrepreneurs to produce locally-made products, proudly and legally displaying the Guam Product Seal.

One dead, 3 hospitalized after military helicopter crash

KANEOHE (HawaiiNewsNow) - One Marine is dead after a CH-53D Sea Stallion helicopter carrying four crew members crashed in Kaneohe Bay. The aircraft issued a mayday call shortly after it left Marine Corps Base Hawaii.

One crew member was removed from the helicopter, pronounced dead by the state medical examiner and later taken to Tripler Army Medical Center. The name of the deceased will be released 24 hours after next of kin notification.

The other three crew members were transported from Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay to Queens Medical Center. At last check, two were listed in critical condition and one in stable condition.

The aircraft made an emergency landing in shallow water on the Kaneohe Bay sandbar around 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, approximately two miles from the air station. The downed helicopter remains on its side in Kaneohe Bay and the salvage operation is being planned.

The emergency startled residents who live near the bay.

"One big boom like thunder, and then about 10, 15 minutes after that I noticed military helicopters was unusually circling around," said Kaneohe resident Glenn Pang.

"We're working with the Kaneohe Marine Base waterfront ops, working with US Coast Guard. Fed fire is on the base, and HFD, Coast Guard and waterfront ops are in the ocean with the patients," said Capt. Terry Seelig of the Honolulu Fire Department.

Containment booms have been placed around the wreckage as a precaution. The Coast Guard is enforcing a temporary safety zone extending 500 yards around the aircraft.

Rescue responders included the Marine Corps Base Hawaii Waterfront Operations, aircraft from the U.S. Coast Guard and Army and the Honolulu Fire Department as well as another CH53D from HMH363.

This incident is under investigation by the Marine Corps.

Copyright Hawaii News Now 2011. All rights reserved.

The Military's Rape and Sexual Assault Epidemic

Published on Friday, April 1, 2011 by RH Reality Check

by Antoinette Bonsignore

On February 15, 2011, fifteen female and two male military veterans filed a class action lawsuit against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and current Defense Secretary Robert Gates. A second round of plaintiffs will likely be announced in early April. These veterans have charged the defendants with the wholesale and systematic failure to protect service members from being oftentimes repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted while serving in the military; and with a failure to investigate and subsequently prosecute and punish perpetrators.

The complaint reads like a horror story. One gruesome account after another detailing brutal assaults; sometimes repeated and sometimes committed by multiple perpetrators. Rapes and sexual assaults that are ignored and if not ignored so callously prosecuted within the Military Code of Justice as to suggest that rape is nothing more than a minor infraction deserving of little punishment, if any. A system set up to hide evidence, encourage victims to recant, and when the victim tries to receive some semblance of justice they are generally rewarded with demotions, harassment, and shockingly further rapes and sexual assaults as punishment. Victims are warned to stay quiet or face dire consequences. The brave victims are blamed – the women in particular were just asking for it.

One victim in the lawsuit recounted being gang raped; the perpetrators videotaped the rape and then circulated it among other soldiers. When the victim reported the rape to her superior officer, who then viewed the video recording, he told her bluntly that he did not believe she was raped because she “did not act like a rape victim” and “did not struggle enough” in the video. This same victim was seriously injured and covered in severe bruises after the assault --- particularly from her shoulders to her elbows from being held down during the repeated rapes.

Another victim was threatened with a court martial if she continued to “lie” about being raped by her superior officer. Because she deigned to report the rape, as well as the months of sexual harassment and physical abuse she had endured prior to the actual rape, her identity was revealed to others on the military base by her commanding officers. She was subjected to harassment from other soldiers who spit on her, called her names, and one commanding officer said “let her burn” because “she ruins careers.”

Yet another victim that reported her rape to the military chaplain was told that “it must have been God’s will for her to be raped” and he then suggested that she needed to go to church more. Still another victim who was raped in 2007 was later murdered and then buried in a shallow fire pit six months after reporting the rape.

The ramshackle investigatory apparatus and reporting system in place is staffed with military personnel who are often completely unqualified to investigate these crimes. The Department of Defense’s (DOD) token attempt to address the epidemic by creating the very limited and still underfunded “…Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), which distributes posters, collects data, but has no enforcement or investigative authority…” has been a constant reminder of how the military thumbs its nose at any attempts to implement genuine reform. In fact, the director of SAPRO, Dr. Kaye Whitley, has absolutely no experience or training dealing with sexual violence. Greg Jacob, the Policy Director for the Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN), said that Whitley, a social worker, has no real access to policy makers. She has no enforcement, or investigatory authority, and no actual authority to really do anything at all. The Pentagon even went so far as to ignore a subpoena and prevent Dr. Whitley from testifying before the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs in July 2008.

Specifically, Secretary Gates is accused of ignoring specific Congressional mandates and deadlines designed to implement a sexual assault and harassment prevention system. Instead, plaintiffs allege that Gates hired an inexperienced contractor to implement that prevention system – and that the contractor that was selected had only three employees and their prior contracts were solely for janitorial work. The Washington Post reported on this specific contractor story debacle on November 26, 2010. The inexcusable lack of seriousness with which this epidemic has been treated by the Pentagon truly shocks the conscience.

SWAN Policy Director and former Marine Greg Jacob recently detailed the crux of the investigatory deficiencies within the military for these types of crimes. He stated “[t]here’s no investigatory training. They don’t tell you to look for evidence…Instead, they hand over a manual for courts martial, which explains, among other things, that the investigating officer should consider, first and foremost, ‘the character and military service of the accused’.” Jacob described the assessment of each reported crime as “…an HR approach to criminal conduct…Military justice imbued me with the ability to be judge and jury. Honestly, I had no idea what to do.”

It almost sounds impossible to believe – how the DOD has ignored this growing epidemic for years and still no one has been held accountable. Where is the outrage – and where are the resignations? Donald Rumsfeld has not been held to answer for his knowing refusal to implement reform measures mandated by Congress. And on Rumsfeld’s recent book tour, not once during his numerous interviews did any journalist ask a single question about this issue. Meanwhile, Secretary Gates has responded with vague acknowledgments of a clear problem but with no specific response regarding his own failures to address the problem of what can only be characterized as complicity in perpetuating the problem.

An August 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report detailing the results of a 2006 survey of 3,750 servicemembers stationed in the U.S. and overseas concluded that:

…occurrences of sexual assault may be exceeding the rates being reported, suggesting that DOD and the Coast Guard have only limited visibility over the incidence of these occurrences. At the 14 installations where GAO administered its survey, 103 servicemembers indicated that they had been sexually assaulted within the preceding 12 months. Of these, 52 servicemembers indicated that they did not report the sexual assault. GAO also found that factors that discourage servicemembers from reporting a sexual assault include the belief that nothing would be done; fear of ostracism, harassment, or ridicule; and concern that peers would gossip.

Despite the inescapable evidence that this problem is getting worse with each passing year the DOD still maintains that it has a zero tolerance policy for sexual assault in the ranks.

So now these seventeen brave veterans have gone public – with news conferences and repeated interviews – detailing the horrific assaults they have endured and the aftermath of deigning to report these crimes.

The problems for these victims do not get any better when they return home. Shamed, traumatized, and psychologically scarred – suffering from a form of post traumatic stress disorder known as military sexual trauma (MST) – these victims are so disabled that they cannot function let alone find employment. To add further insult to this disgraceful treatment of the women and men victimized by the DOD’s recalcitrance, these victims have found it next to impossible to receive disability compensation from the Veterans Administration (VA) for their resulting MST. The main reasons being a lack of evidence, evidence being destroyed, and a patently unfair evidentiary burden that victims finds nearly impossible to satisfy. Representative Chellie Pingree (D - ME) recently introduced legislation to redress this specific compensation issue. H.R. 930 will “…mandate that survivors of military sexual violence get the same service-connected disability compensation for their mental health conditions and physical injuries that combat veterans are currently awarded for wounds of war.”

A previous lawsuit filed last December has also charged the DOD with a failure to comply with numerous and ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for documentation regarding the military’s records detailing the reports, investigations, and subsequent dispositions of these crimes.

And the statistics are indeed staggering. In December 2010, the Pentagon released its annual report on sexual harassment and violence – and the number of reports increased 64 percent from the previous year.

Last December, Al Jazeera reported the following shocking statistics:

Every year, rape increases at an alarming rate within American military institutions – and even males are victims of the cycle. In fact, due to raw demographics, one can roughly surmise that most victims of sexual abuse in the military are male. Regardless of gender, reports of victims of military sexual assault have been increasing. In 2007, there were 2,200 reports of rape in the military, whilst in 2009 saw an increase up to 3,230 reports of sexual assault. Many of the victims suffer from Military Sexual Trauma (MST) and are shamed into silence, with numerous cases not even reported. A disturbing trend, however, is how military officials seem to be sweeping this damaging issue under the rug and deflecting blame.

Even more disturbing is the fact that “[a]ccording to the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the rate of sexual assault on women in the military is twice that in the civilian population.” Furthermore, “[c]ompared with a 40 per cent arrest rate for sex crimes among civilians, only eight per cent of investigated cases in the military lead to prosecution.”

In 2006 Congress required the Pentagon to begin tracking these reported crimes and their subsequent disposition. Al Jazeera reported that in 2006:

…there were 2,974 reported cases of rape and sexual assault in the military. Of these, only 292 cases resulted in trials, and those netted only 181 prosecutions of perpetrators. Nearly half the cases are dismissed for lack of adequate proof or due to the death of the victim. Less than 11 per cent of the cases result in a court martial. Often, those prosecuted merely suffer a reduction in rank or pay, and 80 per cent receive an honourable discharge nonetheless. The victim, on the other hand, risks ending his or her career when they file charges.

Last week the Air Force released a study finding that 1 in 5 women and 1 in 20 men have been sexually assaulted while serving in the Air Force.

Speaking with SWAN’s Policy Director Greg Jacob, he discussed the current status of the litigation and how SWAN has been working to garner increased bipartisan support for legislative and regulatory reform within the military and the VA. He believes Congress has the political will to act and that the issue is being taken seriously now that the class action lawsuit has been filed. He told me that even though the victims desperately need to be compensated for their disabilities, what these women and men are really seeking is real reform and justice for their suffering and help for those women and men dealing with the threats of sexual violence each and every day while still trying to serve the nation with honor.

But real change can only be achieved when the military begins to consider the seriousness of the crimes and the impact on the victims as paramount to any potential impact on the careers of the accused servicemembers; right now the concern within the military is focused solely on protecting the accused and not the victims. The military has become an entrenched system that all too easily blames victims – and retaliates against those victims with systematic harassment and intimidation. Victims are subjected to ridicule and they all too often become convinced that the shame will be too much to bear.

Real change will take time – but before that change can even begin the military and Secretary Gates must take responsibility for refusing to confront the problem and acknowledge the military’s complicity in obstructing justice for so many years and creating what Greg Jacob called a “climate of impunity.”

You can visit SWAN’s Change.org page to take action and let Congress know that the Armed Forces must be held accountable for perpetuating this rape and sexual assault epidemic.

Antoinette Bonsignore, J.D., is a Seattle based workers’ rights advocate most recently focused on worker compensation issues. She is a regular blogger for NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. She lives in Redmond, WA.