[News] Guam resists expansion of US Colonial Military Bases
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Wed Jul 28 11:25:47 EDT 2010
US Military Bases on Guam in Global Perspective 1
Catherine Lutz
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Catherine-Lutz/3389
The island of Guam is a most remarkable place of
cultural distinctiveness and resourcefulness and
of great physical beauty. The Chamorro people
who have lived here for 4000 years also have an
historical experience with colonialism and
military occupation more long-lived and
geographically intensive, acre for acre, than
anywhere else in the Pacific and perhaps even in
global comparative scale (Aguon 2006). It is
today embroiled in a debate over when, how, or if
the United States military will acquire more land
for its purposes and make more intensive use of the island as a whole.
This military expansion has been planned in
Washington, with acquiescence and funding from
Tokyo, in order to relocate some 8,000 Marines
and 9,000 dependents from Okinawa, as well as US
Navy, Army, and Air Force assets and operations
to Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Marianas (CNMI) (Erickson and Mikolay 2006). The
plans are breathtaking in scope, including
removal of 71 acres of coral reef from Apra
Harbor to allow the entry and berthing of nuclear
aircraft carriers, the acquisition of land
including the oldest and revered Chamorro village
on the island at Pagat for a live-fire training
range, and an estimated 47 percent increase in
the islands population, already past its
water-supply carrying capacity. The military
expansion is being planned with one-third of the
island already in military hands and a
substantial historical legacy of environmental
contamination and depletion, external political
control, and other problems brought by the existing military presence.
Pushback has been substantial, something that is
particularly remarkable in a context in which
many islanders consider themselves very loyal and
patriotic Americans and many have military
paychecks or pensions as soldiers, veterans, or
contract workers (Diaz 2001). Dissent among a
variety of Guams social sectors rose
dramatically with the appearance of a draft
Environmental Impact Statement in November 2009
which first made clear how extensive Washingtons
plans for the island were (Natividad and Kirk
2010). It rose, as well, when it became clear
that Guams political leaders and citizens were
to be simply informed of those plans, rather than
consulted or asked permission for the various
uses. That dissent received support from
movements against simultaneous US base expansion
plans in Okinawa and South Korea, as well as from
the US EPA response to the draft EIS, which found
it deeply inadequate as a fair and clear
assessment of the environmental costs of the
militarys desires. The Final EIS, just released
at the end of July, puts the aircraft carrier
berthing plan on hold and draws out the buildup
timeline to lower the population growth rate, but
otherwise retains its scale and scope. A
<http://www.kuam.com/Global/story.asp?S=12857970>demonstration
at a sacred site at Pagat on July 23, 2010
provided the most potent symbolic expression of resistance to the base plan.
My first exposure to Guam was in 1977, when I
made a very brief stay over on my way to Ifalik
atoll in the Federated States of Micronesia (then
still a UN Trust Territory) for ethnographic
fieldwork that was part of my graduate training
as an anthropologist. My miseducation up to that
point had been profound: I could come to that
nation of islands without having first learned
through many years of education in US schools
the hard facts about the colonial status of
the area to which I was coming. My
anthropological training back then focused, as
most such programs did, on the beauty of
indigenous ideas and rituals, of kinship systems
and healing practices. However helpful attention
to such things was toward the goal of a humane
and anti-racist understanding of the world, the
cultural worlds that anthropology had tried to
document were treated as if they occurred in a
vacuum, outside of the influence of powerful
economic and political forces and outside of history.
My miseducation led me to be surprised when my
initial permission to travel to Ifalik was
granted not by Chamorros and Carolinians, but by
US bureaucrats, then operating as Trust Territory
officials. I only then came to realize what this
all actually meant that Ifalik, like Guam, has
had an deeply colonial history, and that the
lives the people there have led were in some ways
of their own creative making and in other ways
they were the result of choices by people in
other remote locations, most recently in Tokyo and Washington, DC.
Such is no less true now than it was in 1950 or
1977. It is the reason the people of Guam today
wait to hear exactly how many more acres of their
land will be taken for military purposes, how
many tens of thousands of new people and new
vehicles will be visited on the island, how many
over flights and aircraft carrier visits, and
toxic trickles or spills will be visited upon
them. It is why they wait, not for rent payments
for the land, but to hear whether there will be
some US federal dollars allocated to cover some
percentage of the externalized costs of the
increased tempo of military operations on the
island. That is Guams colonial history and
colonial situation. It is colonial even as many
of Guams residents take their US citizenship
seriously and want to make claims to full
citizenship on the foundation of the limited
citizenship they now have. It is colonial even
as Guams many military members those born on
Guam and those born in the 50 United States can
and do see themselves as doing their duty to the
US civilian leadership who deploy them to bases
here and around the world. It is colonial even
as many of Guams citizens have been acting in
the faith that they should be able to make and
are making their own choices about whether Guam
becomes even more of a battleship or not. But
social science will call it nothing more than
colonial when a people have not historically
chosen their most powerful leaders and have been
told to background their own national identity in
favor of that of the power which has ultimate
rule. The US presence in Guam is properly called
imperial because the US is an empire in the
strict sense of the term as used by historians
and other social analysts of political forms.
Besides colonialism, another concept relevant to
Guams situation is militarization. It refers to
an increase in labor and resources allocated to
military purposes and the shaping of other
institutions in synchrony with military
goals. It involves a shift in societal beliefs
and values in ways that legitimate the use of
force (Ferguson 2009). It helps describe the
process by which 14 year olds are in uniform and
carrying proxy rifles in JROTC units in all of
Guams schools, why a fifth to a quarter of high
school graduates enter the military, and why the
identity of the island has over time shifted from
a land of farmers to a land of war survivors to a
land of loyal Americans to a land that is,
proudly, the Tip of the Spear, that is, a land
that is a weapon. This historical change the
process of militarization or military
colonization has been visible to some, but more often, hidden in plain sight.
US global military basing system
Guams military bases are part of the expansive
US military basing system around the world and on
the US mainland. That system is vast in scale
and impact and has a particular if contentious
rationale. It is important to examine what it
means to live next to military facilities for several reasons:
(1) To study them with the tools of anthropology
and the perspective of social science allows us
to question the common sense about them and to see invisible processes.
(2) Like most social phenomena, bases are often
hidden in plain sight. They are normalized from
day to day, but are partially denormalized when
they grow or shrink. Even then, much remains
invisible and accepted as the natural order of things.
(3) Like social phenomena in which power is
involved, their effects can be systematically
hidden by advertising, fear, and public relations work.
Military base communities are in many ways as
distinctive sociologically and anthropologically
as the military bases they sit next to, because
they respond in almost every way to the presence
of those bases. They are not simply independent
neighbors, but over time become conjoined,
although one is always much more powerful than the other.
Officially, as of late 2008 (the last date for
which the DoD has made such data public) over
150,000 troops and 95,000 civilian employees are
massed in 837 US military facilities in 45
countries and territories, excluding Iraq and
Afghanistan. There, the US military owns or rents
720,000 acres of land, and owns, rents or uses
60,000 buildings and manages structures valued at
$145 billion. 4742 bases are located in the
domestic United States. These official numbers
are quite misleading as to the scale of US
overseas military basing, however. That is
because they not only exclude the massive buildup
of new bases and troop presence in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but also secret or unacknowledged
facilities in Israel, Kuwait, the Philippines and many other places.
Large sums of money are involved in their
building and operation. $2 billion in military
construction money has been expended in only
three years of the Iraq and Afghanistan
wars. Just one facility in Iraq, Balad Air Base,
houses 30,000 troops and 10,000 contractors, and
extends across 16 square miles with an additional
12 square mile security perimeter. The Guam
build-up has been projected to cost between $10
and $15 billion, with much of that amount in
contracts going to businesses in the U.S., Japan,
South Korea, and, less significantly, Guam itself.
These military facilities include sprawling Army
bases with airfields and McDonalds and schools,
and small listening posts. They include
artillery testing ranges, and berthed aircraft
carriers. 2 While the bases are literally
barracks and weapons depots and staging areas for
war making and ship repair facilities and golf
courses and basketball courts, they are also
political claims, spoils of war, arms sales
showrooms, toxic industrial sites, laboratories
for cultural (mis)communication, and collections
of customers for local shops, services, bars, and prostitution.
The environmental, political, and economic impact
of these bases is enormous. While some people
benefit from the coming of a base, at least
temporarily, most communities and many within
them pay a high price: their farm land taken for
bases, their bodies attacked by cancers and
neurological disorders because of military toxic
exposures, their neighbors imprisoned, tortured
and disappeared by the autocratic regimes that
survive on US military and political support
given as a form of tacit rent for the bases.
The count of US military bases should also
include the eleven aircraft carriers in the US
Navys fleet, each of which it refers to as four
and a half acres of sovereign US territory.
These moveable bases and their land-based
counterparts are just the most visible part of
the larger picture of US military presence
overseas. This picture of military access
includes (1) US military training of foreign
forces, often in conjunction with the provision
of US weaponry, (2) joint exercises meant to
enhance US soldiers exposure to a variety of
operating environments from jungle to desert to
urban terrain and interoperability across
national militaries, and (3) legal arrangements
made to gain overflight rights and other forms of
ad hoc use of others territory as well as to
preposition military equipment there. In all of
these realms, the US is in a class by itself, no
adversary or ally maintaining anything comparable
in terms of its scope, depth and global reach.
These three elements come with problems: The
training programs strengthen the power of
military forces in relation to other sectors
within those countries, sometimes with fragile
democracies. Fully 38 percent of those countries
with US basing were cited in 2002 for their poor
human rights record (Lumpe 2002:16). The
exercises have sometimes been provocative to
other nations, and in some cases have become the
pretext for substantial and permanent positioning
of troops; in recent years, for example, the US
has run approximately 20 exercises annually on
Philippine soil. Recently (July, 2010) announced
joint US-South Korean military exercises in the
Yellow Sea, just off the coast of China, have
produced strong protest from it and arguably will
lead to increases in its military spending.
The attempt to gain access has also meant
substantial interference in the affairs of other
nations: for example, lobbying to change the
Philippine and Japanese constitutions to allow,
respectively, foreign troop basing, US nuclear
weapons, and a more-than-defensive military in
the service of US wars, in the case of Japan. US
military and civilian officials are joined in
their efforts by intelligence agents passing as
businessmen or diplomats; in 2005, the US
Ambassador to the Philippines created a furor by
mentioning that the US has 70 agents operating in Mindanao alone.
Given the sensitivity about sovereignty and the
costs of having the US in their country,
elaborate bilateral negotiations result in the
exchange of weapons, cash, and trade privileges
for overflight and land use rights. Less
explicitly, but no less importantly, rice import
levels or immigration rights to the US or
overlooking human rights abuses have been the
currency of exchange (Cooley 2008).
Bases are the literal and symbolic anchors, and
the most visible centerpieces, of the U.S.
military presence overseas. To understand where
those bases are and how they are being used is
essential for understanding the United States
relationship with the rest of the world, the role
of coercion in it, and its political economic
complexion. We can begin by asking why this
empire of bases was established in the first
place, how the bases are currently configured
around the world and how that configuration is changing.
What are bases for?
Foreign military bases have been established
throughout the history of expanding states and
warfare. They proliferate where a state has
imperial ambitions, either through direct control
of territory or through indirect control over the
political economy, laws, and foreign policy of
other places. Whether or not it recognizes itself
as such, a country can be called an empire when
it projects substantial power with the aim of
asserting and maintaining dominance over other
regions. Those policies succeed when wealth is
extracted from peripheral areas, and
redistributed to the imperial center. Empires,
then, have historically been associated with a
growing gap between the wealth and welfare of the
powerful center and the regions it dominates.
Alongside and supporting these goals has often
been elevated self-regard in the imperial power,
or a sense of racial, cultural, or social superiority.
The descriptors empire and imperialism have been
applied to the Romans, Incas, Mongols, Persians,
Portuguese, Spanish, Ottomans, Dutch, British,
Germans, Soviets, Chinese, Japanese, and
Americans, among others. Despite the striking
differences between each of these cases, each
used military bases to maintain some forms of
rule over regions far from their center. The
bases eroded the sovereignty of allied states on
which they were established by treaty; the Roman
Empire was accomplished not only by conquest, but
also by taking her weaker [but still sovereign]
neighbors under her wing and protecting them
against her and their stronger neighbors
The
most that Rome asked of them in terms of
territory was the cessation, here and there, of a
patch of ground for the plantation of a Roman fortress (Magdoff et al. 2002).
What have military bases accomplished for these
empires through history? Bases are usually
presented, above all, as having rational,
strategic purposes; the imperial power claims
that they provide forward defense for the
homeland, supply other nations with security, and
facilitate the control of trade routes and
resources. They have been used to protect
non-economic actors and their agendas as well
missionaries, political operatives, and aid
workers among them. Bases have been used to
control the political and economic life of the
host nation. Politically, bases serve to
encourage other governments endorsement of the
empires military and other foreign policies.
Corporations and the military itself as an
organization have a powerful stake in bases
continued existence regardless of their strategic value (Johnson 2004).
Alongside their military and economic functions,
bases have symbolic and psychological
dimensions. They are highly visible expressions
of a nations will to status and
power. Strategic elites have built bases as a
visible sign of the nations standing, much as
they have constructed monuments and battleships.
So, too, contemporary US politicians and the
public have treated the number of their bases as
indicators of the nations hyperstatus and
hyperpower. More darkly, overseas military bases
can also be seen as symptoms of irrational or
untethered fears, even paranoia, as they are
built with the long-term goal of taming a world
perceived to be out of control. Empires
frequently misperceive the world as rife with
threats and themselves as objects of violent
hostility from others. Militaries interest in
organizational survival has also contributed to
the amplification of this fear and imperial
basing structures as the solution as they sell
themselves to their populace by exaggerating
threats, underestimating the costs of basing and
war itself, as well as understating the obstacles
facing preemption and belligerence (Van Evera 2001).
As the world economy and its technological
substructures have changed, so have the roles of
foreign bases. By 1500, new sailing technologies
allowed much longer distance voyages, even
circumnavigational ones, and so empires could
aspire to long networks of coastal naval bases to
facilitate the control of sea lanes and trade.
They were established at distances that would
allow provisioning the ship, taking on fresh
fruit that would protect sailors from scurvy, and
so on. By the 21st century, technological
advances have at least theoretically eliminated
many of the reasons for foreign bases, given the
possibilities of in transit refueling of jets and
aircraft carriers, the nuclear powering of
submarines and battleships, and other advances in
sea and airlift of military personnel and
equipment. Bases have, nevertheless, continued their ineluctable expansion.
States that invest their peoples wealth in
overseas bases have paid direct as well as
opportunity costs, whose consequences in the long
run have usually been collapse of the empire. In
The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, Kennedy notes
that previous empires which established and
tenaciously held onto overseas bases inevitably
saw their wealth and power decay as they chose
to devote a large proportion of its total income
to protection, leaving less for productive
investment, it is likely to find its economic
output slowing down, with dire implications for
its long-term capacity to maintain both its
citizens consumption demands and its
international position (Kennedy 1987:539).
Nonetheless, U.S. defense officials and scholars
have continued to argue that bases lead to
enhanced national security and successful
foreign policy because they provide a credible
capacity to move, employ, and sustain military
forces abroad, (Blaker 1990:3) and the ability
"to impose the will of the United States and its
coalition partners on any adversaries." This
belief helps sustain the US basing structure,
which far exceeds any the world has seen: this is
so in terms of its global reach, depth, and cost,
as well as its impact on geopolitics in all
regions of the world, particularly the Asia-Pacific.
A short history of US basing
After consolidation of continental dominance,
there were three periods of expansive global
ambition in US history beginning in 1898, 1945,
and 2001. Each is associated with the acquisition
of significant numbers of new overseas military
bases. The Spanish-American war resulted in the
acquisition of a number of colonies, but the US
basing system was far smaller than that of its
political and economic peers including many
European nations as well as Japan. In the next
four decades US soldiers were stationed in just
14 bases, some quite small, in Puerto Rico, Cuba,
Panama, and the Virgin Islands, but also,
already, extending across the Pacific to Hawaii,
Midway, Wake, and Guam, the Philippines,
Shanghai, two in the Aleutians, American Samoa,
and Johnston Island (Harkavy 1982). This small
number was the result in part of a strong
anti-statist and anti-militarist strain in US
political culture (Sherry 1995). From the
perspective of many in the US through the
inter-war period, to build bases would be to risk
unwarranted entanglement in others conflicts.
England had the most during this period, with
some countries with large militaries and even
some with expansive ambitions having relatively
few overseas bases; Germany and the Soviet Union
had almost none. But the attempt to acquire such
bases would be a contributing cause of World War II (Harkavy 1989:5).
From 14 bases in 1938, by the end of WW II, the
United States had built or acquired an astounding
30,000 installations large and small in
approximately 100 countries. While this number
contracted significantly, it went on to provide
the sinews for the rise to global hegemony of the
United States (Blaker 1990:22). Certain ideas
about basing and what it accomplished were to be
retained from World War II as well, including the
belief that its extensive overseas basing system
was a legitimate and necessary instrument of U.S.
power, morally justified and a rightful symbol of
the U.S. role in the world (Blaker 1990:28).
Nonetheless, pressure came from Australia,
France, and England, as well as from Panama,
Denmark and Iceland, for return of bases in their
own territory or colonies, and domestically to
demobilize the twelve million man military (a
larger military would have been needed to
maintain the vast basing system). More important
than the shrinking number of bases, however, was
the codification of US military access rights
around the world in a comprehensive set of legal
documents. These established security alliances
with multiple states within Europe (NATO), the
Middle East and South Asia (CENTO), and Southeast
Asia (SEATO), and they included bilateral
arrangements with Japan, Taiwan, South Korea,
Australia and New Zealand. These alliances
assumed a common security interest between the
United States and other countries and were the
charter for US basing in each place. Status of
Forces Agreements (SOFAs) were crafted in each
country to specify what the military could do;
these usually gave US soldiers broad immunity
from prosecution for crimes committed and
environmental damage created. These agreements
and subsequent base operations have usually been shrouded in secrecy.
In the United States, the National Security Act
of 1947, along with a variety of executive
orders, instituted what can be called a second,
secret government or the national security
state, which created the National Security
Agency, National Security Council, and Central
Intelligence Agency and gave the US president
expansive new imperial powers. From this point
on, domestic and especially foreign military
activities and bases were to be heavily masked
from public oversight (Lens 1987). Many of those
unaccountable funds then and now go into use
overseas, flowing out of US embassies and
military bases. Including use to interfere in the
domestic affairs of nations in which it has had
or desired military access, including attempts to
influence votes on and change anti-nuclear and
anti-war provisions in the Constitutions of the
Pacific nation of Belau and of Japan.
Nonetheless, over the second half of the 20th
century, the United States was either evicted or
voluntarily left bases in dozens of countries. 3
Between 1947 and 1990, the US was asked to leave
bases in France, Yugoslavia, Iran, Ethiopia,
Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria,
Vietnam, Indonesia, Peru, Mexico, and Venezuela.
Popular and political objection to the bases in
Spain, the Philippines, Greece, and Turkey in the
1980s enabled those governments to negotiate
significantly more compensation from the United
States. Portugal threatened to evict the US from
important bases in the Azores, unless it ceased
its support for independence for its African
colonies, a demand with which the US complied. 4
In the 1990s and later, the US was sent packing,
most significantly, from the Philippines, Panama,
Saudi Arabia, Vieques, and Uzbekistan (Simbulan 1985).
At the same time, remarkable numbers of new US
bases were newly built (241) after 1947 in
remarkable numbers in the Federal Republic of
Germany, as well as in Italy, Britain, and Japan
(Blaker 1990:45). The defeated Axis powers
continued to host the most significant numbers of
US bases: at its height, Japan was peppered with 3,800 US installations.
As battles become bases, so bases become battles;
the bases in East Asia acquired in the Spanish
American War and in World War II, such as Guam,
Okinawa and the Philippines, became the primary
sites from which the United States waged war on
Vietnam. Without them, the costs and logistical
obstacles for the US would have been
immense. The number of bombing runs over North
and South Vietnam required tons of bombs to be
unloaded, for example, at the Naval Station in
Guam, stored at the Naval Magazine in the
southern area of the island, and then shipped to
be loaded onto B-52s at Andersen Air Force Base
every day during years of the war. The morale of
ground troops based in Vietnam, as fragile as it
was to become through the latter part of the
1960s, depended on R & R at bases throughout East
and Southeast Asia which allowed them to leave
the war zone and be shipped back quickly and
inexpensively for further fighting (Baker
2004:76). In addition to the bases role in
fighting these large and overt wars, they
facilitated the movement of military assets to
accomplish the over 200 military interventions
carried out by the US in the course of the Cold War period (Blum 1995).
While speed of deployment is framed as an
important continued reason for forward basing,
equally important is that troops could be
deployed anywhere in the world from US bases
without having to touch down en route. In fact,
US soldiers are being increasingly billeted on US
territory, including such far-flung areas as
Guam, which is presently slated for a larger
buildup for this reason as well as to avoid the
political and other costs of foreign deployment.
With the will to gain military control of space,
as well as gather intelligence, the US over time,
especially in the 1990s, established a large
number of new military bases to facilitate the
strategic use of communications and space
technologies. Military R&D (the Pentagon spent
over $52 billion in 2005 and employed over 90,000
scientists) and corporate profits to be made in
the development and deployment of the resulting
technologies have been significant factors in the
growing numbers of technical facilities on
foreign soil. These include such things as
missile early-warning radar, signals
intelligence, space tracking telescopes and laser
sources, satellite control, downwind air sampling
monitors, and research facilities for everything
from weapons testing to meteorology. Missile
defense systems and network centric warfare
increasingly rely on satellite technology and
drones with associated requirements for ground
facilities. These facilities have often been
established in violation of arms control
agreements such as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty
meant to limit the militarization of space.
The assumption that US bases served local
interests in a shared ideological and security
project dominated into the 1960s: allowing base
access showed a commitment to fight Communism and
gratitude for US military assistance. But with
decolonization and the US war in Vietnam, such
arguments began to lose their power, and the
number of US overseas bases declined from an
early 1960s peak. Where access was once
automatic, many countries now had increased
leverage over what the US had to give in exchange
for basing rights, and those rights could be
restricted in a variety of important ways,
including through environmental and other
regulations. The bargaining chips used by the US
were increasingly sophisticated weapons, as well
as rent payments for the land on which bases were
established. 5 These exchanges were often linked
with trade and other kinds of agreements, such as
access to oil and other raw materials and
investment opportunities (Harkavy 1982:337). They
also have had destabilizing effects on regional
arms balances, particularly when advanced
weaponry is the medium of exchange. From the
earlier ideological rationale for the bases,
global post-war recovery and decreasing
inequality between the US and countries mostly
in the global North that housed the majority of
US bases, led to a more pragmatic or economic
grounding to basing negotiations, albeit often
thinly veiled by the language of friendship and
common ideological bent. The 1980s saw countries
whose populations and governments had strongly
opposed US military presence, such as Greece,
agree to US bases on their soil only because they
were in need of the cash, and Burma, a neutral
but very poor state, entered negotiations with
the US over basing troops there (Harkavy 1989:4-5).
The third period of accelerated imperial ambition
began in 2000, with the election of George Bush
and the ascendancy to power of a group of leaders
committed to a more aggressive and unilateral use
of military power, their ability to expand the
scope of US power increased by the attacks of
9/11. They wanted "a network of 'deployment
bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase
the reach of current and future forces" and
focused on the need for bases in Iraq. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the
immediate justification, the need for a
substantial American force presence in the Gulf
transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam
Hussein. This plan for expanded US military
presence around the world has been put into
action, particularly in the Middle East, the
Russian perimeter, and, now, Africa.
Pentagon transformation plans result in the
design of US military bases to operate ever more
as offensive, expeditionary platforms from which
to project military capabilities quickly
anywhere. Where bases in Korea, for example,
were once meant primarily to defend South Korea
from attack from the north, they are now, like
bases everywhere, project power in many
directions and serve as stepping stones to
battles far from themselves. The Global Defense
Posture Review of 2004 announced these changes,
focusing not just on reorienting the footprint of
US bases away from Cold War locations, but on
grounding imperial ambitions through remaking
legal arrangements that support expanded military
activities with other allied countries and
prepositioning equipment in those countries to be
able to surge military force quickly, anywhere.
The Department of Defense currently distinguishes
three types of military facilities. Main
operating bases are those with permanent
personnel, strong infrastructure, and often
including family housing, such as Kadena Air Base
in Japan and Ramstein Air Force Base in
Germany. Forward operating sites are
expandable warm facilit[ies] maintained with a
limited U.S. military support presence and
possibly prepositioned equipment, such as
Incirlik Air Base in Turkey and Soto Cano Air
Base in Honduras (US Defense Department
2004:10). Finally, cooperative security
locations are sites with few or no permanent US
personnel, which are maintained by contractors or
the host nation for occasional use by the US
military, and often referred to as lily pads.
In Thailand, for example, U-Tapao Royal Thai Navy
Airfield has been used extensively for US combat
runs over Iraq and Afghanistan. Others are now
cropping up around the world, especially
throughout Africa, as in Dakar, Senegal where
facilities and use rights have been newly established.
Are Guams bases domestic or overseas bases? Are
there racial underpinnings to the differences in how Guams basing is handled?
The history just recounted mostly refers to US
bases on other countries sovereign soil. Is
Guams situation anomalous? Is Guams Andersen
AFB a domestic base or a foreign base? As Guam
is a US territory, it is neither a fully
incorporated part of the US nor a free
nation. The islands license plate, which notes
it is Where Americas Day Begins, also reads,
Guam USA. This expresses the wish of some,
rather than the reality. It perhaps would better
read, Guam, US sort of A. International legal
norms make the status clear, however. Guam is a
colony, and primarily a military colony, in
keeping with the idea that the US imperial
history, especially in the second half of the
20th century, has been a military colonialism around the world.
Guams status shifts by context, however. The
DoDs Base Structure Report places Guam and its
39,287 owned acres (39 percent of the islands
territory) between Georgia (560,799 acres) and
Hawaii (175,911 acres). No Status of Forces
Agreement (SOFA) regulates the US forces on Guam,
and as far as I know, the DoD does not need to
report each day to the government of Guam on how
many soldiers have been brought in or sent out of
Guam, nor is it negotiating with Guam about its
plans to grow its bases on Guam.
<http://www.japanfocus.org/data/us_military_bases_on_guam.png>
[]
<http://www.japanfocus.org/data/us_military_bases_on_guam.png>
Map of US military bases on Guam (1991)
One very important and empirical index of the
degree to which Guams bases are foreign or
domestic is the quality of care that has been
taken with its environment and health (Castro
2007). Overseas bases have repeatedly inflicted
environmental devastation. Unexploded ordnance
killed 21 people in Panama before the US was
evicted and continues to threaten communities
nearby. In Germany, industrial solvents,
firefighting chemicals, and varieties of waste
have ruined ecological systems near some US
bases. The Koreans are finding extremely high
levels of military toxins in bases returned to
them by the US from near the DMZ. Ebeye atoll
suffers severe water quality and quantity
problems due to the US military presence (Soroko 2006).
While Guams environment has been treated
carelessly through the years, environmental
standards have not been high enough for domestic
US bases either. Fort Bragg in North Carolina,
for example, engaged in outdoor burning of very
large numbers of its unwanted, old wooden
barracks at one point in the 1970s, and an
ancient water treatment plant was used on Fort
Bragg up until quite recently. One can also
point to the US Army Corps of Engineers Formerly
Used Defense
<https://environment.usace.army.mil/what_we_do/fuds/>Sites
whose cleanup would be so expensive that they are
termed national sacrifice zones, or permanent no mans lands by some.
But activists have long considered the
environmental and judicial standards that are
negotiated into each countrys SOFA as an index
of how much respect their country is
accorded. It is possible to measure the quantity
of toxins variously introduced into the
environment of Guam, Germany, the Philippines,
California, and North Carolina, for example. The
broad differences in that quantity roughly occur
on a scale that appears quite racial, with the US
mainland at the top, Germany next, and the
Philippines and Guam at the bottom. If Guams
political status were truly domestic, we might
expect Guam to look more like the mainland in
terms of how the environment has been cared for. It does not.
But the internal racial history of the US itself
demonstrates that the military base has been a
booby prize for many of the internally colonized
in the US as well: the distinction between
domestic and foreign bases has been blurry on the
mainland as well. All domestic military bases
are in fact, of course, built on Native American
land, and even after that land was taken, the
bases were often intentionally sited on land
inhabited by poor white, black and Indian
farmers. Thousands of them lost their land in
North Carolina alone in the buildup to WW II (Lutz 2001).
And there, too, we can ask, as we ask on Guam,
who benefited then and who benefits now from base
building and base buildups? What costs are
externalized and borne by others? And how has a
rhetoric of national security over all
contributed to the notion that the military can
be and should be excepted from environmental protection standards?
The externalized costs of bases
The people of Guam have been engaged in a several
year exercise of trying to detail the impact of
military bases in order to gain some relief from
the expected continuing externalization of the
physical and social costs of military basing onto
the people of Guam. Among the health and
environmental issues pertaining to base expansion
are the long term maintenance of roads, the
stressed and declining water supply, and the likely upswing in crime rates.
In this final section, the economic impact of
bases is examined, as this has been crucial in
Guam and elsewhere for the arguments made for
military expansion. Obviously the health and
wellbeing of people affected by military basing
are crucial, but the economic effects have been
the primary thing that people in many base
communities have focused on. This is so for two
reasons. The first is that the military itself
publicizes its arrival or expansion as an
economic boon, noting the dollars brought in via
soldiers salaries, civilian work on post, and
construction and other sub-contracts that could
provide jobs. So the First Hawaiian Bank
published a Guam Economic Forecast that claimed
The military expansion is anticipated to benefit
Guams economy in the amount of $1.5 billion per
year once the process begins." 6
The second reason for the economic focus is that
they appear overall to be positive, unlike the
environmental, sovereignty, cultural, crime, and
noise effects. But one of the reasons they look
positive is because the powerful benefit and have
the resources to convince others that they, too,
benefit even when they palpably do
not. Moreover, the military has large numbers of
personnel, military and civilian, doing public
relations work with media and communities to make
their case for simple economic positives. In
addition, those locals who are most likely to
benefit financially have the funding and
motivation to do similar public relations
work. For example, the Chamber of Commerce
funded a 2008 survey that found that 71 per cent
of Guam residents supported an increase in the
United States military presence, with nearly 80
per cent of the view that the increasing military
presence would result in additional jobs and tax
revenue; according to the poll, 60 per cent felt
the additional Marines on the island would have a
positive effect and would ultimately improve the
islands quality of life. 7 This poll was as
much an attempt to create reality as to reflect
it. It builds on an existing cultural narrative,
one that is purchased with media time and power,
a narrative that says you will all benefit.
What are the economic effects of bases? Three
major factors can be identified. First, the
economic effects are primarily redistributional
rather than generative (unlike, for example,
manufacturing or education jobs). Certain sectors
atrophy and others grow in military districts,
often in very strong fluctuations. In 2007 in
Guam, for example, While employment in
manufacturing, transportation and public
utilities and retail trade decreased, increases
were seen for jobs in the service sector and
public sector; with the construction sector
experiencing the largest increase, that is, 1,450
jobs, or 35 per cent. 8 Usually, retail jobs
are the main type of work created around military
bases. Unfortunately, those jobs pay less than
any other category of work, accelerating the
growth of inequality in military communities.
Second, the military is a highly toxic industrial
operation and it externalizes many of its costs
of operation to the communities that host it and
serve it. These costs include such things as
environmental waste, PTSD in returning war
veterans and high rates of domestic violence,
rapid deterioration of roads and other public
amenities, and, in many communities, decline in
human capital development of populations that
have gone into the military (Lutz and Bartlett
1995, Lutz 2001). JROTC, for example, only
appears to add resources to school districts
while it in fact draws on significant local
education resources, while serving as recruiting
devices. The math on these costs the
subtraction from the general welfare and general public funds is rarely done.
Finally, military economies are volatile. While
the war cycle is different than the business
cycle, it also has booms and busts. For example,
businesses in military personnel cities like
Fayetteville, North Carolina regularly go under
when service members are deployed to US war
zones. Any major deployment from Guams bases
can be expected to significantly harm local
enterprise dependent on military
business. Moreover, a volatile real estate
market catering to foreign military personnel
sends property prices spiralling and forces local
working families into more substandard housing.
Conclusion
There are legal questions in the Guam military
buildup as well. In her testimony before the UN
Committee of 24 in 2008, Sabina Flores Peres
referred to the extremity of the level and
grossness of the infraction of the UN Charter by
the US in its further militarization of the
island. This is not hyperbole, because Guams
militarization is objectively more extreme in its
concentration than that found virtually anywhere
else on earth. There are only a few other areas
that are in similar condition all, not
coincidentally islands such as Okinawa, Diego
Garcia, and, in the past, Vieques, Puerto Rico
(see e.g., Inoue 2004, Yoshida 2010 and McCaffrey
2002). This was the product of an island
strategy for the US Navy, developed in the face
of decolonization and anxieties about the fate of
continental US bases in that context in the 1950s and 1960s (Vine 2009).
Guam, objectively, has the highest ratio of US
military spending and military hardware and land
takings from indigenous populations of any place
on earth. Here there might have been rivals in
Diego Garcia or in some areas of the continental
US if the US had not forcibly removed those
indigenous landowners altogether or onto the
equivalent of reservations, something the US had
hoped to do in Guam as far back as 1945. The
level and grossness of the infraction has to do
with the racial hierarchy that fundamentally
guides the US in its negotiations with other
peoples over the siting of its military bases and
the treatment they are accorded once the US
settles in. As the military budget suddenly and
intensely comes under scrutiny in the United
States in the summer of 2010 during severe
economic crisis, the hope must be that the
project of building yet more military facilities
on Guam will hit the chopping block. As a human
rights issue, however, the US treatment of Guams
people should have no price tag.
Catherine Lutz is the Thomas J. Watson Jr. Family
Professor in Anthropology and International
Studies at the Watson Institute for International
Studies at Brown University. She is the author
of
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/0814752446/?tag=theasipacjo0b-20>The
Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle against U.S.
Military Posts and (with elin oHara slavick,
Carol Mayvor and Howard Zinn),
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/8881586339/?tag=theasipacjo0b-20>Bomb
after Bomb: A Violent Cartography.
Recommended citation: Catherine Lutz, "US
Military Bases on Guam in Global Perspective,"
The Asia-Pacific Journal, 30-3-10, July 26, 2010.
References
Aguon, Julian. (2006) The Fire This Time: Essays
on Life Under U.S. Occupation. (Tokyo: Blue Ocean Press).
Baker, Anni (2004) American Soldiers Overseas:
The Global Military Presence (Westport, CT: Praeger).
Blaker, James R. (1990) United States Overseas
Basing: An Anatomy of the Dilemma (New York: Praeger).
Blum, William (1995) Killing Hope: U.S. Military
and CIA Interventions since World War II (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press).
Castro, Fanai (2007) Health Hazards: Guam. In
Outposts of Empire, Sarah Irving, Wilbert van der
Zeijden, and Oscar Reyes, eds. (Amsterdam: Transnational Institute).
Cooley, Alexander. Base Politics: Democratic
Change and the U.S. Military Overseas. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 2008.
Department of Defense Base Structure Report
Fiscal Year 2009 Baseline (A Summary of DODs
Real Property Inventory).
<http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/2009baseline.pdf>Link.
Diaz, Vicente (2001) Deliberating Liberation Day:
Memory, Culture and History in Guam. In Perilous
Memories: the Asia Pacific War(s). Takashi
Fujitani, Geoff White and Lisa Yoneyami, eds. (Durham: Duke University Press).
Erickson, Andrew S. and Mikolay, Justin D. (2006)
A Place and a Base: Guam and the American
Presence in East Asia. In Reposturing the Force:
U.S. Overseas Presence in the 21st Century.
Carnes Lord, ed. (Newport: Naval War College).
Harkavy, Robert E. (1982) Great Power Competition
for Overseas Bases: The Geopolitics of Access
Diplomacy (New York: Pergamon Press).
------ (1989) Bases Abroad: The Global Foreign
Military Presence (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Inoue, Masamichi S. (2004) We Are Okinawans But
of a Different Kind": New/Old Social Movements
and the U.S. Military in Okinawa, Current Anthropology, Vol. 45, No. 1.
Johnson, Chalmers (2004) The Sorrows of Empire:
Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (New York: Metropolitan).
Kennedy, Paul M. (1987) The Rise and Fall of
Great Powers: Economic Change and Military
Conflict from 1500-2000 (New York: Random House).
Lens, Sidney (1987) Permanent War: The
Militarization of America (New York: Schocken).
Lumpe, Lora (2002) U.S. Foreign Military
Training: Global Reach, Global Power, and
Oversight Issues. Foreign Policy in Focus Special Report, May.
Lutz, Catherine (2001) Homefront: A Military City
and the American 20th Century (Boston: Beacon Press).
Lutz, Catherine and Lesley Bartlett (1995) Making
Soldiers in the Public Schools: An Analysis of
the Army JROTC Curriculum. (Philadelphia: American Friends Service Committee).
Magdoff, Harry, Foster, John Bellamy, McChesney,
Robert W. and Sweezy, Paul (2002) U.S. Military
Bases and Empire, The Monthly Review Vol. 53, No. 10.
McCaffrey, Katherine (2002) Military Power and
Popular Protest: The U.S. Navy in Vieques, Puerto
Rico (New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press).
Natividad, LisaLinda and Gwyn Kirk (2010)
Fortress Guam: Resistance to US Military
Mega-Buildup, The Asia-Pacific Journal, May 10,
2010, <http://japanfocus.org/-LisaLinda-Natividad/3356/>link.
Sherry, Michael S. (1995) In the Shadow of War:
The United States Since the 1930s (New Haven: Yale University Press).
Simbulan, Roland (1985) The Bases of our
Insecurity: A Study of the U.S. Military Bases in
the Philippines (Manila, Philippines: BALAI Fellowship).
Soroko, Jennifer (2006) Water at the
intersection of militarization, development, and
democracy on Kwajalein Atoll, in the Republic of
the Marshall Islands. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brown University.
US Defense Department (2004) Strengthening U.S.
Global Defense Posture, Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.).
Van Evera, Stephen (2001) Militarism (Cambridge,
MA: MIT). Available [online]
<http://web.mit.edu/polisci/research/vanevera/militarism.pdf>here.
Date last accessed July 23, 2010.
Vine, David. (2009) Island of Shame: The Secret
History of the U.S. Military Base on Diego
Garcia. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Yoshida, Kensei (2010) Okinawa and Guam: In the
Shadow of U.S. and Japanese Global Defense
Posture, The Asia-Pacific Journal,
<http://japanfocus.org/-Yoshida-Kensei/3378>link.
Endnotes
1 This paper is an updated and revised version of
an invited Presidential Lecture given at the
University of Guam on April 14, 2009. Portions
appeared in the Introduction to The Bases of
Empire: The Global Struggle against US Military
Posts. New York: New York University Press, 2009.
2 The major concentrations of U.S. sites outside
those war zones as of 2007 were in South Korea,
with 106 sites and 29,000 troops, Japan with 130
sites and 49,000 troops, most concentrated in
Okinawa, and Germany with 287 sites and 64,000
troops. Guam with 28 facilities has nearly 6,600
airmen and soldiers and is slated to radically
expand over the next several years (Base Structure Report FY2007).
3 Between 1947 and 1988, the U.S. left 62
countries, 40 of them outside the Pacific Islands (Blaker 1990:34).
4 Luis Nuno Rodrigues, Trading Human Rights
for Base Rights: Kennedy, Africa and the
Azores, Ms. Possession of the author, March 2006.
5 Harkavy (1982:337) calls this the
arms-transfer-basing nexus and sees the U.S.
weaponry as having been key to maintaining both
basing access and control over the client states
in which the bases are located. Granting basing
rights is not the only way to acquire advanced
weaponry, however. Many countries purchased arms
from both superpowers during the Cold War, and
they are less likely to have US bases on their soil.
6 Economic Forecast Guam Edition 2006-2007, First Hawaiian Bank, pp. 8-9.
7 <http://www.guampdn.com>Link, 18 February 2008.
8 <http://www.guamdol.net>Link, September 2007, Current Employment Report.
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
www.Freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20100728/3cc9d9a0/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list