Speech for the Japanese Peace Conference
Paulina Ponce
Member of the No Bases International Network, the No Bases Coalition - Ecuador
and the Ecumenical Human Rights Commission (CEDHU).
November 2007, Japan Peace Conference, Okinawa, Japan
Compañeros and compañeras:
I come from Ecuador, in Latin America, to bring greetings to all of you and to the struggles that gather us today at the Japanese Peace Conference. I come with a message of peace and solidarity from the No Bases International Network, the No Bases Coalition in Ecuador and the Ecumenical Human Rights Commission.
I have prepared a paper that highlights key elements in the US military strategy and its impacts in Ecuador, particularly in Manta, where a military base is located. I will also share with you the experience of local, national and regional struggles against military bases and against militarism in general. Finally, I will speak about some work priorities agreed on by several peace movements at the International Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases, held in Ecuador on March 2007.
1. US military strategy and the policy of military alliances: dangers, problems and contradictions
The US dependence on foreign oil is on the rise because of the growing energy demand by the largest consumer society in the world. By 2020, the US will import 66 per cent of overall world oil production.
The focus of US foreign policy and its military strategy are closely related to its energy policy, hence its interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US defence policy has put behind nuclear deterrence and the atomic threat, and now aims to have an army that can fight simultaneously on several military fronts. To achieve this goal, the US must build up enemies, watch them, and threaten them. It must also protect and strengthen all information networks, and use all available technology to coordinate operations that can deliver accurate strikes. Soldiers are expected to be trained for these new scenarios. The US also needs to improve all its current available arsenal and train necessary human resources to prevail with its strategic and precision weapons.
Another crucial factor in this strategy is fear. The idea is that of creating a situation characterised by global insecurity, and persuading the world that terrorism is a common enemy. But this is not true. There are global problems that have been caused by the empire itself, such as global warming, whilst countries in the South have urgent and real problems to deal with, such as hunger, lack of access to health services, education, and basic infrastructure, amongst others.
As a result, the United States of America has become a rogue state. A state that believes it has the legitimacy to forcefully change any government it dislikes in any country. A state that creates centres to manipulate world public opinion, to spread lies. A state that ignores international institutions whenever it deems convenient, as is the case with the International Criminal Court, and that sabotages agreements for the planet’s preservation, such as the Kyoto Protocol, despite being the world’s largest polluter. A state that uses torture, as exemplified by Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
The United States is the only country in the world that has bombed civil populations in dozens of countries in four different continents. Its peculiar love for freedom often transforms itself into “smart bombs” that devastate towns, and into cluster bombs that only leave a trail of grief and destruction. The United States seeks the unilateral disarmament of the rest of the world, while expecting to keep increasing its own military power. It does not seek peace – it demands submission amidst the most terrible impunity.2
If we agree on the idea that the US is an empire, then it does not have allies, but vassals. Military alliances must therefore be understood in this sense.
The international instruments that allow the establishment of military policy are, on the one hand, financial tools – concentrated in the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and regional development banks – and, on the other, military alliances such as NATO, the Pact against International Terrorism, the Asian Defense Treaty, the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR), and several bilateral agreements. At the same time, the role and legitimacy of institutions such as the United Nations and the Organisation of American States has been eroded. Countries that oppose the US strategy are threatened with marginalisation if they do not accept the US conditions, and even run the risk of being classified as enemies. It has recently been suggested that all countries that have signed the International Criminal Court Treaty will not be considered for the sale of military munitions and supplies.
The US has created a false dilemma between human rights and security, because all rights enshrined in international treaties, such as the right to life or the right to not being tortured and to having a fair trial, are absolute and must be respected at all times, even in situations of public emergency. Human rights are not a hindrance to security, but the key to achieve it.
The US government is threatening all achievements in the field of human rights as well as harmony in international relationships, it is militarising its country and the world, and it is transforming its administration into a police state with unpredictable consequences.
2. The case of Ecuador: impact of the US military base in Manta
In Latin America, there are three Forward Operating Locations (FOL): El Salvador, Curaçao (in the Caribbean), and Manta (in Ecuador). These outposts were established to replace a base in Panama, which was handed back to the Panamanian authorities in 1999. The operations base is located in Key West, Florida, under the US Southern Command.
In 1999, Ecuador and the US signed a 10-year agreement for the establishment of a FOL in the Ecuadorian Air Force base in Manta, where the US would conduct activities focused on gathering intelligence information and the war against drug trafficking in the region.
Nevertheless, since the agreement came into effect eight years ago, the US military operations in Manta have also targeted boats with migrants that were leaving the Ecuadorian coast, and local fishermen who have suffered at least 45 boardings by US military ships (even if, according to the official agreement, only the Ecuadorian Navy has the authority to undertake this kind of operations). Another indirect impact of the US military presence affects women and their bodies: the establishment of the military base has increased the number of night clubs and sex work, whose victims are girls and women.
Besides immunity, the US troops and personnel in the Manta base have amongst other privileges, tariff exemptions, the ability to import goods and services tax free, the freedom not to pay any taxes, and to enter without visas and passports.
The Manta base hosts aircraft such as the E3 AWACS, the P-3 Orion, and the KC-135 Stratotanker for air, sea and land surveillance. The P-3 Orion, for example, depending on specific needs, can become a bomb and missile carrier. These airplanes can also fly over the sea and the coast in the Eastern Pacific and the Caribbean up to Florida. The base radars also allow the Americans to gather live intelligence information.
Since the agreement was signed, social and human rights organisations in Ecuador have denounced that one of the hidden aims of the Manta base is to give support for the implementation of Plan Colombia, which would entail regionalising the Colombian armed conflict. The FOL commander in Manta, Javier Delucca, said in August 2006: “Manta is very important within Plan Colombia. We are very well located to operate in that area”. In March 2007, he also declared: “We are not flying over Ecuadorian soil, but we are flying over Colombia, in coordination with a Colombian special military unit.”
The establishment of the Manta base is linked to the continuous and increasingly serious incidents led by the Colombian army in the Northern Ecuadorian border, which have resulted in dead and wounded Ecuadorian citizens, hundreds of Colombian refugees in the border provinces of Ecuador, severe damage to the population’s health and the environment because of aerial fumigations with glyphosate, and a spread of violence in the area.
There have also been warnings about the presence of companies who are hiring mercenaries. The report on Ecuador written by the UN Working Group about the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination recommended that the Ecuadorian government, amongst others, takes the following measure: “Complete promptly the investigations surrounding the PMSC [private military security company] ‘Epi Security and Investigations’.”
Besides EPI Security, we also find Dyncorp, the largest beneficiary of US military contracts for private military services over the last 50 years, and world-renowned for being the largest mercenary company. Dyncorp was hired by the Manta base to operate in the fields of air traffic control, civil engineering, logistic support, fire control, security, health coverage, accommodation and food services, etc. Dyncorp is also in charge of fumigation and surveillance tasks in Colombia.
The presence of the US army in Ecuador is not limited to the Manta base, which hosts an average of 300 troops. According to the US State Department: “Ecuador is the second country in the region, after Colombia, with the largest presence of US troops.” Ecuador is used as a military training ground in provinces such as Esmeraldas and Orellana.
According to the US Embassy in Ecuador, the Manta base injects an annual figure of US$ 6,5 million into the local economy, but this budget is allocated based on the operational costs derived from the missions undertaken by the military staff in the base. Therefore, far from having boosted development in Manta, the base has resulted in farmers losing their lands and fishermen losing their boats.
During the International Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases held in Quito and Manta in March 2007, the US Embassy in Ecuador launched a media campaign to highlight the ‘success’ in drug interdiction operations. According to the US army, interdiction activities this year have been the most significant since 1999.
The government led by president Rafael Correa thinks that the US military presence does not benefit Ecuador and undermines its sovereignty, and it has declared it will not renew the current agreement, which will expire in November 2009. Sovereignty and peace are seriously threatened by the presence of US troops on Ecuadorian soil.
3. Anti-bases and peace movements in Ecuador and the region
In Latin America, movements are mobilising on several fronts. Besides leading anti-militarism and anti-bases campaigns, movements are opposing free trade agreements with the US and Europe, the privatisation of natural resources (mainly water and the construction of giant hydroelectric dams), and the impacts of mining and oil activities, to name but a few. The issue that probably demands a united front of many forces is the construction of mega-projects such as the South American Regional Infrastructure Integration Initiative (IIRSA), which seeks to create axes of transit which crisscross the continent for the extraction of natural resources, and which could potentially be used for troop flows.
Latin American movements also have other priorities, such as launching a campaign on the impending closure of the FOL in Ecuador and ensuring that another FOL is not established in the region; launching a campaign so that governments withdraw their troops from Haiti along with solidarity campaigns with the Haitian people; starting legal and lobbying efforts for the return of lands and goods, and for the compensation of populations affected by military bases and foreign troops; to boost the campaign for the closure of the School of the Americas, where Latin American troops are trained; reporting and denouncing the impacts of Plan Colombia on civil populations and organising an international observer mission in that country; opposing the establishment of military forces on the border of Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina; and boosting the campaign for the closure of the Guantanamo prison, well known for its serious human rights violations, including torture.
In Ecuador, the political juncture is certainly favourable to social movements, though it is impossible to foresee how long it will last. There are positive statements and proposals, such as the Strategic Plan, Planex 2020, a document issued by the Foreign Affairs Ministry and agreed on by all social forces declaring Ecuador a country for peace that will not host foreign troops. There is also Plan Ecuador, the Ecuadorian alternative to Plan Colombia, stating as its main principles: peace and cooperation as a system of co-existence among states, the rejection of foreign aggression, the principle of non-intervention in other countries’ internal affairs, and equality of sovereignty in relationships with neighbouring countries.
In Manta, the population has gradually joined the struggle against the military base. Civil mobilisation was in the beginning neutralised by promises of economic prosperity. Nevertheless, against the background of the base’s destructive impacts, and thanks to the work of local and national organisations, awareness on this issue has risen and has resulted in specific actions to reflect on and denounce abuses.
Organisations such as the Manabi Farmers Organisation (UPOCAM), the Tahali Movement, the Young Christians Association YMCA-Ecuador, the Regional Foundation for the Assessment of Human Rights (IREDH), the Anti-corruption Network, the Peace and Justice Service (SERPAJ), and many others have organised important demonstrations, public debates and cultural activities to raise awareness of the impacts of military bases.
The urgent need to prevent the agreement being renewed in 2009 led to the establishment of the No Bases Coalition - Ecuador, an alliance between national human rights organisations and local social movements who cooperate to get more visibility. One of its aims is to link the local struggle for the closure of the Manta base with the wider global struggle against foreign military bases. The International Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases, held in Ecuador on 5-9 March 2007, was a key step for the national and international network against bases.
The No Bases Coalition - Ecuador has submitted a proposal before the special commission that will prepare a draft constitution for the National Constituent Assembly that will take place in November. The proposal seeks to include the following paragraph in the Constitution, under the “fundamental sovereignty principles” section:
“Ecuador is a land of peace and, pursuant to its sovereignty, will not host foreign military bases or troops, and will not adopt any agreement that implies other forms of foreign military presence. Ecuador will not militarily engage in other countries’ conflicts, be it unilaterally or in coordination with other states. It will not undertake military practices or exercises with other states. ”
The proposal was signed by 16 local and national organisations. Before the National Constituent Assembly takes place, the No Bases Coalition - Ecuador is actively working on raising public awareness to guarantee that the new Constitution will include the whole of the proposed text.
4. The significance and perspective of international cooperation and solidarity amongst movements on the basis of the results and experiences of the International No Bases Conference
We feel the grief, the death and the tears in Ecuador, Henoko, Afghanistan, Uganda, or Greece as our own, because every abuse is committed against humanity. Amidst the death represented by war, we are only left with solidarity amongst human beings and between peace and justice movements. That is our strength and what gives sense to our cooperation in solidarity.
After the International Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases, we became fully aware of the need to come together in our struggle for justice, peace, the self-determination of peoples, and environmental sustainability; and to work on strengthening the No Bases International Network to denounce the impacts of military bases, to support local struggles that pursue the closure of bases and to prevent the establishment of new bases.
The strategic aims of the Network are: to strengthen and unite local and global movements against foreign military bases and other forms of military presence; to become a global actor generating common actions and influencing global public opinion; to establish a policy of alliances with similar organisations and networks that work for peace and justice all around the world.
Some of the highlights of our action plan are: developing a global watch organisation to work with academics on the study and public awareness of the impacts of foreign military troops and bases, and anti-bases struggles; political advocacy activities with non-governmental organisations and international institutions such as the United Nations and the Non-Aligned Movement; and to establish an international convention on the prohibition of foreign military bases.
During the Conference, several resolutions were passed on local and national struggles against foreign military bases (Vicenza in Italy, Colombia, Czech Peace Movement, Asia-Pacific Community).
One of those resolutions dealt with US bases in Japan and Okinawa, and it was presented by the Japanese Peace Committee, that expressed solidarity with Manta and with Japanese municipalities in their local struggles, particularly communities in Okinawa, Yokosuka, and Iwakuni, seriously affected by military bases and other forms of military presence. Today, I am bringing here from Ecuador, and on behalf of the No Bases International Network, our solidarity with all of you.
The biggest challenge lies ahead: opposing impunity without letting up in our struggle. It is urgent to act to reinforce regional and international mechanisms that can oversee the consequences of the ‘war on terror’. We must keep on struggling for the establishment of an efficient and independent international justice system. In this context, getting together to coordinate our actions to have an impact on our societies
and the world is vital.
Force is never fair. Our challenge is momentous: to build humanity with justice and peace.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
NATIVE HAWAIIANS & CHAMORRO (GUAM) WARN AUSTRALIA OVER TALISMAN SABRE 2007
NATIVE HAWAIIANS & CHAMORRO (GUAM) WARN AUSTRALIA OVER TALISMAN SABRE 2007
Two indigenous Native Hawaiian activists and a Chamorro (GUAM) activist visiting Central Queensland expressed their shock and outrage at the destruction being inflicted on the local environment by the Talisman Sabre US/Australian joint military exercises.
“ We are appalled that there will be live firing, bombing and sonar testing on the Great Barrier reef and in the habitat of endangered dugong, whales and green turtles,” said Terri Keko’olani of DMZ Hawai’i Aloha ‘Aina.
Terri Keko’olani & Leimaile Quitevis from DMZ Hawaii Aloha ‘Aina and Fanai Castro from Guam (GUÅHAN) are in Australia to support the protest against the 30,000 strong US/Australia war games.
“We are also appalled at the complete indifference of the Australian Department of Defense in asserting that the war games will not be interrupted simply because 7 peace activists are occupying the military danger zone,” said Leimaile Quitevis
“The demands of the peace protestors include: stop the war games, no more military exercises, close the Shoalwater Bay base, and return the land to the indigenous people,” said Denis Doherty, national co-ordinator of the Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, one of the peace protest organizers.
“ In 1976 I occupied the island of Kaho’olawe to stop live bombing by the US military, said Terri Keko’olani. “ My heart goes out to June Norman, a 66 year old grandmother who is presently occupying the Shoalwater Bay training area to stop live bombing of an environment considered to be a world heritage treasure. “
Fanai Castro of the Organization of People for Indigenous Rights (OPI-R) added, “There is no justification for the toxic contamination of our lands and waters, therefore we uphold the actions demonstrated here to protect these precious resources.” She continued, “ This Peace action is significant in that it brings together a diversity of people who believe that, beyond war, another world is possible.”
Two indigenous Native Hawaiian activists and a Chamorro (GUAM) activist visiting Central Queensland expressed their shock and outrage at the destruction being inflicted on the local environment by the Talisman Sabre US/Australian joint military exercises.
“ We are appalled that there will be live firing, bombing and sonar testing on the Great Barrier reef and in the habitat of endangered dugong, whales and green turtles,” said Terri Keko’olani of DMZ Hawai’i Aloha ‘Aina.
Terri Keko’olani & Leimaile Quitevis from DMZ Hawaii Aloha ‘Aina and Fanai Castro from Guam (GUÅHAN) are in Australia to support the protest against the 30,000 strong US/Australia war games.
“We are also appalled at the complete indifference of the Australian Department of Defense in asserting that the war games will not be interrupted simply because 7 peace activists are occupying the military danger zone,” said Leimaile Quitevis
“The demands of the peace protestors include: stop the war games, no more military exercises, close the Shoalwater Bay base, and return the land to the indigenous people,” said Denis Doherty, national co-ordinator of the Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, one of the peace protest organizers.
“ In 1976 I occupied the island of Kaho’olawe to stop live bombing by the US military, said Terri Keko’olani. “ My heart goes out to June Norman, a 66 year old grandmother who is presently occupying the Shoalwater Bay training area to stop live bombing of an environment considered to be a world heritage treasure. “
Fanai Castro of the Organization of People for Indigenous Rights (OPI-R) added, “There is no justification for the toxic contamination of our lands and waters, therefore we uphold the actions demonstrated here to protect these precious resources.” She continued, “ This Peace action is significant in that it brings together a diversity of people who believe that, beyond war, another world is possible.”
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Urgent Call for Henoko, Okinawa
"Japanese Government points gun at Okinawans for the first time since World War II."
According to news reports, the Japanese Government has dispatched the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force ship "Bungo" to Henoko, Okinawa. Bungo is a gun boat and minesweeper equipped with divers. It is reported the members of Maritime Self Defense Force will assist private contractors in the environmental "pre-survey" for the military off-shore base at Henoko.
The environmental assessment is an initiative of the Defense Facility Administration Bureau. Local groups and media, including T.V. Okinawa have noted that the Maritime Self Defense Force involvement in the Bureau's activity here is extremely unusual.
The details of the Maritime mission in Henoko remain unannounced. Although Yasuhisa Shiozaki, Chief Cabinet Secretary, said the Maritime Self Defense Force in Henoko is not tasked with suppression of local base opposition, Okinawans suffering from the U.S. presence and the Japanese government's discriminatory policies reacted with anger. In the early morning of May 14, about 300 people gathered at Henoko beach in the heavy rain. An 80 year-old man from Nago city did not hesitate to show his disapproval, "this act is a part of oppression against Okinawa by the Japanese military once again."
Mr. Natsume Taira, a chief of the local base opposition's canoe team remained confident , "We will continue to fight to stop the construction of the military base, which aims to kill people in this region and elsewhere."
The international anti-base community also has their eye on the people's struggle in Henoko. Ms. Corason Fabros from the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases, Ms. Debbie Quinata from the Guam indigenous people's movement, Ms. Jun Jungsuk from SPARK (Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea) all participated in the morning gathering in Henoko to deliver their strong solidarity, and pledged their support for the Henoko Struggle.
In the evening , some 100 people joined the "Abolition of Military Bases In Asia" event organized by the Okinawa Citizens Coalition for Peace, in Naha City. Mr. Hiroshi Ashitomi, co-president of the Conference Opposing Heliport Construction, said "This act clearly shows how desperate the Japanese government is to make the new U.S. military base in Henoko against the wishes of the Okinawan people. This is a mess, Japanese democracy is rotting away."
The reports indicate that the survey will start ON MAY 16, 2007
1. WE CALL ON YOU TO SEND YOUR MESSAGE OF DISAPPROVAL.
Email, Fax, Phone statements of disapproval to the Japanese Government sending Japan Maritime Self Defense Force(JMSDF) to Henoko.
Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF)
Tel: +81-3-3268-3111
Email: mso-cadv@ic.jmsdf.go.jp
Japan Defense Facility Administration Agency (Naha Bureau)
Email: mso-cadv@ic.jmsdf.go.jp
Tel: +81-98-868-0174
Fax: +81-98-866-3375
Ministry of Defense
Tel: +81-3-5366-3111
Email: infomod@mod.go.jp
Japan Coast Guard, 11 Region Headquarter
Tel: +81-98-867-0118
E-mail(I¡§(Bsoumu-11@kaiho.mlit.go.jp
U.S. Councilor Office, Naha, Okinawa
+81-98-876-4211
U.S. Embassy in Tokyo
Tel: +3-3224-5000
2. Send your solidarity message to Henoko people
Heiwa Shimin Renrakukai
(Citizens Coalition for Peace, Naha, Okinawa)
Fax:+81-98-885 8230
Conference Opposing Heliport Construction (Nago,Okinawa)
Fax: +81-980-53-6992
For further information contact:
Ms. Suzuyo Takazato (Citizens Coalition for Peace,Naha, Okinawa)
Mobile number: +81-90-3072-0672
Fax: +81-98-864-1539
3. Send Messages, Opinions, Contributions to newspapers in Japan:
Okinawa Newspapers (less than 400 words)
Okinawa Times opinion@okinawatimes.co.jp
Ryukyu Shimpo
koe@ryuukyushimpo.co.jp
Yomiuri
https://app.yomiuri.co.jp/form/index.php
Asahi
http://www.asahi.com/reference/form.html
Mainichi
https://form.mainichi.co.jp/toiawase/
Nihon Keizai (Nihon Business)
webmaster@nikkei.co.jp
Sankei
u-service@sankei.co.jp
Tokyo Shinbun
https://cgi2.chunichi.co.jp/tko/hotline/form.shtml
Nikkan Gendai
http://gendai.net/?m=infotoiawase
Shinbun Akahata
hensyukoe@jcp.or.jp
Kyodo Tsushin
feedback@kyodonews.jp
Jiji Tsushin
https://www2.jiji.com/f/enq/form.php?pid=company
NHK [less than 400 words]
https://www.nhk.or.jp/css/goiken/bangumi.html
Nihon TV
https://www1.ntv.co.jp/staff/form.html
Fuji TV
https://wwws.fujitv.co.jp/safe/red_mpl/response/res_form.cgi
TV Asahi Hodo Station
http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/hst/contents/opinion/index_see.html
TV Tokyo
https://www2.tv-tokyo.co.jp/main/goiken.php
According to news reports, the Japanese Government has dispatched the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force ship "Bungo" to Henoko, Okinawa. Bungo is a gun boat and minesweeper equipped with divers. It is reported the members of Maritime Self Defense Force will assist private contractors in the environmental "pre-survey" for the military off-shore base at Henoko.
The environmental assessment is an initiative of the Defense Facility Administration Bureau. Local groups and media, including T.V. Okinawa have noted that the Maritime Self Defense Force involvement in the Bureau's activity here is extremely unusual.
The details of the Maritime mission in Henoko remain unannounced. Although Yasuhisa Shiozaki, Chief Cabinet Secretary, said the Maritime Self Defense Force in Henoko is not tasked with suppression of local base opposition, Okinawans suffering from the U.S. presence and the Japanese government's discriminatory policies reacted with anger. In the early morning of May 14, about 300 people gathered at Henoko beach in the heavy rain. An 80 year-old man from Nago city did not hesitate to show his disapproval, "this act is a part of oppression against Okinawa by the Japanese military once again."
Mr. Natsume Taira, a chief of the local base opposition's canoe team remained confident , "We will continue to fight to stop the construction of the military base, which aims to kill people in this region and elsewhere."
The international anti-base community also has their eye on the people's struggle in Henoko. Ms. Corason Fabros from the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases, Ms. Debbie Quinata from the Guam indigenous people's movement, Ms. Jun Jungsuk from SPARK (Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea) all participated in the morning gathering in Henoko to deliver their strong solidarity, and pledged their support for the Henoko Struggle.
In the evening , some 100 people joined the "Abolition of Military Bases In Asia" event organized by the Okinawa Citizens Coalition for Peace, in Naha City. Mr. Hiroshi Ashitomi, co-president of the Conference Opposing Heliport Construction, said "This act clearly shows how desperate the Japanese government is to make the new U.S. military base in Henoko against the wishes of the Okinawan people. This is a mess, Japanese democracy is rotting away."
The reports indicate that the survey will start ON MAY 16, 2007
1. WE CALL ON YOU TO SEND YOUR MESSAGE OF DISAPPROVAL.
Email, Fax, Phone statements of disapproval to the Japanese Government sending Japan Maritime Self Defense Force(JMSDF) to Henoko.
Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF)
Tel: +81-3-3268-3111
Email: mso-cadv@ic.jmsdf.go.jp
Japan Defense Facility Administration Agency (Naha Bureau)
Email: mso-cadv@ic.jmsdf.go.jp
Tel: +81-98-868-0174
Fax: +81-98-866-3375
Ministry of Defense
Tel: +81-3-5366-3111
Email: infomod@mod.go.jp
Japan Coast Guard, 11 Region Headquarter
Tel: +81-98-867-0118
E-mail(I¡§(Bsoumu-11@kaiho.mlit.go.jp
U.S. Councilor Office, Naha, Okinawa
+81-98-876-4211
U.S. Embassy in Tokyo
Tel: +3-3224-5000
2. Send your solidarity message to Henoko people
Heiwa Shimin Renrakukai
(Citizens Coalition for Peace, Naha, Okinawa)
Fax:+81-98-885 8230
Conference Opposing Heliport Construction (Nago,Okinawa)
Fax: +81-980-53-6992
For further information contact:
Ms. Suzuyo Takazato (Citizens Coalition for Peace,Naha, Okinawa)
Mobile number: +81-90-3072-0672
Fax: +81-98-864-1539
3. Send Messages, Opinions, Contributions to newspapers in Japan:
Okinawa Newspapers (less than 400 words)
Okinawa Times opinion@okinawatimes.co.jp
Ryukyu Shimpo
koe@ryuukyushimpo.co.jp
Yomiuri
https://app.yomiuri.co.jp/form/index.php
Asahi
http://www.asahi.com/reference/form.html
Mainichi
https://form.mainichi.co.jp/toiawase/
Nihon Keizai (Nihon Business)
webmaster@nikkei.co.jp
Sankei
u-service@sankei.co.jp
Tokyo Shinbun
https://cgi2.chunichi.co.jp/tko/hotline/form.shtml
Nikkan Gendai
http://gendai.net/?m=infotoiawase
Shinbun Akahata
hensyukoe@jcp.or.jp
Kyodo Tsushin
feedback@kyodonews.jp
Jiji Tsushin
https://www2.jiji.com/f/enq/form.php?pid=company
NHK [less than 400 words]
https://www.nhk.or.jp/css/goiken/bangumi.html
Nihon TV
https://www1.ntv.co.jp/staff/form.html
Fuji TV
https://wwws.fujitv.co.jp/safe/red_mpl/response/res_form.cgi
TV Asahi Hodo Station
http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/hst/contents/opinion/index_see.html
TV Tokyo
https://www2.tv-tokyo.co.jp/main/goiken.php
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Hawaii-Okinawa Alliance: Letter to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe
April 27, 2007
Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe c/o Consulate General of Japan-Honolulu, Political Divison, 1742 Nu'uanu Ave. Honolulu, HI 96817
Dear Prime Minister Abe
This is an urgent appeal from Okinawa's friends in Hawai'i to the government of Japan calling for an immediate halt to the expansion of the U.S. military base in Henoko, Okinawa. We are shocked and outraged that the Japanese government has begun the marine survey for construction around Henoko Point despite the overwhelming opposition of the local residents.
We call on the Japanese government to respect the human rights of the people of Okinawa and immediately cease all activities related to the expansion of the U.S. military base in Henoko.
On April 18, 2007, we requested the consultative document submitted by the Japanese Defense Facilities Administration Bureau to the Okinawa Prefecture government regarding the marine survey. To date, the Japanese government has refused to release these documents that are essential to understanding the impacts of the project.
Instead the consulate staff told us to submit a freedom of information request, which is simply ridiculous. The project would be too far along, or even completed when, and if we ever received the documents. The fact that these plans have been made in secret without public review or input demonstrates contempt for the residents of Henoko.
We demand that all plans related to the military base expansion in Henoko be made public and that the Okinawan people be given decision making powers over those matters that will affect them.
Furthermore, our Chamoru brothers and sisters on Guam will be devastated by the proposed relocation of U.S. troops to their island. We demand that Japan not support or pay for the relocation of U.S. troops to Guam.
The dangerous remilitarization of Japan and the submission of the Japanese government to the demands of the U.S. military will forever be a mark of shame and dishonor on Japan in the eyes of the world. We urge you to choose the path of peace and to heed the Okinawan proverb: "Nuchi du takara" - Life is most precious.
Aloha,
The Hawai'i Okinawa Alliance
Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe c/o Consulate General of Japan-Honolulu, Political Divison, 1742 Nu'uanu Ave. Honolulu, HI 96817
Dear Prime Minister Abe
This is an urgent appeal from Okinawa's friends in Hawai'i to the government of Japan calling for an immediate halt to the expansion of the U.S. military base in Henoko, Okinawa. We are shocked and outraged that the Japanese government has begun the marine survey for construction around Henoko Point despite the overwhelming opposition of the local residents.
We call on the Japanese government to respect the human rights of the people of Okinawa and immediately cease all activities related to the expansion of the U.S. military base in Henoko.
On April 18, 2007, we requested the consultative document submitted by the Japanese Defense Facilities Administration Bureau to the Okinawa Prefecture government regarding the marine survey. To date, the Japanese government has refused to release these documents that are essential to understanding the impacts of the project.
Instead the consulate staff told us to submit a freedom of information request, which is simply ridiculous. The project would be too far along, or even completed when, and if we ever received the documents. The fact that these plans have been made in secret without public review or input demonstrates contempt for the residents of Henoko.
We demand that all plans related to the military base expansion in Henoko be made public and that the Okinawan people be given decision making powers over those matters that will affect them.
Furthermore, our Chamoru brothers and sisters on Guam will be devastated by the proposed relocation of U.S. troops to their island. We demand that Japan not support or pay for the relocation of U.S. troops to Guam.
The dangerous remilitarization of Japan and the submission of the Japanese government to the demands of the U.S. military will forever be a mark of shame and dishonor on Japan in the eyes of the world. We urge you to choose the path of peace and to heed the Okinawan proverb: "Nuchi du takara" - Life is most precious.
Aloha,
The Hawai'i Okinawa Alliance
Hawaii-Okinawa Alliance: Solidarity action to stop Henoko military expansion
Today the Hawai'i Okinawa Alliance and a number of groups in Honolulu held a solidarity action for Henoko at the Japanese Consulate in Honolulu.
We held signs and picketed in front of the Consulate. We made one giant sign cut out in the shape of a Dugong with the words: "Peace for Okinawa, Nuchi du takara, Save the Dugong and No U.S. Military Bases".
Several weeks ago, we had requested a meeting with the Consul General and the consultative document prepared by the Japanese Defense Facilities Administration Bureau describing the activities of the pre-survey and survey for construction of the U.S. military base expansion at Henoko. The Consulate denied both requests.
So we showed up in person and requested to meet the consulate staff. This time Yamada-san came out to talk with us. They tried to shoo us off their property, but we maintained that we had official business and stood our ground. Yamada offered to meet with two persons inside, away from the media, but we said that we would like everyone to hear and participate in the discussion. He seemed quite shaken by the action. Last time we tried to talk with them, they were quite dismissive of our small delegation. We told them at that time that we were offended by the lack of respect and that "We'll be back."
We read the message to Prime Minister Abe aloud and handed it to Yamada to deliver to the Japanese national government.
Yamada said he would convey our message to the government. We asked when we might hear a reply, but he was noncommittal. I gave him a red ribbon as he left.
Then, on cue, everyone fanned out in the parking area and began tying hundreds of red ribbons inscribed with solidarity and peace messages onto the consulate fence. The security guard scurried around in vain to try to stop us but soon the fence was aflutter with red messages of resistance, solidarity and hope. We told them that these were prayers for peace and that the red color referred to the red card in soccer signifying that the player is out of the came. We told them to convey these to the Japanese government as well.
Mahalo to AFSC Hawai'i, DMZ-Hawai 'i / Aloha 'Aina, Anakbayan - Honolulu, Not In Our Name Hawai'i, Kapakaukau, Save UH / Stop UARC coalition, the Korea Truth Commission in Hawai'i, and the Hawai'i People's Fund, all of whom helped organize and sent representatives to the action.
In addition to a television station, a reporter from the Okinawa Times was there to do a story.
We held signs and picketed in front of the Consulate. We made one giant sign cut out in the shape of a Dugong with the words: "Peace for Okinawa, Nuchi du takara, Save the Dugong and No U.S. Military Bases".
Several weeks ago, we had requested a meeting with the Consul General and the consultative document prepared by the Japanese Defense Facilities Administration Bureau describing the activities of the pre-survey and survey for construction of the U.S. military base expansion at Henoko. The Consulate denied both requests.
So we showed up in person and requested to meet the consulate staff. This time Yamada-san came out to talk with us. They tried to shoo us off their property, but we maintained that we had official business and stood our ground. Yamada offered to meet with two persons inside, away from the media, but we said that we would like everyone to hear and participate in the discussion. He seemed quite shaken by the action. Last time we tried to talk with them, they were quite dismissive of our small delegation. We told them at that time that we were offended by the lack of respect and that "We'll be back."
We read the message to Prime Minister Abe aloud and handed it to Yamada to deliver to the Japanese national government.
Yamada said he would convey our message to the government. We asked when we might hear a reply, but he was noncommittal. I gave him a red ribbon as he left.
Then, on cue, everyone fanned out in the parking area and began tying hundreds of red ribbons inscribed with solidarity and peace messages onto the consulate fence. The security guard scurried around in vain to try to stop us but soon the fence was aflutter with red messages of resistance, solidarity and hope. We told them that these were prayers for peace and that the red color referred to the red card in soccer signifying that the player is out of the came. We told them to convey these to the Japanese government as well.
Mahalo to AFSC Hawai'i, DMZ-Hawai 'i / Aloha 'Aina, Anakbayan - Honolulu, Not In Our Name Hawai'i, Kapakaukau, Save UH / Stop UARC coalition, the Korea Truth Commission in Hawai'i, and the Hawai'i People's Fund, all of whom helped organize and sent representatives to the action.
In addition to a television station, a reporter from the Okinawa Times was there to do a story.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Henoko: Call for urgent action
Almost immediately after the victory of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party candidate in the by-election for an Upper House seat on April 22nd, the Japanese government started the process of building a military facility in Henoko with a determination.
On April 24th, the Japanese Defense Facilities Administration Agency (Naha Bureau) and the Japan Coast Guard began “pre-survey” of the Marine survey of the proposed area for the new military facility in Henoko. The Rev. Natsume Taira and others in Henoko have been staging non-violent action to protest and stop the survey, but the JDFAA ships and divers far outnumbered the protestors and their canoes and boats.
JDFAA characterizes this on-going “pre-survey” as an examination of the present conditions of the area with regard to coral reef, Dugong, and other marine life. But this procedure violates the environmental assessment law that stipulates disclosure of construction methods and examination of the adequacy of the methods before finalizing the construction methods. It is only after then, such environmental survey of present conditions can be conducted. As the items of this on-going “pre-survey” seem to include what actual environmental survey of present conditions is required to examine, the adequate procedure of full and appropriate environmental assessment may not be taken in the future. Conducting this “pre-survey” undermines environmental assessment itself.
The Japanese government refused to disclose details of this “pre-survey.” Construction of the military facility in Henoko can be carried out without public scrutiny, ignoring democratic participation, and even the rights of the national Diet and Okinawa Prefectural Assembly to check.
People in Henoko are mounting their protest actions very carefully because they do not want anyone, including those divers hired by the government, to be injured. But on the first day of the survey, the JDFAA forced to conduct observation survey under bad weather, endangering the safety of their divers. It shows the Japanese government’s disrespect of human lives.
Today, April 27th, it is reported that the JDFAA completed the observation survey. It is now anticipated that after a series of national holidays of Golden Week, on May 7th, they will start to install survey equipments in the area.
This survey has to be stopped!
Please send your protest messages to Japan Defense Facility Administration Agency (Naha Bureau)
Fax number: +81-98-866-3375
Please send your support messages to people of Henoko.
Heiwa Shimin Renrakukai (Citizens Coalition for Peace, Naha, Okinawa)
Fax:+81-98-885 8230
Conference Opposing Heliport Construction (Nago, Okinawa)
Fax: +81-980-53-6992
Kozue Akibayashi
EA-US-Puerto Rico Women's Network Against Militarism (Japan)
On April 24th, the Japanese Defense Facilities Administration Agency (Naha Bureau) and the Japan Coast Guard began “pre-survey” of the Marine survey of the proposed area for the new military facility in Henoko. The Rev. Natsume Taira and others in Henoko have been staging non-violent action to protest and stop the survey, but the JDFAA ships and divers far outnumbered the protestors and their canoes and boats.
JDFAA characterizes this on-going “pre-survey” as an examination of the present conditions of the area with regard to coral reef, Dugong, and other marine life. But this procedure violates the environmental assessment law that stipulates disclosure of construction methods and examination of the adequacy of the methods before finalizing the construction methods. It is only after then, such environmental survey of present conditions can be conducted. As the items of this on-going “pre-survey” seem to include what actual environmental survey of present conditions is required to examine, the adequate procedure of full and appropriate environmental assessment may not be taken in the future. Conducting this “pre-survey” undermines environmental assessment itself.
The Japanese government refused to disclose details of this “pre-survey.” Construction of the military facility in Henoko can be carried out without public scrutiny, ignoring democratic participation, and even the rights of the national Diet and Okinawa Prefectural Assembly to check.
People in Henoko are mounting their protest actions very carefully because they do not want anyone, including those divers hired by the government, to be injured. But on the first day of the survey, the JDFAA forced to conduct observation survey under bad weather, endangering the safety of their divers. It shows the Japanese government’s disrespect of human lives.
Today, April 27th, it is reported that the JDFAA completed the observation survey. It is now anticipated that after a series of national holidays of Golden Week, on May 7th, they will start to install survey equipments in the area.
This survey has to be stopped!
Please send your protest messages to Japan Defense Facility Administration Agency (Naha Bureau)
Fax number: +81-98-866-3375
Please send your support messages to people of Henoko.
Heiwa Shimin Renrakukai (Citizens Coalition for Peace, Naha, Okinawa)
Fax:+81-98-885 8230
Conference Opposing Heliport Construction (Nago, Okinawa)
Fax: +81-980-53-6992
Kozue Akibayashi
EA-US-Puerto Rico Women's Network Against Militarism (Japan)
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Chamorro Nation sounds off at scoping meeting
by Clynt Ridgell, KUAM News
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Last night the scoping meeting assessing the impacts of the relocation of 8,000 U.S. Marines and their families to Guam was held in the southern village of Yona at that village's community center. At least what one group had fairly strong opinions about military buildup as a whole and the scoping meetings in particular.
Last night's scoping meetings didn't go off without its share of protestors. Outside the center members of I Nasion Chamoru ("The Chamoru Nation") voiced their displeasure with the U.S. Government in what they referred to as "a continuation of the colonization of Guam". Spokesperson Debbie Quinata announced, "We're protesting a number of things - we're protesting this planned reoccupation of our homeland and we're also protesting the manner of the way these supposed scoping meetings are being conducted. We understand it's a dog and pony show and believe that the intent is to fulfill a federal mandate and not really to gauge or even consider the feelings of the community members of this island."
Inside the scoping meeting, however, it was a different scene
Residents browsed through the various posters, charts, and handouts all designed to educate people as to the what the military plans on studying in its environmental impact statement (EIS). Most of the participants appeared to be genuinely interested in what the military had to say about their planned studies. There was a host of military officials on hand to answer questions and clarify any of the information being presented. There was even a Chamoru translator on hand as well as informational handouts written in both English and Guam's indigenous tongue.
So last night's meeting has come and gone and tonight's is just underway. After these scoping meetings the military will begin its study in preparation for the draft EIS. Once that's published there will be about a 45-day public review period followed by public hearings, which will allow residents to actually verbally testify. Chief of the Joint Guam Program Office David Bice has reassured KUAM News that residents will not be held to a three-minute time limit and that they will try to accommodate those who want to testify as best they can.
After the public hearings the military will work on publishing its final draft EIS along with a record of decision by at least the year 2010. But before of all that can happen and after they finish tonight's scoping meeting they'll head to the Northern Marianas to hold two public scoping meetings there in Saipan and Tinian.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Last night the scoping meeting assessing the impacts of the relocation of 8,000 U.S. Marines and their families to Guam was held in the southern village of Yona at that village's community center. At least what one group had fairly strong opinions about military buildup as a whole and the scoping meetings in particular.
Last night's scoping meetings didn't go off without its share of protestors. Outside the center members of I Nasion Chamoru ("The Chamoru Nation") voiced their displeasure with the U.S. Government in what they referred to as "a continuation of the colonization of Guam". Spokesperson Debbie Quinata announced, "We're protesting a number of things - we're protesting this planned reoccupation of our homeland and we're also protesting the manner of the way these supposed scoping meetings are being conducted. We understand it's a dog and pony show and believe that the intent is to fulfill a federal mandate and not really to gauge or even consider the feelings of the community members of this island."
Inside the scoping meeting, however, it was a different scene
Residents browsed through the various posters, charts, and handouts all designed to educate people as to the what the military plans on studying in its environmental impact statement (EIS). Most of the participants appeared to be genuinely interested in what the military had to say about their planned studies. There was a host of military officials on hand to answer questions and clarify any of the information being presented. There was even a Chamoru translator on hand as well as informational handouts written in both English and Guam's indigenous tongue.
So last night's meeting has come and gone and tonight's is just underway. After these scoping meetings the military will begin its study in preparation for the draft EIS. Once that's published there will be about a 45-day public review period followed by public hearings, which will allow residents to actually verbally testify. Chief of the Joint Guam Program Office David Bice has reassured KUAM News that residents will not be held to a three-minute time limit and that they will try to accommodate those who want to testify as best they can.
After the public hearings the military will work on publishing its final draft EIS along with a record of decision by at least the year 2010. But before of all that can happen and after they finish tonight's scoping meeting they'll head to the Northern Marianas to hold two public scoping meetings there in Saipan and Tinian.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Welcome to our new blog!
Welcome to the new blog, "Pacific United for Demilitarization." This blog will connect the movements for demilitarization throughout the Pacific basin and rim, which are currently contending with a rapid increase of US militarism.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Anti-Bases Network Finds Its Base
By Herbert Docena
The consolidation of an international network for the abolition of foreign military bases marks an important advance for the global peace and justice movement
On the perimeter fence of the Eloy Alfaro air base in Manta, Ecuador hangs a sign, “Warning: Military Base. No Trespassing.” Since 1999, the base has been used as a “forward operating location” by the US military – just one of over 737 US military installations currently scattered in over 100 countries around the world.
On March 9, about 500 visitors showed up at the base’s main gate. One of them walks up to the fence and pastes a bright blue and red sticker saying “No Bases!” on the warning sign, a broken rifle forming the diagonal line with the letter “o” to make the universal sign of prohibition.
It is a small, symbolic act of trespassing for a newly formed international network with a big goal: the closure of all such military bases worldwide. But with the successful convening of a conference that launched the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases (No Bases) in Quito and Manta, Ecuador from March 5 to 9, 2007, that goal has become a little closer to reality.
Perhaps the largest gathering against military bases in history, the conference drew over 400 grassroots and community-based activists who are at the forefront of local struggles from as far away as Okinawa, Sardinia, Vieques, Pyongtaek, Hawaii, and dozens of other places from more than 40 countries. There were environmentalists, feminists, pacifists, war resisters, farmers, workers, students, parliamentarians, and other activists from social movements, human rights groups, faith-based organizations, and various regional and global networks and coalitions.
But even the final tally of those present probably underestimated the extent of participation in the conference: In the network’s e-mail list on the eve of the conference, an anti-bases activist from Iceland wrote to say that their absence in Ecuador should not be taken to mean that they are absent from the movement. The range of groups that made it to the conference – both in terms of where they come from geographically and politically – demonstrate just how broad the movement against bases has become.
International conferences are sometimes dismissed as talk-fests where nothing gets done. But getting together and talking to each other is often an important first step in building a community. In various panels and self-organized seminars, film-showings, and forums, participants deepened their understanding of the role of military bases in global geo-politics, the various forms and guises that military presence takes, and their impacts on local communities and the environment. They also exchanged lessons about strategies and approaches to more effectively campaign against bases back home. Even the Pentagon has taken note of the growing domestic opposition to their bases and it is these grassroots campaigns that are foiling their plans.
But this was not all. What was significant about the conference was that the participants went beyond talking about how bad bases are and why we should all oppose them. They rolled up their sleeves and, in one intensive workshop after another, set out to establish a network, articulate the bases of unity, agree on a higher level of coordination, and decide more concrete plans for common action.
That task proved to be daunting yet illuminating. As the participants tried to clarify what exactly brought them together, potentially divisive but fundamental questions soon rose to the surface: Should the network just target foreign military bases or also domestic bases? Since they all have military and war-making purposes, shouldn’t all military bases – regardless of whether they are the US’ or Cuba’s – be abolished? What about the “domestic” military bases in Hawaii, Guam, or Puerto Rico? Or in occupied countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan? What about NATO bases which are arguably both “foreign” and “domestic” at the same time? If the network targets only “foreign” bases, how does this distinguish it from all those right-wing nationalist groups in Europe or the Middle East who oppose bases just because they’re “foreign”? And while it was generally agreed that no one comes close to the US in terms of the sheer number of bases, how much effort should the network exert against the bases of Russia or France?
These proved to be important questions because the answers to them touch on the values and identity of the network. Underlying them are broader questions that define some of the diverging – but also overlapping – currents within the network and, perhaps, within the larger anti-war movement.
Broadly – and perhaps crudely – categorized, there are those within the network who oppose bases from what could be called an “anti- imperialist” perspective. They see foreign military bases as both the instruments – as well as the visible manifestations – of imperialism. They are against US bases on foreign soil but will defend Cuba’s or Iran’s right to have domestic military bases for self-defense. Within this current, there are differences on the extent to which the US should be singled out: While there is unanimous recognition that the US is the primary threat, others are quick to point out that the European powers have their own imperialist drives and are equally dangerous. On the other hand, there are those who oppose bases from the perspective of “anti-militarism”: they’re against all military bases – regardless of who owns them.
These debates also raise questions about the nature of “nationalism” and “sovereignty.” In many contexts, mainly but not exclusively in the South, opposition to foreign bases draws from a deep nationalist well, with bases seen as “external” incursions against “sovereignty” and with “nationalism” seen as a necessary bulwark against colonialism. In other contexts, however, “nationalism” and “sovereignty” have become bad words, used to rally public support for wars against “the other” and to justify repressive measures against “foreigners.” Cautiously, the network treaded the fine line between self-determination and chauvinism.
After ten hours of spirited but cordial deliberation, the draft declaration presented in plenary was widely commended as a sharp but nuanced formulation (see full text below) that succeeded in drawing the approval of both anti-imperialist and anti-militarist positions. (Or at the very least, it was not expressly rejected by either.) What may have clinched the day was the broadening of the target of the network to include not just foreign military bases but “all other infrastructure used for wars of aggression.”
The formulation thus takes a more sophisticated understanding of the complex configuration of military bases by allowing for the inclusion of domestic military bases inside the US, as well as in NATO and in other countries. It appealed to those who insisted on a strong focus on foreign military bases – most of which are owned by the US and all of which are arguably used for aggression – while at the same time not contradicting those who wish to expand the focus of their own work. In contrast to the right-wing, chauvinist opposition to bases, the declaration makes it clear that the network’s objection to bases is not premised on what analysts call the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) logic – i.e. foreign military bases are fine as long as someone else bears the noise, the waste, and the crimes – but on the NIABY logic (not-in-any-one’s backyard), i.e. foreign military bases are bad because they “entrench militarization, colonialism, imperial policy, patriarchy, and racism.” In light of the influence of the right-wing objection to bases, the network’s opposition to all bases – and not just those in one’s locality –offers a global counter-pole premised on internationalism and solidarity.
For an incipient grouping still struggling to define its purpose and to sharpen its focus, the importance of clarifying and reaching agreement on the network’s bases of unity should not be underestimated. As Helga Serrano, one of the conference organizers concluded, “The ideological and political bases of unity of the network is more consolidated than we had thought.” It is true that the subsequent session for planning concrete actions and strategies proved to be less clarifying: only a grocers’ list of ideas emerged, not a clear set of priorities. But without coming to an agreement on its common vision, the network could have been paralyzed by unresolved contradictions and confusion. The articulation of collective principles lays the foundations for future actions.
Carrying out these actions requires, in turn, a certain degree of organization. On-guard against threats to their autonomy, wary of centralizing tendencies, but keen to achieve their objectives, many delegates stressed the need to combine openness and horizontality with strategic and organized action. As Joel Suarez, a participant from Cuba said, “We cannot continue with the way we have been organizing. Horizontality is correct but, applied wrongly, it has led to the disintegration and paralysis of the movements. Our advancement depends on the efficiency of our organization. We can’t let this fall apart.” The question, said Serrano, is “how do we create new forms of horizontal relationships?” The challenge, as posed in one panel, was to strengthen the coordination within the network without centralizing and bureaucratizing it.
Put this way, the dilemmas faced by the network is little different from that faced by other networks that have emerged in recent years. . Accepting the need for closer interaction while cautious of rushing the process, participants in the end reached a consensus to remain as a loose grouping but with a higher level of coordination. A process was set up for putting in place an open international coordination committee with a clear but circumscribed political mandate and a defined set of responsibilities for carrying out collective projects.
Still, there are significant hurdles to overcome: The network still has to reach out to so many more local anti-bases activists, especially from West and Central Asia; the issue of bases is still not high on the agenda of the anti-war movements; the network lacks resources because the issue is seen as too radical even for sympathizers; and even within the network, there is uneven access to resources and capacities; translation remains to be worked out more efficiently; and so on.
Despite all these obstacles, the network has come a long way. The conference is a milestone in that it marks the consolidation of the international network as both a space where the broadest grouping of organizations, coalitions, and movements can come together and as an organizational vehicle which can carry out globally coordinated campaigns while providing continuing and sustained support to local struggles everywhere.
But it’s more than this. The network’s development could also be seen as evidence of the consolidation of the anti-globalization/anti-war movements that emerged in the last decade. While the idea has been germinating before, the birth of the network could be traced back to a gathering of anti-war/anti-globalization activists, shortly after the invasion of Iraq, in Jakarta, Indonesia in May 2003. Attended by representatives from some of the groups that were behind the coordination of the historic February 15, 2003 global day of action against the war in Iraq and who had previously been active in the anti-globalization movement, the Jakarta meeting endorsed the proposal of launching an international network against bases as one of the priorities for the movements.
A group of organizations in that meeting then carried the idea forward through various World Social Forums, local and regional social forums, and other activist gatherings. As Wilbert van der Zeijden, an activist who was among those who steered the network through the years, said, “This would not have been possible without the World Social Forum process.” While the concept remains debated, the “open space” provided by the social forum process provided opportunities for networking, information-sharing, and organizing that would have been too difficult or too expensive had the space not existed. The consolidation of the network proves that the movement is capable not only of uniting around a proposal but of actually seeing it through.
Also often underrated and unreported is the degree by which the movement has been getting more efficient at organizing. While there were a few of the usual glitches and some internal disagreements, it felt as though the conference and the run-up to it was, on the whole, better organized politically and logistically than similar projects in the past. International conferences of the scale that activists had been organizing in the last few years require a high level of organization and coordination but, with very limited human and financial resources, and activists are stepping up the plate. As one participant remarked, “Five years of organizing the World Social Forums and other meetings and we’re learning.” Ecuadoran organizers of the network conference themselves acknowledge that they have gained confidence and valuable experience from organizing the Americas Social Forum and other international meetings in the past.
What is remarkable – but often taken for granted – is how activists – who are not trained and salaried professional events organizers – have succeeded in realising ambitious projects for a small fraction of the cost that corporations or governments spend on similar meetings. That the movements are learning and becoming more proficient heralds their development and growing capacity for organized action.
More than anything, the consolidation of the anti-bases network demonstrates that the movements have become more deliberately strategic. The network is a “single-issue” campaign focused on the issue of bases. And as Lindsey Collen, an activist from Mauritius, warned, “Single-issue fragmentation may lead to short-term success but long-term failure.” The single-minded focus on bases, however, is neither fragmentary nor fragmenting; on the contrary, it arises from a comprehensive understanding of the conjuncture that locates bases within the global strategy of domination.
Rather than being divisive, the emphasis on bases brings together a much more holistic understanding of the ways in which the coercive and corporate sides of militarized globalization come together to perpetuate structures of dispossession and injustice. As Joseph Gerson, an activist-scholar on bases, put it “Bases perpetuate the status quo.” The decision to zoom-in and focus on the issue of bases in a coherent and consistent manner comes out of an objective assessment and a compellingly simple logic: without foreign military bases, wars would be so much more difficult to wage; without wars, the pursuit of geo-strategic and economic interests over democracy and self-determination would be so much harder. As Corazon Fabros, a veteran anti-bases activist from the Philippines, said, “The strategy of empire is global. So must our response.”
The consolidation of an international network for the abolition of foreign military bases marks an important advance for the global peace and justice movement
On the perimeter fence of the Eloy Alfaro air base in Manta, Ecuador hangs a sign, “Warning: Military Base. No Trespassing.” Since 1999, the base has been used as a “forward operating location” by the US military – just one of over 737 US military installations currently scattered in over 100 countries around the world.
On March 9, about 500 visitors showed up at the base’s main gate. One of them walks up to the fence and pastes a bright blue and red sticker saying “No Bases!” on the warning sign, a broken rifle forming the diagonal line with the letter “o” to make the universal sign of prohibition.
It is a small, symbolic act of trespassing for a newly formed international network with a big goal: the closure of all such military bases worldwide. But with the successful convening of a conference that launched the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases (No Bases) in Quito and Manta, Ecuador from March 5 to 9, 2007, that goal has become a little closer to reality.
Perhaps the largest gathering against military bases in history, the conference drew over 400 grassroots and community-based activists who are at the forefront of local struggles from as far away as Okinawa, Sardinia, Vieques, Pyongtaek, Hawaii, and dozens of other places from more than 40 countries. There were environmentalists, feminists, pacifists, war resisters, farmers, workers, students, parliamentarians, and other activists from social movements, human rights groups, faith-based organizations, and various regional and global networks and coalitions.
But even the final tally of those present probably underestimated the extent of participation in the conference: In the network’s e-mail list on the eve of the conference, an anti-bases activist from Iceland wrote to say that their absence in Ecuador should not be taken to mean that they are absent from the movement. The range of groups that made it to the conference – both in terms of where they come from geographically and politically – demonstrate just how broad the movement against bases has become.
International conferences are sometimes dismissed as talk-fests where nothing gets done. But getting together and talking to each other is often an important first step in building a community. In various panels and self-organized seminars, film-showings, and forums, participants deepened their understanding of the role of military bases in global geo-politics, the various forms and guises that military presence takes, and their impacts on local communities and the environment. They also exchanged lessons about strategies and approaches to more effectively campaign against bases back home. Even the Pentagon has taken note of the growing domestic opposition to their bases and it is these grassroots campaigns that are foiling their plans.
But this was not all. What was significant about the conference was that the participants went beyond talking about how bad bases are and why we should all oppose them. They rolled up their sleeves and, in one intensive workshop after another, set out to establish a network, articulate the bases of unity, agree on a higher level of coordination, and decide more concrete plans for common action.
That task proved to be daunting yet illuminating. As the participants tried to clarify what exactly brought them together, potentially divisive but fundamental questions soon rose to the surface: Should the network just target foreign military bases or also domestic bases? Since they all have military and war-making purposes, shouldn’t all military bases – regardless of whether they are the US’ or Cuba’s – be abolished? What about the “domestic” military bases in Hawaii, Guam, or Puerto Rico? Or in occupied countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan? What about NATO bases which are arguably both “foreign” and “domestic” at the same time? If the network targets only “foreign” bases, how does this distinguish it from all those right-wing nationalist groups in Europe or the Middle East who oppose bases just because they’re “foreign”? And while it was generally agreed that no one comes close to the US in terms of the sheer number of bases, how much effort should the network exert against the bases of Russia or France?
These proved to be important questions because the answers to them touch on the values and identity of the network. Underlying them are broader questions that define some of the diverging – but also overlapping – currents within the network and, perhaps, within the larger anti-war movement.
Broadly – and perhaps crudely – categorized, there are those within the network who oppose bases from what could be called an “anti- imperialist” perspective. They see foreign military bases as both the instruments – as well as the visible manifestations – of imperialism. They are against US bases on foreign soil but will defend Cuba’s or Iran’s right to have domestic military bases for self-defense. Within this current, there are differences on the extent to which the US should be singled out: While there is unanimous recognition that the US is the primary threat, others are quick to point out that the European powers have their own imperialist drives and are equally dangerous. On the other hand, there are those who oppose bases from the perspective of “anti-militarism”: they’re against all military bases – regardless of who owns them.
These debates also raise questions about the nature of “nationalism” and “sovereignty.” In many contexts, mainly but not exclusively in the South, opposition to foreign bases draws from a deep nationalist well, with bases seen as “external” incursions against “sovereignty” and with “nationalism” seen as a necessary bulwark against colonialism. In other contexts, however, “nationalism” and “sovereignty” have become bad words, used to rally public support for wars against “the other” and to justify repressive measures against “foreigners.” Cautiously, the network treaded the fine line between self-determination and chauvinism.
After ten hours of spirited but cordial deliberation, the draft declaration presented in plenary was widely commended as a sharp but nuanced formulation (see full text below) that succeeded in drawing the approval of both anti-imperialist and anti-militarist positions. (Or at the very least, it was not expressly rejected by either.) What may have clinched the day was the broadening of the target of the network to include not just foreign military bases but “all other infrastructure used for wars of aggression.”
The formulation thus takes a more sophisticated understanding of the complex configuration of military bases by allowing for the inclusion of domestic military bases inside the US, as well as in NATO and in other countries. It appealed to those who insisted on a strong focus on foreign military bases – most of which are owned by the US and all of which are arguably used for aggression – while at the same time not contradicting those who wish to expand the focus of their own work. In contrast to the right-wing, chauvinist opposition to bases, the declaration makes it clear that the network’s objection to bases is not premised on what analysts call the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) logic – i.e. foreign military bases are fine as long as someone else bears the noise, the waste, and the crimes – but on the NIABY logic (not-in-any-one’s backyard), i.e. foreign military bases are bad because they “entrench militarization, colonialism, imperial policy, patriarchy, and racism.” In light of the influence of the right-wing objection to bases, the network’s opposition to all bases – and not just those in one’s locality –offers a global counter-pole premised on internationalism and solidarity.
For an incipient grouping still struggling to define its purpose and to sharpen its focus, the importance of clarifying and reaching agreement on the network’s bases of unity should not be underestimated. As Helga Serrano, one of the conference organizers concluded, “The ideological and political bases of unity of the network is more consolidated than we had thought.” It is true that the subsequent session for planning concrete actions and strategies proved to be less clarifying: only a grocers’ list of ideas emerged, not a clear set of priorities. But without coming to an agreement on its common vision, the network could have been paralyzed by unresolved contradictions and confusion. The articulation of collective principles lays the foundations for future actions.
Carrying out these actions requires, in turn, a certain degree of organization. On-guard against threats to their autonomy, wary of centralizing tendencies, but keen to achieve their objectives, many delegates stressed the need to combine openness and horizontality with strategic and organized action. As Joel Suarez, a participant from Cuba said, “We cannot continue with the way we have been organizing. Horizontality is correct but, applied wrongly, it has led to the disintegration and paralysis of the movements. Our advancement depends on the efficiency of our organization. We can’t let this fall apart.” The question, said Serrano, is “how do we create new forms of horizontal relationships?” The challenge, as posed in one panel, was to strengthen the coordination within the network without centralizing and bureaucratizing it.
Put this way, the dilemmas faced by the network is little different from that faced by other networks that have emerged in recent years. . Accepting the need for closer interaction while cautious of rushing the process, participants in the end reached a consensus to remain as a loose grouping but with a higher level of coordination. A process was set up for putting in place an open international coordination committee with a clear but circumscribed political mandate and a defined set of responsibilities for carrying out collective projects.
Still, there are significant hurdles to overcome: The network still has to reach out to so many more local anti-bases activists, especially from West and Central Asia; the issue of bases is still not high on the agenda of the anti-war movements; the network lacks resources because the issue is seen as too radical even for sympathizers; and even within the network, there is uneven access to resources and capacities; translation remains to be worked out more efficiently; and so on.
Despite all these obstacles, the network has come a long way. The conference is a milestone in that it marks the consolidation of the international network as both a space where the broadest grouping of organizations, coalitions, and movements can come together and as an organizational vehicle which can carry out globally coordinated campaigns while providing continuing and sustained support to local struggles everywhere.
But it’s more than this. The network’s development could also be seen as evidence of the consolidation of the anti-globalization/anti-war movements that emerged in the last decade. While the idea has been germinating before, the birth of the network could be traced back to a gathering of anti-war/anti-globalization activists, shortly after the invasion of Iraq, in Jakarta, Indonesia in May 2003. Attended by representatives from some of the groups that were behind the coordination of the historic February 15, 2003 global day of action against the war in Iraq and who had previously been active in the anti-globalization movement, the Jakarta meeting endorsed the proposal of launching an international network against bases as one of the priorities for the movements.
A group of organizations in that meeting then carried the idea forward through various World Social Forums, local and regional social forums, and other activist gatherings. As Wilbert van der Zeijden, an activist who was among those who steered the network through the years, said, “This would not have been possible without the World Social Forum process.” While the concept remains debated, the “open space” provided by the social forum process provided opportunities for networking, information-sharing, and organizing that would have been too difficult or too expensive had the space not existed. The consolidation of the network proves that the movement is capable not only of uniting around a proposal but of actually seeing it through.
Also often underrated and unreported is the degree by which the movement has been getting more efficient at organizing. While there were a few of the usual glitches and some internal disagreements, it felt as though the conference and the run-up to it was, on the whole, better organized politically and logistically than similar projects in the past. International conferences of the scale that activists had been organizing in the last few years require a high level of organization and coordination but, with very limited human and financial resources, and activists are stepping up the plate. As one participant remarked, “Five years of organizing the World Social Forums and other meetings and we’re learning.” Ecuadoran organizers of the network conference themselves acknowledge that they have gained confidence and valuable experience from organizing the Americas Social Forum and other international meetings in the past.
What is remarkable – but often taken for granted – is how activists – who are not trained and salaried professional events organizers – have succeeded in realising ambitious projects for a small fraction of the cost that corporations or governments spend on similar meetings. That the movements are learning and becoming more proficient heralds their development and growing capacity for organized action.
More than anything, the consolidation of the anti-bases network demonstrates that the movements have become more deliberately strategic. The network is a “single-issue” campaign focused on the issue of bases. And as Lindsey Collen, an activist from Mauritius, warned, “Single-issue fragmentation may lead to short-term success but long-term failure.” The single-minded focus on bases, however, is neither fragmentary nor fragmenting; on the contrary, it arises from a comprehensive understanding of the conjuncture that locates bases within the global strategy of domination.
Rather than being divisive, the emphasis on bases brings together a much more holistic understanding of the ways in which the coercive and corporate sides of militarized globalization come together to perpetuate structures of dispossession and injustice. As Joseph Gerson, an activist-scholar on bases, put it “Bases perpetuate the status quo.” The decision to zoom-in and focus on the issue of bases in a coherent and consistent manner comes out of an objective assessment and a compellingly simple logic: without foreign military bases, wars would be so much more difficult to wage; without wars, the pursuit of geo-strategic and economic interests over democracy and self-determination would be so much harder. As Corazon Fabros, a veteran anti-bases activist from the Philippines, said, “The strategy of empire is global. So must our response.”
Monday, February 19, 2007
The Asia-Pacific Consultation of Movements against U.S. Military Bases, Tokyo
A significant step toward the creation of regional anti-base movement linkages -- On November 25-28, 2006, around fifty peace activists from the Southeast-East Asia and Pacific region in struggle against U.S. military bases gathered in Tokyo in the first sub- regional encounter ever held on the specific topic of American military bases. Titled the Asia-Pacific Consultation of Movements against U.S. Military Bases, Tokyo, the gathering was called to facilitate exchange of experiences in anti-base struggles and to work out common strategies to resist and defeat the U.S. defense transformation process that is being carried out to further militarize this region violating the interest of the local grassroots people. It was held also as a sub-regional preparatory step toward the inaugural confer- ence of Global Network to Abolish Foreign Military Bases scheduled in March 2007 in Ecuador.
The Consultation was convened jointly by an ad hoc Japanese national organizing com- mittee composed of about 40 groups and individuals, the Stop the War Coalitions Philip- pines, and the Focus on the Global South. The Japanese committee comprised anti-base groups based in communities affected by the U.S. base reorganization plans as well as national peace networks. Among the organizing committee members are the progressive trade union-based Peace Forum, National Christian Council of Japan, Catholic Justice and Peace Commission, and the Asian Peace Alliance-Japan.
The participants were from Australia, Guam, Hawaii, Okinawa, mainland Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and Mindanao, all dedicated activists fighting against the U.S. military presence. The presence of activists fresh from struggle scenes in Pyongtaek (South Korea), Okinawa, Kanagawa prefecture (Camp Zama, Yokosuka), Yokota (Yokota airbase), Hiroshima-Iwakuni (Iwakuni airbase), and Yufuin (Hijudai exercise ground) as well as Mindanao and Australia made the discussion concrete and down to earth.
The participants analyzed the U.S. global strategy, shared reports of country and regional situations, exchanged successful and unsuccessful experiences, and adopted a statement and an action plan that would strengthen the strategic network of regional movements.
While the above was done in closed sessions, the Consultation also opened itself by holding a public forum on its first day that drew hundreds of audience listening to struggle reports and appeals from abroad. On November 28, the day following the closure of the session, the overseas participants were invited to participate in an outdoor rally and street demonstration of 3,000 people expressing opposition to new U.S.-Japan military arrangements involving strengthening of base functions. The event was held by the Peace Forum, one of the main organizers of the regional consultation.
Through this Consultation, the participants certainly came to have a clearer whole picture of U.S. “defense transformation”-related activities throughout their region. Also brought into relief was the willing support given by host country governments to the U.S. war ar- rangements. They try to trick us saying, “this is for your security.” But experience has shown clearly enough that the U.S. military presence, far from protecting the people, only violates people’s sovereignty, destroy local people’s cultural and economic life, bring on violence against women and children, and disaster to environment. We, the participants in the consultation, understand that our activities to stop the U.S. military are to take back our rights to live in genuine peace that are taken away from us by the U.S. and our elite groups. We also understand our struggles are to usher in a world with no military and to pass it to our future generations.
We are convinced that the network against U.S. military base and military presence in our region has expanded and strengthened through the Consultation. And we are excited by the outlook that we are going to meet more people with common aspirations and hopes from all over the world in Ecuador. We see the Ecuador conference is going to be a land mark event for our struggle. We express our ardent solidarity with the Conference and will show our commitment to this global people’s fight against military bases and other forms of military presence.
February 19, 2007 The Japan Committee for the Asia-Pacific Consultation of Movements against U.S. Military Bases, Tokyo
The Consultation was convened jointly by an ad hoc Japanese national organizing com- mittee composed of about 40 groups and individuals, the Stop the War Coalitions Philip- pines, and the Focus on the Global South. The Japanese committee comprised anti-base groups based in communities affected by the U.S. base reorganization plans as well as national peace networks. Among the organizing committee members are the progressive trade union-based Peace Forum, National Christian Council of Japan, Catholic Justice and Peace Commission, and the Asian Peace Alliance-Japan.
The participants were from Australia, Guam, Hawaii, Okinawa, mainland Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and Mindanao, all dedicated activists fighting against the U.S. military presence. The presence of activists fresh from struggle scenes in Pyongtaek (South Korea), Okinawa, Kanagawa prefecture (Camp Zama, Yokosuka), Yokota (Yokota airbase), Hiroshima-Iwakuni (Iwakuni airbase), and Yufuin (Hijudai exercise ground) as well as Mindanao and Australia made the discussion concrete and down to earth.
The participants analyzed the U.S. global strategy, shared reports of country and regional situations, exchanged successful and unsuccessful experiences, and adopted a statement and an action plan that would strengthen the strategic network of regional movements.
While the above was done in closed sessions, the Consultation also opened itself by holding a public forum on its first day that drew hundreds of audience listening to struggle reports and appeals from abroad. On November 28, the day following the closure of the session, the overseas participants were invited to participate in an outdoor rally and street demonstration of 3,000 people expressing opposition to new U.S.-Japan military arrangements involving strengthening of base functions. The event was held by the Peace Forum, one of the main organizers of the regional consultation.
Through this Consultation, the participants certainly came to have a clearer whole picture of U.S. “defense transformation”-related activities throughout their region. Also brought into relief was the willing support given by host country governments to the U.S. war ar- rangements. They try to trick us saying, “this is for your security.” But experience has shown clearly enough that the U.S. military presence, far from protecting the people, only violates people’s sovereignty, destroy local people’s cultural and economic life, bring on violence against women and children, and disaster to environment. We, the participants in the consultation, understand that our activities to stop the U.S. military are to take back our rights to live in genuine peace that are taken away from us by the U.S. and our elite groups. We also understand our struggles are to usher in a world with no military and to pass it to our future generations.
We are convinced that the network against U.S. military base and military presence in our region has expanded and strengthened through the Consultation. And we are excited by the outlook that we are going to meet more people with common aspirations and hopes from all over the world in Ecuador. We see the Ecuador conference is going to be a land mark event for our struggle. We express our ardent solidarity with the Conference and will show our commitment to this global people’s fight against military bases and other forms of military presence.
February 19, 2007 The Japan Committee for the Asia-Pacific Consultation of Movements against U.S. Military Bases, Tokyo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)