1AC Guåhan
Environmental Militarism
US militarization in Guam creates endless environmental destruction through
waste disposal and weapon testing and will intensify in the next few years
Hsu 2012 (Hsuan L., Associate Professor of English at UC Davis, “Guam, Literary Emergence, and the American Pacific in
Homebase and from unincorporated territory”, American Literary History, Volume 24, Number 2, Summer 2012, pp.
281-307 (Article), published by Oxford University Press, pg. 286-287, AX)
Guam’s landscape has been ravaged not just by war but by war-making as well. The island has
played an important role in US military actions throughout the region: during the US–Philippine War
(1899–1902), Philippine nationalist insurgents were detained on Guam; during the Korean War and Vietnam
War, Guam served as a staging area for bombing raids, a storage facility for Agent Orange, and a
place of refuge for South Vietnamese evacuees; Guam has also been used by the military for
environmentally hazardous waste disposal, and the US Air Force conducts live-fire training on
the nearby island, Farallon de Mendenilla. With the current plan to transfer Marines from Okinawa (where tens of thousands
of protesters have frequently taken to the streets to oppose the social, environmental, and accident-related dangers associated with
the Futenma base) to Guam, militarization
will only intensify in coming years. Currently, the Defense
controversial military build-up will bring 41,194 new residents to
Guam by 2016—an immense increase considering that the 2000 census reported over 154,000
residents on the island (Kelman). The militarization of Guam’s landscape, economy, and culture
has made many Chamorros dependent on the military (by far the island’s largest employer), and
Chamorros rank first by both geographical region and ethnic group in rates of recruitment to
the US military. Today, Guam’s economy is overwhelmingly dependent upon the tourist industry,
military service, and service sector jobs associated with the military. Because the histories of
US colonialism and military aggression in the Pacific contradict exceptionalist narratives of the
US as a nation defined by freedom and democracy, Guam’s history of cultural attrition
(through assimilative education programs), environmental despoliation, and militarization—
like those of other US colonial possessions—are not widely known: ironically, the island’s centrality to US
Department projects that the new,
geopolitical projects throughout the “Asian Pacific” has led to its liminal status as an “unincorporated territory” and to what Perez
calls its “submerg[ ence] in the American consciousness” ([hacha] 10).
US military projects in Guåhan have continuously destroyed the environment
and locals through toxic waste disposure, weapon testing, and biodiversity
degradation
Kirk and Natividad 2010 (Gwyn, Professor of Gender Studies at University of Oregon, and LisaLina, Assistant
Professor of Social Work at the University of Guam, “Fortress Guam: Resistance to US Military Mega-Buildup”, The Asia-Pacific
Journal, 19-1-10, May 10, 2010, AX)
Opponents of the build-up have emphasized the
negative impact of the U.S. military on Guam, manifested in
poor health, radiation exposure, contaminated and toxic sites, curbing of traditional practices
such as fishing, and major land takings, which started in the early 20th century. The incidence of cancer in
Guam is high and Chamorros have significantly higher rates than other ethnic groups. Cancer
mortality rates for 2003-2007 showed that Chamorro incidence rates from cancer of the
mouth and pharynx, nasopharynx, lung and bronchus, cervix, uterus, and liver were all higher
than U.S. rates. Chamorros living on Guam also have the highest incidence of diabetes compared to other ethnic groups, and
this is about five times the overall U.S. rate. The entire island was affected by toxic
contamination following the “Bravo” hydrogen bomb test in the Marshall Islands in 1954. Up to twenty years later,
from 1968 to 1974, Guam had higher yearly rainfall measures of strontium 90 compared to Majuro (Marshall Islands). In the 1970s, Guam’s
Cocos Island lagoon was used to wash down ships contaminated with radiation that had been
in the Marshall Islands as part of an attempt to clean up the islands. Guam’s representative, Madeleine
Bordallo, introduced a bill in Congress in March 2009, to amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) to include the Territory of Guam in
the list of affected “downwinder” areas with respect to atmospheric nuclear testing in Micronesia (HR 1630). In April 2010, Senator Tom Udall
introduced an amendment to RECA with the inclusion of Guam for downwinders’ compensation. While these initiatives have been the priority of the
Pacific Association for Radiation Survivors for over five years now, people on Guam have yet to receive compensation for their suffering. The territory
currently qualifies for RECA compensation in the “onsite-participants” category but not for downwind exposure. Andersen
AFB has been
a source of toxic contamination through dumpsites and leaching of chemicals into the
underground aquifer beneath the base. Two dumpsites just outside the base at Urunao were
found to contain antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, manganese, dioxin, deteriorated
ordnance and explosive, and PCBs.26 Other areas have been affected by Vietnam-war use of
the defoliants Agent Orange and Agent Purple used for aerial spraying, which were stored in
drums on island. Although many of the toxic sites on bases are being cleaned up, this is not necessarily the case for toxic sites outside the
bases. Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding the military build-up was released in
November 2009, a nine-volume document totaling some 11,000 pages, to be absorbed and evaluated within a 90-day public comment period. In
response, there was an outpouring of community concern expressed in town hall meetings, community events, and letters to the press. Despite its
length, the DEIS scarcely addressed questions of social impact, and it contains significant contradictions and false findings that were exposed in public
comments and in the media. Some stated plans contained in the DEIS were outright flawed, as admitted by a DOD consultant. Several
major
concerns have been raised with respect to the following issues: the impact of up to nearly 80,000 additional people on
land, infrastructure and services; the “acquisition” of 2,200 acres for military use; the impact
of dredging 70 acres of vibrant coral reef for a nuclear aircraft carrier berth; and the extent to
which the much-touted economic growth would benefit local communities. Impacts of population
increase. A top estimate for increased population is nearly 80,000, a 47 percent increase over current levels; including troops, support staff,
contractors, family members, and foreign construction workers. Proponents emphasize that the construction workers constitute a transient labor force
that will leave when their contracts are over. Others argue that some will stay, marry, have children, and hope to get other work, as happened during
the last major period of military construction in the 1970s. These people will be an added burden on local services that are already stretched to
capacity because they will be housed off-base, will not use on-base medical services, and will be consumers of the island’s infrastructural resources.
Impacts on land and ocean. The military seeks to acquire an additional 2,200 acres of private and public land, which would bring its land holdings to 40
percent of the island. Included in the lands ear-marked for acquisition is the oldest Chamorro village of Pagat, registered at the Department of Historic
Preservation as an archaeological site, with ancient latte stones of great cultural significance. The Marines propose to use the higher land, above the
historic site, for live fire training but seek to control the entire area, from the higher land down to the ocean, where there are beautiful beaches. This
proposal, described as “sacrilege” by local people, would restrict their access to the site to just seven weeks out of the year. The military already has a
live-fire range on Guam and also on Tinian, where it controls nearly two-thirds of the island through leases with the government of the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Many community members argue that the military, which already controls a third of the land area of Guam,
should stay within this existing “footprint”. A key question is whether the DOD would purchase, lease, or use powers of eminent domain to acquire land
identified in the DEIS. Addressing the Guam Legislature on February 16, 2010, Congresswoman Bordallo formally opposed the use of eminent domain
for the acquisition of lands. Speaking of Nelson family clan land designated for acquisition, Gloria Nelson, former Director of the Department of
Education, stated in a DOD-sponsored public hearing on the Marianas Build-Up, “I don’t want to talk about the market value of my land because my
land is not on the market.” Another highly controversial proposal is the creation of a berth for a
nuclear aircraft carrier, which will
involve the detonation and removal of 70 acres of vibrant coral reef in Apra Harbor. Environmentalists and
local communities oppose this on the grounds that coral provides habitat for a rich diversity of marine life and
is endangered worldwide. Environmentalists also question how the disposal of huge quantities of dredged
material would affect ocean life and warn that such invasive dredging may spread contaminants
that have been left undisturbed in deep-water areas of the harbor. Opposition to this plan has been expressed
by the Guam Fishermen’s Cooperative and the U.S.-based Center for Biological Diversity. On February 24, 2010, Guam Senator Judith Guthertz wrote a
letter to the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, reiterating her proposal that the existing fuel pier that has been used by the USS Kitty Hawk be used as
the site for the additional berthing to avoid the proposed dredging of Apra Harbor. Such an alternative plan would avoid the destruction of acres of live
coral.
Continuous US military buildup on Guam leads to environmental devastation,
water shortages, gender violence, and displacement of indigenous peoples
Alexander 11, Ronni, professor of transnational relations at the Graduate School of
International Cooperation Studies, Kobe University , Militarized Memory and Anti-Base Activism
in Guam (draft), Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association
Annual Conference "Global Governance: Political Authority in Transition", Le Centre Sheraton
Montreal Hotel, MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA, Mar 16, 2011
On Guam, Okinawa and elsewhere, far from enhancing security, US bases bring insecurity. They are,
first and foremost, infrastructure for war. As such, they not only make war possible, but bring the
threat of attack to the communities in which they are located. Even without war, toxic
chemicals, wastes and other substances threaten the environment and health of the
surrounding communities and those living on the bases. The physical imprint of the bases
remains on the bodies of those who have been victim to accidents, rape, gender violence, or
other criminal acts, but the shadow of the military colonialism does not end there. It leaves an
indelible mark on the hearts and minds of the local community. Even in times of peace, bases deny sovereignty
and self-determination, ignore human rights, and threaten the culture, values and resources
of the host communities. After more than 100 years of US rule, the US military occupies close
to one half of Guam and about 35,000 military personnel and their dependents are stationed there. The people of
Guam have no say in the Pentagon’s strategic decisions, even those directly affecting them.
Military bases and tourism are the main sources of employment, both of which serve to raise the cost of living. Already, the
disparity in wages coupled with demand for land for development and military purposes has
forced many Chamorus to relinquish their land in order to survive. When large naval ships
come and the hotels are full, the water supply for local residents is turned off and there are
major water shortages.19 Education and health care facilities for local residents are already
over burdened, and job opportunities limited. Many young people, already prepared by JROTC,20
believe enlisting in the US military to be the only viable option for their future, and for many
Chamorus, the only alternative seems to be moving to Hawaii or the US mainland. So many have left that they now number less than
40% of the total population21 and many of the remaining young people feel that the only source of work and a future lies in joining
the US military (Aguon 2008). This
trend underlies the appeal of the Guahan Indigenous Collective to the
bring an end to the “great exodus” of “young Chamorus, doctors, teachers
and future leaders leaving the island as US Marines, fighter aircraft bombers, unmanned aerial
vehicles, fast-attack nuclear submarines and foreign construction workers take their place”
UN Decolonization Committee to
(Aguon 2006).
Military buildup is an act of colonial violence - indigenous people are rendered
invisible while Guam has become a US military state that fortifies US
sovereignty
Woodward 2013 (V.S., "I Guess They Didn't Want Us Asking Too Many Questions": Reading
American Empire in Guam, The Contemporary Pacific, Volume 25, Number 1, Spring 2013, pp.
67-91 (Article), p.72-73, AX)
Linda Kerber’s essay “Toward a History of Statelessness in America” (2005) uses Hannah Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism (2004) to
ground her examination of the relationship between these supposedly
inalienable “rights of man” and national
belonging. While these rights—including freedom, the pursuit of happiness, and a right to life and
participation in civic life—are supposedly universal and abstract, we see in fact that they are very particularly rooted in
national belonging. Rights that are supposedly universal become unenforceable for people who lack a
government to guarantee them. As Arendt has pointed out, “if the laws of their country did not live up to the demands
of the Rights of Man, they were expected to change them, by legislation in democratic countries or through revolutionary action in
despotism” (quoted in Kerber 2005, 732). The issue is that while
Guam technically belongs to the US nation,
the island is invisible in the everyday workings of government because of its perceived
remoteness and its small population. The people of Guam have attempted to change the terms
of their status through political and legislative channels. The United States, however, has
thwarted almost all attempts through simple inaction or amnesia. As Laurel Monnig pointed out, “Lost
and forgotten petitions filed in a black-hole bureaucratic drawer somewhere, more important agendas to attend, and the circuitous
dead-end negotiations. . . . It speaks to the fact that the
US (particularly naval) administrations wanted Chamorro
practices themselves to be filed away and forgotten” (2007, 58–59). By “forgetting” about Guam,
the United States can also conveniently forget about its own status as imperial nation. However,
authors such as Howard and Perez insistently work against this amnesia and instead use their particular types of knowledge to insist
on making visible what the United States wants to hide. The various discourses from and about Guam, legal and otherwise, embody
the contradictions that occur when we have the discourse of liberation and rights side by side with the denial of those rights under
the colonial rule of the American empire. Guam’s
status as “not-US” functions as the state’s “Other” and
the United States is able to fortify its own sovereignty through its imaginative opposition to
places like Guam— places that are “dependent,” “invisible,” and “non-sovereign.”3 While there are
many justifications for the United States to continue to ignore the wishes of the indigenous people of Guam, one
of the most compelling reasons that it wants to keep Guam hidden is so that it can continue to expand its military
operations on the “American Lake” without the inconvenience of dealing with sovereign
foreign nations. Guam has the advantage of being US soil but without the pesky social and political uproar that would
accompany similar measures in the continental United States or in other nations. The long history of Guam’s use as a
military base of operations in the Pacific by a colonial administration continues without
abatement , and we can see how dealing with this long history necessarily shapes the daily
lives of those living there. In Mariquita, the narratives of paternalistic racism, the use of the female
body as a metaphor for the land, and the cloaking of militaristic intentions with the rhetoric of
romantic love are all present.
This colonial control of Guam has been made possible through strategic
designation of Marine National Monuments, designed to institute the
environment as a new model for the federal government’s profitability,
displacing indigenous populations and creating environmental destruction in
the process
Perez 6/26/2014
(Craig Santos, Chamorro poet and Assistant Professor in the English Department at the University of Hawai’i, Manoa, writing in the
Pacific Pivot, “Blue-washing the colonization and militarization of “our ocean””, http://hawaiiindependent.net/story/blue-washingthe-colonization-and-militarization-of-our-ocean, AX)
President Obama recently announced plans
to expand the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National
Monument from 87,000 square miles to nearly 782,000 square miles. Despite the media framing this
move as a victory for ocean conservation, the truth is that these monuments will further colonize, militarize and
privatize the Pacific. Many mistakenly refer to marine “monuments” as “sanctuaries” because they are both “marine
protected areas.” However, an official sanctuary is designated by the Secretary of Commerce under
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, which requires “extensive public process, local community engagement,
stakeholder involvement, and citizen participation, both prior to and following designation.” On the other hand, the
President unilaterally designates marine monuments through the Antiquities Act of 1906. No
public process is required. The first and largest Marine National Monument was established in 2006: The Papahānaumokuākea
Marine National Monument (140,000 square miles). Three more marine monuments were established in 2009: The Marianas Trench
Marine National Monument (95,000 square miles); The Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (87,000 square miles);
and The Rose Atoll Marine National Monument (13,000 square miles). The total “protected” area, with Obama’s expansion, would
be more than a million square miles of “small islands, atolls, coral reefs, submerged lands, and deep blue waters.” Why has this
antiquited, unilateral process suddenly become so popular? Why are U.S. presidents from both sides of the political divide sidestepping Congressional approval and—more importantly—public participation and scrutiny? It’s important to understand that
establishing a marine national monument, reserve, or refuge places our coastal and open
ocean waters under federal control. The marine monuments are administered by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (under the Department of Commerce) or by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (under the Department of
the Interior). This
ocean and submerged land grab by the federal government severely limits
public access and trust. Additionally, these monuments violate the rights of indigenous peoples by
separating us from our sacred spaces. Traditional fishing grounds or ritual spaces may no
longer be accessible. If there are exceptions for indigenous rites, we will need to apply for a permit and receive federal
approval. How Do Marine Reserves Militarize the Ocean? As I wrote about in a previous editorial, the
U.S. military
removed the original landowners of Litekyan (Ritidian), an area in northern Guam, under eminent domain
in 1963, and the Navy used the area as a communications station during the Cold War. Thirty years later, 1,000 acres of the
land was deemed “excess.” Instead of that land being returned to the families, it was
transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and designated a “National Wildlife Refuge.”
Today, four thousand acres of Litekyan is now being considered for a live firing range complex. You see, designating land
and water as a monument, refuge, reserve, or even sanctuary keeps the land under federal
control as opposed to public (and indigenous) trust. So if the military ever wants to use the land
in the future, it can simply be converted (or re-converted in the case of Litekyan) from the Department of the
Interior or Commerce to the Department of Defense. This is the “logic of military conservation.” Many
marine monuments house strategic military bases. For example, the marine monuments of the Pacific are home to U.S. bases on
Guam, Tinian, Saipan, Rota, Farallon de Medinilla, Wake Island and Johnston Island, to name a few. The reason why military bases
can be within marine monuments is because “nothing in the proclamations impairs or otherwise affects the activities of the
Department of Defense. Among other things, the DoD is ensured full freedom of navigation in accordance with the law of the sea,
and the U.S. Navy can continue effective training to maintain its antisubmarine warfare and other capabilities.” In other words, the
military is exempt from most environmental regulations and prohibitions. Ironically, the
public may no longer be
allowed to fish in these “protected” areas because it might affect the fragile ocean ecosystem,
yet the military can conduct weapons training and testing. Remember, marine monuments are
not designed to protect the ocean from the U.S. military, one of the worst polluters in the
world. In fact the opposite is true: they are designed to allow easier military access. As activists in Hawai’i
know, these national monuments could become “watery graves” for endangered species when
military training occurs. Besides providing more federally controlled space for the U.S. military
to train, marine monuments give military bases another layer of secrecy from the public . This
buffer strategy is spreading to other nations. During the meeting of the U.S. State Department sponsored Our Ocean conference last
week in Washington DC, other countries announced similar plans to federalize massive ocean areas, including Palau, Kiribati, the
Cook Islands and the Bahamas. These
new marine reserves will become military sanctuaries, buffer
zones and watery bases for the U.S. military as it forcefully positions itself in the Asia-Pacific
region (and uses “illegal fishing” as justification to militarize these marine reserves). We need
to be critical of these efforts. Read about what happened to the Cayos Cochinos, an island group in the Carribean off
Honduras, during the twenty years after they were declared a “protected area.” The Afro-Indigenous Garifuna
peoples have been displaced from their lands and fishing grounds. Tourism developers and other private
industries have invested in and exploited the islands. And, you guessed it, the U.S. military is using the area for
basing and training, providing millions of dollars of aid to the Honduras government. This is what will happen to countries
that ally with the U.S. in this colonial conservation scheme. In 2009, Britian designated a marine protected area around the Chagos
islands. However, the waters around the island of Diego Garcia, which is the site of one of the most secretive overseas U.S. military
bases, was exempted. How bizarre: a secretive U.S. military base in the Indian Ocean surrounded by a 200-mile marine preserve
controlled by the British government. Peter Sand, in “The Chagos Archipelago: Footprint of Empire, or World Heritage?”, pointedly
asks whether these
new marine reserves are “an anachronistic example of ‘environmental
imperialism’, or evidence of an equally outdated variant of ‘fortress conservation’ that disregards human
rights under the noble guise of nature protection.” Either way, the Chagossians who were removed from their
islands may never be able to return. How do Private Corporations Benefit from Marine Monuments? As I mentioned before, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is under the Department of Commerce (DOC). Does that seem strange to
you? It certainly seems strange to Obama, when he joked during his 2011 State of the Union address: “The Interior Department is in
charge of salmon while they’re in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them when they’re in saltwater.” Obama
wants to move NOAA to the Department of the Interior. Joking aside, it actually makes perfect (or perverse) sense that NOAA
remains in DOC, which promotes trade and economic development. A few years ago, then Secretary-of-State Hillary Clinton dubbed
the 21st century: “America’s Pacific Century.” This strategic turn aims to expand trade, investment, and militarization throughout
the Asia-Pacific region. The cornerstone of America’s Pacific Century is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade agreement
that has been described as “NAFTA on steroids.” As Clinton stated, the continued economic growth of the region depends on the
“security and stability that has long been guaranteed by the U.S. military.” It is not surprising that TPP negotiations, as well as
militarization proposals in the Pacific, intensified around the same time that President Bush designated the first marine monument
in 2006. So what are these economic opportunities, and what does the TPP have to do with the surge of marine national monuments
and reserves designated by the U.S. federal government and its allies? First, the
more military sanctuaries the U.S.
has around the world, the more federal tax money will be spent to secure these areas for
investment, which means more profit for the military industrial complex and private defense
firms. Second, does something smell fishy? The justification for many of these marine reserves is to prevent illegal fishing and fish
fraud, especially from China. With a massive fleet of 2,000 distant-water, state-subsidized fishing vessels, China catches nearly five
tons of fish a year, worth more than $10 billion—some legally and some illegally. In contrast, nearly 90 percent of seafood consumed
in the U.S. is imported. By establishing marine monuments, and encouraging its allies in the Pacific to do the same, the U.S. could
effectively shut out China from Pacific tuna waters. In turn, private U.S. tuna corporations could negotiate contracts with Pacific
allied nations to develop Pacific fisheries or to obtain exclusive fishing rights within the marine reserves (as well as access to cheap
labor and canneries). This comes at a time when foreign-owned and American-owned canned-tuna companies are battling for
control over our kids’ school lunches. Billions of dollars of tuna are on the plate. Third, wherever you find a national monument, you
will find a tourism industry. The Cayos Cochinos is a prime example. The government that
controls the marine
monument can permit private companies to operate tourism centers, hotels, ecoadventures—all in the name of development and jobs. The concessions throughout the U.S. National Park
Service are owned and operated by private companies, which gross over $1 billion annually. There are more than 500 companies,
from food to lodging to adventure sports to retail, that have contracts with the National Parks. Of course, the
entire National
Park system was one way of displacing Native American presence on these lands. Fourth, the
Pacific has long been a “laboratory” for Western science and technology. Since another
justification for marine reserves is scientific research, then we will see many more unprecedented grants for
oceanography research. This research can be transformed into profit by private industries, such as
deep-sea mining, geo-thermal energy, open-ocean (genetically modified) aquaculture, and
pharmaceutical drugs derived from ocean microbial bacteria. New Zealand established a Marine Mammal
Sanctuary in 2008 to protect engangered dolphins, yet it is now considering opening the area up for oil drilling. This is not a
contradiction; this is exactly what these conservation schemes are designed for. Lastly, do you want to see Avatar 2 with me when it
comes out? In 2012, James Cameron dived in a submarine to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, the deepest point on earth, which is
protected by the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument. He lit up the trench with an eight-foot tower of LED lighting to film
3D footage. In another celebrity sighting, Leonardo DiCaprio made a cameo at the State Department’s Our Ocean conference,
donating $7 milllion towards marine reserves. Apparently, he’s a diving enthusiast. What is Blue-Washing? In
the 21st
century, national marine monuments, marine parks, marine preserves, marine refuges,
marine sanctuaries and their other iterations are instruments that empower the federal
government to take land and water away from indigenous and public access, scrutiny, and
trust. The “marine monuments” are especially dangerous because they do not require—nor are
they accountable to—legislative or public comment, engagement, or approval. As David Vine, in
“Environmental Protection of Bases,” notes: “For all the benefits that marine protection areas might bring,
governments are using environmentalism as a cover to protect the long-term life of
environmentally harmful bases. The designation also helps governments hold onto strategic
territories.” Furthermore, these designations give the governments of the U.S. and its neoliberal
allies the power to create contracts with private corporations to exploit the resources of our
ocean for profit and not for the public good. Let’s call this a form of “Blue-washing.” The word “monument” comes
from the Latin, monumentum, meaning “grave” or “memorial.” If our oceans continue to become national
marine monuments, our blue ocean will indeed become a watery grave, a memorial to the
beauty, richness, and biodiversity that once was.
Plan
Thus the plan: The US Federal Government should prohibit military development in the
Marianas Trench National Monument.
Thus the plan: The US Federal Government should make development in the Marianas Trench
National Monument exclusive to local, nonmilitary actors.
Limit dev to traditional subsistence fishing
promote local sustainable development in the Marianas Trench National Monument.
Solvency
The people of Guam must be given full control of Guam’s waters to protect the
ecosystems and local culture from military buildup
Vine and Pemberton 9, David and Miriam, assistant professor in Anthropology at American University, Research
Fellow at the institute for Policy Studies, “Marine Protection as Empire Expansion,” May 6 2009,
(http://fpif.org/marine_protection_as_empire_expansion/), DOA: 7/20/14
At the 100-day mark, the new president has tackled an extraordinarily wide-ranging agenda, but one item will need his attention soon: closing the
empire of U.S. bases around the world. One place to start is to reverse the marine protection areas that the last president established in the Pacific. In a
last-minute bid to salvage a legacy, President George W. Bush
created three new protected marine areas in the
Pacific. Environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council applauded. But the situation is more complicated than it looks. Why
would a president who rarely saw a public land or off-shore site he didn’t want to drill on, and whose climate change policies have done
lasting damage to oceans and their inhabitants worldwide, exhibit such concern for marine life in these particular
faraway places? One possible clue: This protective blanket will extend only 50 miles beyond land, rather than the 200 that the law permits.
Could it be his real concern was for the land itself rather than for the water around it? Because
these aren’t just any Pacific islands. Two — Wake and Johnston — are home to important U.S. military installations, while a
huge area of protected ocean encompassing the Mariana Trench borders U.S. military bases
on Guam, Saipan, Rota, Tinian, and Farallon de Medinilla. The islands are right now at the receiving end of a major eastward shift in the U.S.
military base infrastructure from concentrating bases and troops in Europe and Okinawa, Japan to concentrations elsewhere in Asia and the Mariana
Islands in particular. Guam
is set to receive an additional 8,000 Marines and 40,000 civilians on an
island where the military already controls one-third of all land. In designating the protected
areas, the White House took pains to say that “nothing” in this action “impairs or otherwise
affects the activities of the U.S. Department of Defense.” Many in Guam are opposed to the
expansion of the military’s presence, concerned about increased crime, accidents, violence
against women, health and environmental damage, and other forms of social and cultural
disruption. And remember too that the islands involved are effectively U.S. colonies without full voting
rights and congressional representation and are still on the UN’s list of territories slated for
decolonization. Whatever else it may do, the marine monument designation will add a positive
environmentalist spin to the permanent U.S claim on these territories as military outposts.
But this spin has a problem. Military bases and regular military operations are notorious for
their harmful impact on the environment. Such damage includes the blasting of pristine coral
reefs, clear-cutting of virgin forests, deploying underwater sonar dangerous to marine life,
leaching carcinogenic pollutants into the soil and seas from lax toxic waste storage and
military accidents, and using land and sea for target practice, decimating ecosystems with
exploded and unexploded munitions. Guam alone is home to 19 Superfund sites. It’s hard to imagine that the
net result of base-expansion-plus-monument-designation will be good for the surrounding
marine life. In fact, the case of Vieques, Puerto Rico, offers a telling precedent: After locals won a decades-long fight to evict the Navy from their
island, the Pentagon was exempted from cleaning up most of the environmental disaster area it left behind when the federal government declared the
former base a “wildlife refuge.” How
then can these precious resources really be protected? First, and
most importantly, the Pentagon cannot be exempted from environmental regulations.
Second, full control over Wake Island and Johnston Atoll should immediately be transferred from the Department of Defense to the Department of
the Interior — there’s no reason that the Pentagon should have its own private islands. Third, the people of Guam and the rest of
the Northern Mariana Islands should be given full control over the areas above and below the
water surrounding its territory in full accordance with international law. To fulfill the Pacific
marine reserve’s promise of environmental protection and conservation, environmental
groups initially enthusiastic about the Bush plan must unite with allies on Capitol Hill and a growing movement of those critical of the Pentagon’s
expanding reach to press the new administration to reverse this expansion. Those concerned about the environment must make sure that
the Pentagon does not use the mantle of environmental protection as a cover for its profligate
and environmentally damaging plans to use military bases to control the Pacific. With around 1,000
military bases outside the 50 states — each one a possible environmental disaster area — now is the time when we should be closing
and consolidating our overseas bases, not finding new and increasingly stealthy ways to
solidify their presence.
Discussions of Guam militarization are critical to decolonize our knowledge of
identity, security, and globalization
Alexander 11, Ronni, professor of transnational relations at the Graduate School of
International Cooperation Studies, Kobe University , Militarized Memory and Anti-Base Activism
in Guam (draft), Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association
Annual Conference "Global Governance: Political Authority in Transition", Le Centre Sheraton
Montreal Hotel, MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA, Mar 16, 2011
As a result, opposing
the proposed military build-up entails serious questioning about the
meaning of citizenship on, and for, Guam. Being Chamoru means rethinking one’s identity as a woman or as a man.
Opposing militarization and the build-up thus requires people to question who they are, what their life choices have meant, and
‘how they remember themselves to be.’ It is a difficult task, but one which in the end might enable Chamoru to assert their
authenticity and relieve their anguish. What can this tell us about the praxis of opposing the military build-up on Guam? I suggest
there are three lessons. The first is that this
is not a single issue, not something that can be promoted
successfully only as an anti-base/anti-military campaign. Therefore, practice needs to address the
underlying issues of identity, not as identity politics but through an understanding of how
certain identities serve to negate others. Gendered identities are made more complex by
militarization which further de-legitimizes non-Western gender identities. Being a tough Chamoru
woman should not have to be the same as being a macho American soldier. The second is the power of distance,
language, and racialized, colonial notions of identity to make some things visible, and disguise
and/or deny others. Military colonialism is possible on Guam because in the world of
terrorism and globalization, military bases have become normalized and the outside world
remains conveniently uncurious as to what takes place on small and distant islands. Practice
therefore needs to focus on Guam, but also on educating the rest of the world. The third is that
educating the world should not be the sole responsibility of the Chamoru. Regardless of where we were raised or
currently reside, we have internalized many of the beliefs about security/safety/risk/threat/
and growth/development that underlie the military build-up. Praxis needs to take into
account and address the ways in which we, in disciplining ourselves, support the power
relations that call for military build-ups in places like Guam.