Category: DMZ-Hawai’i / Aloha ‘Aina In the News

Posted on

Court Rules that Army Stryker Brigade decision was illegal

October 2006

A Win for Hawai’i! – Court Rules that Army Stryker Brigade decision was illegal

A federal appeals court ruled that the Army violated the National Environmental Policy Act by not considering alternative sites for the proposed Stryker Brigade expansion. This should halt all Stryker related projects in Hawai’i until another environmental impact statement can be prepared. This is an important win for the people of Hawai’i and the ‘aina, but the Stryker Brigade threat is not over.

Court of Appeals Rules: Army Violated Law In Bringing Stryker Brigade To
Hawai`i EarthJustice Press Release (October 5, 2006)

Stryker base here is found illegal Honolulu Star Bulletin (October 6, 2006)

Ruling holds up Stryker Brigade Honolulu Advertiser (October 6, 2006)

Posted on

Locals pound kapa to enshroud ancient bones

The Molokai Dispatch published a story about a kapa-making workshop on Molokai led by Mililani Hanapi.  Terri Keko’olani was one of the participants. She is one of the claimants for burials at Mokapu, site of the Marine Corps Base Hawaii Kaneohe Bay:

At the Kewanui fish pond last Sunday, 44 international students learned the Hawaiian craft of kapa-making from Mililani Hanapi as a lesson in the making of traditional clothes, but the Wauke bark they pounded will not be worn by anyone living. Hanapi, along with Terrilee Kekoolani-Raymond of Oahu and several other volunteers, are preparing the kapa for the traditional burial of the largest collection of skeletal remains in the pacific – the bones of Mo`okapu on the island of Oahu.

The kapa prepared on Molokai will be used to wrap the individual bones for reburial. The skeletal remains of 1500 individuals have been stored at the Bishop Museum since 1942, when they were extracted from the Mookapu sand dunes to clear the way for a military airstrip. The US Marine Corps has been in control of the area since 1952.

Although she agrees that University of Hawaii archaeologists have learned invaluable information about Hawaiian history from the remains, Kekoolani-Raymond says that the excavation of the bones represented an assault on the Kahiko of Mo`okapu. She is part of a group of families and organizations who have come together to take responsibility for the proper reburying of their ancestors.

The bones have been released for reburial because of movement led by people in the Oahu community who are federal claimants under the NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation) Act. NAGPRA is a federal law that requires federal agencies to allow federal tribes to obtain culturally affiliated human remains and artifacts. “It is a matter of respect,” explained Kekoolani-Raymond, “This is our way of saying we are sorry. We are so sorry for allowing this to happen.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Posted on

Groups call for halt of destructive activities in Lihu’e

Today, DMZ-Hawai’i / Aloha ‘Aina called for an end to the destructive activities in Lihu’e, O’ahu, in particular the activities that threaten Hale’au’au Heiau.

Public Statement
28 July 2006

Army must cease and desist destructive Stryker activities to sacred sites in Lihu‘e plains

In public hearings in 2003, the community overwhelmingly opposed the U.S. Army’s proposed Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) expansion. Many spoke to the fate of cultural sites in the sacred landscape of Lihu‘e and Leilehua, including the birthstones of Kukaniloko and the heiau Hale’au’au.  The Army’s own Environmental Impact Statement for SBCT admitted that its expansion plans would cause “significant impacts” to wahi pana (sacred sites) in Lihu’e and Pohakuloa. A lawsuit by three Kanaka Maoli groups challenging the adequacy of the Army’s environmental impact statement is still on appeal.  Despite the community’s rejection of the Stryker expansion and the irreparable harm it would cause to the environment and to cultural sites and practices, the Army is proceeding with its plans.

DMZ-Hawaii/Aloha ‘Aina has obtained information indicating that the US Army was forced to halt unexploded ordnance clearance activities in Lihu’e, the site of its proposed Battle Area Complex due to alleged violations of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Programmatic Agreement governing the protection of cultural sites.  Cultural monitors reported that workers had bulldozed across a protective site buffer for Hale’au’au Heiau and cited numerous other violations of the Programmatic Agreement.  OHA has threatened a lawsuit for violations of the Programmatic Agreement.

DMZ-Hawai’i / Aloha ‘Aina maintains that the proposed Stryker Brigade expansion wrongfully utilizes Hawaiian national lands (“Ceded Lands”) and is incompatible with Hawaiian values of aloha ‘aina and malama ‘aina.

DMZ-Hawaii/Aloha ‘Aina calls on the US Army to immediately:

  1. Cease and desist all Stryker Brigade expansion activities, especially the destructive activities to the sacred Lihu‘e and Leilehua plains.  It is impossible to “mitigate” desecration.
  2. Conduct a thorough damage assessment of Kanaka Maoli cultural and sacred sites in Stryker project areas.
  3. Conduct cultural surveys of all affected lands, as required by the Programmatic Agreement, under the auspices of qualified Kanaka Maoli cultural experts.
  4. Make public all documents related to the documentation and preservation of na wahi pana and the removal of unexploded ordnance in Stryker project areas.
  5. Provide adequate resources (time and money) for na kia’i (cultural monitors), so that they may perform their important work unhindered.
  6. We demand immediate religious access to the affected sites, to see what has been done, and to perform cleansing rituals.

In spite of the U.S. illegal occupation of our homeland, we still bear the kuleana of maintaining the life of the land.  DMZ Hawaii/Aloha ‘Aina expects a prompt and favorable response to this request.

Jim Albertini, Malu Aina & DMZ Hawaii/Aloha ‘Aina
Brian Bilsky
Kat Brady
Donna Ann Kameaha’iku Camvel
Keli’i Collier, DMZ Hawaii/Aloha ‘Aina
Shannan Collier, DMZ Hawaii/Aloha ‘Aina
Fred Dodge, MD and ‘Ohana, Malama Makua
Cory Harden
Hawai’i Okinawa Alliance
Gail Hunter
Ikaika Hussey, DMZ Hawaii/Aloha ‘Aina
Kyle Kajihiro, American Friends Service Committee Hawai’i
Terri Keko’olani, Ohana Koa / Nuclear Free & Independent Pacific
Colleen Kelly
John Kelly
Marion Kelly
Gwen Kim, Ohana Koa/ Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific
Mauna Kea Anaina Hou
Kala’iokamalino Kim Niheu
Kalamaoka’aina Niheu, MD
Soli Kihei Niheu
Hekili Pae’aina
Sparky Rodrigues, Malama Makua
Puanani Rogers, Hookipa Network
Not In Our Name-Hawai`i
Andre Perez, Hui Pu
Anjali Puri
Cha Smith, KAHEA
Martha Townsend, KAHEA
Veterans for Peace
Leandra Wai, Malama Makua
Imai Winchester, Halau Ku Mana

Posted on

Did the fight to stop the UARC fail?

Game Over

Did the fight to stop UARC fail?

Chris Haire
Feb 1, 2006

Some six hours into the public testimony before the University of Hawai’i’s Board of Regents, the moment arrives. Hope dies. It’s a moment that has been long in coming.

Now it appears there is nothing anyone can do to stop the University Assisted Research Center from dropping anchor at University of Hawai’i-Manoa. Not the loose coalition of faculty, students and members of the public. Not Chancellor Denise Konan. Not even Interim President David McClain. The only group who has any control over the fate of UARC is the Board of Regents. And they’re not likely to tell the U.S. Navy that UH is an unfriendly port. After all, that body, featuring executives at the Bank of Hawai’i, Central Pacific Bank, Maui Petroleum and other businesses, knows all too well the power of the dollar.

After the tense moments at the start of the meeting, through the grueling question-and-answer session with Konan, through the impassioned but rambling tirades of anti-UARC activists and on through the cool and collected arguments of the program’s technorati supporters, it feels as if UARC will in fact become a reality. At least that is how it appears watching Hina Wong, who is standing at the podium in front of the board, the Hawaiian flag by her side.

The flag wasn’t there before. In fact, for the entirety of the meeting, the flag was stationed in the back of the Manoa Campus Center Ballroom behind the board. How did it get where it is now? Simply put, she took it. Wong marched around the velvet rope that separates the audience from the board, walked over to the flag and carried it away.

As Wong begins her speech, it is clear that the final death rattle has begun after several hours of fever dreams and tremors. The sound is unpleasant. It is uncomfortable. It is unfortunate. Wong says that she will not wish the board ‘aloha.’ She says that she is not an American. She says that UARC is hewa. She says that the University of Hawai’i is not pono.

When Wong finally walks out of the ballroom carrying the Hawaiian flag, it is less a march of defiance than an unintended funeral procession, except that no one walks behind her. Many still believe UARC can be stopped. And they are clutching their beliefs like a child holds the body of a decapitated Raggedy Ann doll. Many cheer as Wong exits the hall.

Not surprisingly, Board chair Kitty Lagareta doesn’t. She doesn’t even appear fazed by Wong’s action. She doesn’t even acknowledge it. She simply calls the next speaker and gets on with the business at hand, bringing an end to this seemingly never-ending meeting. It has nearly an hour of life left in it. Its pulse is still strong.

Earlier it appeared that the Stop UARC crowd had all but secured a victory. Chancellor Konan gave the proposal a thumbs down. The UH Faculty Senate gave the research center a kick to the curb. The student body gave it the middle finger. Depending on who you talked to, the supporters were either too few or too timid. Either way, they kept a low profile.

Outside of the ballroom, a table is covered with fluorescent yellow printouts. They read, ‘Save UH. Stop UARC’ and ‘Hewa,’ Hawaiian for ‘wrong,’ ‘evil,’ ‘sin.’ For a recommended $10 donation, interested parties can purchase a T-shirt featuring a soldier pointing a rifle at a student sitting behind a desk. Inside of the ballroom, there are printouts, published reports and pencils imprinted with the words, ‘Save UH/Stop UARC.’ Two banners are hung up on the wall. One reads, ‘Not here. Not there. Not Anywhere.’

As for the supporters of UARC, what do they have? There are no banners. There are no T-shirts. There are no pencils. They have no presence. With this kind of support one wonders how the UARC proposal has gotten along as far as it has with so few public advocates.

Perhaps it’s because the Stop UARC crowd has a better argument on their side. Perhaps it’s because they have already won the debate. Their argument is rather straightforward:

A vote for UARC is a vote against academic freedom. Under the proposed UARC, professors will be forbidden to share some of their research materials with their peers, a practice at the heart of scholarship. Among those materials that aren’t classified, the military will decide what is too sensitive to be released and what is not. They alone make the call.

A vote for UARC is a vote against equal rights. Unlike UH, the Navy-controlled UARC could conceivably bar anyone who admitted they were homosexual. One lawyer has suggested the don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy would violate Hawai’i state law and open the door to a lawsuit.

A vote for UARC is a vote against peace. Consider this: If UARC is a military-assisted research center and if the military’s purpose is to prepare for and wage war, wouldn’t the center’s reason for existence be essentially one and the same? Does UH want to be so closely tied to the military? Does it want to be responsible, as some critics have charged, with developing the weapons of the future?

A vote for UARC is a vote against native Hawaiians. In this day and age when the issue of native sovereignty is not only a common topic of debate but, thanks to the Akaka bill, a possible reality, a move to further expand the grip the U.S. Armed Forces has on Hawai’i, will be viewed unfavorably by many in the native Hawaiian community, especially those who still bristle over the role the U.S. military played in overthrowing the Kingdom of Hawai’i. It is best perhaps for the university to avoid earning their ire.

However, there is one thing the supporters have on their side-the Navy’s word that they will shuffle $50 million into UH coffers. But even that argument holds only so much water. After all, UH will have to spend $3.5 million to get the program up and running. Even worse, there is simply no guarantee in the UARC contract that the Navy will put up the money. In fact, the $50 million figure touted by UH officials isn’t anywhere in there. What is mentioned instead is a deal to provide UH with funds for 1,000 staff hours, whatever that might be worth.

In the end, the chips are UH’s to bet. It appears to be a gamble the board is willing to take.

The meeting gets off to a shaky start. Ikaika Hussey, a Stop UARC volunteer and the leader of the anti-Akaka bill group Hui Pu, steps up to the podium and asks Chairman Lagareta if he can read a statement from Stop UARC before the hearing begins. Lagareta informs him that the meeting hasn’t begun yet. Hussey asks again, saying that he doesn’t want to interrupt the meeting. Lagareta says the meeting has to start now. Hussey refuses to leave the podium. He speaks. Lagareta bangs the gavel once. He continues to argue. Lagareta bangs the gavel in quick succession. She calls the meeting to order. Hussey remains at the podium.

Throughout the entire exchange, Chancellor Konan has been standing at the podium beside Hussey, awaiting her chance to speak. After a brief introduction by Lagareta, Hussey relinquishes his hold on the podium.

Konan begins. It’s not a pretty sight. She isn’t a particularly polished public speaker. She stammers. She’s shaky. Her tone is monotonous. Judging by the glazed eyes in the audience, she might as well be reading from the phone book.

The chancellor says she believes UARC will undermine the faculty’s faith in the governance of the university. She laments the amount of wasted time, money and energy the entire discussion has taken. She encourages the board to put their time and energy into developing other less controversial projects.

However, she also mentions how the university gets a substantial share of its revenue from research money. Tuition revenue and state funds can’t cover the bills. Of the top 100 researchers who bring in money for the school, Konan says, the vast majority support UARC. According to one speaker later in the meeting, 70 percent of all engineering research at the school is funded by the Department of Defense. It is a nasty realization. UH is addicted to research money, and the DOD is their dealer. Of course, this doesn’t change the fact that junk is junk.

And while Konan mentions the issues that have been raised by the students, faculty and public-a loss of academic freedom, fears about being in bed with the military, offending native sensibilities-she also brings up one of the more curious concerns of the pro-UARC crowd: Some faculty believe that a decision to ban the military-assisted research center would interfere with their academic freedom to engage in the type of research UARC would engage in. It is the same sort of mental gymnastics performed by Judge Roy Moore and his posse when they argue that their right to religious expression is censored when they are forbidden to place the Ten Commandments in public buildings. It is doublespeak.

If the board announces that they have voted in favor of UARC, there is a good chance these two points will be mentioned-the university’s dependence on research money from the U.S. government and the Orwellian version of the academic freedom argument.

But in the end, no matter how sound the board believes their arguments to be, they cannot flatly dismiss the concerns of the faculty, the students and the public. There will have to be a compromise.

During Konan’s Q&A session with the board-in which Lagareta and company fail to ask the chancellor how the approval of UARC might be affect campus life, how it would stifle academic freedom, how it could infringe upon the rights of homosexuals, how it would give UH a more prominent role in weapons research, how it would offend the feelings of some native Hawaiians-it becomes clear exactly what that compromise will be, that is, if the content of the board’s questions can offer any indication what their intentions may be:

UARC will be moved off campus.

Feel free to curse or cry, applaud or breathe a sigh of relief. You have choices.

Some might consider the Stop UARC crowd a rude bunch. During testimony, they heckle. They shout. They chant from time to time. This is to be expected for the most part. In fact, it’s par for the course in the world of protest. We’ve seen it all before. It’s a flashback. Like one UARC opponent says, ‘Welcome to 1966.’

However, their most striking example of rudeness is their predilection for wasting the time of the board. Over and over again, anti-UARC speakers speak well beyond their allotted three minutes. And each and every time, Lagareta has to ask them to wrap it up. And each time, she is given promises that the speakers are on their last sentence or their last paragraph. More often than not, the speaker is lying. They have no intention of shutting up.

The same can’t be said of the engineers who come to speak on behalf of the research center. They don’t lose their cool. They don’t talk about the ’60s. They rarely go over their time limits. Their message is simple-UARC will bring the University of Hawai’i money and prestige, it will encourage the best and the brightest teachers and students to come to Hawai’i, and it will help to ensure that the best and the brightest here now do not leave. These points are repeated over and over again, calmly, without passion and with respect. And unlike the collection of English professors, law students and other liberal arts faculty and students, the steady stream of engineers that dominate the middle portion of the hearing are the very people who will ultimately work with UARC. After all, no one asks a Comp 101 teacher to help them design a new laser-guided missile. They don’t even ask them to write the instruction manual.

Each time one of the engineers gets up to speak, it’s another nail in the coffin of the opposition. For a time, the pounding is relentless.

The development of Agent Orange at UH. The testing of Sarin gas on the Big Island. The discovery of depleted uranium at Schofield. The bombing of Kaho’olawe. There are many other reasons why the University of Hawai’i might want to decline the Navy’s offer. More than one speaker brings up these cautionary tales. But is anyone listening?

However inclined the Board of Regents is to hearing history lessons, we can’t be certain. But there is no excuse for them to ignore the wishes of the majority of their faculty and students.

Let’s consider for a moment that the unlikely happens-let’s consider that the Board of Regents doesn’t vote in favor of UARC. Will these engineers who did not raise their voices until now launch a protest? Will they stage sit-ins? Will they create websites, make T-shirts and shout ‘hewa’ at their fellow faculty? No. They’ll cut their losses and get back to their research. They don’t like to waste time. They don’t like to waste energy. They are efficient. Perhaps the board should consider this most of all.

After all, it is not the engineers, it is not the representative from the Chamber of Commerce and it is not the software entrepreneurs that remain in the ballroom as the meeting crawls to the finish. It is Ikaika Hussey and the other UARC opponents that stick around. They have passion. They have the will to fight. And sometimes it gets the better of them. The Board of Regents shouldn’t hold that against them.

Source: http://honoluluweekly.com/cover/2006/02/game-over/

Posted on

DU Exposed!

Posted on: Friday, January 6, 2006

Schofield uranium find prompts call for probe

By Rod Ohira
Advertiser Staff Writer

A coalition of environmental and Native Hawaiian rights groups are calling for an independent investigation and disclosure by the Army of depleted uranium munitions use in Hawai’i based on recently obtained information confirming its presence at Schofield.

The Army said yesterday that the depleted uranium in question poses no threat.

The coalition DMZ Hawai’i/ Aloha ‘Aina cited a Sept. 19 e-mail message from Samuel P. McManus of the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center in Huntsville, Ala., to Ronald Borne, an Army employee involved with preparations for the Stryker brigade at Schofield Barracks. The e-mail involved the high cost of unexploded ordnance removal in preparation for the construction of a new Stryker brigade battle area complex at Schofield. In the e-mail, McManus noted, “We have found much that we did not expect, including the recent find of depleted uranium.”

DMZ Hawai’i/Aloha ‘Aina believes the e-mail obtained with a Freedom of Information Act request is reason for concern since “it means either the records are inaccurate or the U.S. Army’s representatives misled the public” in repeatedly denying depleted uranium use here, most recently in the March 2005 draft environmental impact statement for Makua and at a public hearing for the Stryker brigade EIS in 2004.

The Army confirmed yesterday that in August, 15 tail assemblies from spotting rounds made of D-38 uranium alloy, also called depleted uranium, were found by Zapata Engineering while the contractor was clearing a range area of unexploded ordnance and scrap metal. The tail assemblies are remnants from training rounds associated with an obsolete weapon system that was on O’ahu in the 1960s, and their low-level radioactivity represents no danger, the Army said.

The Army also stated that other than the armor-piercing rounds for the Abrams tank and Bradley fighting vehicle, there are no other weapons in its current stockpile that use depleted uranium. “There is no record of the Abrams and Bradley DU rounds ever being stockpiled in Hawai’i or being fired on Army ranges in Hawai’i,” the statement said.

The 15 tail assemblies recovered have been triple-bagged, stored in metal containers and secured pending disposition instructions, the Army said.

The Army statement was issued several hours after a DMZ Hawai’i/Aloha ‘Aina news conference announcing the e-mail findings, which was attended by representatives of six groups and concerned residents.

Depleted uranium munitions have raised concerns because they generate aerosolized particles on impact that can lead to lung cancer, kidney damage and other health problems.

Ann Wright, a retired diplomat and retired Army colonel, said she supports passage of a bill before the Legislature that calls for helping Hawai’i National Guard troops returning from Iraq and the Persian Gulf in obtaining federal treatment services that include health screenings capable of detecting low levels of depleted uranium.

Gail Hunter, a registered nurse, cancer survivor and Makaha resident for more than 20 years, wants more proof that there’s no depleted uranium at training sites in Makua, Kahuku, Schofield and Pohakuloa that could be threatening drinking water, land and air.

“We’re downwind of the (brush) fires in Wai’anae so I want to know if we’re breathing it in,” Hunter said.

Kyle Kajihiro, program director for American Friends Service Committee, called on the state Health Department to begin investigating and testing for military toxins. He said the revelation about depleted uranium being found in Hawai’i “is very disturbing because it may just be the tip of the iceberg. This is a smoking gun in a sense that there has been depleted uranium expended in our environment. We don’t know how much, we don’t know where and we don’t know what its effects are.”

Of the Health Department, he said: “We are asking them to be more aggressive in protecting public health. There are methods of testing but they require resources and some commitment. There should be testing of the environment and health screenings in the community (for military toxins) to determine if people have been exposed.”

Reach Rod Ohira at rohira@honoluluadvertiser.com.

Source: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jan/06/ln/FP601060367.html/?print=on

Posted on

Army lied about DU in Hawai’i

Uranium revelation upsets isle activists

Army e-mails detailing the presence of spent metal at Schofield are troubling, critics say

By Rosemarie Bernardo
rbernardo@starbulletin.com

SEVERAL environmental and native Hawaiian groups are accusing the Army of misleading the public after the groups discovered that a heavy metal known as depleted uranium was recovered at Schofield Barracks’ range complex.

During a news conference yesterday, the groups said the Army has repeatedly assured the public that the heavy metal was never used in Hawaii.

“These recent revelations, then, indicate that the Army is either unaware of its DU (depleted uranium) and chemical weapons use or has intentionally misled the public. Both possibilities are deeply troubling,” said Kyle Kajihiro, program director of the American Friends Service Committee and member of DMZ-Hawaii/Aloha Aina.

Some members of the various groups read about the depleted uranium in e-mails detailing documents submitted in federal court in December, showing that heavy metals were found at Schofield Barracks’ range complex area during clearing efforts.

The e-mail was submitted as part of an ongoing discovery process. At the end of November, attorneys representing the 25th Infantry Division filed a motion in federal court to amend a 2001 settlement so soldiers can resume live-fire training at Makua Valley. The motion is scheduled to be heard Monday.

URANIUM AT SCHOFIELD
art
U.S. ARMY PHOTO VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS
Depleted uranium tail assemblies have been found in a Schofield Barracks range impact area, prompting some to question the Army’s forthrightness. See story, Page A3.

The clearing was being done to prepare for the expansion of additional training space and the construction of a rifle and pistol range for a new Stryker brigade combat team.

Depleted uranium is a byproduct of radioactive enriched uranium and has been used by the U.S. military in bullets and other weapons designed to pierce armor. Some researchers suspect exposure to depleted uranium might have caused chronic fatigue and other symptoms in veterans of the first Gulf War, but there is no conclusive evidence it has.

In a letter sent yesterday to Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commanding general of the 25th Infantry Division, Kajihiro wrote that several groups were outraged by the use of the uranium, which they say poses a public health hazard even in small amounts.

During community discussion on the Stryker Brigade environmental impact statement in 2004, Army officials assured the public that depleted uranium was never used in Hawaii, Kajihiro said.

Fifteen tail assemblies from spotting rounds made of D-38 uranium alloy, also called depleted uranium, were recovered in August by Zapata Engineering, a contractor hired by the military to clear the Schofield Barracks’ range impact area of unexploded ordnance and scrap metal, according to a news release from the 25th Infantry Division.

In an e-mail dated Sept. 19, a contractor told an Army official at Schofield: “We have found much that we did not expect, including recent find of depleted uranium. We are pulling tons of frag and scrap out of the craters in the western area to the point where it has basically turned into a manual sifting operation. Had this not been a CWM site, we would have moved mechanical sifters in about 5 weeks ago but the danger is just too high.”

Dr. Fred Dodge, Waianae resident and member of Malama Makua, said, “DU is a heavy metal similar to lead. It can be toxic particularly to the kidneys,” and could cause lung cancer if the metal in dust form is inhaled.

But U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii officials said the recovered depleted uranium has low-level radioactivity and does not pose a threat to the public.

The tail assemblies are about 4 inches in length and an inch in diameter. Army officials said they are from subcomponent remnants from training rounds associated with an obsolete weapon system that was on Oahu in the 1960s.

“The Army has never intentionally misled the public concerning the presence of DU on Army installations in Hawaii. This is an isolated incident and should not be considered as an attempt to misinform the public,” Col. Howard Killian, commander of the U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii, said in a written statement.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: http://archives.starbulletin.com/2006/01/06/news/story06.html

Posted on

Bill to Terminate Hawaiian Claims exempts U.S. Military

Saturday, September 17, 2005

Akaka bill revised to placate D.C. foes

By Gordon Y.K. Pang
Advertiser Staff Writer

AKAKA AMENDMENT

The changes proposed by the amendment would:

Leave negotiations on claims made by Native Hawaiians against the United States and the state in the hands of a federally recognized Hawaiian governing entity. Individuals and organizations, including the governing entity, would not have the legal basis to file such claims in court.

Clarify that gambling would not be allowed on lands under the jurisdiction of the Native Hawaiian government entity unless approved by the state and federal governments.

Exempt the Department of Defense from participating in discussions and negotiations dealing with the creation of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, effectively ensuring military installations and operations are not affected in any way.

Make clear that the state and federal governments would retain existing civil and criminal jurisdiction over all lands and people in Hawai’i.
spacer

Native Hawaiians could not bring a land claim against the U.S. government in the courts under an amendment to the Akaka bill that is being proposed to appease the White House and opponents of the bill.

Instead, such claims would have to be taken to a federally recognized Hawaiian governing entity that would then negotiate with the federal and state governments, according to the language in the amendment that was released by Sen. Daniel Akaka’s office yesterday.

The Akaka bill starts a process that would lead to federal recognition of a Native Hawaiian entity. Supporters say it is necessary not just to address wrongs committed by the U.S. government, but will help stave off legal challenges to programs – including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Kamehameha Schools – that give preference to Hawaiians.

Andre Perez, a member of Hui Pu, an umbrella group of Native Hawaiian groups opposed to federal recognition, said the newest language makes a bad bill even worse.

He noted that the previous draft allowed Native Hawaiians to make claims on their own against the government for up to 20 years, a time limit that already was unpalatable.

“We’ll be barred from seeking any recovery of any losses or damages against us over the last 112 years,” Perez said. “That’s a pretty good deal for them.”

Akaka, in a news release, acknowledged that the land claims issue has been a sticky one for the U.S. government. “I have always said that longstanding issues, including land claims, were to be addressed in the process of reconciliation – an ongoing dialogue between Native Hawaiians and the United States.”

A fact sheet distributed by Akaka said that “the (Bush) administration sought to extinguish all existing claims by Native Hawaiians related to breach of trust, land claims and resource-management or resource-protection claims.”

The Hawai’i delegation and Gov. Linda Lingle “prevailed in preventing the extinguishment of claims,” the fact sheet said.

Said Akaka spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz: “The senator realizes there may be some people who may be unhappy with the compromises we have had to make. But the senator’s focus is on ensuring that we can enact this bill so that we can organize a Native Hawaiian government entity for the purposes of a government-to-government relationship with the United States.”

Jon Osorio, director of the Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai’i-Manoa, echoed the comments of Perez and said he believes that the bill waters down a measure that already does not go far enough in addressing any harms that may have been committed against Hawaiians by the U.S. government.

“What it looks like to me is because the U.S. government is claiming sovereign immunity that cannot be challenged in court, and the state also has this protection, it means that virtually everything that will become part of this nation, land and resources, are things that are going to be negotiated at the outset,” Osorio said.

“What they’re saying is everything is not subject to the courts. And because the U.S. is acknowledging a single government entity, in my mind, this is intended to invalidate any future claims by anyone.”

‘ONLY REALISTIC WAY’

Hawai’i Attorney General Mark Bennett said resolving the claims through the negotiations process is “the only realistic way of approaching the claims.” In the 47 years since statehood, he said, there has not been a successful claim against the government.

The points in the amendment outlined yesterday also did little to appease Akaka bill opponents who believe that carving out special privileges for Native Hawaiians is unfair to non-Hawaiians.

The amendment is not designed to make local opponents of the bill happy, however. The measure has stalled in the Senate this summer because of concerns raised by the White House and some Republican lawmakers. The amendments address “serious policy concerns” laid out specifically in a memorandum by the Justice Department in July.

Justice Department officials could not be reached after business hours to confirm the agreement.

But Dela Cruz said the state’s congressional delegation, together with the state attorney general and the staff of Senate Indian Affairs Chairman John McCain, was able to craft the compromise language with a team from the Justice Department’s legislative affairs office headed by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Rebecca S. Seidel.

H. William Burgess of the anti-Akaka bill organization Aloha for All, said the amendment “certainly changes the bill for the better.”

The stipulation barring Native Hawaiians from making direct claims against the state and federal governments “very effectively closes most of the chances of opening up litigation in the future although it doesn’t eliminate it,” Burgess said.

The previous version of the bill, he said, “was an open invitation for the next 20 years to come in and ask for whatever you want.”

Burgess also said the new language effectively bars gambling as well.

Nonetheless, Burgess said, his group still opposes the Akaka bill on more fundamental grounds.

“The destructive core of the bill remains intact,” he said. “And that’s the real toxic part of this bill that would create a new, privileged class in America. It’s going to subdivide not just Hawai’i but the United States.”

WAIVER FOR MILITARY

Ikaika Hussey, a member of Hui Pu, objected to the language in the amendment waiving the U.S. military from participating in any of the talks involving the creation of the new government.

“It’s now very clear that this bill will not protect our home, or our ‘ohana, from the Stryker brigade land-grab, and will not assist in the cleanup and return of land to families whose land was seized for military use,” Hussey said.

Trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which has supported the Akaka bill, issued a news release stating that they were reviewing the language with their attorneys and would comment at a later time.

Previously, OHA board chairwoman Haunani Apoliona had also acknowledged that the claims issue was a difficult one to resolve.

NO SENATE TIMETABLE

Meanwhile, there is still no timetable for when the Senate might discuss whether to have a floor debate and vote on the bill.

OHA administrator Clyde Namu’o said he’s been told it likely won’t come up before the third week of October. “Most people that I’ve spoken to indicate that they believe that it probably will come up sometime in the middle or third week in October,” he said

Republican leaders had promised Hawai’i’s delegation that a parliamentary move called a cloture vote would take place last week but it was postponed indefinitely to allow senators to deal with the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

A cloture vote on the Akaka bill would essentially force the Senate to set other issues aside to allow for a debate and vote.

Dela Cruz, Akaka’s spokeswoman, said her office has not received word from the Senate majority staff on the matter. The Senate is still focused on addressing Katrina’s impacts, she said.

Nonetheless, she said, Akaka is confident the bill will come for a vote before the session ends.

“This is not over,” Dela Cruz said. “The senator is still pressing for his bill to get on the calendar.”

Reach Gordon Y.K. Pang at gpang@honoluluadvertiser.com.

Source: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Sep/17/ln/FP509170332.html

Posted on

University vulnerable to pitfalls of secret experiments

http://archives.starbulletin.com/2005/03/27/editorial/special2.html

Sunday, March 27, 2005

University vulnerable to pitfalls of secret experiments

By Beverly Deepe Keever

Special to the Star-Bulletin

It was 37 years ago that James Oshita and William Fraticelli were regularly drenched with the cancer-causing Agent Orange on the Kauai Agriculture Research Station.

They performed the core part of the University of Hawaii’s contract with the U.S. Army to test the effectiveness of the herbicide laden with dioxin, one of deadliest of chemicals, that was then being sprayed in South Vietnam to defoliate its wartime jungles.

Their saga and the Agent Orange experiment are now being recounted amid the controversial question of whether Hawaii’s only public university should enter into a new kind of contract for military research, this time with the U.S. Navy, specifically to establish a University Affiliated Research Center, to which the Board of Regents has already given its preliminary approval. It’s a watershed, which-way question for UH — and, as UH goes, so goes the state.

Oshita and Fraticelli marked their bulldozers with flags to serve as targets and stayed there while the planes swooped down to spray the defoliants. “When the plane came to spray, someone had to guide him,” Oshita told a reporter in a Page 1 report in the campus newspaper, Ka Leo O Hawaii, on Feb. 3, 1986. “We were the ones.”

Testing was done without warning UH employees or the nearby Kapaa community even though in 1962, just months before being assassinated, President Kennedy was told that Agent Orange could cause adverse health effects, U.S. court documents show. And a 1968 test report written by four UH agronomists said that on Kauai Agent Orange, alone or combined with Agent Pink, Purple or Blue, was effective and “obviously may also be lethal.”

When the testing finished in 1968, five 55-gallon steel drums and a dozen gallon cans partially filled with the toxic chemicals were buried on a hilltop overlooking a reservoir. There they remained until the mid-1980s when the Ka Leo reporter’s questions led to their being excavated, supposedly for shipment to a licensed hazardous waste facility. They left behind levels of dioxin in some soil samples of more than five times normal cleanup standards.

The barrels were then placed in a Matson shipping container. There, instead of being shipped out of state as promised, they sat for another decade. Then, in 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Health discovered that UH had failed to dispose properly of the hazardous materials and included this infraction along with a Big Island one in a $1.8 million fine against the institution. In April 2000, the barrels were finally shipped out of state.

Oshita and Fraticelli have since died. A year after his Agent Orange work, Oshita was diagnosed with liver dysfunction, bladder cancer, diabetes, chronic hepatitis and a severe skin disease called chloracne. Fraticelli died in April 1981 from lung and kidney cancer; he also had bladder cancer and a brain tumor, court documents indicate.

Since 1984, with the settlement of a $180 million class- action lawsuit, 10,000-plus Vietnam veterans receive disability benefits related to Agent Orange, which has been linked to various cancers, diabetes and birth defects. Earlier this month, a federal judge, citing insufficient research data, dismissed a case filed on behalf of 4 million-plus Vietnamese claiming that Agent Orange had caused their ailments.

The legacy of the Agent Orange experiment and its aftermath exemplifies how UH was duped into conducting military research that the U.S. government knew could create adverse health effects, how the costs and risks of such research were latent for years and how UH demonstrated decades-long disregard for environmental and health hazards.

UH’s Agent Orange experiment was not secret. The student journalist found a thick report about it in Hamilton Library. But some of the Navy’s research now being debated at UH would be secret, a condition that the Faculty Senate on the Manoa campus voted down in terms of withholding publication of scholarly discoveries.

But even the Navy’s unclassified, non-secret work within the UARC has raised two broad concerns among faculty: the anti-business restrictions governing privileged information accessible to researchers, and murky legal issues.

Those favoring the Navy contract note that it proposes a ceiling for UH-M over five years, the normal duration of a UARC, of a sum of up to $50 million. This amount of about $10 million annually is small compared to the $54 million received by UH this fiscal year alone from Pentagon research and is but a fraction of the $160 million the Penn State University UARC received in one year.

Another advantage cited on the Manoa chancellor’s Web site is “our faculty will not have to write specific proposals for funding.” Instead, faculty will pick and choose — or opt out of — work on “task orders” from the Navy or other Pentagon sponsors. Others argue, however, that working only on this military-initiated to-do list will squelch faculty initiative and innovation.

Several faculty have noted that the “research” performed by the UARC through Navy “task orders” is distinctly different from the faculty-directed research that UH researchers currently pursue in an open academic environment. UARC activities must be aligned with the Navy’s war-fighting mission through the approved core competencies, and because the UARC acts as a trusted agent of the government, are also subject to extremely restrictive regulations managing conflict of interest.

The UARC would give rise to a whole new bureaucracy, according to a posting on the Manoa chancellor’s Web site (see box on F5). The UARC would be an organized research unit that reported to the vice chancellor for research and graduate education and would be managed by an executive director to be selected from a national search. A director would head each of UH’s four research specialities in ocean science; astronomy; advanced electro-optics and sensing; and senors, communications and information technology. Another director of business and admini- stration would oversee UARC operations. These administrators would work in leased space at the Manoa Innovation Center.

Unclassified research would be conducted on the Manoa campus but classified research would be performed on military facilities in the state or on the mainland. More bureaucracy will be needed to screen personnel for security clearances required for classified research.

Instead of providing an economic stimulus for the state, some faculty delving into operations of the proposed UARC find a restrictive, anti-business environment.

In scanning conflict-of-interest and other regulations, they found in effect a firewall circumscribes the UARC. Those accepting UARC funding are barred from working with local industry in ventures outside the UARC or in licensing their intellectual property in work outside the UARC in areas in which they may have gained information giving them a competitive advantage, regardless of whether that information is classified.

Researchers accepting UARC funding also are barred from submitting new proposals, entering collaborative relationships, undertaking consult- ing work or continuing work outside the UARC in their specialties that might benefit from their access to information within the UARC that is generally unavailable to the public. Moreover, they found, these restrictions will continue for three years after they leave the UARC.

None of these restrictions is explained on the chancellor’s Web posting, although Vassilis Syrmos, technical officer for the UARC proposal, spoke at length in an interview published March 2 in Ka Leo that certain conflict-of-interest restrictions would apply to those who accept UARC funding.

“Trying to predict the effect of the UARC on potential licensing income is almost fruitless,” Richard F. Cox Jr. of UH’s Office of Technology Transfer and Economic Development said in an e-mail last week. He estimated UH would bring in about $900,000 in licensing income for the year ending June 30.

Others raise murky legal issues. Some question whether the Navy met the legal requirements of open announcement in approving the UARC at UH-M and thus in providing adequately fair competition to other qualified universities. For example, the Army, NASA and the Department of Homeland Security have all recently established new UARCs and federal research centers through open announcements and national competition. And the same statutory authority cited to establish UH-M’s UARC was found as insufficient justification for awarding a UARC contract to Johns Hopkins University by NASA without full and open competition, that agency’s inspector general found.

Such broad agency announcements serve not only a legal requirement. They also contain critical information on the purpose of the UARC, a description of the mission and type of research, the constraints and restrictions on qualified and successful applicants, and important evaluation and selection criteria to be included in the proposal. Thus, the UH-M UARC omitted critical information on the actual faculty and staff who would perform the research and important industrial affiliations that is normally required in such proposals. Without such a broad agency announcement for the Navy UARC, neither the public nor the UH faculty have the guidance needed to determine exactly what their participation would involve, what they will be asked to do for the Navy or what the Navy will be doing, perhaps near their own neighborhood.

In addition, the Navy is conducting a potentially criminal investigation into allegations of mismanagement of classified military contracts by UH and its affiliated Research Corporation, Ka Leo O Hawaii reported on March 2.

Mismanagement of federally funded research and misstatements in applying for that funding is viewed seriously. A federal judge took the unusual step of sentencing to three months in jail a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and fining him $10,000 for lying on a grant application he made to the National Science Foundation.

In handing down that sentence, as reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education on Jan. 25, 1999, U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker said, “Within the academic community, those who follow the rules must be assured they are not chumps, fools, or suckers.”

As important as these issues are, many faculty have expressed as their greatest concern the absence of a forum for the community and campus and the general lack of faculty consultation to examine these questions in detail. In a meeting with faculty on March 16, Chancellor Peter Englert apologized “for not having come forward or having made this particular presentation a little bit sooner.” But the stipulation that full consultation take place with concerned stakeholders was directed by the Board of Regents in its November 2004 meeting, and efforts to establish a UARC at UH-M date from September 2002. Given the history surrounding Agent Orange, many faculty feel that UH should be very careful to examine all such questions with complete openness and good faith.

Beverly Deepe Keever is a University of Hawaii-Manoa professor of journalism. She discusses federal information policies related to U.S. Pacific nuclear weapons tests (1946-62) in her newly published book, “News Zero: The New York Times and the Bomb.”

Posted on

Kanaka Maoli groups sue Army over Stryker Brigade

Posted on: Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Lawsuit opposes Stryker brigade

By William Cole
Advertiser Military Writer

Three native Hawaiian organizations are challenging the Army’s Stryker plan in federal court, saying the service failed to consider any location other than Hawai’i for the fast-strike unit, in violation of federal environmental law.

At a press conference at ‘Iolani Palace yesterday, Kipuka spokesman Beau Bassett talked about the lawsuit challenging the Stryker plan.

Deborah Booker • The Honolulu Advertiser
The lawsuit, filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Honolulu by Earthjustice on behalf of the ‘Ilio’ulaokalani Coalition, Na ‘Imi Pono and Kipuka, seeks to prevent the Army from going forward with the transformation of the 2nd Brigade at Schofield Barracks to a Stryker brigade.

The groups want the Army to delay the project until it expands its environmental impact statement to adequately consider “a range of alternate locations outside Hawai’i for transformation,” according to a news release.

In response to the suit, the 25th Infantry Division (Light) and U.S. Army, Hawai’i, released a statement yesterday saying, “We are disappointed that we have been sued as the Army has worked hard to involve the community and public throughout the planning process for transformation and the detailed environmental study conducted to ascertain the environmental effects.”

The environmental impact statement was released on June 4, and following a 30-day public review period, the Army signed a “record of decision” on July 7.

The approximately 3,000-page environmental review states that 1,736 tons of dust would be generated from increased vehicle traffic, an increase of 81 percent.

The Army plans to post 291 Stryker vehicles – similar to this one at McChord Air Force Base, Wash. – in Hawai’i by 2007.

The Army also concluded there would be significant effects on cultural and biological resources, but that mitigation efforts could reduce them.

The Army said it was going ahead with the Stryker Brigade because it is “critical to achieving current and future national security objectives in U.S. Pacific Command’s area of responsibility.”

Vicky Holt Takamine, president of the ‘Ilio’ulaokalani Coalition, said native Hawaiians have a responsibility to preserve and protect the natural and cultural resources of Hawai’i.

“With every move to destroy cultural sites, to destroy endangered species, native Hawaiian resources that are vital to our cultural practices, we find it extremely difficult to pass on these traditions to the next generation,” Holt Takamine said.

The Army last month gave final approval to the $1.5 billion brigade of 291 Stryker vehicles while acknowledging the cultural and environmental concerns of those who have opposed it.

The plan calls for the acquisition of 1,400 acres on O’ahu and 23,000 acres on the Big Island, and networks of private trails for the 20-ton Stryker vehicles.

Earthjustice attorney David Henkin said the National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to look at the range of alternatives before proceeding with a plan such as the Stryker Brigade, which is expected to be operational by 2007.

“They didn’t look at that at all,” Henkin said at a news conference on the grounds of ‘Iolani Palace yesterday. He said the closest the Army got was examining two alternatives – transforming a brigade in a different location, and transforming the 2nd Brigade at Schofield but sending its members to the Mainland for training.

Reach William Cole at wcole@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-5459.

Source: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Aug/18/ln/ln25a.html

Posted on

Winona LaDuke: More Land For The Military Than For Hawaiians

http://rense.com/general56/homesles.htm

From Indian Country Today and Rense.com:

Homeless In Hawaii

More Land For The Military Than For Hawaiians

Part One of Two

By Winona LaDuke, Guest Columnist

August 3, 2004

It’s summer in Hawaii, the state is considering another generous land donation to the military and has made homelessness a crime. Under the cover of the term “Military Transformation” and with the blanket of 9/11, the military is taking a wide berth in land stealing. And, recently enacted Act 50 makes criminals out of people who have been displaced by the military itself, many of them Native Hawaiian.

“They bombed the houses in the l940s and took over the entire valley,” explained Sparky Rodrigues, one of many Makua residents still waiting to move home. “The government moved all of the residents out and said after the war, you can move back – and then they used the houses for target practice. The families tell stories that the military came with guns and said, ‘Here’s $300, thank you,’ and ‘You’ve got to move.’ Those people remain without their houses, and for years, many lived on the beaches in beautiful Makua Valley, watching the bombing of their land.

“Tomorrow morning they’re going to detonate a 1,000 pounder, a 500 pounder and a 100 pound bomb,” Rodriques mused. Such detonations are part of the military cleanup of the site before, apparently, any new maneuvers. “We’ve gone in and observed them detonate those bombs,” said Rodriques. More than once, live ammunition has washed up on the beaches at Makua.

Malu Aina, a military watchdog group from Hawaii reported:

“Live military ordnance in large quantities has been found off Hapuna Beach and in Hilo Bay. Additional ordnance, including grenades, artillery shells, rockets, mortars, armor piercing ordnance, bazooka rounds, napalm bombs, and hedgehog missiles have been found at Hilo airport in Waimea town, Waikoloa Village, in North and South Kohala at Puako and Mahukona, in Kea’au and Maku ‘u farm lots in Puna, at South Point in Ka’u, and on residential and school grounds. At least nine people have been killed or injured by exploding ordnance. Some unexploded ordnance can be set off even by cell phones.”

Since the end of World War II, Hawaii has been the center of the United States military’s Pacific Command (PACOM), from which all U.S. forces in the region are directed. Hawaii serves as an outpost for Pacific expansionism, along with Guam, the Marshall Islands, Samoa and the Philippines. PACOM is the center of U.S. military activities over more than half the earth, from the west coast of the U.S. to Africa’s east coast, from the Arctic to Antarctica, covering 70 percent of the world’s oceans.

The military controls more of Hawaii than any other state, including some 25 percent of Oahu, valuable “submerged lands” (i.e. estuaries and bays), and until relatively recently, the island of Kaho’olawe. The island was the only National Historic Site also used as a bombing range. Finally, after years of litigation and negotiations, Congress placed a moratorium on the bombing, but after $400 million already spent in cleanup money, much remains to be completed.

The U.S. military controls 200,000 acres of Hawaii, with over 100 military installations and at least 150,000 personnel. Among the largest sites is the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), a 108,793-acre bombing range between the sacred mountains of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa in the center of the big island, Hawaii. At least seven million rounds of ammunition are fired annually at that base alone. The military proposes to expand the base by 23,000-acres under the “Military Transformation Proposal” and plans to bring in Stryker brigades to the area. The military is hoping for up to 79,000 additional acres in new land acquisition. Pohakuloa has the “highest concentration of endangered species of any Army installation in the world,” according to its former commander Lt. Col. Dennis Owen, with over 250 ancient Hawaiian archeological sites. Those species and archeological sites are pretty much “toast” under the expansion plans.

Hawaiian military bucks and the homeless

There are some benefits to being a senior senator like Daniel Inouye. The $l.5 billion dollar pork-barrel proposal to expand Hawaii’s military bases would include more than 400 Stryker vehicles (eight-wheeled, 19-ton, armored infantry carriers), new C-l7 transport planes and additional arsenal expansions.

Adding more military personnel and bases is always a good way to boost a state’s economy. After all, a recent Hawaii Advertiser article featured Pearl Harbor businessmen lamenting the number of troops “sent out” to Iraq, and the downswing in business at the barbershops and elsewhere. The message: “New troops needed to fill up those businesses!”

Inouye, who is the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Committee has been a strong advocate for more military in Hawaii. Yet, in his vice chairmanship of the Indian Affairs Committee, he has been a stronger advocate for diminishing Native Hawaiian sovereignty, rights and land title. New proposals (the so-called Akaka Bill) would strip Hawaiians of long-term access to land, and follow the suit of the infamous Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act, barring future recourse for justice.

In the meantime, the 2 million acres of land originally earmarked for Native Hawaiians (under Hawaii’s statehood act) are being transferred to private interests and to the military. Some 22,000 Native Hawaiians remain on waiting lists for their homestead awards, and an estimated 30,000 have died while on the list awaiting their homesteads. The Hawaiian lands end up with the military or developers. “We can barely pay house rent, and they build apartments,” said one Hawaiian from the Wai’anae coast. “With inflation now, its hard to buy tomatoes, carrots … You cannot eat ’em, those buildings.”

Hawaii has now adopted one of the nation’s severest penalties to discourage individuals from living on public property. Act 50, a recently passed law, bans individuals for an entire year from the public areas where they are given a citation. The act stipulates that people found illegally occupying public property such as beaches and parks are subject to ejection, and if they return within a year they face arrest, a possible $1,000 fine and/or 30 days in jail. Many Hawaiian families live on the beaches and in public parks. The Beltran family, among others, has lived on the beach at Mokule’ia for 12 years, claiming the right to live there as ancestral, but each week they must get a permit to camp. “We have a right to be here, because our ancestors were from here,” Beltran explained to a reporter. “I cannot go to the mainland and say that’s my home. I cannot go to Japan and call that my home. This is my home, right here. I will never give this place up.”

+++

More land for the military than for Hawaiians (Part Two of Two)

Posted: August 03, 2004 – 8:24am EST by: Winona LaDuke / Guest Columnist

Special to Indian Country Today (Part Two of Two)

“Except as required for defense purposes in a time of national emergency, the government shall not deliberately destroy any object of antiquity, prehistoric ruin or monument …”

– Makua lease provision held by the U.S. Military

The new Stryker/Military Transformation proposal by Senator Inouye will exacerbate the already desperate situation of many Hawaiians, who comprise a good portion of those without permanent housing and at least half of the present prison population.

“All of the Hawaiian poor come to Wainaie, all of the homeless come to Waianae,” said Sparky Rodrigues. “If the military comes in here with their cost of living allowance with the Strykers’ new expansion, then rent will go up, and they’ll bring in 30,000 people. Property values will go up. More Hawaiians will be forced onto the beach as homeless, and they are going to be criminalized.”

The system is already poised to worsen the problem and serve as a drain on the state’s social services Rodrigues explained. “Child Protection Services is looking at homelessness as child abuse. So they’re not going to build schools, and there is an oppressive environment, they can’t get jobs, can’t pay for the house.”

Rodrigues and his wife, Leandra Wai Rodrigues, were arrested in l996 on Father’s Day at Makua. Their family and others were all evicted. “Everything that was left behind was bulldozed and destroyed. Actually they took all our good stuff, and gave it to other people,” Leandra lamented.

“It was a huge community of homeless, about 60 families and we ended up creating our own self governance,” explained Sparky. “The welfare office was sending families that couldn’t afford rent to Makua because it was a safe place. Our goal was to look for long-term solutions to homelessness. Our goal was to go there, and then go back into society. They [social service agencies] aren’t interested in a long term solution, their solution is to pass laws and arrest people.” He added, “calling the folks on the beach ‘squatters’ changes the whole way of looking at it. If they are traditional practitioners or want to live a traditional lifestyle, they are Hawaiians. The use of the word ‘squatters’ makes it okay for the government to bring in the bulldozers and arrest them.”

Clean up and the Range Readiness Proposal

Clean up is not the military’s strongest suit. Of the whopping federal defense budget of $265 billion, only a fraction will be spent on cleaning up exploded ordnance at test sites, let alone sites in the process of decommissioning, like Wisconsin’s Badger Munitions Plant, in which the Ho-Chunk Nation seeks some part in its recovery. An Associated Press news story of Jan. 16 stated that according to congressional auditors “removing unexploded munitions and hazardous waste found so far on 15 million acres of shutdown U.S. military ranges could take more than 300 years.” The clean up cost is now estimated at $35 billion and climbing rapidly from an estimate of $20 billion a year ago.

In the present environment and with leadership like Senator Inouye, it looks like the reverse: Build up, not clean up, is on the horizon. Under a bill called the “Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative”, the Department of Defense is pushing Congress to give more waivers to the military for clean up. Last year, the Defense Department succeeded in gaining exemptions for the U.S. military to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammals Protection Act. The Defense Department now wants exemptions from the Clean Air Act, Superfund Laws and others, all under the premise of national security.

At hearings this spring on the Range Readiness proposals, U.S. Representative Edward Markey, D-Mass., said, “There is no reason to incur ‘collateral damage’ to our public health while meeting our military needs,” referring to the present problems with military contamination.

All told, the Department of Defense is the nation’s largest toxic polluter with over 11,000 toxic “hot spots” on 1,855 military facilities nationwide. If we are to look at Hawaii’s prospects as to what is in the pipeline, there may be some cause for concern. Sparky Rodrigues noted the irony. “They spend billions making Weapons of Mass Destruction but pennies on clean up.” In short, being homeless in Hawaii isn’t as glamorous as being sleepless in Seattle, and by the next millennium, and the next conflict, there may be more Hawaiians in prison than on the beaches.

Winona LaDuke, Ojibwe from the White Earth reservation, is program director of Honor the Earth, a national Native American environmental justice program. She served as the Green Party vice presidential candidate in the 1996 and 2000 elections. She can be reached at wlhonorearth@earthlink.net.

Proudly powered by WordPress