Category: Local Campaigns

Posted on

Peace Prizes for War Presidents, Missile Tests on Day of Peace

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/06-0

Published on Tuesday, September 6, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

Peace Prizes for War Presidents, Missile Tests on Day of Peace

Escalation of US offensive missile strategy — launching an ICBM Missile across the Pacific on World Peace Day

by Ann Wright

The U.S. missile ‘defense” system is simply not defensive. It is offensive in every sense of the word and it is increasing tensions throughout the world.

Even on the day where the world is to think about peace— World Peace Day on September 21—you would not know that the day existed from the actions of the United States.

In addition to the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on World Peace Day, in violation of its commitment to disarmament under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the United States will fire an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California over Hawaii and the Pacific Missile Range tracking facility (PMRF) to crash into the Pacific Ocean near Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands.

Route of the ICBM to be fired on World Peace Day

The purpose of the flight is for the United States to continue to test delivery missiles that would carry nuclear warheads to incinerate its enemies, whoever they may be at the time.

The Marshall Islands are the same islands that the United States blew up in the 1950s and 1960s in the nuclear and hydrogen bomb tests from which Marshall Islanders are still suffering from radiation.

The test of the ICBM and the further expansion of the US missile “defense” system is causing dangerous repercussions around the world, making hotspots even hotter-from China and the Koreas to Turkey, Israel and Iran.

Pacific Missile Range in Hawaii Expanded for the Aegis Missile Test Complex—Testing to Kill or to Defend?

On Kauai, Hawaii, the Hawaii congressional delegation continues to bring home the bacon, the pork barrel projects that include expansion of the Pacific Missile Range Facility. The latest project is the construction of theAegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex that will provide testing and evaluation of the systems.

U.S. Senator from Hawaii Daniel Inouye said at the groundbreaking ceremony for the new missile test complex on August 29, “There are people in the world who would harm and kill us. We are not testing to kill, but to defend. … I pray the product of testing will not be used, but will be a deterrent for those who would harm us.”

Construction of the Aegis Missile Defense Test Complex in Hawaii will be completed in 2013. The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System is used on 81 naval ships throughout the world with more than 25 additional Aegis-equipped ships planned or under contract. There are six naval Aegis-equipped ships home-ported at Pearl Harbor on Oahu, Hawaii.

Ballistic Missile Defense Systems to be installed in Romania and Poland

The Aegis system is the sea-based component of the Ballistic Missile Defense System under development by the Missile Defense Agency which integrates with submarines, surface ships as well as the U.S. Army and Air Force missiles. The U.S. will install the Ballistic Missile Defense system in Romania in 2015 and in Poland in 2018. The systems that will be sent to Romania and Poland were tested in Hawaii at the Pacific Missile Range Facility.

Jeju Island, South Korea protests against the Aegis Missile System and construction of a naval base to homeport Aegis Destroyers

On Jeju Island, South Korea, citizens have been protesting for four years the construction of a new naval base that will homeport Aegis missile destroyers as a part of the US missile defense system. On September 2, hundreds of mainland South Koreans flew in “peace planes” to join Jeju Island activists in a major confrontation with government forces.

On the same day, more than 1,000 South Korean riot police from the mainland descended upon citizens of all ages who were blockading crews from access to the naval base construction site on Jeju Island. At least 50 protestors were arrested, including villagers, Catholic priests, college students, visiting artists and citizen journalists. Several were wounded and hospitalized.

However, back in Hawaii, not all who live on Kauai agree with the aims of the Aegis program and its effects on other countries. In the Kauai Garden Island newspaper Op-ed on September 4, Koohan Paik, a Hawaii citizen activist of Korean heritage observed,  “There happens to be a very strong connection between Jeju’s current troubles and business-as-usual on the Garden Isle (Kauai). You see, the primary purpose of Jeju’s unwanted base is to port Aegis destroyer warships. And it is right here, at Kauai’s Pacific Missile Range Facility, that all product testing takes place for the Aegis missile manufacturers…‘ So it is no surprise that the tenacious, democracy-loving Koreans have been protesting again — this time for over four years, non-stop, day and night. They are determined to prevent construction of a huge military base on S. Korea’s Jeju Island that will cement over a reef in an area so precious it contains three UNESCO World Heritage Sites.”

Turkey agrees to host missile defense radar installations-data not to be shared with Israel

Halfway around the planet in another hotspot where the U.S is pushing the missile defense system, on September 2, the same day it denounced UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s 4 person committee’s report on the Gaza flotilla and then announced sanctions on Israel for murdering 8 Turkish citizens and one American citizen on the 2010 Gaza flotilla, Turkey also revealed that it had reached agreement to host radar installations as part of the American-sponsored NATO “missile defense” program. Press reports indicate that as part of the deal, the US acceded to a Turkish demand that data from the Turkish-hosted radars not be shared with Israel.

Turkey played the odds that it has increasingly greater value to the United States in the eastern Mediterranean region than does Israel, which is increasingly a strategic and political burden to the United States.

The upcoming United Nations session with its discussion on statehood for Palestine will again put the United States in the miniscule number of nations that will vote against Palestinian initiatives—Israel and those whom the US pays through the Compact of Free Association to vote with it-Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau.

America’s belligerent actions on World Peace Day and the Nobel Peace Prize

As America shoves World Peace Day aside with its launch on September 21 of the ICBM missile, it brings to mind President Obama’s war speech upon accepting, only eight months into office, Nobel Prize for Peace for having done little for peace, except to defeat John McCain for the presidency. Obama spoke at length of the necessity of war to make the world a peaceful place.

In this vein, it makes perfect sense to the Obama administration to launch a missile on World Peace Day, a missile for peace, no doubt!!

But it makes NO sense to me and to, I suspect, hundreds of millions of people around the world. I hope on World Peace Day, the citizens of the world will let the Obama administration know of their disgust for this act of intimidation and disrespect for the planet

Ann Wright is a 29 year US Army/Army Reserves veteran who retired as a Colonel and a former US diplomat who resigned in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq. She served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. In December, 2001 she was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. She is the co-author of the book “Dissent: Voices of Conscience.” (www.voicesofconscience.com)

 

 

——————————–

Ann Wright

microann@yahoo.com

Facebook: http://www.www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504291178

Twitter: annwright46

“Dissent: Voices of Conscience” www.voicesofconscience.com

Posted on

Connecting the Aegis dots between Jeju, Okinawa, Guam, Hawai’i

Koohan Paik, co-author of the Superferry Chronicles and member of the Kaua’i Alliance for Peace and Social Justice wrote an excellent op ed in the Garden Island newspaper connecting the dots between the military expansion at the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kaua’i, the struggle to stop a naval base in Jeju, South Korea, and protest movements in Okinawa and Guam.

True defenders

When I was a child in South Korea during the 1960s, we lived under the repressive dictatorship of Park Chung-hee. Anyone out after 10 p.m. curfew could be arrested. Anyone who tried to protest the government disappeared. A lot of people died fighting for democracy and human rights.

Today, the South Korean people carry in living memory the supreme struggles that forged the freedom they currently enjoy. And after all they’ve sacrificed, they are not going to give that freedom up.

So it is no surprise that the tenacious, democracy-loving Koreans have been protesting again — this time for over four years, non-stop, day and night. They are determined to prevent construction of a huge military base on S. Korea’s Jeju Island that will cement over a reef in an area so precious it contains three UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

This eco-rich reef has not only fed islanders for millennia, but it has also been the “habitat” for Jeju’s lady divers who are famous for staying beneath the surface for astonishing periods of time, before coming up with all manner of treasures. Even during South Korea’s times of unspeakable poverty, subtropical Jeju Island was always so abundant with natural resources and beauty that no one ever felt “impoverished” there.

There happens to be a very strong connection between Jeju’s current troubles and business-as-usual on the Garden Isle. You see, the primary purpose of Jeju’s unwanted base is to port Aegis destroyer warships. And it is right here, at Kaua‘i’s Pacific Missile Range Facility, that all product testing takes place for the Aegis missile manufacturers.

On Aug. 29, when Sen. Dan Inouye was here to dedicate a new Aegis testing site, he said, “We are not testing to kill, but to defend.” It would have been more accurate if Inouye had said, “We are not testing to kill, but to increase profits for Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, no matter how many people are oppressed or how many reefs are destroyed.”

Four days later, on Sept. 2, I got a panicked call from a Korean friend that there had been a massive crackdown on the peace vigil in Gangjung village to protect Jeju’s reef from the Aegis destroyer project.

More than 1,000 South Korean police in head-to-toe riot gear descended upon men and women of all ages blockading construction crews from access to the site. At least 50 protestors were arrested, including villagers, Catholic priests, college students, visiting artists and citizen journalists. Several were wounded and hospitalized. My friend told me, “We fought so hard for democracy. And now this. It’s just like dictatorship times.”

Another reason the Koreans are so angry is that their government has been telling them that the Aegis technology will protect them from North Korea. But Aegis missiles launching from Jeju are useless against North Korea, because North Korean missiles fly too low. In a 1999 report to the U.S. Congress, the Pentagon verified that the Aegis system “could not defend the northern two-thirds of South Korea against the low flying short range Taepodong ballistic missiles.”

So if Aegis is no good against North Korea, why build the base? Again, this is not about defense, this is about selling missiles (and increasing profits for Samsung and other major contractors on the base construction job).

There is a strong similarity between resistance on Jeju (where a recent poll showed 95 percent of islanders are opposed to the base) and concurrent uprisings on Guam and Okinawa, as well. All three islands are slated for irreversible destruction to make way for Aegis destroyer berthing.

And who wouldn’t protest? Like us, these are island peoples who care passionately for their reefs, ocean ecosystems and fisheries. I have heard certain Jeju Islanders say they will fight to the death to protect their resources.

Today, the mayor of Gangjung himself, along with many others, languish in prison because of their uncompromising stance against the Aegis base. Fortunately, people across the Korean peninsula and beyond, are heading to Jeju to support the resistance movement.

Without peaceful warriors like them, there would be no more reefs, no more coral, no more fish, no more nothing. They are our true defenders, not the missile manufacturers, as Inouye’s sham logic would have us believe.

As the Pentagon conspicuously ramps up militarization in the Asia-Pacific region, individuals of good conscious should pursue de-militarization. In the words of Aletha Kaohi, “Look to within and get rid of the ‘opala, or rubbish.”

Koohan Paik, Kilauea

Posted on

Message from the International Women’s Network Against Militarism to the peoples movement for No Naval Base on Jeju!

Message from the  International Women’s Network Against Militarism to the peoples movement for No Naval Base on Jeju! 

September 1, 2011

Dear friends in the struggle against US military expansion at Jeju Island

We women from Okinawa, mainland Japan, the Philippines, Marshall Islands, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Australia and west-coast USA send our greetings in solidarity with the people of Ganjeong who oppose the construction of a new naval base to house Aegis destroyers.

We understand that 94 percent of the residents do not want this base. We admire and respect your strong opposition by occupying land seized by the government and by blocking roads in an attempt to stop construction. We deplore the fact the South Korean government has ordered police to take further measures against you, especially as you have used every possible democratic means to overturn the decision to construct the base in the pristine waters and land that have been your livelihood for many generations.

We agree that this base and the increased militarization of the island of Jeju will create new security threats in an increasingly tense region.

We also live in communities that experience increased militarization and the effects of enormous military investments that distort our local economies and take resources needed for our communities to thrive. The political and military alliances between our governments and the United States jeopardize our genuine security. Indeed, U.S. military expansion in the Asia-Pacific and the Caribbean relies on these alliances to tie our communities together according to their version of security that is not sustainable.

The plan to relocate U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam includes military construction projects that involve labor from Hawai’i, Micronesia and the Philippines. In addition to the destruction and loss of life caused by continued wars in the Middle East, these wars are also destabilizing our economies. For example, Filipinos who have been recruited to work on military construction projects are laid off during times of crisis and return to the Philippines where they have no jobs. On Guam, local companies cannot compete with larger military contractors and are seldom able to get contracts for base construction projects. The establishment of the U.S. military base at Ke Awa Lau o Pu’uloa, or Pearl Harbor, has transformed Oahu’s food basket into a toxic “Superfund” site where many of Hawai’i’s poorest communities live along its contaminated shores. In Puerto Rico, Governor Luis Fortuño has unleashed brutality against citizens, and suppression of their civil liberties because of protests against budget cuts to public services and education. In the continental United States a new campaign is calling for new priorities in federal spending away from war and toward services to support local communities.

We see your struggle as part of a wider pattern of people’s protest against increasing militarization.

Although we are far away, please know that we stand with you. We thank you for your courage to resist the militarization of your home. Your example inspires and strengthens us.

In solidarity,

Signed, on behalf of the IWNAM:

Kozue Akibayashi, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Japan

Ellen-Rae Cachola, Women for Genuine Security/Women’s Voices Women Speak, U.S. & Hawai’i

Lotlot de la Cruz, KAISAKA, Philippines

Cora Valdez Fabros, Scrap VFA Movement & Philippine Women’s Network for Peace and Security, Philippines

Annie Fukushima, Women for Genuine Security, U.S.

Terri Keko’olani, Women’s Voices Women Speak, Hawai’i

Gwyn Kirk, Women for Genuine Security, U.S.

Rev. Deborah Lee, Women for Genuine Security, U.S.

Bernadette “Gigi” Miranda, Women’s Voices Women Speak, Hawai’i

María Reinat Pumarejo, Colectivo Ilé: Organizadoras para la Conciencia-en-Acción

Aida Santos-Maranan, Women’s Education, Development, Productivity and Research Organization (WEDPRO), Philippines

Dr. Hannah Middleton, Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, Australia

Suzuyo Takazato, Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence, Okinawa

Lisa Natividad, Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice, Guahan (Guam)

Ana Maria R. Nemenzo, WomanHealth Philippines.

Darlene Rodrigues, Women’s Voices Women Speak, Hawai’i

Abacca Anjain-Maddison,  Marshall Islands

Brenda Kwon, Women’s Voices Women Speak, Hawai’i

Anjali Puri, Women’s Voices Women Speak, Hawai’i

 

The International Women’s Network Against Militarism was formed in 1997 when forty women activists, policy-makers, teachers, and students from South Korea, Okinawa, mainland Japan, the Philippines and the continental United States gathered in Okinawa to strategize together about the negative effects of the US military in each of our countries.  In 2000, women from Puerto Rico who opposed the US Navy bombing training on the island of Vieques also joined; followed in 2004 by women from Hawai’i and in 2007 women from Guam.  The Network is not a membership organization, but a collaboration among women active in our own communities, who share a common mission to demilitarize their lands and communities. For more information, visit  HYPERLINK “http://www.genuinesecurity.org/”www.genuinesecurity.org.

 

Posted on

Will Jeju become another ‘Pearl Harbor’?

There have been several articles about Jeju referencing the cost of militarization and war to Hawai’i and Ke Awalau o Pu’uloa (Pearl Harbor).  One letter to the editor published in the Jeju Weekly states:

An American Jeju?

Sunday, August 14, 2011, 03:15:11

To the editor,

Jeju Island, fondly referred to as “Korea’s Hawaii,” has more in common with the US state than many know. Besides a lure for honeymooners, a balmy climate, and beautiful volcanic geology they’ve also both suffered American imperialism.

The case of Hawaii is well known – in 1893 the US Marines overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy; five years later it was annexed and declared a US territory. Jeju’s history is more contested but the facts are clear – as early as August 1945 the island was “a truly communal area . . . peacefully controlled by the People’s Committee [of Cheju Island],” a decentralized democratic government that reflected the people’s separatist feelings toward the Korean mainland. [See Bruce Cummings’ “Korea’s Place in the Sun – A Modern History,” New York, 1997, p.219]. Between 1948 and 1953, one-tenth of Jeju’s population was murdered and one-third displaced.

Jeju may soon replicate its Pacific cousin in another way: serving as a base for the American Navy. Plans for a base in Jeju were announced back in 2002, and construction is currently underway in the small fishing village of Gangjeong, not far outside Seogwipo City. The South Korean government insists the base will be for its own national purposes but the ties between the US and Korean militaries should make one sceptical.

Given that the base will be the home to a fleet of Aegis-equipped destroyers (high-tech ships designed to shoot down ballistic missiles) it’s hard not to see it in connection to US plans to create a missile “shield” around China much as is being done in Eastern Europe against Russia. [See “U.S. and Romania Move on Missile Plan,” The New York Times, May 3, 2011.]

Since 2002 the naval base has been suspended and had its location changed several times due to strong opposition on the island. The South Korean government, in an effort to placate the population, has also decided to include in the project a nearby “eco-friendly” park and the economic incentive of a commercial dock for luxury cruise liners. Such movement on the part of the authorities may suggest there is hope for the current protesters and for the island itself in not becoming another Hawaii.

Brendan Brisco has a Master’s degree in Peace and Conflict Studies and currently teaches English Literature at Gangwon-do Foreign Language High School.

In an interview on ohmynews.com, journalist Anders Riel Müller makes similar comparisons with Ke Awalau o Pu’uloa (Pearl Harbor):

http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/View/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0001610491&PAGE_CD=&BLCK_NO=&CMPT_CD=A0101

[Interview] Anders Riel Müller
1. In April 19th, 2011, you have launched ‘SAVE JEJU ISLAND campaign by writing a paper on Ganjeong village with the title of “One Island Village’s Struggle for Land, Life and Peace”.  http://www.savejejuisland.org/Save_Jeju_Island/About_Jeju.html

First, I want to make clear that I was not involved in the launch of savejejuisland.org. The founders just asked to use my piece as the backgrounder for their website. The piece was originally written for the Korea Policy Institute. However the purpose of this article was to present the Gangjeong struggle to an international community who may know very little about Korea, Jeju, Jeju’s history and its natural beauty that is about to be destroyed. I am happy that I succeeded at that.

Yet regarding the building of the new naval base in Gangjeong village, the Korean Navy claimed that the new “eco-friendly” naval base will create jobs and increased security for the island. What do you think of the claim of the Korean Navy?

I think it is very difficult to imagine an eco-friendly naval base with 20 Aegis destroyers. First of al. Aegis destroyers each have a 100,000 horsepower engine running on diesel or natural gas. How can these destroyers in any way be eco-friendly? There will be oil spills, waste disposal, etc. in a highly ecologically sensitive area. On the other question regarding job creation: I have worked in regional development for 7 years. There is a significant difference in assessing job creation quantitatively and qualitatively. The jobs around a naval base are not anything like the jobs that people in Gangjeong today have.

2. The Navy also stated that the new naval base will provides an economic boost for the Jeju island. Then why do you and demonstrators are against economy-centered government policy?

Again the question is not whether Jeju needs jobs, but what kind of jobs they get. Again I only speak on my own behalf, but having worked in a government agency in Denmark for 6 years, we always resisted job creation linked to militarization and the prison system. Our objective was to create jobs that would benefit local people, the local communities and the environment. Military related jobs can hardly be considered sustainable. Jeju is unique because of its unique culture and eco-systems. Economic development should seek to build on these unique features, not destroy them.

3. The third argument of the government is that the naval base will provides vital security for the Jeju island. Don’t you agree with the government?

I am doubtful how a large naval base will increase security for Jeju. I grew upon a small island in the Baltic Sea in Denmark, which in many ways was in the front line of the cold war. Only one hour away from Eastern Germany and close to the Soviet Union. As a strategically important point in a small country the threat of invasion was always present as I grew up. Looking back it seemed insane to even believe that the island could be defended against such a superior power as the Soviet Union. I think it is the same case with Jeju. In case of a war with China or Japan, two super powers, what would the chances be of defending the island without being utterly destroyed in the process? The naval base would not defend Jeju, but the mainland. As such for Jeju residents a naval base is simply a loose-loose situation.

4. The ROK government claims that the base is not intended for use by the United States, as activists concern. Why do think the US may use this new naval base since the US keep aircraft careers anyway in Okinawa?

Resistance in Okinawa against US military presence is extremely strong and I think the US is thinking strategically ahead. The US wants a heavy military presence in the waters surrounding China. Jeju’s strategic location only 450 kilometers from Shanghai is simply optimal for the US. There are very few locations where the US can be this close to one of the largest industrial and financial centers of China. The US may not have a constant military presence, but in case of rising tensions with China, I think there will be no doubt that a Jeju naval base will play an extremely important strategic role again to the detriment of Jeju residents and eco-systems.

5. In the paper you pointed out that, “In a potential military conflict with China, Gangjeong will be an important strategic target, just as Pearl Harbor was for the Japanese in WWII.” Could you elaborate more on this point you made?

For the Japanese, Pearl Harbor was the most important strategic base that halted Japanese expansion in to South East Asia and the Pacific. A naval base on Jeju will make the island a similar target in a future war. During the end of World War II the Japanese heavily fortified Jeju against a possible US invasion after Okinawa. The island was spared because of the nuclear bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the islanders still suffered severely as they were forced to build fortifications for the Japanese. My main point here is that strategically located military installations will always be prime targets in a war…and Jeju would be one if the naval base is built.

6. The ROK government’s also claim that the protest is the work of a handful of extreme activists. You were in Jeju physically until recently and encountered many Jeju residents in Ganjeong village. In your opinion, how much the claim of the government is accurate?

I don’t think the local residents in Gangjeong would accept the presence of activist if they did not feel they were a support. What is  important to understand here is that the presence of outsiders give strengths to the villagers. It is always comforting to know that people from the outside cares. The government on the other hand will of course claim that the majority are extremist elements. When I was there, people seemed to go on with their lives greeting us as we walked through the village. I don’t think they would have, if they considered us extremists looking for trouble. We were greeted and accepted by community members. If you take a closer look at who uses extremist actions look to the navy and government. Sending hundreds of police officers and military in to this tiny village every day is an extremist position and excessive use of force and again it shows to me how far Korea is from being a democratic country.

7. You stated in your paper as follows, “if this naval base is not stopped, the Gangjeong villagers’ livelihoods, histories and traditions may soon be erased from memory, all because of strategic geo-political ambitions that have nothing to do with them or their way of life.” Why did you reach such conclusion? Could you explain more on your such conclusion?

Again I want you to look at Pearl Harbor. The reason why it is called Pearl Haror is because of the rich pearl fisheries in the clean water that existed before the naval base. Where do you see any remnants of the small fishing communities and pearl fisheries that took place there before? It was all erased. Today when people think of Pearl Harbor, they think of a naval base, not about the beautiful bay full of Oysters that used to be there. That will be the fate of Gangjeong as well. Once the coastline is paved over, the fisheries ruined, farm land destroyed and the villagers move away, what will be left to remind us of the beautiful place that once was?

8. In your another paper, “South Korea’s Global Food Ambitions: Rural Farming and Land Grabs”, you stated that, “In Seoul, eating out is as common as eating at home (if not more) because the food is cheap, plentiful, and most people work late in this super competitive society. Yet South Korea imports 90% of its food from abroad.” So in your opinion, Korean farmers were victimized by urban policy makers? And why do think Korea is still “super competitive society”?

This is not unique to Korea. I think it is a problem to the whole idea of development thinking: That we go from being a agricultural society, to an industrial society, to a knowledge society. Food in that thinking is merely an input just like energy. Food is energy and we need as much as cheaply as possible to feed the workers who are underpaid. Coming from the outside visiting the country side in Korea, there is no doubt that rural communities were “sacrificed” in the name of development. I used to work in the former communist countries in Europe and I see almost the same level of poverty in the rural areas in Korea as I did there. The difference is thatSouth Korea is one of the richest countries in the world. Poland, for example, is not. I have lived on three continents and I have never lived in a country as status obsessed as South Korea. It is this material status obsession that creates this super competitive society where everything is competition almost from the day you are born. Of course these ambitions have raised the material standard of living very quickly, but once a while we need to stop for a little moment and think: “What did we loose in the process”?

9. You also pointed out that “the official image of Korea as a dynamic, global and high tech society is what most visitors and mainstream Koreans see. Environmental, social, and economic policy is centered on making Korea a modern society…and rural Korea is not part of this plan.” Then what should be done to share the fruits of this Korea’s modernity with the rural Korea?

I have worked with Korean Peasant movements and I think they have a good alternative. The peasant movements are promoting the idea of Food Sovereignty: That farmers in Korea can provide good, healthy, and local food to the cities. Farmers can also provide clean water by using organic agricultural techniques and provide clean energy to the cities through wind and solar energy, but right now all these opportunities are given to large conglomerates and companies. The cities should respect how they are dependent on these services from rural areas and reward them accordingly. Right now, what we see is resource extraction from rural areas in to the cities, but not only that, South Korea is now in the process of buying up farm land in Africa and South East Asia to produce food and energy, meanwhile the farmers in Korea are struggling to survive. Again this is not unique to Korea, but a central problem to the whole idea of modernization, development and progress. We tend to see rural areas as backwards, but we depend on them for so many of the things we take for granted in the cities.

10. A recent Norway’s bomb terrorist Breivik wrote in his paper, before the bomb blast, “a common misconception is that nationalism results in backwardness and halts progress, science and any form of development. The Marxists or capitalist globalists will say that you cannot stop or avoid globalism/multiculturalism which is of course nothing more than propaganda. Japan and South Korea proves very well that this statement is wrong. Both nations are monocultural and at the same time very developed and are considered two of the most successful countries.” As you have lived and studied not only in nordic country, Denmark, but also in Canada and Korea, what do think of Breivik’s analysis and evaluation, seeing Korea and Japan as “the most successful countries”?

Having lived abroad for so many years, it is obvious to me that Breivik has many unfounded romantic notions about Korea and Japan. I doubt he has ever visited, so I don’t understand how he can highlight Korea as “successful” country. There are no ideal countries. We all have good sides and bad sides. But people such as Breivik tend to see the world in very simplified terms such as good and bad, black and white. I think if Breivik had truly studied Korea and Japan, he would have found many things that would contradict his romantic view of these two countries. Breivik has a romantic notion of what Norway used to be as well, a Norway that never existed, just as his perspectives of Korea is an idealized notion of a Korea that never existed. He idealizes warriors and kings and “pure” heroes. In general I think it is dangerous to believe that there is something as a “pure” Korean identity or culture. Identities and cultures are always connected to other identities and cultures and formed through these interconnection. I think this kind of “purity” thinking is dangerous and can lead to disastrous actions such as we saw in Norway.

Posted on

Kulani prison may reopen

The Hawaii Tribune Herald reports that the state is considering reopening the Kulani prison, which was closed and converted into a military school.  Advocates of prison reform have called for the reopening of Kulani, which was once the most successful sex offender treatment program in Hawai’i:

Closed nearly two years ago to save money, Hawaii Island’s former prison could be reopened to house up to 200 inmates now incarcerated on the mainland.

Gov. Neil Abercrombie is considering whether to use the old Kulani Correctional Facility in has plan to reduce the number of prisoners Hawaii has sent out of state, Abercrombie spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz said Friday.

“Kulani … is definitely, from what I understand, being considered to be reopened,” Dela Cruz said.

In June, Abercrombie announced a criminal justice plan that involves expanding prison space to accommodate some of the one-third of Hawaii’s inmates now serving time in mainland prisons.

[…]

Last November, the 614-acre prison property was put under state Department of Defense control for use as a training camp for at-risk teens. The camp, called the Hawaii National Guard’s Youth ChalleNGe Academy — Kulani, graduated its first 41-member class in June.

[…]

The decision to close Kulani was “ill-advised” and resulted in Hawaii investing in mainland states, Jeanne Ohta, executive director of the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, said in her testimony before the Senate Committee on Public Safety, Government Operations, and Military Affairs.

“Kulani was also the largest sex offender treatment program in Hawaii and the most successful offender treatment program in the nation, with less than a 2 percent recidivism rate since 1988,” Ohta said during the March meeting. “Why close such a successful facility?”

[…]

Talk of reopening the prison has left the Youth ChalleNGe Academy’s Big Island operation with an uncertain future, statewide program Director Rick Campbell said following the June 27 graduation ceremony for its inaugural class.

It’s possible the academy could be moved to the recently renovated Keaukaha Military Reservation located across the street from Hilo International Airport, he said.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Posted on

Army to test underwater robots for removal of unexploded ordnance off Waiʻanae

The Honolulu Star Advertiser reports that Army demonstrated a remote-controlled underwater robot it will test for possible use to remove unexploded munitions off the Waiʻanae coast at a location known as “ordnance reef”.

The Army said it will begin a 21-day trial run Monday of a remote-controlled submersible designed to remove discarded military munitions from the ocean floor off the Waianae Coast.

The area called Ordnance Reef is littered with more than 2,000 World War II-era munitions including grenades, bullets, bullet casings and bombs, the Army said.

Officials will use the trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the vehicle to collect munitions, as well as gauge any damage to the reef. If the trial is a success, full-scale removal operations could begin next year.

[…]

Munitions would be brought to a barge equipped with equipment to destroy the munitions, in most cases by cutting them up and baking them in a specially designed oven to render explosive material inert.

The project has an estimated cost of $2.5 million to $6 million, including the $1 million cost of the submersible.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Posted on

Pimping Pohakuloa

The Hawaii Tribune Herald reports that Governor Abercrombie, once a black-beret-wearing campus radical, is offering up virgin areas of Hawaiʻi to service the military:

Abercrombie floated the possibility of building public-private housing in West Hawaii for military families who will relocate from Okinawa when the Marine base there moves sometime in the next few years. That base was scheduled to relocate in 2014 but it has been delayed.

Abercrombie said he had similar military housing in his former house district on Oahu, which helped lead to the lowest unemployment rate in the country — he said it was 2 percent at one point.

Another possibility could be off-base housing for troops preparing for deployment at the increasingly strategic Pohakuloa Training Area.

“PTA will be the center for training in the Pacific in the 21st century,” Abercrombie said.

“It’s an interesting concept,” said Lt. Col. Rolland Niles, the Pohakuloa Training Area Garrison Commander. Niles said an off-base area with a military exchange and other amenities would be welcome.

“It could be a tremendous opportunity,” he said.

According to the article “Abercrombie: Pohakuloa vs. Guam” in the Hawaii Business blog, the Governor is talking smack and muscling in on Guam’s action:

The big news – oddly missing from media reports – was Gov. Abercrombie’s pronouncements about current plans (now largely underway) to move tens of thousands of Marines from Okinawa. “The idea was to take the Marines out of Okinawa and move them to Guam,” Abercrombie said. “But there’s no way that’s going to work.”

According to the Governor, Guam’s all wrong. “They don’t have the infrastructure; they don’t have the capacity; they don’t have the space to train; and they don’t have the EIS. It’s not going to work.”

And, of course, he has an alternative in mind: Pohakuloa on the Big Island. After all, he points out, Pohakuloa is already a major training facility; it’s near the Pacific Command and the resources of Pearl Harbor and Schofield Barracks; and, most importantly, it’s in Hawaii. That’s particularly important in today’s all volunteer military, where retention is as important as recruitment. The Governor wryly considered the preferences of young soldiers: “You ask them where they want to end up, on Guam, or on the Kona Coast?”

Of course, Abercrombie’s remarks – especially before this audience – were strategic. First, he pointed out that the current arrangement of U.S. military resources – in a crescent that runs up the West Coast, through Alaska and the Aleutians, and down through Japan and Korea – is an artifact of the Cold War, when our focus was on the Soviet Union. “Today, we need to think of it as bowl,” he said, gesturing with his fingers to indicate an arc running from California, through Hawaii, and reaching all the way to the Indian Ocean. Not coincidentally, that’s pretty much the jurisdiction of the Pacific Command.

It sounds like a turf war between rival pimps.  But the affected people of Hawai’i and Guam whose land, culture and environment will be taken and destroyed are never asked nor listened to when they object.

Under the leadership of William Aila, the Department of Land and Natural Resources is at least following the law by requiring the Army to complete an environmental assessment of proposed helicopter high altitude training in the protected areas of the sacred mountain Mauna Kea.   The Honolulu Star Advertiser headline should have been “State requires Army to conduct environmental review”, but instead it revealed its pro-military bias with the headline “State hobbles Army training”.  The article suggests that Abercrombie may be helping to facilitate the approval of the military training on the mountain.  Native Hawaiians and environmentalists are livid about the prospect of military helicopters using Mauna Kea.  In the past the hot-dogging pilots violated protected areas and landed in the Mauna Kea Ice Age Preserve.

As reported earlier on this site, an investigation of a crash at the Colorado helicopter training site was critical of this type of training:

The article cites an investigation of the crash that says “The investigation was also critical of the training program, designed to prepare Army pilots for Afghanistan… the program “focuses almost exclusively” on landing at high elevations even though helicopters have little need to do that in Afghanistan.”

This comes at a time when a new law goes into effect creating a Public Land Development Corporation to promote “public-private investments” to exploit public lands, most of which are the stolen lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom.  The other large portion of the Hawaiian national lands are occupied by the U.S. military (approximately 56% of the military controlled lands in Hawai’i are so-called “ceded lands”).   As Arnie Saiki writes in the Statehood Hawai’i blog:

SB 1555–DLNR’s Public Land Optimization Plan: PLOP, Colonialism 4.0 Sneak-Attack

Next week, on July 1st, 2011, Act 55 goes into effect in Hawaii, an act that gives the State of Hawaii, through the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), a new for-profit entity directed by DLNR, the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT), and the Department of Budget and Finance (DBF), headed by William Aila,  Richard Lim, and Kalbert K. Young, respectively, called the PUBLIC LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION to establish a PUBLIC LAND OPTIMIZATION PLAN that will create public-private investment opportunities to develop all public lands currently under the authority of DLNR, which could include the controversial “ceded” lands, the roughly 1.8 million acres of Crown Lands that were  “ceded” to the Territory during the fraudulent transfer to the U.S by the Republic of Hawaii, and transferred to the administration of the State of Hawaii during statehood.

 

Posted on

Kulani saved? Possible win for environmental, peace and justice advocates!

CORRECTION:  I was originally informed that the resolution passed by the Hawai’i State Senate effectively reversed the reset aside of Kulani Prison to the Hawaii National Guard Youth ChalleNGe program.  However, I was informed by another source that the senate vote alone may not have been sufficient to overturn the executive order by itself.   We’re digging into this to confirm.  We know that the intention of the Department of Community Safety and the Department of Land and Natural Resources is to reopen the prison.  Stay tuned to what unfolds.

>><<

The Hawai’i State Senate passed a resolution that disapproved of the reset aside of Kulani lands to the Hawaii National Guard Youth ChalleNGe program.  This is a big win for advocates of peace, justice and the environment.

The former governor Linda Lingle abruptly closed the Kulani prison, one of the most successful sex offender treatment programs in the country, and transferred the facility to the Hawaii National Guard for its youth program and, we suspected for training purposes:

The state plans to allow the U.S. Department of Defense to begin using the 20-acre Kulani facility at the end of November, he said.

The goal is to turn the prison into a Hawai’i National Guard Youth Challenge Academy for teens ages 17 and 18 who are not going to graduate from high school, Maj. Gen. Robert Lee, the state’s adjutant general, announced in July.

Prison reform activists opposed the closure of this successful prorgram.  Native Hawaiians opposed the transfer of the land to the military and sought to create a culture-based pu’uhonua (place of refuge) and healing center for nonviolent offenders.  Environmentalists wanted to preserve the 7000 acre forest that surrounded the prison facility.  DMZ-Hawai’i / Aloha ‘Aina opposed the military land grab.

In 2009, we called the closure a land grab:

Governor Lingle suddenly and unexpectedly closed Kulani Prison, one of the most successful offender treatment programs in Hawai’i.  Why?  She said it was to save money.  She then said that the facility would be turned over to the Hawaii National Guard to convert it into a Youth Challenge military school.  However, this article reports that the National Guard has neither the funds nor the plan to implement this convesion.  So what’s the real reason for the transfer to the military?   Prison reform, environmental, Hawaiian sovereignty and peace activists now suspect that the land transfer may have more to do with the military gaining access to 8000 acres of Waiakea forest for training purposes.   Stay tuned…

In September 2010, the National Guard expanded its request to include various types of military training.   The community blasted the proposal.   The Board of Land and Natural Resources voted against allowing training in the area, but approved the transfer of the Kulani prison facility to the National Guard.   DMZ-Hawai’i / Aloha ‘Aina, the Community Alliance on Prisons and cultural practitioner Michael Lee petitioned for a contested case hearing to challenge the Board’s decision.

In November 2010, I wrote on this website:

Yesterday Governor Lingle was on hand to dedicate the new Youth ChalleNGe facility at the former Kulani prison site on Hawai’i island. This was reported in the Honolulu Star Advertiser and Hawaii News Now.

But wait.

The Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) decision to transfer the land from the Department of Public Safety to the state Department of Defense is being challenged by three parties: Kat Brady of the Community Alliance on Prisons, Michael Lee, a Kanaka Maoli cultural practitioner and lineal descendant with ties to the lands in question and DMZ-Hawai’i / Aloha ‘Aina. Read more here and here

The three parties requested a contested case hearing before the BLNR.  This should place a hold on the BLNR decision going into effect.   To date, there has  been no correspondence from BLNR to the intervening parties.

The Kulani prison lands, which are zoned for conservation, were set aside decades ago by executive order of the Governor exclusively for a prison.  No other uses are permitted.   When Governor Lingle closed the Kulani prison she announced that she was giving the facility to the National Guard for the Youth ChalleNGe program.   The Department of Public Safety and the Department of Defense signed a memorandum of agreement to transfer the occupancy of the facility.   But the previous executive order has not been officially terminated. And a new executive order has not been issued nor approved by the legislature.   So the the new Youth ChalleNGe facility is illegal.

DMZ-Hawai’i / Aloha ‘Aina and the Community Alliance on Prisons issued a statement denouncing the move.

Now Kulani has come full circle.  The National Guard will have to pack up and leave the facility.   Kulani prison will reopen.   And the pristine forest surrounding it will be protected as part of the Natural Areas Reserve.  Mahalo to all who testified, educated, lobbied and spoke out against the military land grab at Kulani.

Posted on

Will military areas be exempt from monk seal critical habitat?

The critically endangered`Ilioholoikauaua, the Hawaiian monk seal, continues to dwindle in numbers.  Environmental groups have pushed the National Ocean0graphic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to expand the critical habitat designation for the Hawaiian monk seal to include the main Hawaiian islands.  NOAA recently issued its proposed revised critical habitat which thankfully includes most of the main Hawaiian islands.  Although a few special interests such as the fishing lobby, have problems with this new rule, most environmental and progressive groups agree that the critical habitat should be expanded.

However, the plan is deeply flawed, but no one is talking about it.   Vast areas are excluded from the proposed critical habitat because of exemptions granted to the military.  See the maps below.  Military activities are among the most hazardous to marine mammals. And yet, the military may get broad exemptions.   See also excerpts from the proposed rule below.

Similar environmental exemptions were also given to the military in the designation of the Papahanaumokuakea National Marine Monument.  It become of a model of marine conservation being used to shield military activities.  Soon after the Papahanaumokuakea National Marine Monument was created, the U.S. created a similar marine monument encompassing the Mariana Islands.  The UK followed suit and imposed a marine monument over the Chagos archipelago in the Indian Ocean, which effectively barred the native Chagossian people from returning to their home island of Diego Garcia, from which the islanders were forcibly removed to make way for a U.S. military base.

It seems that the new proposed critical habitat protects navy SEALS over endangered monk seals.   NOAA is accepting comments on the proposed rule until August 31, 2011.   Testify that the military areas should not be excluded from the proposed critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal.

Military Areas Ineligible for Designation (4(a)(3) Determinations)

The Sikes Act of 1997 (Sikes Act, 16 U.S.C. 670a) requires military installations with ‘‘land and water suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources’’ to complete an integrated natural resource management plan (INRMP). The plans are meant to integrate implementation of the military mission of the installation with the stewardship of the natural resources found on site. Each INRMP includes: An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species; a statement of goals and priorities; a detailed description of management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and a monitoring and adaptive management plan. Each INRMP must to the extent appropriate and applicable, provide for: Fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife or plants; and enforcement of applicable natural resource laws. INRMPs are prepared in cooperation with the USFWS and the appropriate state fish and wildlife agency, and are subject to review no less than every 5 years.

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA states: ‘‘The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines inwriting that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.’’

We contacted the Department of Defense (DOD) and requested information on all INRMPs for DOD facilities that overlap with the specific areas considered for designation as critical habitat and that might provide a benefit for Hawaiian monk seals. Both the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) and the Navy provided us with INRMPs for review under 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA. The USMC provided an INRMP covering the years 2006–2011 for the Marine Corps Base Hawaii (MCBH). Areas subject to the MCBH INRMP that overlap with the areas under consideration for critical habitat include: Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay (MCBH–KB), and the 500-yard buffer zone in marine waters surrounding the Mokapu Peninsula, Oahu; Marine Corps Training Area Bellows (MCTAB) Waimanalo, Oahu; and Puuloa Training Facility, on the Ewa coastal plain, Oahu.

The Navy identified two INRMPs as relevant to this review process: The Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) INRMP and the Naval Station Pearl Harbor INRMP, now referred to as the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam INRMP. The Navy has been working with cooperating partners, in accordance with the SIKES Act (Sikes Act, 16 U.S.C. 670a), to revise both documents and multiple drafts of the documents and relevant materials were presented to NMFS for review. Areas subject to the PMRF INRMP that overlap with the areas under consideration for critical habitat include: PMRF Main Base at Barking Sands, Kauai; and Kaula Island. Although the 2001 Naval Station Pearl Harbor INRMP only covers those areas in the Pearl Harbor Complex that are not included in the areas under consideration, the Navy has identified that the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam INRMP will include the following areas that overlap with the proposed designation: The Navy Defensive Sea Area (NDSA), and the marine reserved zone outside Pearl Harbor and Navy retained lands at Kalaeloa (Nimitz Beach and White Plains Beach), Oahu.

[…]

Exclusions Based on Impacts to National Security
The national security benefits of exclusion are the national security impacts that would be avoided by excluding particular areas from the designation. We contacted representatives of DOD and the Department of Homeland Security to request information on potential national security impacts that may result from the designation of particular areas as critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal. In response to the request, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army, and the U.S. Coast Guard made no requests for exclusion from the critical habitat areas under consideration. Both the U.S. Navy and the USMC identified sites that overlap with the areas under consideration. Both requested that we exclude all identified sites of overlap that met the definition of critical habitat (i.e., areas that contain essential features that may require special management or protection) from the Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat designation. Sites identified by the USMC subject to the MCBH INRMP (MCBH–KB and the 500-yard (457.2 m) buffer zone in marine waters surrounding the Mokapu Peninsula, Oahu; MCTAB Waimanalo, Oahu; and Puuloa Training Facility,  the Ewa coastal plain, Oahu) are not eligible for critical habitat in accordance with 4(a)(3) of the ESA (See Military Areas Ineligible for Designation (4(a)(3)
determinations) above).

Consultation and discussion with the Navy and USMC resulted in the identification of 13 areas (See Table 2) that may warrant exclusion based on national security impacts. As in the analysis of economic impacts, we weighed the benefits of exclusion (i.e., the impacts to national security that would be avoided) against the benefits of designation. The Navy and USMC provided information regarding the activities that take place in each area, and they assessed the potential for a critical habitat designation to adversely affect their ability to conduct operations, tests, training, and other essential military activities. The possible impacts to national security summarized by both groups included restraints and constraints on military operations, training, research and development, and preparedness vital for combat operations for around the world.

TABLE 2:

 

 

 

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110608_monkseal_criticalhabitat.html

NOAA proposes critical habitat revision for the Hawaiian monk seal, seeks public comment

June 8, 2011

Hawaiian Monk Seal.

Hawaiian monk seal hauled out on a beach in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to rest.

Download here. (Credit: NOAA.)

NOAA’s Fisheries Service has proposed 16 areas as critical habitat for the endangered Hawaiian monk seal under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and is inviting public comment. The proposed revision includes expanding the 1988 critical habitat designation in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, and adding new areas throughout the main Hawaiian Islands.

In July 2008, NOAA Fisheries Service received a petition from non-governmental organizations to revise the Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat designation under the ESA. In June 2009, NOAA Fisheries Service released a 12-month finding, which is one step in the review process, announcing that the petition presented substantial scientific information indicating that a revision to the current critical habitat designation was warranted and announced its intention to move forward with a proposed rule.

Following this announcement, NOAA Fisheries Service convened a Critical Habitat Review Team of experts in the field of Hawaiian monk seal biology and management to evaluate critical habitat for the species.

“Monk seals are an important species for Hawaii, and such a valuable part of our ecosystem,” said Michael Tosatto, NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands regional administrator. “This species faces a number of threats, and it’s imperative we ensure they have safe areas where they can rest and take care of their young.”

The team identified essential features for Hawaiian monk seal habitat, such as their need for reproduction, rearing of offspring, foraging, resting and habitat protected from disturbance. The team then identified areas throughout the Hawaii that met the criteria. NOAA Fisheries Service also considered the economic, national security and other relevant effects to the proposed areas.

Hawaiian Monk Seal.

A group of seals resting on a beach in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

Download here. (Credit: NOAA.)

Under the ESA, critical habitat is an area which may require special management or protections essential for the conservation of a listed species. Federal agencies must take precautions to insure that activities they fund, authorize or carry out do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitats.

Biologists estimate that only 1,160 Hawaiian monk seals exist, and are in danger of extinction because of their declining population in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

Monk seals are wide ranging pinnipeds that require both marine and land habitats for reproduction, rearing, foraging and resting. However, unlike other well recognized pinnipeds that congregate in large numbers at rookeries, monk seals are considered a solitary species. They generally prefer to haul out in remote areas for reproduction and rest. The proposed revision to Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat allows NOAA Fisheries Service to incorporate new scientific information available regarding Hawaiian monk seals’ habitat use, and will allow for the conservation of those areas essential for Hawaiian monk seal survival and recovery.

NOAA’s Fisheries Service is accepting comments on the proposed revision through August 31, 2011. Dates, times and venues for public hearings will be available on our website at: http:www.fpir.noaa.gov. NOAA’s Fisheries Service will review comments and issue a final rule, expected by June 2, 2012.

To submit comments on the proposed critical habitat revision for the Hawaiian monk seal, use any of the following methods:

  • Mail or hand deliver written comments to:

Regulatory Branch Chief
Protected Resources Division
NMFS Pacific Islands Region
1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110
Honolulu, HI 96814
Attn: Proposed Critical Habitat Revision for the Hawaiian monk seal

NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Find us on Facebook.

Proudly powered by WordPress