...
A Symbiotic Relationship
Not everyone in Guam is critical of the military, of course. In an emailed statement, Guam’s lone representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo, said, “Guam, which has a historically symbiotic relationship with the military, will benefit significantly from the associated investments [from the U.S. Marine realignment] in our community.”
Last March, Bordallo called for the development of an IT business sector on Guam, which she says, through strong military ties, could position Guam as a regional hub for IT infrastructure. “Further, if the Trans-Pacific Partnership is passed I think Guam can leverage its location to take advantage of potential business meetings and engagements to facilitate trade in the region,” she added.
Guam’s spokespeople for the Army, Navy, and Air Force all declined requests for interviews, but in a written statement U.S. Pacific Command Public Affairs spokesman Commander Dave Benham said, “The military’s forward presence and engagement play an essential role in strengthening the capabilities of Pacific nations and partners to defend and secure themselves. Building strong partnerships in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region requires us to sustain and enhance American military strength in the region.”
One military supporter eager to talk was Carl Peterson, a civilian aide to the secretary of the Army. He says Guam’s military presence is essential to the local economy as it reduces dependency on tourism. He asks, “The bottom line is how do you expand the economy?”
Furthermore, Peterson says the military provides vital job skills training and regional security.
Peterson points to Chinese-backed real estate development in the nearby Northern Marina islands saying, “If the U.S. left, it wouldn’t be long before China would run everything in Guam.” He suggests Guam’s strategic importance will only increase.
“From the point of view that [Guam] is sovereign territory, it’s far more important than Okinawa… Guam becomes a place where the United States has a toehold in Asia and can justify their presence.”
More Troops? No Thanks.
The notion that the U.S. military is what keeps Guam safe is “very low-level, colonized thinking,” according to Dr. Lisa Natividad, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Guam.
She see the military presence as a source of social and economic stress, saying it “vampires our best” through its universal recruitment in Guam’s schools.
As for the Marine buildup she asks, “Why is the government of Japan willing to pay so much money to transfer Marines from Okinawa to Guåhan (the Chamorro name for Guam) if it’s such a great thing? It doesn’t make any sense.”
Pointing to sexual violence against women and children in Okinawa, Natividad says. “I attempted to actually come up with a number [of crimes/rapes] but I gave up after the fourth or fifth page because each one of those cases is multiple numbers. It’s really obscene.”
When the Navy released a bulging 10,000 page Draft Environmental Impact Statement in 2009, concerned citizens divided up the report for review. Facing opposition and more than 10,000 comments, the Navy scaled back the original plans for 8,600 Marines and deferred controversial plans to dredge over 70 acres of coral reef and to build a live firing range complex at a historical Chamorro site. The firing range was instead moved to the Guam National Wildlife Refuge on the island’s northernmost tip.
Victoria-Lola Leon Guerrero is co-chair for the Independence for Guåhan Task Force and a member of the Commission on Decolonization. She helps lead efforts to educate Guam’s public about the three political options it would face in a plebiscite vote: statehood, free association (similar to the Federated States of Micronesia), or total independence.
According to Leon Guerrero, business interests on Guam have constructed a false narrative suggesting the whole of the island is supportive of the Marine build up. “Those of us who have read through these [military] documents have realized that there really isn’t much economic gain to be had, especially the way the buildup has been downsized,” Leon Guerrero says.
She’s referring to the original announcement that 8,600 marines and 9,000 dependents would be relocated to Guam for four-year stints, during which time they could invest in the local economy and contribute to the community. Instead, two-thirds of the reduced number of Marines will be training on Guam and neighboring islands on six-month rotations.
“The island will see a boom when we get a huge construction phase which will then suddenly bust… But what happens when construction ends?” Leon Guerrero asks. “These are not longstanding jobs. For us, that’s not something we’re interested in.”
Rather than focusing on how to profit from the military, Leon Guerrero says Guam’s people should be working to build a self-sustaining economy that breaks what she calls a dependency on the military.
One of many bus stops, painted in a military theme. Photo by Jon Letman.
A public bus shelter outside the gate surrounding Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station Guam is painted with slogans and symbols of the U.S. Air Force. Photo by Jon Letman.
A Colony by any Other Name
Dr. Carlyle Corbin, a U.S. Virgin Islands-based international advisor on governance, also teaches a course on political evolution for small island territories at the University of Guam.
“Discussion of the fact that the United States has colonies is something that doesn’t resonate, especially… when there is a bit of a denial as to whether it’s a colony,” Corbin says.
According to Corbin, the U.S. State Department and the U.S. mission to the UN project the image of Guam as having full self-government. “The point is not made that the governors are elected but their power is limited and the representatives in Congress are non-voting and only in one house of Congress and not the other… It’s easy to dismiss any concerns because of the very limited description that is often used to placate whoever may be asking the question.”
Corbin continues: “There’s obviously a tendency to view [Guam] from the military side but not even giving consideration to the fact that there might be people there who have a different opinion… But very little attention, if any, is given to the fact that the people in the place should also be taken into account as well, in particular their political aspirations and their right to self-determination.”
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Carter has vowed the U.S. “will remain the principal security power in the Asia-Pacific for decades to come” and the military describes Guam in terms of providing “strategic global strike capability” and “ensuring consistency with force posture requirements.” At the same time, there are growing voices on Guam that demand a permanent and just resolution to what is seen as injustice.
Reflecting on being a military colony, Natividad says, “America justifies its military might as the spread of democracy whereas here in Guam, which is currently still U.S. soil, democracy doesn’t exist. How can you justify doing that all over the world when in your own backyard you are doing just the opposite?”
Jon Letman is a Hawaii-based independent journalist covering politics, people, and the environment in the Asia-Pacific region. He has written for Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy in Focus, Inter Press Service and others.
