Sunday, December 8, 2019

Completely off topic: My review of the Pixelbook Go

Pixelbook Go. Showing it next to an Apple keyboard and trackpad to give some sense of scale. 

Since I spend my working day, on computers, having a good, responsive machines if a high priority. 

A high battery life is also very important, especially if you are you doing 18 hours of travel, such as a trip from the East Coast to Guam. That made the Pixelbook Go a very attractive machine. 

I've been a big fan of Chrome operating system. When it was first introduce, bought one of the first chromebooks, an Samsung unit. It simplicity, fast boot up, was fresh air. No worries about viruses, and the machine is easy to reset. 

For a long time, Chromebooks were still stuff to use because the applications weren't there.

Here's a brief summary of what I like and don't like about the Pixelbook Go.
The pros:
Stellar piece of hardware. Incredibly solid.
Keyboard is as wonderful as all the reviewers have claimed. Best I've ever used.
Speakers are exceptional.
Fast charging works as advertised.
The M3 is very fast and responsive. After using it, really can't see a reason for buying the i5.
Battery life is exceptional. No reason to doubt the 12 hour claim.
Screen is bright. Very good glass. Sensitive to glare, but not an issue for me at least.
Touchpad seems great. And touch screen is very responsive.
The cons:
This is a big con for me. I am use to working on machines with higher resolution, such as Apple iMac, Microsoft Surface, Samsung CB Plus V1. All of them have a higher resolution than the Go's 1920 x 1080. This lower resolution has the letters, the blacks, look a little tad bleached and soft to me.
Minor thing: The unit seems to have trouble with the battery level reading.
I bought the Go knowing it's a clamshell. That's not a problem for me. No pen support, again no problem. Prefer an iPad for tablet use.
The Go would have been perfect if it had a higher resolution. Truly perfect. I'm not going to return it, although I'm tempted, because it will have value as a travel machine. But it's not going to be my main machine by a long shot.
I knew the resolution might be an issue but not as much as one.
The high-end model with the 4K resolution is retailing for $1,400 -- that's more than double the cost of the M3 at $650. Can't justify it.
If you are use to working on machines with a higher resolution than the Go, you may not be crazy about the Go or anything less than its 4K model. It feels like a step back.
I'm a little disappointed with Google here. They could have done a little better. It should have had a 2400 by 1600 option, instead of nothing but 1920 x 1080 or 4K. I imagine they made that tradeoff to maximize battery life because they are selling this as a "Go" machine. But still, considering all the excellent work that Google did on hardware, it just seems like a pretty big trade-off. Nonetheless, I really need a machine with long battery life for travel. Every other laptop I've owned -- no matter what the manufacturer claims -- seems to rarely make it past 5/6 hours. I am so sick of trying to find outlets in airports. The Go does deliver in that respect.
So maybe that's the trade-off (long battery life vs. resolution) that Google had to make to get the price it wanted on the base model. Maybe in its next iteration of the Go (two years from now?) it will be able to give the resolution a bump? Let's hope so, because otherwise, it's a darn good machine.

Saturday, August 24, 2019

Trump doesn't understand Greenland or Guam

If President Trump understood anything about Guam and colonialism, he would not have offered to buy Greenland. Indigenous people have rights. No longer can one nation "own" another, as Spain did in 1898, when it turn over Guam to the U.S. as a prize of war.

In 1979, about 70% of Greenland's voters approved home rule and since then the island has been self-governing. It's still dependent on financial assistance from Denmark, but the island is on a possible path to full independence.  Greenland is not Demarks to sell and it's amazing that Trump doesn't understand it.

Trump's offer to buy Greenland is rooted in Colonial-era thinking, pre-dating the UN charter that gives indigenous populations the right to self-determination.

This said, it's interesting to contrast Greenland with Guam. What becomes clear, is that Greenland is in a much better position than Guam to determine its political fate.

Guam's Chamorro population makes up less than 40% of the island's total. The Greenland Inuit, in contrast, account for about 90%.

Guam is an Asian melting pot and this culture diversity is one of the island's great strengths. But it is also a serious complication to a Chamorro-only vote on Guam's future political status. Federal courts have rejected a native-only vote as discriminatory. Greenland doesn't have this demographic obstacle.

Greenland, which has a population of 56,000, similar to the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, receives about $600 million in support from Denmark. It has universal healthcare and other Scandinavian-type social benefits.

If Greenland does seek full autonomy, it may look to the Pacific to try to understand what that means. Although the U.S. still has strong political ties to island states, China is using its economic power to expand its influence. China, for instance, has cut tourism to Palau for its recognition of Taiwan. In the Northern Marianas, it is using casino development and tourism to build stronger ties and weaken U.S. influence.

An autonomous Greenland may feel obligated to cut deals with China and Russia for valuable mineral rights and port access, actions that would put it in conflict with the U.S.

The best approach for the U.S. going forward in dealing with Greenland, is to respect and recognize the native population. Trump's offer to buy Greenland may be seen by a future administration as crude, but also a legitimate expression of geopolitical concerns over military and economic control of the arctic. America will have to compete for influence because it can't "buy" Greenland.

Selected readings:

Trump’s Greenland Plan Shows He Has No Idea How American Power Works, NY Times, Daniel Immerwahr, Aug. 23, 2019.

A Brief History of the Indignities Heaped Upon Greenland, NY Times, Matthew H. Birkhold, Aug. 22, 2019.

A new great game: US-China competition in Guam and CNMI, a paper by Major Nicholas Sigler. 2017. 

Paradise Lost. Ms. Magazine. A report on the exploitation of Northern Mariana Island workers. July, 2019. 

China's influence on Free Association States (page 36-37) testimony by Admiral Philip S. Davidson before Senate Armed Services Committee, Feb. 2019. 

China's Engagement in the Pacific Islands: Implications for the United States. U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, June 2018. 

CIA Factbook: Greenland

Why Trump Can't Buy Greenland. Lawfare, Aug. 2019.  

Greenland Reconciliation Commission finds colonization did 'a lot of damage.' CBC. Jan. 2018.

Sunday, July 14, 2019

The coming mass extinction?

No one would support President Trump is they understood that more than half our oxygen comes from the ocean. That seems like an odd thing to say, but it isn't.

Climate change is heating the ocean waters. This heat could stop oxygen production by phytoplankton by disrupting photosynthesis. The oceans are heating up faster than previously thought.

This could happen within the lifetime of a young child today. If the oceans stop producing oxygen, mass extinction is very possible if not probable.

People just don't understand yet what we're dealing with. It's profoundly distressing. Understanding climate change takes work. The earth is a complex system. Humans are disrupting this system releasing by C02.  

The breakdown of this system isn't easy discern on Guam. The island's climate remains relatively stable, unlike Alaska and Siberia, which are seeing record heat. The ocean waters have always been warm. But clear water is a result of absence of life. Cold water can hold more oxygen. Guam's most obvious problem is the decline of coral reefs

Trump denies that climate change is a threat. It's a wilful, ideological-driven ignorance. Trump's view is shaped by fossil fuel interest and Republican belief that remedies to climate change will amount to an attack on capitalism. 

It's hard to realize how much damage we are doing because we see it in isolation. But the collective impact is massive. By the time we truly wake up and begin to address our problems, it may be too late. 

Thursday, July 4, 2019

Climate change and Guam

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite image, Typhoon Yutu

The Marshall Islands may become uninhabitable as early as 2030. It won't take much. A 3 foot sea level rise may force a wholesale relocation. This is bad for Guam as well. Much of Guam's development is in areas not much higher than the Marshall Islands. It's not the only problem.

Rising water temperatures will amplify typhoons. Super Typhoon Yutu intensified from a tropical storm to a category 5 storm in two days.  That's an increase from about 50 mph to 180 mph. Average water temperatures around Guam have risen more than 1 degree over the last century, reports the EPA. Heat is energy. As sea levels rise, and water gets warmer, Guam's vulnerability to massive storm surges increases.

Warming waters and changing pH levels from increasing carbon emissions will kill coral reefs, and probably Guam's tourism industry. Much, however, remains unknown.

There aren't good, firm estimates about how climate change will impact Guam. There's no roadmap that says what will happen in any given year.  But nothing good will happen from climate change.

Unlike the Marshall Islands, Guam's higher elevations will keep it on the maps should sea levels rise 10, 20, 30 feet or more. But Guam faces enormous challenges from climate change that may impact critical infrastructure, especially its fresh water lens and sanitation systems.

Guam's independence discussion ends

Guam has yet to discuss how its climate change future impacts its political future. It ought to be the key issue in the island's self-determination discussion, but it isn't. There's a disconnect and it's not surprising. 

Guam has a stable climate. It's average annual temperatures stay within a relatively narrow band. The rainfall patterns remain predictable. The Marshall Islands problem seems distant. There may be concern about more Yutu-type storms, but Guam is built, to a point, for storm resilience. 

But if mankind fails to quickly address climate change, the people of Guam have no future on the island. It may be getting too late already. No matter what action is taken, the Marshall Islands are lost. This also means that Guam's lower elevation areas will be impacted by rising seas.

Marshall Island residents have, under their compacts, the right to work and study in the U.S. with little restriction. It isn't permanent residency, but it ought to be a path for them. For Guam, the safest political status option is one that maintains U.S. citizenship. 

There are compelling arguments for Guam to pursue separation from the U.S. One leading advocate, Michael Lujan Bevacqua, has argued powerfully for decolonization and independence.

Far from being terrifying, independence for colonized people is a normal and standard course. Billions of people in the world today do not live in terror since they are independent countries. It only feels that way in Guam, because people have accepted certain myths and misunderstandings about the status.
But the decolonization argument is not independent of climate change. Climate change is our new history: Past, present and future. It is an existential threat to the survival of humanity. Everything that we have accomplish and everything that we may accomplish is at risk.

Guam needs to consider the possibility that one day the island may be abandoned.

Suggested reading: 

How climate change is making hurricanes more dangerous. Yale Climate Connections.

Here’s why hurricanes are rapidly exploding in strength. Washington Post.

Friday, December 28, 2018

What is the future of Guam?

Guam wants its own version of a Brexit vote, or the ability to decide its political future. The fundamental question is this: Should it remain part of the United States?

Guam became a U.S possession as a consequence of the Spanish-American war. It was a prize of war. The island’s native population, the Chamorros, have never had a say in their political status. Guam is an American colony. 

The American relationship to Guam has delivered citizenship and higher standard of living. The youth have more options. But it is still exploitative. Guam has no vote in Congress or vote for president. The island has almost no political power, and little control over how the U.S. uses it, which is a very big issue.

The military controls about 27% of the island’s 212 square miles. The military and tourism are Guam’s principal economic bedrocks. But the military buildup is adding significant stress to this relationship.

The U.S. plan to move 5,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam is worrisome for many on the island. 

A gentrification-like battle

The opposition to the buildup parallels urban gentrification battles. Gentrification increases housing costs, reduces income and ethnic diversity and creates conflicts over land use. Guam offers a twist to this problem.

Economic opportunities created by the buildup will increase immigration. This will reduce the percentage of the native population, which has been declining.

The Chamorro population, according ot 2010 census data, makes up about 37% of the island’s population. The balance represents other ethnic groups. Filipino 26%, white 7%, Chuukese 7%, Korean 2%, other Pacific Islander 2%, other Asian 2%, Chinese 1.6%, Palauan 1.6%, Japanese 1.5%, Pohnpeian 1.4%, mixed 9.4%, other 0.6%

The Chamorro population is cohesive and dominates island politics. But the Chamorros may have lost their hope of deciding the island’s ultimate political fate.

Guam wants a plebiscite vote on its status. Voters will decide to make Guam independent, or a “free association” with U.S., which is a form of independence. The third option is to seek statehood.

Guam’s intent was to limit voting eligibility to the native Chamorro population. But Arnold Davis, a non-native inhabitant of Guam, argued it was a form of discrimination. In 2017, the U.S. District Court of Guam agreed with Davis. Guam’s government is now appealing. 

The court's problem with the plebiscite

The court, in its ruling, made it clear why everyone on Guam should have a say in Guam’s plebiscite.

“This change will affect not just the ‘Native Inhabitants of Guam,’ but every single person residing on this island,” the court wrote.

The court is cognizant of the “history of colonization of the island and its people and the desire of those colonized to have their right to self-determination. However, the court must also recognize the right of others who have made Guam their home,” the court said.

Does the lower court ruling on the plebiscite end Guam’s decolonization effort? That's unknown, but it may be an opportunity for Guam to reconsider its approach.

Guam’s economic success is a consequence of its diversity. This immigration has given this small island a great depth in skills. It has allowed Guam to have a high degree of sophistication in services and technologies. Modern Guam will not exist without it. 

The risk of political tribalism 

This is not being blind to another truth. Increasing immigration diversity works to U.S. advantage, which has potential of diluting the Chamorro influence and relevance.

But a Chamorro-only plebiscite vote has consequences. It replaces one historical injustice with another injustice. This vote will marginalize Guam’s other ethnic groups. There is no way to sugar coat it with promises of equality post-plebiscite.

The U.S. is now tearing itself apart in political and cultural tribalism, as is much of the world. It's a terrible situation and it is giving rise to the worst impulses. Guam, for all its problems over status, can be a much better place than the U.S.

Guam’s success depends on the equal contribution of all its residents, no matter where they were born. This is Guam's reality and it’s too late to change it. This diversity is Guam's greatest strength and its future. 

Related points,  selected readings:

What are alternatives to independence, free association and statehood? Perhaps Guam should first consider the idea of reuniting the Mariana Islands, and seek to become a stronger political entity. They share similar problems. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Island (CNMI), for instance, is under pressure from the U.S. to give up Pagan Island to the military for training. It's to the U.S. advantage to have a divided, fragmented Marianas. Perhaps the path to improved political status is unification. 

Statehood is not an option. Guam is too small, and giving Guam two U.S. Senators compounds the problem facing the mainland. The population is concentrating in a number of large states. This is giving outsize political power to smaller states. But Guam can make a easy case for a voting member in The House.

A Chinese Casino Has Conquered a Piece of America
, Bloomberg Businessweek, Feb 15, 2018.  The rise of China's influence in the Marianas is worrisome.  CNMI is seeing a major increase in Chinese investment, and this is bringing new problems. If Guam has a plebiscite over status, a potential worry will be China attempting a Russia-like social media campaign to influence the vote. It's in China's interest to weaken the U.S. military presence in Micronesia. Although China tourism is seen as a potential boon for Guam, China is unreliable as an economic partner and is using its power to bully Palau. It has hurt tourism on Palau over its support of Taiwan.

Climate change is another concern that may impact political status. The Marshall Islands has a free association agreement with the U.S., but is an independent nation. It is also danger of being consumed by sea level rise. Palau has a similar problem. Guam has higher elevation but is not immune, and suffers from declining coral reefs. It's future as a tourism spot could be impacted by climate changes. The need for Micronesia residents to relocate to the U.S. is a long-term possibility. 

What Independence for Guam would mean, Michael Lujan Bevacqua, Pacific Daily News, Sept. 22, 2016. 

The Destructive Dynamics of Political Tribalism, Amy Chua, New York Times, Feb. 20, 2018. 

UN General Assembly adopts news resolution on territories. The Guam Daily Post, Dec. 28, 2018. 

U.N. Resolution 73/104 Economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories. [The UN ruling makes clear that territories, such as Guam, should have control over the use of the island by the military. It's hard to understate the importance of this point. The island has little control over how the island is used by the defense department, and it had no say in the relocation of 5,000 Marines.]

Who are Guam's native inhabitants? The Davis vs. Guam case. 

The District Court in Davis vs. Guam ruled in March 8, 2017 that the “native inhabitants” restriction on the plebiscite question was illegal under the U.S. constitution.

Who are the  “native inhabitants” of Guam and eligible to vote in the plebiscite? People who were made U.S. citizens by the 1950 Organic Act and their descendants.

According to the 1950 Census, approximately 98.6% of those who gained U.S. citizenship in 1950 through the Organic Act (25,788 of 26,142 people) were Chamorro.

Arnold Davis, the plaintiff in the case challenging the voting restriction, does not meet the definition of Native Inhabitant of Guam, according to the complaint he filed. Davis argued the voting restriction “was designed to exclude most non-Chamorros, including most black, Korean, Chinese and Filipino citizens living on Guam.

The defendant, Guam, argues that Mr. Davis “is mistaken as to the legal consequences of the law he is challenging. The challenge statute does not say that its purpose is to hold a plebiscite ‘concerning Guam’s future relationship to the United States.’ Rather it is to ‘ascertain the intent of the Native Inhabitants of Guam as to their political relationship with the United States of America’ and that once their desire is determined, to transmit it to the President and Congress of the United States and the Secretary General of the United Nations. Notably, nowhere does the statute suggest that the results of the plebiscite will have the effect, immediate or otherwise, of actually altering Guam’s future political relationship with the United States, only that the desires of the Native Inhabitants of Guam … be transmitted.”

The court ruling argued that “Natives Inhabitants of Guam” is a race-based classification. “As Plaintiff correctly points out, even an adopted child of a descendant cannot vote in the Plebiscite,” the court wrote.

Guam’s efforts to downplay the significance of the plebiscite vote were also rejected by the lower court. It wrote: "It is also very likely that the government of Guam and its political leaders will use the Plebiscite result as the starting point in working towards achieving the 'Native Inhabitants of Guam’s” desired political relationship with the United States. The Ninth Circuit recognized the important implications of the Plebiscite and noted that “[i]f the plebiscite is held, this would make it more likely that Guam’s relationship to the United States would be altered to conform to that preferred outcome, rather than one of the other options presented in the plebiscite, or remaining a territory.”

The Center for Individual Rights, a public interest law firm in Washington, together with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the Election Law Center, is representing Mr. Davis

The case is 1:11-cv-00035 Davis v. Guam et al

Sunday, December 9, 2018

Trump on the precipice and China's rage

Canada's detainment of Meng Wanzhou, the daughter of Huawei's founder, has the Chinese livid. This happened in Canada at the request of the U.S. for the firm's alleged violations of Iran sanctions.

The Chinese government is urging Canada to release Ms. Meng, and it should. The U.S. has other ways to pursue sanctions with multinational firms, and it ought take those routes instead.

If Ms. Meng is extradited to the U.S., China's anger will likely grow. China Daily writes: "Canada has treated Meng as a dangerous criminal, handcuffing her at the airport and making her wear angle restraints after her first bail hearing."

If Ms. Meng is treated the same way we treat cartel drug lords, public opinion in China toward the U.S. may nosedive. It will become harder for the U.S. to resolve trade issues and scale down tensions over the South China Sea and Taiwan.

The Iranian sanctions have never stopped U.S. technology from ending up in Iran. U.S. equipment can arrive in Iran via other Middle Eastern countries.

Meanwhile, President Trump seems thoroughly distracted by the special counsel investigation and now appears vulnerable to impeachment.

Trump, at this moment, seems wholly incapable of resolving the problems with China, and China may conclude this as well. It's best strategy may be to wait and see how Congress responds to special counsel Robert Mueller's forthcoming report. But the immediate problem concerns Ms. Meng, and hopefully Canada will find a way to release her quickly.

And how does this impact Guam? It won't help with Chinese tourism or relations.

This issue will drag on for time. It will wear on Canadian relations with China. The next crisis will be a decision by Canada, not due until sometime in 2020, to extradite Ms. Meng to the U.S. 

Monday, September 3, 2018

The pending U.S. destruction of Pagan and Tinian islands

The U.S. is turning a significant portion of Micronesia into live fire and bombing ranges to train Marines. It has plans to completely take over one island for this purpose and has control of two-thirds of another island.

If people in the U.S. mainland understood the military's plan for Micronesia they might be alarmed. But this is really happening to U.S. citizens living in America's territories.

This is a result of the U.S. Navy’s plans to relocate 5,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam, where the U.S. has three major bases. But Guam -- even at 212 square miles -- is not suitable for this type of live fire training because of its relatively large population of 160,000 plus people.

The 18-square mile Pagan Island was evacuated in the early 1980s because of volcanic eruptions, although a handful of people have reportedly returned. Others want to resettle, but from the government's point of view, Pagan has no legal residents. 

On Pagan, the government will drop bombs as large as 1,000 pounds and turn the island into a ruined "wasteland," say the people of this region. Chemicals from military activities will leech into the soil and water supply, say opponents. 

The situation is a little different for Tinian Island. The U.S. controls 71% of the 39-square mile Tinian, which has a population of about 3,200. The U.S. plans to fire rockets, explode grenades, fire artillery and conduct amphibious landings.  There may be health consequences possibly from hazardous dust, noise and disruption. The quality of life for the people of Tinian will likely decline considerably. Residents worry that many will leave the island. 

The U.S. has been doing what it pleases since Bikini

If this sounds familiar, it should. 

The U.S. has been using the Pacific islands for military development since it forcibly removed the Bikini Atoll natives in 1946, so it could explode nuclear weapons. Not much has changed since.

A collection of indigenous and environmental groups challenged the U.S. Defense Dept. plans, but they recently lost their case in federal court.

This case was decided in the U.S. District Court in the Northern Mariana Island mostly on a single question: Did the U.S. follow its procedures for taking over Pagan Island and stepping up military training on Tinian?

The court ignored the most important issue 

The court, in its 41-page summary judgment ruling released Aug. 31, completely ignored the issue that should have been core to the case: Will the military's plans destroy a way of life, and endanger the health and environment of the people in this region?  

The questions ought to be huge. Instead, the court found that the government followed its processes. As a result, Pagan Island will be as good as erased off the map, and Tinian Island residents may face environmental and health risks. 

The opponents can appeal, but the odds are long.

The groups challenging this want the government to really assess the environmental damage, health risks and spiritual harm this activity will bring. That is what this case should have been about. But the court was unwilling to do so. Instead, it was decided on mostly technicalities: Has the U.S. followed its procedures for creating military bombing ranges?

Environmental and spiritual destruction

Marjorie Daria, a resident of Tinian and a member of the Tinian Women Association, filed this supporting declaration in the court case, and wrote this:

“I have spiritual interests in the preservation of Tinian. As a child I was taught the legends of my people and the spirits that still walk on our grounds, and that certain spirits occupy certain trees.

“Before I enter the jungle, I say a prayer and ask permission to enter. My beliefs compel me to act in ways that protect and respect Tinian. There are a few hidden locations around the airfield that I like to visit on a quarterly basis.

“One of them used to be a military storage facility that was bombed several years ago. Leading to the storage facility is a beautiful walkway encased with trees and branches, where birds sing, and the roots of these trees are entangled along this dirt wall, and the place is spiritual to me, because it reminds me of the damages caused by war and how peace can easily be disrupted.”

"If the Navy is allowed to carry out its plans to station thousands of Marines on Guam, those Marines would have to train on Tinian, subjecting the island to explosives, hand grenades, mortars, rockets, and artillery, and the accompanying noise, pollution, health risks, and environmental damage. It would cause the loss of native species, loss of biological and cultural diversity, loss of agricultural land, damage to the coral reef and other marine resources, loss of access to traditional fishing areas, lost productivity of traditional fisheries, damage to and loss of access to cultural and historical resources, harm to the tourism industry that is vital to the local economy and well-being of Tinian residents, and restrictions on travel between Tinian and Saipan, Rota, and other CNMI islands, as well as travel to Guam and the Philippines. It would make subsistence farming and fishing more challenging and less productive. It would disturb the tranquility of life here.

Daria warned that the military's plan "may well drive many of the people of Tinian away from the island, ripping the fabric of our community bonds"

The risks for people without political power 

The Tinian islanders will face a number of health risks. This include kicking up dust, and because of the types of minerals on the island, it may cause silicosis, a scarring of the lungs. There will be the danger of errant bombs. 

Tinian residents will face restrictions on when they can leave the island, a serious issue for people needing urgent medical care. The environment will degrade, and the risk to coral, sea life and animal life on the island is considerable.

Tinian and Pagan are part of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a U.S. Territory. They have no political representation in Congress.

If the U.S. plan goes through, the military will fully control 24% of the landmass of the commonwealth.

This will likely be the first of many lawsuits. It would not be surprising to see lawsuits seeking reparations for Pagan residents. One can imagine Tinian residents bringing a flurry of lawsuits over environmental damage, health harms and flight restrictions. The U.S. will pay out money, but it will stay with its defense goals. 

Keli A. Tenorio, a former Pagan resident, who wants to return to the Pagan island to live, wrote in a court brief:

“If our people were forced to live with the military on Pagan, the ground would shake, there would be loud noises, and our homes would be in danger of damage. The soil, air and water would be polluted by toxic chemicals contained in the ammunition, bombs, mortars, etc. that the military will dump on Pagan. The chemicals would seep into the water lenses and poison everything. Our wildlife, which we depend upon as our main source of food, will be detrimentally disrupted.

“Just over the ridge to the east side of Pagan, there are forty agricultural homesteads marked out and ready to distribute to our people. It would both ludicrous and foolish to think our people, plants and animals can thrive in such a close, noisy, and dangerous place as a result of continued bombardment from military training activities. Such activities will leave us with no way to feed our families or sustain our cultural and traditional practices,”
wrote Tenorio. 

Connecting the dots to Bikini

In the decades after their removal, Bikini Atoll residents challenged the government in federal court. Although many years separate those residents from present day, the problem is similar. 

A failed federal lawsuit by the Bikini residents, who were seeking reparations, said this:

“On January 10, 1946, President Harry Truman approved the use of Bikini Atoll for three nuclear tests, code-named ‘Operation Crossroads.' One month later, on Sunday, Feb 10, 1946, the American military governor of the Marshall Islands, U.S. Navy Commodore Ben Wyatt, flew by seaplane to Bikini to speak to the people and their leader, Juda, at the conclusion of Bikinians’ church services. 

"Official Navy records reported that Wyatt told the Bikinians 'of the bomb that men in America had made and of the destruction it had wrought upon the enemy” and that the Americans “are trying to learn how to use it for the good of mankind and to end all world wars.” He then asked: “Would Juda and his people be willing to sacrifice their island(s) for the welfare of all men?” The Bikinians were told that they would be allowed to return of their atoll in a matter of months when the United States no longer needed it for Operational Crossroads.”

“The Bikinians did not wish to leave their atoll. But, in view of the United States’ defeat of Japan and Commodore’s Wyatt’s description of nuclear weapons, they believed themselves powerless to resist the United States decision.”

The Bikinians gave up their land -- which remains uninhabitable to this day -- because of America’s geopolitical interests. They were powerless, and the fate had been decided. The same thing is happening again in Micronesia.