Guam’s budget and the Eat Me Cake

I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3-D and absolutely loved it. Well, we all know how it ended for Alice (plot spoiler), after she slays the Jabberwocky. She’s out of the rabbit hole, and off for new adventures.

But Alice never made it to her intended destination.

Alice was shipwrecked on Guam and she takes a job with Gov Guam where she subsequently hires the Mad Hatter to help run its finances.

But the bills weren’t being paid! The Mad Hatter – pointing to his watch – says it will be best to delay tax refund payments.

“Why, this watch is exactly two days slow,” explains the Mad Hatter.

[The deficit is being financed primarily by delaying the payment of income tax refunds, which totaled $278M at the end of FY 2008. (Guam Public Auditor Performeter Analysis).]

But then the Duchess of Debt arrived.

“The more there is of mine, the less there is of yours,” says the Duchess of Debt.

[Or as the public auditor reported: At the end of FY 2008, the government of Guam’s net asset deficiency increased by $78.2M (59.4%) from the prior year’s $131.5M, indicating a continued deterioration of its financial condition. The increase in the deficit was due to an increase in expenses of approximately $100M, while revenues increased only by $14M.]

“Let me see: four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen, and four times seven is -- oh dear! I shall never get to twenty at that rate!” says Alice, after reading the report.

Alice then reaches for the Eat Me Cake for help, with its special powers developed by the U.S. military.

“Well, I’ll eat it,” said Alice, “and if it makes me grow larger, I can reach the key; and if it makes me grow smaller, I can creep under the door: so either way I’ll get into the garden, and I don’t care which happens!”

And the Garden does arrive, delivered by 8,000 Marines who help solve the budget problems.

The Mad Hatter says to Alice, “You used to be much more … ‘muchier.’ You’ve lost your muchness.”

Guam’s shared history with Bikini

It may seem harsh to compare the military's build-up on Guam to the nuclear annihilation of Bikini Atoll. After all, the U.S. only wants to risk contamination of Guam's water supply and not blow up the island. Let's recognize this as an improvement in Pacific island relations. But the nuclear testing program was arguably one of the lower points in the U.S. treatment of Pacific islanders and is a baseline for evaluating the military's plans for Guam.

From 1946 through 1958, the U.S. exploded 67 nuclear devices, including hydrogen bombs, on the Bikini Atoll. Radiation was spread far and wide, affecting thousands of people living in the Marshall Islands, leaving problems that persist today.

The build-up on Guam gives the island difficult choices about its future. The Bikini islanders faced a difficult choice as well in 1946, and that's our starting point for comparison.

Beware of government PR.

Imagine the task facing the U.S. government on Bikini. It did not want to be seen forcibly evicting the islanders. It had to appear that the Bikini islanders had accepted the relocation as the morally right thing to do. Arriving on the atoll in a seaplane in early 1946 is Navy Commodore Ben Wyatt with the task of convincing the people of Bikini to give up their island. It's a Sunday, shortly after services and Wyatt is there to see the island's leader, King Juda.

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 did not wish to leave their atoll. But, in view of the United States’ defeat of Japan and Commodore Wyatt’s description of the nuclear weapons, they believed themselves powerless to resist the United States decision. (Source: Reparations lawsuit filed by the people of Bikini in 2006).

The U.S. had what it wanted from the Bikini islanders -- their consent, even if it was a fiction. But that was the story, told with the news media's help, to the mainland. In July of 1946, just five months after Wyatt's arrival, a New York Times reporter was flown to the island to witness an unusual ceremony from the Bikini islander's new home, the neighboring island of Rongerik. The headline and a few excerpts follow.

BIKINI'S KING GETS TRUMAN'S THANKS.

Receives Gifts as His People Are Hailed for Sacrifice -- Juda to See Next Test.

RONGERIK, Marshall Islands, July 16 -- King Juda of Bikini, head of a community of 167 souls who voluntarily gave up their native island to make way for the atomic bomb, today received the official thanks of the President of the United States in a colorful ceremony.

Representing Truman was Sen. Carl Hatch, (D-N.M.), who reportedly said this: "The President knows the sacrifice you have made and he is deeply grateful to you for that. You have made a true contribution to the progress of mankind all over the world, and the President of the United States extends to you, King Juda, his thanks for all that you have done."

As the message was translated to him, King Juda, dressed in a Navy fatigue uniform, nodded his acknowledgement. Then came a burst of applause from all the men, women and children seated behind him in a semi-circle.

King Juda was also presented with several gifts, "a pipe, a cigarette holder, matches, a carton of cigarettes and a complete set of photographs of the atomic cloud over Bikini."

Don't ask, don't listen

The U.S. didn't seek Guam's consent for the buildup. It did not ask whether it is "willing to sacrifice their island" for it (i.e. risk the water supply, the loss of 70 acres of coral, noise from live fire ranges, additional land losses, and other impacts) and assumed it would have enough political support.

But awareness and opposition to the build-up was already building by the time Vice President Dick Cheney visited Andersen Air Force Base in 2007, it just wasn't being heard in Washington. A petition circulated by the group Nasion Chamoru opposed the increased military presence. “We believe that increased militarization will put our families, friends and relatives who are living on Guam in harm’s way rather than provide safety and stability,” the group said in a statement prior to Cheney’s visit. (Navy Times)

This petition was well in advance of the environmental build-up studies and the Congressional Research Service’s recent assessment that "Guam’s higher military profile could increase its potential as an American target for terrorists and adversaries during a possible conflict."

The subsequent growth of We Are Guahan and the outpouring of concern at the recent hearings demonstrate that this build-up opposition is broadening and deepening. It is also a movement looking beyond the environmental and infrastructure issues to question the very future of the island, its identity and the legacy it wants to leave for its children.

Sen. James Webb's focus is on mitigating environmental and quality of life impacts, and not the transcendent issues. He let President Obama's administration know, after his recent visit, that the military is asking too much of the island and giving it too little in return. Webb's goal is to help Guam get millions of dollars for infrastructure help and a slower pace of development, but he wants an outcome that ensures that the Guam build-up is realized, which he calls an "issue of national strategy."

The colonialist pay a visit Shortly after Webb's report, which included his assertion that the build-up is a "win" for Guam, the White House unveiled "One Guam, Green Guam," in advance of President Obama's visit. Its goal for Guam is to bring the island "to an end state that’s politically, operationally, and environmentally sustainable," according to the White House briefing.

The White House needed a new approach. Opposition on Guam to the build-up is increasing, thanks in part to the Draft Environmental Impact State Statement (DEIS) which makes it clear that protecting the island's environment is not the government's top priority. [The U.S. Environmental Protection assessment helps support that conclusion.]

The White House sent Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the Council on Environmental Quality, to Guam to lay a new groundwork for selling the build-up. Sutley appears at a press conference with a number of other federal officials and then says "what you see here is a commitment from the federal family." (Marianas Variety, March 23, 2010).

The phrase "federal family" is not something a U.S. official would typically say stateside. Ms. Sutley was probably attempting to show genuine concern. But it's also a paternalistic expression that reinforces a painful fact for Guam: it is a second-class citizen, unable to deal with the federal government either as a sovereign nation or state.

The U.S was similarly paternalistic with Bikini residents, who were led to believe that they could one day return to their island and that they would be cared for until such time. The Bikini islanders "agreed to leave their atoll on the understanding that the United States would provide for them while they were away from their homeland and would protect them against the loss of their lands." (Bikini reparations lawsuit).

Done Right, versus What's Right

The U.S. government is pursuing two separate goals in the build-up. The first goal is the build-up and achieving the strategic objective. The second, less important goal, is a sustainable build-up. This is one of the things the Bikini islanders learned in their experience. Once the nuclear testing began and the strategic objective achieved, their lives took a turn for the worse despite U.S. promises to the contrary.

Supporters of the build-up want U.S. assurances that it will be "done right," meaning that there is sufficient money and planning to offset its environmental and infrastructure impacts. Whether those impacts can be addressed is unsettled. But the deeper issue of "what's right" for Guam is not a question that will be considered by White House. And the reason for this is clear.

The U.S. government's primary objective for Guam isn't "One Guam, Green Guam," but the build-up. Everything else is secondary and misdirection.

Had the Bikini islanders understood that the only thing that mattered was the evacuation of the island and not their futures, who knows how they might have responded. All anyone can do today is wonder what King Juda thought when he was handed pictures of the atomic bomb exploding on Bikini, part of the thank you gift from his new federal family.

The rich irony of changing Guam’s name to Guåhan

In his State of the Island address, Gov. Felix Camacho calls for returning Guam’s name to Guåhan.

The governor is right to seek this name change for the island. As he pointed out in his speech, Guam is the name set in the Treaty of Paris in 1898. It’s an artificial rebranding of the island and an exercise of colonial power.

But why is the governor making this recommendation now, at this particular point in Guam’s history?

The credit may belong to the people behind We Are Guåhan. It is a movement of many young and well educated residents passionately concerned about preserving the island’s cultural heritage and enriching it. They are questioning the very foundations of Guam’s direction and are unwilling to cede the island’s future to the military. There are nearly 2,000 people who have signed up as members of this group on Facebook and their numbers grow daily.

A cynic might suspect that the governor’s name change proposal is intended to diffuse or at least muddle one of We Are Guåhan’s most important assertions, that the build-up poses grave risks to island’s culture and identity. But Camacho may not be acting politically. He runs an island where one-out-of-four paychecks is government issued, either through the federal government or Guam’s government. Government spending is a pillar of the economy. In his speech, he argues: “Like many of you, I have raised my children here, and this is the place my grandchildren call home. We all want safer streets, an improved educational system, and a job market that allows our people to better support their families.” He doesn’t see economic alternatives for improving his children’s future but understands, nonetheless, the risk to his legacy and the island by backing the build-up, which he is attempting to mitigate by forcing the U.S. to extend the build-up timeline, improve its financial support and not dredge Apra Harbor. By recommending the island’s name change, the governor is arguing that the island can absorb the build-up as well as preserve its cultural identity. This is also known as the having your cake and eating it too argument.

In his speech, Camacho makes it clear that the build-up will have irrevocable impact.

“Life as we know it will be changed forever and we must ensure that we protect our environment, manage our limited resources, and preserve our culture.”

Later, in his remarks arguing for the island’s name change the governor says:

“As we quickly move in to this time of rapid growth and development that may forever change our island, our sense of identity, family, and place – it is important that we reaffirm our identity as a people.”

That’s a strong statement by the governor and a clear warning about what’s in store. The build-up “may forever change our island, our sense of identity, family and place ...” The governor is speaking from fact. Guam faces the risk of being gradually turned into a combination of island theme park and strip mall as a result of build-up, and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (which I’ll show shortly) explains how.

The most enthusiastic supporters of Guam’s name change, ironically, will be the build-up supporters, including the U.S. government. (It would not surprise me if President Obama voices support for it during his visit next month.) Support for the name change will be, for build-up supporters, a means of demonstrating sensitivity to Guam’s cultural identity without having to make any concessions on the build-up. They may see support for Guåhan as a way to soften opposition.

But, conversely, build-up opponents might argue that if Guam is to change its name, Guåhan must also be a statement of the island’s future and its hopes, otherwise it’s a shallow rebranding and as artificial as the name Guam. The name change can’t be separated from the build-up, because the build-up undermines the culture, which is the very thing the name change seeks to reaffirm. The build-up's population increase will dilute the political power of the Chamorro population that may set it on a path that is less independent and increasingly deferential to U.S. wishes.

From the DEIS (Vol. 2, Chapt. 16):

Minoritization: Overall, the analysis indicates a sustained increase of approximately 33,500 people on Guam. Most of these people would have political rights as U.S. citizens. Therefore, their sustained presence could affect Chamorro culture in a number of ways, politically and culturally.

Firstly, a reduction in Chamorro voting power would impact certain political issues important to the Chamorro population. The incoming population would presumably be disinclined to vote for further moves away from the U.S., and this may affect the success or failure of future plebiscites involving Guam‘s political status. … Another goal of Chamorros has been political self determination, and for some Chamorros, total sovereignty.

While it is by no means certain that Guam residents would ever vote for full independence even if the military buildup does not take place, the addition of more non-Chamorro voters may make efforts at sovereignty less viable.

On a more purely cultural level, while the loss of the Chamorro language has been occurring for years on Guam, it may be accelerated with the military build-up.

Guam‘s integration into the larger English-speaking American society has been correlated with a loss of the use of Chamorro language in everyday life. A survey of Chamorro residents (Santos and Salas 2005) Guam and CNMI Military Relocation Draft EIS/OEIS (November 2009) found that 90% said the language was a source of pride, and students are learning to read and write the language with more comprehension than most of their elders. However, younger people are much less able to speak and comprehend the spoken language than their elders. Younger people speak the language primarily just with older relatives, not among their peers.

This loss of language skills is a common occurrence where a more dominant culture influences a minority culture.

In a recently published book by Martin Jacques When China Rules the World there is an excerpt from an interview with Hung Tze, a Taiwanese publisher, who addresses the importance of language:

Language is essential to form an idea – as long as you keep your unique language, you keep your way of creating ideas, your way of thinking. The traditions are kept in the language.

On the importance, beauty and wisdom of the language on Guam, I have gleaned many insights from the wonderful writing of Michael Lujan Bevacqua.

There are some 4,000 years of history in the Chamorro culture and broader question for the U.S. government is just what strategic ends are being served by the build-up.

The governor, in his speech, points out that Guåhan means, ‘We have’ – and we have the right to do so.” The context Camacho gives the name is one of strength, of assertion and bold activism, which is the right message to send in the face of the U.S. government's plans. Even though the Guam government appears to support the broad goal of the build-up, I can't help but wonder whether the governor's name change proposal is a sign, a signal of some doubt about it. It opens a new artery in the build-up debate to ask indirectly but nonetheless for the meaning of Guåhan and “We have” at a time when there appears much at risk.

There is no Guam build-up battle in Washington

Guam's U.S. Rep. Madeleine Z. Bordallo made some comments on the Guam build-up at hearing this week of the House Armed Services Committee. Her office issued a press release about it.

I put in italics my take on her press statement.

Rep. Bordallo wrote:

Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo today addressed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Join Chiefs of Staff, during a House Armed Services Committee hearing today in Washington, D.C. on the Fiscal Year 2011 defense budget.

It's to her credit that she attended this hearing. Her attendance was probably optional and Guam's build-up, within the scope of the overall defense budget, is a small line item and of little interest to most in Congress. Bordallo, in a manner, showed the flag.

During the hearing, Congresswoman Bordallo shared concerns raised by members of the community at recent town hall meetings regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

This means that the concerns on Guam about the build-up have reached her. Her comment may be a sign that she recognizes the opposition's depth.

Specifically, Congresswoman Bordallo expressed her continued opposition to the use of eminent domain by the Department of Defense (DoD) for land acquisition and suggested that the DoD should look into building within their existing footprint on Guam.

Is eminent domain the problem or the military's expansion of land it controls? It's really not clear from this, but suggesting that the U.S. build within its existing footprint is something even build-up supporters are likely to back.

Congresswoman Bordallo also expressed concerns regarding the aircraft carrier berthing and the potential damage to coral reefs during the dredging process.

The aircraft berthing is only one of many, many problems cited in the DEIS and by the build-up's opponents. Why focus on that one alone?

Secretary Gates stated that the Department of Defense would work with Guam stakeholders to “have transparency and for us [Department of Defense] to take into account the views of the people of Guam.”

Gates is blowing smoke. Of course the DOD will say that it will take into account the "views of the people of Guam."

Admiral Mullen further stated that these, “are major moves that we want to get right.”

'...get right,' in what respect?

“I along with Chairman Skelton and others have repeatedly stated that we need to get this military build-up done right,” Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo said today.

Bordallo is expressing clear support for the build-up.

Bordallo continues: “The Draft Environmental Impact Statement released by the Department of Defense, in its current form, insufficiently addresses concerns raised by our local government, our community, and stakeholders on Guam."

That's a strong statement, but it could have been much stronger. Bordallo could have raised the long list of issues created by the build-up. She could have told Gates of the deep fears that the build-up will erode the culture and quality of life on Guam. She could have suggested that the build-up may exceed the capacity of Guam, environmentally and culturally, to handle it.

I took this opportunity today to share some of these concerns with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen during a House Armed Services Committee hearing. Both Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen agreed that this military build-up must be done right, and most importantly, that the concerns of our community must be taken into account before we get to a Final Environmental Impact Statement.”

Bordallo is trying to represent the concerns of those who oppose the build-up without worrying its supporters. The opponents have little to hope for.

What Bordallo could have said is that the DOD's decision to allow only 90 days to comment on its 10,000 page build-up impact statement is insulting and a living example of U.S. colonialism, and something that no mainland community would tolerate.

She could have said:

"I urge you, Sec. Gates, to pull back on the build-up and to set aside the funding for it in the 2011 budget until independent environmental and economic studies are completed and the people of Guam have had a chance to really assess the build-up's impact. There is nothing so urgent that requires the people of Guam to give up so much so quickly and there is no reason why they should have to."

Obama's visit to Guam

President Barack Obama will visit Guam sometime in March and the importance of his visit to the military build-up can’t be understated. But it’s really hard to know what to make of his visit or how it might affect the build-up.

Obama’s visit may be very short, and his exposure to the build-up may be entirely from the military's perspective. His trip may be little more than a briefing and a meeting with the troops before moving on. Some of this may depend on whether the White House wants to get the president involved in the build-up debate, particularly since the Pentagon seems to be set on it no matter what issues or concerns are raised.

But the president will be likely briefed about the build-up, and hopefully his briefing papers will include this column in the Marianas Variety by Brian Schaible, a marine biologist, who succinctly outlined some of the many problems the build-up will create for Guam.

If Obama stays more than a few hours and meets with local officials, then I hope that this meeting includes people who have expressed concerns so that the president gets a complete view of the build-up's impact.

The U.S. officials in charge of the build-up on Guam are middle managers. They have no power of consequence. Their mission is to minimize obstacles and concerns to the build-up. My expectation is that the U.S. will make a number of adjustments to the build-up plan in response to opponents, but these changes will be mostly cosmetic and malleable. The only person with power to change this is President Obama, so that’s why it will be important he gets a full range of views.

History of earthquakes on Guam

The U.S. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), prepared for the military buildup, has some great summaries about Guam's environment. Most of this information reported is in the public domain and can be pieced together, but the EIS does a nice job of creating a narrative that gives some sense of the historical flow.

One source of information about Guam's earthquake history is the United States Geological Survey

Here's the EIS summary:

Guam experiences occasional earthquakes due to its location on the western edge of the Pacific Plate and near the Philippine Sea Plate. In recent years, earthquakes with epicenters near Guam have had magnitudes ranging from 5.0 to 8.7.

On October 30, 1936 (October 29, Universal Time), a magnitude 6.7 shock occurred about 80 mi (125 km) southwest of Guam. Walls were cracked and plaster and tile fell.T he seismic observer at Guam reported 25 tremors during the day of October 30. Another earthquake originated in the same area as the 1936 shock on September 16, 1970. The magnitude 6.2 tremor caused minor damage on Guam. A similar occurrence on November 1, 1975 (magnitude 6.2) produced damage on Guam that reached $1 million. The earthquake was felt strongly in many parts of the island.

On January 27, 1978, a magnitude 5.2 earthquake centered near the east coast of Guam caused considerable damage on the island. On August 8, 1993, the largest earthquake (magnitude 7.8) recorded on Guam occurred south of the Mariana Islands, injuring 48 people on Guam and causing extensive damage to hotels in the Tumon Bay area. Many landslides and rockslides were reported, mainly in the southern half of the island. The estimate of loss from damage to commercial buildings was placed at $112 million and loss from damage to private residences estimated at several million dollars.

The PDN's Liberation Day propaganda

I never much cared for Guam's Liberation Day celebration and in writing this I don't mean to marginalize the heroic sacrifice of U.S. troops in freeing the island from Japanese occupation. But the celebration always struck me as a bit much, considering Guam's history as a trophy possession by major powers. There are events of equal consequence to the people of this island, if not even more, that are given little attention. Most notably, is the turning over of Guam by Spain to the U.S. as part of the 1898 Spanish-American War settlement.

An interesting paper published in the Journal of Communication Inquiry looks at the role of the of the Pacific Daily News for this historical blindness. The author, Francis Dailisay of Washington State University, traveled to Guam to examine the newspaper archives and conclude that the newspaper is essentially a vehicle for reinforcing the American occupation and expansion.

Dailisay's analysis is a worthwhile read. For instance, even in those cases were the newspaper reported opposition to America's occupation ...

...the PDN found it necessary to reaffirm the actors’ loyalty to the United States. This was a strategy used by the newspaper to legitimize local dissenting opinions that challenged dominant American ideologies. These findings reveal how a local, mainstream newspaper in a U.S. colonial context presents the resistances of colonized actors within a socially controlled manner.

One conclusion is that the PDN has downplayed this conflict to foster U.S. control of the island.

Because the PDN was part of an American corporation (Gannett) at the time of this study, it may have chosen to do this in order to secure the continued flow of U.S. capital to Guam, which the PDN needed to support its daily news operations.

It's important to note that this paper's analysis concerns coverage over many years. Newspapers are fluid, living things and the philosophies and approaches of the current staff may not necessarily reflect historical patterns. Newspaper reporters, in my experience, are often the last people around to blindly accept authority. But this research paper, nonetheless, offers a means to assess the PDN's coverage. The work isn't available online and has to be purchased. Here's a link. It ought to be required reading in any newsroom considering anew: what does it mean to serve readers?