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.

Guam's looming rental bubble

It was discouraging to read that Sen. Matt Rector has resigned from his office, forced out by opponents. His perspective on the build-up is important as is his warning that it may deliver more economic harm than benefit.

Build-up proponents argue that the military will transform Guam into an economic Shangri-La: an island of full employment and improved standard of living. Rector is a critic of that point of view, and his position finds support in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Take housing, for instance.

Home ownership on Guam is at 48%, one of the lowest homeownership rates in the United States. It means a large number people are potentially vulnerable to what may be a build-up induced rental bubble. And Guam has a lot of people who are at risk to increase housing costs, according to data in a Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority study.

Out of Guam’s population of 175,000 (the figure used the study), there are 13,800 people (2,286 households) or 8% that are considered “hidden homeless,” or living in households in which more than one family share accommodations. There are another 42,500 people “at-risk” (10,600 households) or 24% who would become homeless in three months if their primary income was lost.

In sum, nearly a third of the island’s residents will have trouble absorbing housing cost increases.

The build-up’s proponents argue that new jobs and abundant overtime will mitigate cost of living increases. But that’s not what the DEIS says. This report was written with an enormous amount of wiggle room, and the best it can do is offer scenarios and assumptions.

One possibility, suggested by the DEIS, is that rising prices on Guam and housing shortages will reduce Guam’s desirability to people off-island, creating labor shortages. Wages may increase but prices of goods and services may rise even faster, the DEIS warns. It also suggest: An influx of new workers could cause increases in housing prices and/or crowded housing conditions and homelessness or simply eliminate the ability of new workers to move to Guam.

The DEIS frames the problem:

The essential dilemma of the construction boom period is as follows: Would the island economy generate several thousand housing units for the boom period that may remain vacant thereafter, or would the disincentives for such short-term housing production result in a shortage of housing during the construction period?

A shortage of housing seems likely. The DEIS points out:

The spike in housing demand is expected to last only from 2010 to 2014 … substantial vacancy rates can be expected after the year 2015 and a significant housing glut is possible. This short window of high demand means those building rental housing might expect only up to four years to gain adequate returns on their investment, with longer-term prospects being highly speculative.

The incentives to build new housing isn't there, which means the pressure will be on rents especially for middle income housing.

There isn’t a good outcome here for Guam. Crowded conditions will reduce the quality of life, and while jobs may increase there’s no guarantee that Guam’s residents, those most in need of the work, will fill those jobs. The pressure to supply labor, cheap labor especially, may lead to hiring of visa holding workers in service industry jobs. I realize that the Guam government wants to prevent that from happening, but once the market forces are unleashed this may be hard to control.

I started this piece with a view on Matt Rector. He argued for higher wages and challenged Guam’s lawmakers to do more to ensure that island resident get real benefit out of the build-up. He brought a fearless perspective to government. It is a perspective that's still needed in Guam's government.

The build-up will deliver every imaginable ill to the island. It’s artificial and not sustainable development. It will impact the environment, the culture, and cost of the living, and quality of life in extreme ways, and once you cut through the assumptions and scenarios described in the DEIS report, it's hard to conclude anything else.

For additional reading: Please also see: Notes on Jobs & Construction at We Are Guahan.

Guam as the modern day Bikini Atoll

Guam and the Bikini Atoll share an awful lot, with one exception. The U.S. used this Marshall Islands atoll for nuclear testing, vaporizing part of it and irradiating whatever was left and then leaving it uninhabitable. The U.S. committed a great wrong on Bikini and to its people but what happened to Bikini is very relevant to what the U.S. is doing to Guam today. It is far more relevant and timely than you may realize.

In October – this October, 2009 -- the “People of Bikini” asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case for reparations. The U.S. is fighting them. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear this case, the travesty of U.S. colonial actions on Bikini and in the Pacific will get a national stage. And anyone who wants to see whether the U.S. has really changed how it treats Pacific islanders only has to look to Guam to find out that it hasn't changed at all.

The first similarity is this: There is nothing that Guam can do about the U.S. military build-up other than trying to mitigate the impact, which is exactly the position the Bikini islander’s faced. Its 167 inhabitants “believed themselves powerless to resist the United States decision,” according to the 2006 lawsuit by the Bikini people that is now the underpinning of the recent Supreme Court filing. [The case history is on BikiniAtoll.com]

Guam has no choice in the build-up. The interests of the people of Guam are secondary to U.S. strategic needs. The people of Bikini lost their entire island. Guam’s people have lost a third of their island to the military and stand to lose more. Disfranchised from voting and out of mind in Washington, Guam has no more voice in the build-up than the Bikini islanders did.

The second similarity is this: The Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) wasn’t written to protect Guam. It was written to protect the U.S. government from criticism once things go wrong on Guam. Bikini’s history illustrates how this will happen.

Bikini’s islanders were relocated to Rongerik, an uninhabited and unlivable atoll. It was made up of a ring of  17 small islands totaling .65 square miles, with a lagoon that covered about 55 square miles. Bikini, in contrast, had 23 islands covering 3.4 square miles and a nearly 300 square mile lagoon.

The planning for Bikini had failed. Rongerik was inadequate to meet the needs of the Bikini people. “The islanders soon discovered that the coconut trees and other local food crops produced very few fruits when compared to the yield of the trees on Bikini,” wrote Jack Niedenthal, a historian and author about the island, and Trust Liaison for the People of Bikini Atoll. The islanders were soon starving.

Instead of acknowledging this mistake, the government shifted its responsibility. In a 1947 press statement, U.S. officials wrote:

“… the natives selected Rongerik themselves. We built them houses, schools and watersheds on that island and they were perfectly happy initially. Later it developed that the island was not as productive as originally expected and we had to augment their food supply by bringing in food for them. Last summer they had a disastrous fire on the island which destroyed about one third of their palm trees.” [New York Times, Oct. 26, 1947.]

The U.S. will respond in similar fashion to any problems caused by Guam’s build-up, just as they did in 1947 when they wrote that, “the natives selected Rongerik themselves.” That was not the truth. The natives never wanted to leave.

The U.S. will say that the 11,000 page DEIS is evidence of its great concern and care for Guam. It’s just the opposite. It’s a pile of data and observation dumped on the island far too late, and Guam has been given precious little time – just 90 days – to respond to it. The buildup, as the DEIS illustrates, impacts every aspect of the island; the environment, land use and development, schools, health care, crime, roads -- the sum of Guam’s quality of life. With the DEIS in hand, Guam’s government must now prioritize the buildup’s impact and then prepare mitigation strategies. It’s a Manhattan Project-sized task and one that’s impossible to complete in the amount of time available. Guam can rest assured that the U.S. will use the DEIS as its defense when things go wrong: We prepared you, Guam.

But the DEIS doesn’t begin to anticipate what may happen as a result of the build-up. And what happened on Rongerik provides an example. The fire that destroyed one third of the island’s palm trees was an unintended and unanticipated consequence of the relocation. Guam will see similar occurrences. There are always unintended consequences, and Rongerik also illustrates what will happen afterward.

After it became clear that Rongerik could not support Bikini’s population, the U.S. searched for a different island to again move the Bikini islanders. Here’s some more from the press statement to the New York Times: (Note: King Judah, referenced below, was the Bikini leader.)

“… we have been trying since April to find a place for them to live and we took [King] Judah and a number of the leading natives to various islands for them to look over. We could not get them, however, to make a decision as to where they wanted to go. They continued to make the statement that they wanted to go back to Bikini.”

From the U.S. perspective, the problem was that the “leading natives” of Bikini could not make a decision. That’s the story that the U.S. wanted to world to know. The perspective of the people on Bikini was certainly different. They had been uprooted from their homes, and evidently believed that returning – at some point – was possible. (Where did they get that idea?) The islanders could see the repeated flashes of nuclear explosions destroying their homes, and their new home, Rongerik, had proved disastrous. They wanted to return to Bikini and couldn’t. Did the Bikini people have any reason left to trust the U.S.? Did anyone hear their side of the story?

Here’s the third and last similarity I want to draw. A 1947 column by a newspaper reporter, Harold Ickes, carried a report on the starvation underway on Rongerik that was read in Washington. “We Fought the Navy and Won,” a book about Guam under U.S. Navy rule by Doloris Cogan, includes an account of what happened.

Ickes had detailed information about the lack of food and agonizing conditions on Rongerik. When the report came out, a U.S. Navy official responded in a Washington newspaper, where Ickes column evidently appeared, and said the charges were untrue. But, perhaps unknown to the letter writer, the Navy had just released a report by Dr. Howard MacMillan, an agricultural specialist working for a company that delivered food, “and it corroborated all of Ickes’ statements,” wrote Cogan.

Ickes' column helped to bring attention to the terrible conditions facing the Bikini islanders, as well as expose the military’s immediate denial as a falsehood.

Guam, of course, isn't facing starvation, but instead will have to deal with the impacts of a massive population increase in the limited environment.

Today, Guam’s population is 178,400 (CIA Factbook July 2009) and in the buildup’s peak year of 2014 it will be at 257,600 – a 44% increase, a figure that does not appear to include underlying population gains (15% since 2000). Also not included in this estimate are the occasional surges of several thousand people when aircraft carrier crews arrive. Once the build-up is completed and the military presence is stabilized, it will add 33,431 people, an 18% increase alone from 2009, to the island.

I tend to think these population estimates are conservative and don’t really account for the response to reports of Guam’s “boomtown” atmosphere, or decisions by foreign workers not to leave.

To ensure that the concerns on Guam get fair hearing, I suspect that Guam will have to develop strategy to counter the government’s official positions but they will have do this from Washington. There is no doubt many national nonprofit groups, environmental organizations for instance, that could help Guam, if this help is sought.

Guam residents have a compelling story to tell and a means to fight Washington, but they may be no better off than the people of Bikini if the world doesn't know just what is really happening.

Guam's media doesn't get it

Guam’s media is having a righteous indignation festival over Sen. Matt Rector’s failure to disclose a 25-year-old misdemeanor conviction. Kuam and Guam News Factor are already cranking up their own versions of overheated, high-minded outrage.

Rector raises important questions about Guam’s economy, the impact of the build-up on wages and cost-of-living, and brings an important perspective at a critical time to the political process. He’s passionate, idealistic and recognizes that the military build-up will bring new hardships to many on Guam who will be hit with a higher cost of living and not necessarily better paychecks.

Rector is hard-charging, somewhat confrontational and appears to have doubts about the fairness of mainstream media. No surprise here. Rector is a longtime union leader, and union leaders tend to suspect that news outlets are inclined to favor management.

Rector has alienated local media and that means that his explanation for not citing a 25-year-old misdemeanor burglary case on the election form is unlikely to get anything close to a fair analysis. Some of the reporting is beginning to appear a little heavy handed. Kuam seems to relish pointing out that “the senator continues to refuse to answer calls or do interviews with Kuam News…” There’s a difference between refusing to give an interview to Kuam and not having to give an interview and I’ll explain why in a bit.

Rector's political viewpoints have ticked some people off, but his defense of this long-ago charge deserves dispassionate consideration. He may have had every reason to believe that the case had been sealed. If he was deliberately hiding a past conviction why then apply for a weapons permit, which involves a background check and fingerprinting? Why risk exposure?

The idea that Rector deliberately misled the electorate isn’t supported by his actions. It just isn’t. It would have made zero sense for him to have applied for gun permit if he was consciously trying to hide his past.

Moreover, the Guam Election Commission also required a “police clearance” as one of the necessary documents, along with a financial disclosure statement, from candidates seeking office. If a candidate had believed that a prior record had been sealed or expunged wouldn’t a “police clearance” have given added peace of mind that any police record had been erased?

The Guam Election Commission can’t remove Rector from office so the real test of this will likely rest with the legislature. Hopefully lawmakers will separate any political grievances they may have with Rector and look at this for what it is, a misunderstanding about the status of a long ago record and of no consequence to the job the voters have awarded him.

But the political leadership is already hanging Rector. The Pacific Daily News reports:

Sen. Adolpho Palacios said he believed burglary is considered a crime of moral turpitude, even if it is a misdemeanor. Sen. Frank Blas Jr. said he believed any acts of burglary committed under California law is a felony.

In Washington, my wonderful home, whenever a politician uses the term “moral turpitude” (which is rarely because they know better) the usual response is a snicker. And why did Sen. Blas see the need to up this to a felony? Can you feel the love?

While Rector can expect little support from local media, his defense may get fairer consideration on the social networks.

Rector has more than 1,800 friends on Facebook and has one of Guam’s larger Twitter networks, with over 500 followers, the 6th largest on Guam according to Twitterholic. Rector is arguably emerging as the media’s counter insurgency, and I have to suspect that some of this bitter media angst stems from his natural social networking ability and the growth of his networks. He has a knack for it.

In or out of office, Rector is certain to remain an influential voice as social networks expand, which is something for everyone to think about.

Rector is responding via his social networks and he is clearly in his right to pick and choose his forums. If Rector "refuses" to speak to the local press, what of it? That’s got to bother the heck out of the local media outlets, who ought to be asking themselves whether Rector has more influence and means to connect than they do.

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?