January, 07 2014, 12:09pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Joseph Gerson: 1-617-661-6130, JGesron@afsc.org
Peter Kuznick: 1-202-885-2408, pkuznick@aol.com
Gavan McCormack: 61-2-6125-3164, gavan.mccormack@anu.edu.au (McCormack also available for interview in Japanese)
International Scholars, Peace Advocates and Artists Condemn Agreement To Build New U.S. Marine Base in Okinawa
Leading scholars, peace advocates and artists from the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia today released the attached statement opposing the construction of the new U.S. Marine base at Henoko, Okinawa, planned by the US and Japanese governments as a replacement facility of Futenma airbase located in the middle of Ginowan City. Their statement urges "support for the people of Okinawa in their struggle for peace, dignity, human rights, and protection of the environment."
WASHINGTON
Leading scholars, peace advocates and artists from the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia today released the attached statement opposing the construction of the new U.S. Marine base at Henoko, Okinawa, planned by the US and Japanese governments as a replacement facility of Futenma airbase located in the middle of Ginowan City. Their statement urges "support for the people of Okinawa in their struggle for peace, dignity, human rights, and protection of the environment."
Initial signers of the statement include linguist Noam Chomsky, academy award winning film maker Oliver Stone, Nobel Laureate Mairead Maguire, historian John Dower, former U.S. military officer and diplomat Ann Wright, and United Nations Special Rapporteur for Palestine Richard Falk. (See complete list of initial signers on statement. Additional names are being added.)
Speaking for the signers, Joseph Gerson of the American Friends Service Committee, who has worked with Okinawan base opponents and initiated the 1996 "Statement of Outrage and Remorse" following the kidnapping and rape of an Okinawan schoolgirl by U.S. servicemen, said the statement is intended to " rally international support for Okinawans in their inspiring and essential nonviolent campaign to end seventy years of military colonization, to defend their dignity and human rights, and to ensure peace and protect their environment."
Professor Peter Kuznick of American University, who co-authored The Untold History of the United States with Oliver Stone, decried Okinawa Governor Hirokazu Nakaima's betrayal of Okinawan voters. "During the campaign, Nakaima promised to work for the relocation of Futenma base outside Okinawa. According to the polls, 72.4 percent of Okinawans see the governor's decision as a 'breach of his election pledge,'" Kuznick said, "The deal was made at the behest of the United States and of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. It tramples the rights of the Okinawan people to advance Obama's Asian 'pivot.'"
The statement reviews the oppression and exploitation of Okinawa-- first by Japanese rulers with invasion and annexation, and then by the United States to support its hegemonic interests in the Pacific. It points to the unjust concentration of 73.8% of exclusively U.S. military bases in Japan on less than 1% of the country's land mass. Signers also point to the painful irony that for seven decades Okinawans "have suffered what the signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence denounced as 'abuses and usurpations,' including the presence of foreign 'standing armies without consent of our legislature.'"
Professor Gavan McCormack of the Australian National University, and co-author with Satoko Norimatsu of Resistant Islands: Okinawa Confronts Japan and the United States, described the intrusions of militarism that threaten Okinawans' lives and health, " from military accidents, crimes including sexual violence for which U.S. forces are not held fully accountable, to intolerable military aircraft noise and chemical pollution." He said that "Okinawans' courageous and unrelenting struggle to finally end the military occupation and to enjoy real security deserves the support of people around the world."
(Statement Follows.)
STATEMENT
We oppose construction of a new US military base within Okinawa, and support the people of Okinawa in their struggle for peace, dignity, human rights and protection of the environment
We the undersigned oppose the deal made at the end of 2013 between Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Governor of Okinawa Hirokazu Nakaima to deepen and extend the military colonization of Okinawa at the expense of the people and the environment. Using the lure of economic development, Mr. Abe has extracted approval from Governor Nakaima to reclaim the water off Henoko, on the northeastern shore of Okinawa, to build a massive new U.S. Marine air base with a military port.
Plans to build the base at Henoko have been on the drawing board since the 1960s. They were revitalized in 1996, when the sentiments against US military bases peaked following the rape of a twelve year-old Okinawan child by three U.S. servicemen. In order to pacify such sentiments, the US and Japanese governments planned to close Futenma Marine Air Base in the middle of Ginowan City and move its functions to a new base to be constructed at Henoko, a site of extraordinary bio-diversity and home to the endangered marine mammal dugong.
Governor Nakaima's reclamation approval does not reflect the popular will of the people of Okinawa. Immediately before the gubernatorial election of 2010, Mr. Nakaima, who had previously accepted the new base construction plan, changed his position and called for relocation of the Futenma base outside the prefecture. He won the election by defeating a candidate who had consistently opposed the new base. Polls in recent years have shown that 70 to 90 percent of the people of Okinawa opposed the Henoko base plan. The poll conducted immediately after Nakaima's recent reclamation approval showed that 72.4 percent of the people of Okinawa saw the governor's decision as a "breach of his election pledge." The reclamation approval was a betrayal of the people of Okinawa.
73.8 percent of the US military bases (those for exclusive US use) in Japan are concentrated in Okinawa, which is only .6 percent of the total land mass of Japan. 18.3 percent of the Okinawa Island is occupied by the US military. Futenma Air Base originally was built during the 1945 Battle of Okinawa by US forces in order to prepare for battles on the mainland of Japan. They simply usurped the land from local residents. The base should have been returned to its owners after the war, but the US military has retained it even though now almost seven decades have passed. Therefore, any conditional return of the base is fundamentally unjustifiable.
The new agreement would also perpetuate the long suffering of the people of Okinawa. Invaded in the beginning of the 17th century by Japan and annexed forcefully into the Japanese nation at the end of 19th century, Okinawa was in 1944 transformed into a fortress to resist advancing US forces and thus to buy time to protect the Emperor System. The Battle of Okinawa killed more than 100,000 local residents, about a quarter of the island's population. After the war, more bases were built under the US military occupation. Okinawa "reverted" to Japan in 1972, but the Okinawans' hope for the removal of the military bases was shattered. Today, people of Okinawa continue to suffer from crimes and accidents, high decibel aircraft noise and environmental pollution caused by the bases. Throughout these decades, they have suffered what the U.S. Declaration of Independence denounces as "abuses and usurpations," including the presence of foreign "standing armies without the consent of our legislatures."
Not unlike the 20th century U.S. Civil Rights struggle, Okinawans have non-violently pressed for the end to their military colonization. They tried to stop live-fire military drills that threatened their lives by entering the exercise zone in protest; they formed human chains around military bases to express their opposition; and about a hundred thousand people, one tenth of the population have turned out periodically for massive demonstrations. Octogenarians initiated the campaign to prevent the construction of the Henoko base with a sit-in that has been continuing for years. The prefectural assembly passed resolutions to oppose the Henoko base plan. In January 2013, leaders of all the 41 municipalities of Okinawa signed the petition to the government to remove the newly deployed MV-22 Osprey from Futenma base and to give up the plan to build a replacement base in Okinawa.
We support the people of Okinawa in their non-violent struggle for peace, dignity, human rights and protection of the environment. The Henoko marine base project must be canceled and Futenma returned forthwith to the people of Okinawa.
January 2014
Norman Birnbaum, Professor Emeritus, Georgetown University
Herbert Bix, Emeritus Professor of History and Sociology, State University of New York at Binghamton
Reiner Braun, Co-president International Peace Bureau and Executive Director of International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms
Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
John W. Dower, Professor Emeritus of History, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Alexis Dudden, Professor of History, University of Connecticut
Daniel Ellsberg, Senior Fellow at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, former Defense and State Department official
John Feffer, Co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org) at the Institute for Policy Studies
Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
Joseph Gerson (PhD), Director, Peace & Economic Security Program, American Friends Service Committee
Richard Falk, Milbank Professor of International law Emeritus, Princeton University
Norma Field, Professor Emerita, East Asian Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago
Kate Hudson (PhD), General Secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Catherine Lutz, Professor of Anthropology and International Studies, Brown University
Naomi Klein, Author and journalist
Joy Kogawa, Author of Obasan
Peter Kuznick, Professor of History, American University
Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace laureate
Kevin Martin, Executive Director, Peace Action
Gavan McCormack, Professor Emeritus, Australian National University
Kyo Maclear, Writer and Children's author
Michael Moore, Filmmaker
Steve Rabson, Professor Emeritus, Brown University/ Veteran, United States Army, Henoko, Okinawa, 1967-68
Mark Selden, a Senior Research Associate in the East Asia Program at Cornell University
Oliver Stone, Filmmaker
David Vine, Associate Professor of Anthropology, American University
The Very Rev. the Hon. Lois Wilson, Former President, World Council of Churches
Lawrence Wittner, Professor Emeritus of History, State University of New York/Albany
Ann Wright, Retired US Army Colonel and former US diplomat
LATEST NEWS
'A Small Step Forward': Canadian Parliament Backs Ending Arms Exports to Israel
"While imperfect, this is a tangible victory on the road to a Canadian two-way arms embargo with Israel," said one advocacy group.
Mar 19, 2024
Canada's Parliament on Monday approved a nonbinding resolution calling on the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to cut off the country's arms exports to Israel, demand an immediate cease-fire and the release of hostages, and support international legal efforts to hold perpetrators of war crimes accountable.
The measure, led by Canada's New Democratic Party (NDP), passed in a 204-to-117 vote after private negotiations between Trudeau's Liberal government and the NDP produced significant changes to the original text, including the removal of language calling for "sanctions on Israeli officials who incite genocide."
The final motion, which Conservatives opposed, calls on Trudeau's government to "cease the further authorization and transfer of arms exports to Israel to ensure compliance with Canada's arms export regime," "sanction extremist settlers from Canada," and "demand unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza," among other steps.
"We are dismayed by the failure of Canada's Liberal government to stand up for what is right, for the rule of international law, for humanity, for peace," NDP MP Heather McPherson, the lead sponsor of the original motion, said in a speech ahead of Monday's vote. "Canadians are horrified by a brutal assault on Gaza where over 30,000 civilians have been killed, they were horrified on October 7 by the vile terrorist attack on innocent civilians in Israel by Hamas terrorists, and they are horrified now by the way [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's extremist government has responded."
2/14
Today, the Liberals and Conservatives have an opportunity to join the NDP and uphold the values of Canadians – to show that Palestinian lives matter as much as any other lives. That Palestinian rights are human rights. And that children – all children - deserve peace. pic.twitter.com/RhtowYsEDp
— Heather McPherson (@HMcPhersonMP) March 18, 2024
Michael Bueckert, vice president of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), said in a statement that the amended measure does not "go nearly as far as we had hoped for, but it is nonetheless a small step forward for ending Canadian complicity in Israel's genocidal war in Gaza."
"The watering down of the NDP resolution weakens the significance of Parliament's vote, even if it was a major concession forced by the Liberal government to ensure its passage," Bueckert added. "With the passage of this motion, the government has effectively promised to adopt a clear policy to restrict exports, including for already-issued permits, not just a temporary pause on approvals. While imperfect, this is a tangible victory on the road to a Canadian two-way arms embargo with Israel. The NDP must not rest on its laurels and continue to fight Canada's relationship with the Israeli military-industrial complex."
Bueckert said Trudeau's government "must immediately implement the democratic will of Parliament by adopting these demands, and ignore the backlash from those who seek to vilify this motion, including the far-right Israeli government itself."
The motion's passage comes days after the Toronto Starreported that the Trudeau government "stopped approving exports of non-lethal military goods and technology to Israel two months ago amid deepening concerns about possible human rights violations."
"Since Jan. 8, applications for permits to allow Canadian companies to ship tens of millions of dollars worth of non-lethal goods and technology, such as night vision goggles, have been temporarily put on hold because of the difficulty in establishing whether the material could be used in human rights violations," the Star reported, citing unnamed senior government officials.
Data from Global Affairs Canada indicates that Canada exported at least $28.5 million worth of military equipment to Israel in the three months after October 7. A coalition of human rights groups noted in a letter last month to Canada's foreign affairs minister that Canada has exported more than $140 million worth of military goods to Israel over the past decade, "including military aerospace components as well as bombs, missiles, explosives, and associated parts."
"There is substantial concern that some of these weapons could be enabling Israel's operation in Gaza," the groups wrote. "In addition to direct exports, Canadian-produced technology has also been supplied to Israel by first being integrated into US-produced systems, including components incorporated into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which Israel has used in its bombing campaign across Gaza."
United Nations experts have called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel, warning last month that "state officials involved in arms exports may be individually criminally liable for aiding and abetting any war crimes, crimes against humanity, or acts of genocide."
The National Council of Canadian Muslims said Monday that it is "pleased to see that a historic vote on the NDP motion on Palestine is likely going to result in historic change for Canada."
"While we recognize that some would have liked the original motion to stay fully together," the group added, "we believe that the NDP did the right thing by tabling the original motion and pushing to make sure that Canada voted in favor of Palestine today. That is history."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrat Eva Burch Shares With Arizona Senate Her Plans to Get an Abortion
"I stand with those who have had to grapple with and navigate Arizona's restrictive laws surrounding abortion," the state senator said. "I'm with them. I appreciate them. I am them."
Mar 18, 2024
As Arizonans prepare for a potential vote on an abortion rights ballot measure, Democratic state Sen. Eva Burch on Monday took to the chamber's floor to announce that she plans to terminate her current pregnancy, explain why, and condemn harmful restrictions.
"A few weeks ago, I learned that against all odds, I am pregnant," said Burch (D-9). "Many of you know that I've had kind of a rough journey with fertility. I had my first miscarriage more than 13 years ago, and I have been pregnant many times. Since then, twice, I was lucky enough to successfully carry to term and I have two beautiful healthy little boys."
"But two years ago, while I was campaigning for this Senate seat, I became pregnant with what we later determined was a nonviable pregnancy. It was a pregnancy that we had been trying for, and we were heartbroken over it," she continued, referencing an abortion she has previously discussed publicly. "After numerous ultrasounds and blood draws, we have determined that my pregnancy is once again not progressing and is not viable And once again, I have scheduled an appointment to terminate my pregnancy."
"My experiences in this space, both as a provider and as a patient, have led me to believe that this Legislature has failed the people of Arizona."
Burch, who has worked as an emergency nurse and a nurse practitioner in a women's health clinic, stressed that "I don't think people should have to justify their abortions but I'm choosing to talk about why I made this decision because I want us to be able to have meaningful conversations about the reality of how the work that we do in this body impacts people in the real world."
After acknowledging some of the risks of pregnancy and that she accepted them to carry her two sons, she said: "I don't know how many of you have been unfortunate enough to experience a miscarriage before but I am not interested in going through it unnecessarily. And right now, the safest and most appropriate treatment for me and the treatment that I choose is abortion."
The Democrat then took aim at the Arizona Legislature for passing laws that restrict access to care for people like her. The state bans most abortions after 15 weeks, imposes a 24-hour waiting period between in-person counseling containing misinformation and the procedure, and forces patients to get medically unnecessary ultrasounds.
Detailing her trip to an abortion clinic on Friday, Burch said:
I didn't have an ultrasound because my doctor thought I needed one. I had one because legislation has forced me to do that, an invasive transvaginal ultrasound that I didn't want or need to have, performed by someone who didn't want to have to do it. I am safe and loved and protected in my marriage. But I cannot imagine how inappropriate that would be for a victim of sexual assault or for someone who has an abusive or coercive relationship with their partner—another unwanted vaginal penetration, but this time by the state, by the people who are commissioned to protect us.
Then I got to sit through an exhaustive list of absolute disinformation that was read off to me. I was told that there were alternatives to abortion, parenting or adoption among them, as if delivering a healthy baby is an option for me. It is not. My medical provider was forced to tell me multiple things that don't apply to my situation, and some that are just transparently factually false. And they do this because of laws passed by this Legislature in opposition to medical expert testimony and advice. From where I sat, the only reason I had to hear those things was in a cruel and really uninformed attempt by outside forces to shame and coerce and frighten me into making a different decision other than the one that I knew was right for me.
Burch explained that "the last time that I had an abortion, I started to miscarry that night before it was scheduled to take place. And I was denied a procedure in the hospital because I was deemed not critical enough, in spite of the fact that my embryo had died, and that my miscarriage had stalled."
"The clauses for emergencies aren't good enough. These laws can serve to intimidate doctors and it muddies the waters when they're trying to make complex decisions in situations that are really volatile," she argued. "I had been bleeding and passing huge clots for hours, but I wasn't bleeding out. And I was still pregnant. So I was offered medication to make me start bleeding again and told that I could have a procedure when I had bled enough. A waiting period is often totally inappropriate and potentially dangerous."
The lawmaker got an abortion at the clinic the following day—just two weeks before the right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court reversedRoe v. Wade in June 2022, setting off a new wave of efforts by state legislators to pass forced-pregnancy legislation.
Burch highlighted some negative impacts of being denied an abortion—from heightened risks of domestic violence and eviction to long-term health consequences. She also noted the "sensitive feelings surrounding pregnancy" and "philosophical questions that people cannot agree on," while stressing that decisions should be made by patients and providers.
"My experiences in this space, both as a provider and as a patient, have led me to believe that this Legislature has failed the people of Arizona, in the laws that restrict and dictate abortion and in the resources that it cuts and strangles and denies at every opportunity," she said of her time in the state Senate. "Our decision-making should be grounded in expert testimony and in consensus from both the medical community and from constituents, and free from political posturing and partisan bias, but that's not what I see happening."
"So I truly hope that Arizonans have the opportunity to weigh in on abortion on the ballot in November. We know that the majority of Arizonans support the right to abortion and if we can't operate in that reality in this chamber, then it is critical that everyone have the opportunity for their voices to be heard elsewhere," she concluded. "I stand with those who have had to grapple with and navigate Arizona's restrictive laws surrounding abortion at a time when the decisions being made were complicated enough. I'm with them. I appreciate them. I am them."
Among those who praised her 10-minute speech was Sam Paisley, national press secretary of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC), which works to elect state lawmakers in the party.
"Arizona Sen. Eva Burch sharing her decision to get an abortion is the epitome of courage," said Paisley. "No woman should have to go through the emotional and physical hurdles she described—Arizona Republicans have passed unnecessary burdens on abortion care that put women in danger. Sen. Burch's story is powerful, but it is sadly not unique—patients across Arizona have to jump through hoops to get the care they need."
"There are very real, and sometimes even deadly, consequences to the attacks on reproductive freedom that Republicans across the country have launched," Paisley added. "The DLCC commends Sen. Burch for her advocacy and stands ready to defeat alarming GOP extremism in state legislatures in Arizona and across the country."
Jodi Liggett, founder of the Arizona Center for Women's Advancement, similarly said on social media: "Today, Sen. Eva Burch shared her heart-wrenching story of nonviable pregnancy. AZ laws... have complicated her access to care. Her situation is one of thousands; personal and complicated. Conservatives, butt out and let patients and doctors handle these decisions. Privately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
EPA Announces 'Long-Overdue' Asbestos Ban
"Today's EPA rule to ban the use of chrysotile asbestos is a groundbreaking, landmark protection," said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler. "Unions have been sounding the alarm on this dangerous substance for decades."
Mar 18, 2024
Labor and environmental advocates on Monday applauded the Environmental Protection Agency for finalizing a ban on the last remaining type of asbestos used in the United States eight years after Congress amended the nation's chemical safety law to accelerate the phaseout of the carcinogenic substance.
The EPA announced a final rule to prohibit ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, which is found in a wide range of products including asbestos diaphragms, sheet gaskets, brake blocks, and aftermarket automotive brakes and linings. In a rare display of election-year bipartisanship, Congress voted nearly unanimously in 2016 to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to update and strengthen the nation's chemical safety laws.
"Today's rule is a positive first step to give all Americans a future free of exposure to asbestos—a carcinogen that has killed far too many."
Asbestos exposure can cause mesothelioma as well as laryngeal, lung, and ovarian cancer. Banned in more than 50 countries, the substance is linked to more than 40,000 U.S. deaths each year.
"The science is clear—asbestos is a known carcinogen that has severe impacts on public health," said EPA Administrator Michael Regan. "President [Joe] Biden understands that this concern has spanned generations and impacted the lives of countless people. That's why EPA is so proud to finalize this long-needed ban on ongoing uses of asbestos."
The Congressional Progressive Caucus said on social media that "this new asbestos ban is long-overdue and will save thousands of lives."
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in a statement that "today's rule is a positive first step to give all Americans a future free of exposure to asbestos—a carcinogen that has killed far too many."
"An immediate ban on the import of chrysotile asbestos for the chlor-alkali industry is a long-overdue step forward for public health," he added.
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO union, hailed the EPA's "groundbreaking, landmark protection," adding that "unions have been sounding the alarm on this dangerous substance for decades."
Green groups echoed labor unions in welcoming the EPA move. Environmental Working Group senior vice president Scott Faber said that "it's been more than 50 years since EPA first sought to ban some uses of asbestos and we're closer than ever to finishing the job."
"For too long, polluters have been allowed to make, use, and release toxins like asbestos and PFAS without regard for our health," Faber added, referring to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called forever chemicals. "Thanks to the leadership of the Biden EPA, those days are finally over."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular