EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bring War Dollars Home by Closing Down Bases
On the eighth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, U.S. fighter planes took off to start yet another military action -- this time, in Libya. A recent Gallup poll found that only 47 percent of Americans approved of military action in Libya, the lowest level of support for military intervention in 40 years. At the same time, U.S. President Barack Obama has sent Congress a budget that includes $1.2 trillion dollars for military and security expenditures. Clearly, Americans are weary of war, especially during an economic crisis that has threatened jobs, health plans, and pensions most families need to survive.
The hopeful news is that a grassroots movement of ordinary people across U.S. towns and cities has launched the New Priorities campaign, uniting under the demand to “bring the troops and war dollars home” by cutting defense spending instead of benefits, jobs, and basic government services. Worldwide actions are also being planned for the Global Day of Action on Military Spending on April 12th to shine a light on egregious amounts of military spending by the world’s governments. Central to these efforts must include demands to shut the 1,000-plus U.S. military bases in over 46 countries.
Bases are the most visible structures of the U.S. drive to maintain global military hegemony. Yet for most Americans, bases remain out of sight and outside the national discourse on war. Many don’t know about the enormous footprint of U.S. military installations around the world and how they undermine the lives and aspirations of the people who live directly in their shadow. Ending U.S. wars is essential, but closing down foreign bases is even more critical to dismantling U.S. militarism and global hegemony.
On the island of Cheju off the coast of South Korea, villagers are struggling to prevent the construction of a South Korean naval base intended for U.S. military use. In 2009, one of us traveled there and can still remember the tattered yellow flags lining the fence posts of homes, symbolizing the movement’s determination to stop the project. Walking along the endangered rocky coastline at the edge of this quiet village of farmers and fisherfolk, it was clear that Cheju Island and other sites of U.S. military bases in Korea have borne enormous costs to the people and to the future of peace in the region.
A Huge Financial Cost
Most figures used to estimate the cost of U.S. wars omit the global network of U.S. bases that provides vital resources and infrastructure to existing military conflicts. The Pentagon’s 2010 Base Structure Report, for example, lists 662 overseas bases but fails to include the 411 bases in Afghanistan, the 88 remaining bases in Iraq, or sites in Qatar and other countries where U.S. military personnel are stationed. Maintaining and constructing all U.S. bases cost American taxpayers $41.6 billion in 2010, according to Undersecretary of Defense Dorothy Robyn.
Of these 662 overseas bases, more than 70 military installations and bases and 28,500 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea. Ted Galen Carpenter and Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute estimate that the cost of U.S. bases in Korea “probably runs on the order of $15 to $20 billion annually.” Although the United States and South Korea have agreed to reduce and consolidate the number of U.S. military bases in Korea, other bases and training ranges — including Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek — are expanding displacing thousands of villagers and destroying Korea’s productive and limited farmland.
The agreements governing the responsibility for U.S. base relocation in Korea illustrate the unequal dynamic prevalent in countries that host U.S. bases. Under the Special Measures and Base Relocation Agreements, the United States and South Korea agreed to share the cost burden of moving U.S. bases, with South Korea obligated to pay more than half that cost. In 2008, South Korea paid $741.4 million, angering South Koreans unhappy over having to foot the majority of the moving bill and pay to clean up 60 years of environmental contamination. At some of the 23 bases ”returned” to South Korea, the levels of contamination are 100 times above the limit set by Korean law. Cleanup at these sites will require years of decontamination at enormous cost to South Korean citizens, not to mention the public health and ecological consequences for generations to come.
Moreover, U.S. bases and troop presence are an extension of U.S. intervention in South Korea. Historically, the U.S. military provided legitimacy, economic aid, and protection to dictatorial regimes that maintained their power with brute force. Today, the U.S. and South Korean governments control and suppress dissent through the infrastructure of bases, particularly Pyeongtaek and Osan, which are now major U.S. military intelligence outposts for the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). While conducting research for his book Spies for Hire on the privatization of U.S. intelligence, Tim Shorrock found unsavory evidence of eavesdropping on Korean civilian activities by U.S. military bases located there. Although the primary target of surveillance activity is North Korea, U.S. intelligence also monitors China and Vietnam from Korean bases. What worries Shorrock is that since 9/11, what is considered a threat has widened to include almost any activity that questions or challenges U.S. interests. His discovery of the U.S. military in Korea colluding with Korean police to monitor anti-base activities is “an amazingly frank assessment that the anti-bases movement is being as closely monitored, and probably more so, than Al Qaeda - and basically puts the movement in the same camp as global terrorists." But it’s not just anti-base movements. Recently protests against the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement were also noted in the log of the U.S. forces in Korea.
Resistance to U.S. Military Bases in Korea
Given the fierce opposition to U.S. military bases throughout the Asia-Pacific rim, the United States has become savvy at reducing its military footprint in regions where its presence is politically contested. Rather than establish its own base, the U.S. military has sought the cover of the South Korean military in the construction of a new naval base in Cheju, an island located off the southern coast of South Korea.
The people of Cheju Island are known for their fierce resistance to Korea’s division and occupation by U.S. troops over the south during the post-World War II period. For their resistance, the people of Cheju paid dearly. Following the April 3 rebellion of 1948, South Korean government forces killed up to 30,000 people – more than one in ten residents –for opposing separate elections between the north and south and the U.S. occupation of the southern half of Korea. In a long-awaited gesture of apology, in 2005, former President Roh Moo-Hyun named Cheju the “Peace Island.”
Cheju Island is a designated UNESCO World Heritage Site and a national protected area by the Korean Cultural Heritage Administration. The Joongduk coastline, adjacent to Gangjeong village, is home to rare sea life, including soft coral, and is the seasonal habitat for dolphins migrating across the Pacific Ocean from Alaska during the summer.
In 2002, Seoul announced plans to build a naval base on Cheju. After two villages resisted, Gangjeong Village became the government’s third target. In 2007, 94 percent of the Gangjeong Village People’s Council voted “no” to the base plans. The government then proceeded to pressure residents. Some 1,500 farmers and fishermen live in Gangjeong village, including the legendary Haenye pearl divers—women in their 50s and older who forage in the sea for their livelihoods. Some of the villagers, including a few elderly Haenye divers, sold their farmland to the military under pressure from the South Korean government. According to Sung-Hee Choi, a South Korean peace activist and blogger, many of the villagers who signed the contract now regret their decision. However, they’ve been told that if they renege, they would have to pay back the money plus interest. Still, dozens of families are resisting the naval base construction.
In May 2009, the South Korean government approved construction of the joint U.S.-South Korean naval base. The military has begun to dredge the Joongduk coastline to accommodate the massive naval warships. If construction proceeds, it will not only destroy the rare coral reefs and surrounding ecosystems, it will kill the area’s fishing industry and displace citrus growers in Gangjeong village whose lands will be confiscated as part of the base expansion.
Gangjeong villagers have filed several lawsuits without much success. On December 15, 2010, a Cheju court ruled that the naval base did not infringe on the rights of the villagers, despite the projected destruction of the tangerine groves and the soft coral habitat where the villagers fish. The Gangjeong villagers have used every possible democratic means to block the base construction, but the South Korean government has been completely unresponsive. On Christmas Day, some 500 supporters joined dozens of villagers to block the cement trucks brought in by the Navy to pour concrete over the coral reefs along the shoreline.
The Cheju facility is ostensibly a South Korean naval base, but for all intents and purposes it will be used by the U.S. military. This was confirmed when Americans made calls to the South Korean embassy urging them to close the base, to which the South Korean embassy responded, “Call your own government, which is pressuring us to build this base.” The villagers are currently occupying the site, stopping the construction cranes from dredging up the shoreline and facing off against riot police.
Not for Korean Security
When most Americans learn how U.S. military bases are infringing on the sovereignty and rights of the Korean people, most agree that it’s high time for troops to be withdrawn. But many ask, what about the threat of nuclear-armed North Korea — who will protect the Korean people?
Although the U.S. military has long stated that it maintains a presence in South Korea to protect the civilian population, South Koreans have experienced the impunity with which U.S. troops behave on their territory. Organizations have documented thousands of crimes committed by soldiers against South Koreans. Between 1988 and 1996, U.S. troops committed an average of two crimes per day, ranging from the mundane to the heinous. The frequency of crimes committed by U.S. military personnel demonstrates the impunity with which U.S. forces act in South Korea — and likely, in many other host countries in which Status of Forces Agreements clearly give the U.S. military the upper hand. Furthermore, contrary to most fear-mongering projections of a nuclear-North Korea, “Most economic and military indicators show that South Korea has an edge over North Korea in almost all measures of power,” writes Jae-Jung Suh.
But perhaps more relevant today than the U.S.-South Korean military alliance is the grander regional alliance the United States has been forming in response to the perception of a growing Chinese military and economic threat. A key indicator of this is how the Mutual Defense alliance of the U.S. and South Korea has been transformed. Under the 2009 “Strategic Flexibility” agreement signed by Presidents Obama and Lee, the defense of South Korea is returned to Seoul, allowing the United States to deploy its forces outside Korea. Under the new arrangement, not only will South Korea be used as a rapid deployment hub for US military objectives elsewhere, South Korean troops will also be deployed for U.S.-led military deployments beyond Korean borders.
The realignment and consolidation of U.S. bases is also revealing. Many of the larger U.S. bases are along Korea’s West Coast and have moved away from the Demilitarized Zone toward more southern locations. This network of bases is part of a new missile defense shield directed as much toward China as toward North Korea. In the region as a whole, U.S. base expansions are taking place in Japan, Okinawa, Guam, Australia, and other key locations in the Asia-Pacific theatre, which effectively form a belt of bases that encircle China and Russia. The United States, South Korea and Japan have strengthened their tri-lateral alliance, which has resulted in more intense and frequent joint war games among all three nations, including the recent Key Resolve Foal Eagle ROK-U.S. joint military exercises involving 13,000 US troops and a nuclear aircraft carrier,
In a 2007 interview, former U.S. Forces in Korea Commander General B.B. Bell explained why South Korea was so vital to the United States by saying, “Twenty-five percent of the world’s trade flows through northeast Asia. Whether it’s Korea, Japan, or China, if you’re trading in the world, one out of every four things you trade, commodity-wise and dollar-wise, is going through that area.” Korea itself is the seventh-largest U.S. trading partner. Bell further explained the need for U.S. military engagement in Northeast Asia “because of the natural resources, lines of communication, and products that we will have to deliver around the world.”
But there’s more than cargo protection driving U.S. base strategy — U.S. bases are there to encircle China. Of all U.S. military bases, South Korea is the closest spot to Beijing, a strategic location to gather intelligence, and a key point for a possible standoff with China. The Project for the New American Century clearly states this: “Raising U.S. military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great-power status.”
This broader regional strategy also explains U.S. pressure on South Korea to build a naval base in Cheju. Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space explains why villages in Cheju are being destroyed to accommodate the expansion of the U.S. military base: “China imports 80 percent of its oil on ships and a Navy base on Cheju would help give the U.S. ability to ‘control’ this vital shipping lane in the Yellow Sea. While the declining U.S. economy can’t compete with China anymore, the Pentagon is embarking on a strategy that says if we can control access to declining supplies of oil then we will still hold the keys to the global economic engine.” This year, China surpassed the United States in energy consumption. As Michael Klare puts it, “China’s decisions on energy preferences will largely determine whether China and the United States can avoid becoming embroiled in a global struggle over imported oil and whether the world will escape catastrophic climate change.”
With bases encircling China, the U.S. military has the capacity to stave off a growing Chinese presence and control its growing demand for energy. South Koreans know this reality well. In a recent visit to Pyeongtaek, when Bruce Gagnon asked the Pyongtaek Peace Center, an organization based in South Korea, to whom the United States was directing its aggression, Center representatives replied, “Russia and China. Russia has large supplies of natural gas. It’s about energy wars.”
Close Down U.S. Bases and Cut Military Spending
As grassroots efforts are made in the U.S. to shift funding from the military budget to our communities, we must remember the active struggles of groups overseas that are directly resisting the footprint of U.S. military bases. Whether in Okinawa, Guam, or Korea, residents are on a daily basis fighting to stop the construction or expansion of U.S. military bases. Not only are the massive joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises diverting critically needed public dollars in both countries, they are moving the two Koreas further away from the promise of reconciliation and reunification. U.S. bases in Korea are no longer needed. The real issue is how these bases are serving to keep tensions high on the Korean peninsula and in the region as a whole.
Rather than accept the unending stalemate that continually threatens to erupt into war, in the United States, a broad movement is calling for the end of the Korean War, in solidarity with groups in South Korea that have long campaigned for the same demand. The signing of a peace treaty is the first step to demilitarizing not just the Korean peninsula, but also the Asia-Pacific region as a whole, and paving the way for a self-determined reunification of the two Koreas.
Bringing the war dollars home refers not just to active, hot-wars but also to the network of bases that makes war and U.S. empire-building possible and thwarts democratic advancement and the development of more just, equitable societies.
Perhaps few can express the importance of this struggle better than those who have defended their rights to land and life against US military interests. From 2004 to 2007, for nearly 1000 days, villagers in Pyongtaek, South Korea held candlelight vigils to stop the expansion of the US military base, Camp Humphreys. When asked by the South Korean Defense Ministry for the price for his land, Pyongtaek village leader Kim Ji Tae replied, "The price will be unimaginably high. The price must include every grain of rice grown and harvested here. It must include all of our efforts to grow them, as well as our whole life here, including our sighs, tears, and laughter. The price must include the stars, which have witnessed our grief and joy, and the wind, which has dried our tears. If all of these could be added, I would tell you the price."
We must call for the defunding of U.S. bases and war games, and join this global people’s struggle for peace and sovereignty.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
46 Comments so far
Show AllIn Fascism militarism is used as a conscious mechanism of govermaent spending.
I guess I'd add to the headline: "[...] and End the Three Acknowledged and at Least Two Unacknowledged Wars."
Tax Day Questionaire
Brief video of survey by pie chart with students at American University
http://demilitarize.org/featured/video-gdams-tax-day-questionnaire/
Many were unaware that approx 58$ goes to military - when they found out the response was invariably negative
Slip of the finger - 58%.
Uh, huh. That would be a good start. However, you'd have another problem in your hands: what to do with all those trained killers with idle hands, diseased minds and no jobs.
Give them government jobs, college training, and medical treatment. All solutions which have been promised. Just keep the promise.
Those "trained killers" are your brothers, sisters, and next door neighbors. Many were desperate for work when they joined the imperial military.
Most of them are victims of the empire, too.
Of course, the corporate owners of our country say that there are plenty of "work houses and prisons" which can house them.
I second your response. Most are children when first contacted by recruiters. I told one recruiter that if he contacted my underage daughter again, I'd serve him with a restraining order. That got his attention and he finally respected boundaries. My brother-in-law was a recruiter for a 2 year stint and said it was the worst thing the military had ever made him do. He couldn't just shoot from afar using artillery, never connecting his victims to his actions. He'd actually have to face folks he'd been ordered to do whatever it took, including lie, especially lie, to get them to sign up. He said the only soldiers he could ever get to go to high schools on recruiting days were low man on the totem recruiters that would misrepresent their current MOS and take the prior assignment as their "persona". One day he was really embarrassed when a savvy army brat fingered the "wing man" as another recruiter because he didn't have the right patches on his uniform. The worst part was he was fairly successful and they asked him to do another 2 years in a bigger city. He volunteered to go back to Afghanistan instead. Why did he join to begin with? Bush 1's regressive recession, couldn't afford college,no manufacturing jobs and the fact he has no other skill set than soldiering 25 years later.
I'm crying for them over here. Poor, poor, innocent children. So naive, so sweet, so gullible, so misunderstood.
Close the U.S. garrisons down!
The Empire (of U.S. military bases, weapons manufacturers, and mercenary companies) is ruining this country, economically, ecologically, politically (gradual erosion of the constitutional structure that has held the nation together, and ever greater corruption of the three powers), and morally.
The damage caused by Empire is manifold: it is crucial to see that the damage is not only inflicted upon foreign nations, their populations, infrastructure, and environment, but also DOMESTICALLY.
For all this, see Chalmers Johnson's "Blowback" trilogy, and his last book, "Dismantling the Empire."
As well as the following books:
Catherine Lutz, ed., "The Bases of Empire: the Global Struggle Against U.S. Military Posts"
David Vine, "Island of Shame: The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia."
In this last work, the reader will find a map of the worlwide web of U.S. military bases.
You only need to read one of Chalmer's books to get the picture. His books should be required reading by Congress!
I live in Florida, one of my Senators is Mark Rubio, and my House Rep is Dennis Ross, both are PRO military! How does one go about changing their minds? MIssion Impossible! These guys campaign on having a strong military, it is what gets them elected! Even the widely popular Alan Grayson couldn't get re-elected in his district. I don't see any hope for change.
The military is not the only place the corporate owners are doing us wrong.
The corporate owners of our country are telling us that Social Security is bankrupting this nation. But, the facts are that all the money SS has for payouts comes from US Treasury bonds. As the the money is needed US Treasury bonds are converted to cash money.
The trouble comes when the owners of the country claim they don't have the cash because they have spent the money in other places. The owners have been running a huge deficit to pay bills.
In fact, SS has enough Treasure bonds to pay benefits until at least 2030, if not one penny was collected. But to pay the benefits, the owners have to come up with the cash money. It is the owners who are trying to default, not Social Security.
The owners are the cheaters, liars and defaulters, not Social Security. Bring the troops home, and we have plenty of money.
Thanks so much for running this report! i logged in to CD so that i could suggest this column to CD editors, and here it already is.
Recognize the fundamental bipartisan basis of US policy (despite all rhetorical and media distractions): to encircle China and Russia with US military bases and prepare for a global energy war. This article is not just about wasting money on military bases, it is about long-term US strategy. Note the cite of PNAC, and Obama is perfectly in line with the PNAC strategy.
(Thanks also for linking to Bruce Gagnon's article. Hopefully this is the start of ongoing connection between Common Dreams and the Global Network! Bruce Gagnon and the Global Network offices moved to Maine several years ago, where CD is also based. www.space4peace.org)
Finally, all the best to the brave resistance to the massive US base planned at Gangjeong on Chenju Island in South Korea. Let this be an inspiration to resistance in the USA. Many are quick to write that different forms of resistance here are futile, that tax resistance is futile, that demonstrations are futile, that whatever tactics or strategies are attempted are futile. The question is, what are we willing to risk? Our lives, our communities, our living Earth are at stake. What are we willing to risk? Giving up in despair is what is futile. Talk to your friends, your family, your co-workers, about what is at stake, what is being stolen, what is being destroyed. What are we willing to risk to protect our families, our communities, our planet?
The following is an excerpt from an article published on June 1st of last year:
"BAGHDAD — On Nov. 17, 2008, U.S. and Iraqi officials signed a security agreement requiring all U.S. troops to leave the country by the end of 2011.
The same day, according to military records, construction crews at Camp Adder, a sprawling U.S. air base in southern Iraq, broke ground on a $61 million series of aircraft shelters. Over the next 14 months, the military started work on an additional $150 million in new base construction in Iraq, representing the culmination of a years-long building effort that continued even after the U.S. formally agreed to leave the country and began laying plans to depart.
In all, the military finished $496 million in base construction projects during 2009, the highest annual figure since the war began and nearly a quarter of the $2.1 billion spent on American bases in Iraq since 2004. An additional $323 million worth of projects are set to be completed this year, according to figures provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which oversees base construction."
Source: www.stripes.com/news/u-s-base-projects-continue-in-iraq-despite-plans-to-leave-1.105237
Addition to my above 10:44 am post.
See also Catherine Lutz's paper "Empire is in the Details," available at:
http://www.insurgentamerican.net/download/CatherineLutz/26.Lutz_593-611.pdf
I still believe that most of the deficit fuss is the right wingers going after "entitlements," not really ending the deficit. That's why defense (Defund
Defense! - there's a slogan; I just thought of it now) spending and corporate subsidies never appear on their hit list of programs that they say have to go.
They think "entitlements" are bad, socialistic, communistic, and inspired by Satan himself because, they think, it means people are getting "something for nothing.". They don't believe regular people should feel they are "entitled" to anything.
They're not against big government. They're fine with the idea of government moving against abortion and other culture war pet peeves they have. They just want to eliminate all the "government giveaways" they can by playing the "we're broke and can't afford this" card. Except where they personally might be benefiting.
You get the same order of criminality from any State to which you give power to exercise it; and whatever power you give to the State to do things for you carries with it the equivalent power to do things to you.
"Bringing the war dollars home refers not just to active, hot-wars but also to the network of bases that makes war and U.S. empire-building possible and thwarts democratic advancement and the development of more just, equitable societies."
Not to mention bringing the jobs home and away from the war machine.
The destruction of the precious web of life that sustains all the sea life and the people living in harmony with the land and sea....The cementing of coral reefs for toxic navy ships is extremely painful. Americans need to know! In 2011 is that protecting any of us?
The more it is explained, the more it will get around. This will never be on TeeVee.
Thank you, Authors.
*rolls eyes*
Just because you are more concerned about government borrowing, a central banking cartel, nationalized money, taxgathering, and, of course, compulsory collectivism, does not make your right wing libertarian response any less emotional.
And there is nothing wrong with an emotional response.
Without the web of life (a living earth the air that fills your lungs, the life that is connected in ways you can only imagine) all you have is your money system. That is not power, that is deceit and when you figure where your real power is then you won't need your money system.
from my local paper:
"Warning: Today, older Kansans are on the verge of being abandoned by the majority of policymakers in Topeka. Fifty thousand fewer meals will be served to seniors. The programs that enable the most vulnerable of our elderly citizens to remain living in their homes are now on the verge of devastating cuts to staff and funding. Older Kansans with frail health who have relied on these programs for a few hours of help per week to bathe, prepare meals or balance a checkbook will suddenly be without support. Those on the waiting list for these programs will be out of options." *
We're broke! We're broke!
(But spending 550 million dollars in ten days killing Libyans, that's just fine)
* http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/apr/01/senior-service-cuts-reach-tipping-point/
"Force without judgment will fall of its own weight." - Horace
The Divided States of Amurka have no government leaders with any vision of how to de-militarize our facist economy and no inclination to do so. They do not know how to run a stable peace-time economy anymore. Their criterion for leadership has jettisoned Statesmanship and any notion of the common good, and been stripped down to simply running about and falling on their knees for their next corporate election campaign donation. Because any fool can do that, we have any politically correct fool who can appeal to enough of the Faux News vs. Bill Clinton admirers generations plus some of the younger Amurkan Idol generation in office or working as Congressional aides.
Until the vast majority of Americans wake up and realize that the over 700 military bases around the world are not for the average Americans protection, but to protect the international banks and financiers; the corportocracy; and the vast American Capitalist hegemony and their world wide wealth, nothing will change. You may argue whether other forms of governments i.e. Communism are good or bad, but to the super, wealthy elite that are protected by the military, any government that is a potential threat to their hubris, hegemony and wealth is a bad form of government no matter how good, ( read Perkins the Confessions of an Economic Hit Man) and any form of government that is an American acolyte is always good, no matter how egregious. America's foreign policy has been a plutocratic, fascist policy, an organized international crime syndicate, where the military is used as the violent enforcer to protect this worldwide, racket and criminal network. " I suspected I was part of a racket at the time but now I am sure of it ". General Smedley D. Butler USMC.
"Bring War Dollars Home by Closing Down Bases":
Actually, it's not so simple. There is not much to bring home, really - because these "dollars" being spent abroad are based on a questionable valuation. In fact, as Linh Dinh pointed out in his great (as usual) article, this was what led to Gaddafi's plight today - this speech by him in 2009:
>>"The oil-exporting countries should opt for nationalization because of the rapid fall in oil prices. We must put the issue on the table and discuss it seriously. Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production."<<
Oil trade worldwide is mostly priced in US dollars, allowing the US to live way beyond its means. There does not seem to be any easy way for the US to pay off its external debt, balance its trade (imports vs. exports), balance its domestic debt and budget, etc., without some major changes in the US banking system, its monetary system and redistribution of wealth. Even then, Americans will have to truly understand, perhaps for the very first time, of what it means to live within economic and ecological means, without resorting to imperial conquests abroad. And, for a generation or two, they may have to make some adjustments in their lifestyles.
Part of the psychology of empires is that "if we don't get it, someone else will", and it's a hard thing to sit back for them and watch other countries grow and prosper without trying to steal a part of that growth and prosperity. Citizens of empires have benefited to varying degrees, over the decades and centuries, without once trying to stop their government from going out and plundering other nations.
Opposition to war strictly out of moral considerations is still not part of the mainstream psyche. Most protests are largely due to economic reasons. In fact, those in power have often resorted to imperial actions abroad as a way of maintaining economic inequality at home - by sharing some of the spoils from the plunder abroad, without affecting the unequal distribution at home. And guess what? The people did seem to be pacified for a while, with a large number of them even becoming proud of their empires, without questioning the morality of it all. And then there are people who welcome a military base in their community due to economic considerations - so resigned they have become to the reality as imposed by the power structure.
Why is that there has been so little support to electoral candidates who clearly articulate an end to empire building, closing of bases abroad, etc.? Why is that, instead, people voted for those who said nothing of closing bases and winding down the empire, to focus on real security? It's not like people like Ralph Nader, Denis Kucinich or Ron Paul did not explicitly spell out their opposition to empire building. And yet, they were not their party candidates ultimately. How long have people like these been in public life? Definitely long enough for people to know where they stand on issues and policies. How long has Obama been in "public life"? Certainly not long enough in comparison. And yet people chose to go with the hype, and other not-so-rational considerations. That's true with all the elections, time after time.
It's easy to blame money in politics. But what does money really do? It messes with people's minds through propaganda. If there are some people who can see through the propaganda and understand the working of the empire, why can't the majority? It may be that most people are not really troubled by empire building as a moral issue. That's true for both Dem. and Rep. supporters, and unfortunately, most of the votes go only to these parties. So, blame the people. They had their chance to make a difference.
Alcyon -
I share your approach and most of your views, but I disagree with your assertion that "It's not so simple" to close down US bases abroad and redirect the money that will otherwise be spent over there to domestic infrastructure projects over here. People like Ralph Nader, Kuchinich, Ron Paul, Barbara Lee, and others speak about doing this in general terms. I think the better political and legislative approach would be to deal in specifics, something along these lines.
Pick a big US military base anywhere overseas - Landstuhl in Germany, Humphreys in South Korea, Bagram in Afghanistan, Cropper in Iraq, Diego Garcia, Gitmo, whatever. Calculate realistically the annual cost of maintaining that facility for each of the last five years. $1 billion? $10 billion? $100 billion? Whatever that specific real world figure turns out to be, simply calculate it, and put it on the table for future discussion. Do this calculation for every single overseas US military facility - all thousand or so of them.
There are fifty states. Each has two Senators. Pick the first 50 overseas military bases you want to shut down, using whatever criteria you choose. If closing Camp Macho Man in Bezerkistan will save US taxpayers $10 billion a year, we publicly, expressly earmark those dollars to be spent in the state of Maine. Close airbase Big Dong on Okinawa and save $100 billion? Earmark that money for California. And so forth. Pair each military installation to be closed with a specific state that will receive the windfall, so it can use the money diverted from military spending for generating local jobs on needed local infrastructure projects (green technology, high speed rail, schools, mortgage foreclosure relief, public health, whatever).
Now let's have a vote. Guns or butter? And if you want to throw a bone to the deficit hawks in the process, fine. Instead of dollar for dollar, put 10% or 25% or even 50% of the base closure savings into the general treasury or the Social Security trust fund, with the rest going to each designated state to deal with domestic needs.
Now let's have a vote. And if either of your state Senators would prefer to waste money on militarism abroad and refuse to accept available federal funds for job creation at home, hold them accountable at the polls.
I think if the economic savings of scaling back the empire abroad were specifically linked to investment in needed infrastructure/job creation programs at home, the great majority of American citizens will opt for butter over guns every time. That's how we ought to frame the issue. At least it's worth a try.
Bill from Saginaw
Hi Bill, I guess I should have realized that my first line could be misunderstood. What I meant by "it's not so simple" was ***only*** regarding the "bring the dollars home" part, and that too because of the monetary system - which really is another fundamental problem. If South Korea spends money on their military equipment, they have to pay for them ***directly*** out of the earnings from what they export and what their corporations earn abroad. There is no other way. And that is true for practically all the countries of the world. They have to export their natural resources, manufactured goods, scenery (for tourists), etc., in order to import stuff. Or borrow, and the loan once again has to be paid back eventually by selling something in return.
Except some countries that are so good at playing the banking game. And, right now, the US dollar being the reserve currency for most international transactions and this money simply created as debt into existence, the US can buy a lot of stuff, import a lot of stuff, etc., without having to export an equivalent or greater amount of goods. And whenever some oil exporting country talks about switching to another currency, they are marked as a target for regime change.
So, what closing each base will do is immediately put a stop to its corresponding share of the national debt. Which is still significant and humongous.
From wiki:
A national oil company (NOC) is an oil company fully or in the majority owned by a national government. According to the United States Energy Information Administration, NOCs accounted for 52% global oil production and controlled 88% of proven oil reserves in 2007.[1]
The issue of nationalising oil does not matter all that much, as much of oil increasingly is coming under the control of nationalised oil companies. The giants in oil, increasingly, are not BP, Shell, but rather, Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Petrobas, Petronas, PDVSA, National Iranian Oil Company, PetroChina etc. since it is those nationalised corporations / companies that control the vast majority of oil reserves.
Yeah, but your comment does not negate my point about why Gaddafi became a marked man. That, and some of his recent decisions to cancel some potential contracts with French companies that were being negotiated.
Also, the fact that NOCs already control a significant share of the oil reserves does not mean that western oil companies have accepted that as anything final. At the very least, they would try to make sure that no more nationalization takes place. And try to balance out their oil imports with weapons exports and the equipment for oil drilling, refining, etc. For that, it is important that the oil exporting country has a friendly government, preferably an authoritarian one. And if nothing works, then try for a joint venture - like BP is trying to get into in Russia.
Why not? If Gaddafi became a marked man because he suggested nationalisation of oil, then there are very many politicians around the world, in Saudi, in China, in Brazil, in Iran, in Venezuela, in Malaysia, in Russia should be marked men too: the largest nationalised oil companies in the world belong to those 7 countries. If the US / UK are going to war over the issue of nationalisation,. they would have to fight wars all over the world.
Saudi oil is nationalised, it is one of the strongest US / UK allies. It isn't the nationalisation that might be the issue, but rather, whether the government doing the nationalisation is friendly, or at least, not actively hostile.
Of course western companies have not accepted anything as final.Sure, they won't welcome nationalisation. But, they have shown the ability to work with nationalised oil companies too, such as Petrobas, or Petronas. That is to some extent, how those 2 grew to be giants, in return for foreign oil exploitation, the countries owning those 2 required sharing, and transfer of technology. As you write, a joint venture.
The U.S. millitary and its bases around the world sound more like a cancer on the land and the pepole, than a deterrant to aggression, but what would be really interesting to learn is how much ot these various figures quoted for bases, hangers, installations,embassys, etc, are infllated to cover the inevitablle graft, kickbacks, and just plane out and out theft by contractors, pepole in charge of handing out said contracts, bribes, payments for "contract murders " against ciillians who stand in the way of imperiall aggresion, I am sure the American puplic would shit themselves blind if they knew how much was picked from there pocket on a dailly basis for no other reason than sheer greed.
How much is enough for these criminalls? Answer...... too much is never enough... greed is killing this plannet, it seems well beyond the tipping point to try and reverse the damage and it has gotten exponentially worse in just the last 3 weeks, and is not looking good for anytime soon.
My heart goes out to the pepole around the world that are undergoing unimaginablle hardships due to the massive greed and aggression that has been unleashed on them, but I fear that this is just the begining of what is sooner than later going to come home to roost big time, Then we are all going to wish we had woke up sooner to the corruption and greed that has become the norm rather than the exception in our culture.
Make no mistake there is great evil afoot on the plannet and it is winning with no sign in the future for good to make a comeback.
Ahh but it was a slice while it lasted.............
Here is a question the authors asked, but have NOT really answered (at least I could not discern a real answer):
>>"When most Americans learn how U.S. military bases are infringing on the sovereignty and rights of the Korean people, most agree that it’s high time for troops to be withdrawn. But many ask, what about the threat of nuclear-armed North Korea — who will protect the Korean people?"<<
Frankly, I am not sure that even the South Korean people can answer this question satisfactorily. Their only real, long-term option for security is to mend fences with North Korea - literally, and to bring about unification. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of mistrust about North Korean intentions, and understandably so.
There is also a great deal of selfishness on the part of the middle class in South Korea. They have gotten used to certain comforts in life that are at least in part derived from their aligning with a superpower. Maybe their bitter and horrible experience at the hands of imperial Japan forced them into it. But today it seems more a case of addiction to a certain way of life. A lot of the people also seem to be easily manipulated using nationalistic rhetoric. I would even say from my experience that a lot of them seem to derive completely wrong lessons from the current global order and assume that their prosperity is a natural result of their hard work alone (and they do work unbelievably hard). Sustainability and living within ecological means is not part of their consciousness.
South Korea is right at the top in terms of internet connectivity, and yet a lot of the people do not really seem to worry about real democracy as long as they can make a living based on this system. It's true that their military governments in the past gave up some of their power only after brutally attacking activists and protesters in the 1980's.
Unification with North Korea will no doubt bring some big challenges, one of them being a need to share some of the wealth and to live a more frugal life. Meat consumption at current rates is simply NOT possible if this meat were to be produced within South Korea or even the entire Korean peninsula (S. Korea is one of the major importers of beef and other meat products from the settler countries such as Australia, USA, Canada, etc.).
Bottom line: if the people of South Korea really want US bases from their country gone, they can do it. But, for that, they will have to make the tough choice of unification with North Korea.
It really isn't greed by S Koreans that prevents unification. It is the Kim regime in the North.
And the authors answered your question actually. As they point out, S Korea actually exceeds the North in pretty much any measure of power (with the exception being nuclear missiles, and if the North chooses to use the missiles, the US presence won't make a difference anyway), which is hardly surprising given that the South is so much richer now than the North, and that the South is now actually among the top military spenders in the world.
The US bases in S Korea, as the authors point out, increasingly have nothing to do with the North. They are there for China.
S Korea does not need to mend fences with the North.
As for environmental consciousness, S Korea is little different from any rich country (yes, that includes rich European countries, who might occasionally give nice speeches, but, when push comes to shove, try to rig up a system that would allow them to emit more CO2 than poor countries)
>>rfloh wrote: "S Korea does not need to mend fences with the North."<<
Really? Are you sure? Not even for security reasons in the long term? Having a failed state on your borders is no security. Especially when it has nuclear weapons and missiles.
It may not be simple, not easy and all that, but it is necessary in the long run for a variety of reasons, chief among them being security. It is not a natural division anyway - because they are the same people and there are still families and relatives that are separated by this border. And there is a department within the South Korean government, with a matching counterpart in the North, that specifically deals with reunification.
I did not say the S. Koreans are greedy. Just selfish and addicted to a certain way of life that is coming in the way of demanding true democracy, which will enable them to finally ask the Americans to leave.
The elite and the upper middle class in many countries decide the policies adopted, especially regarding aligning with a superpower such as the US, because they stand to benefit from such a relationship. Given a chance, many Koreans would like to avoid the compulsory 2+ year military service, and some already find ways to avoid this thing.
Mending fences with your neighbors is good policy, especially from a security point of view for many countries. Especially for countries that spend a crazy amount of money on their military, primarily as protection against a neighboring country (or neighboring countries). Even more so in the case of countries created as a result of the Cold War or by colonial powers, with people of the same ethnicity, speaking the same language, etc., living on both sides of the border. The reason that such rapprochement does not occur is partly because of the elite in these countries (which includes the military) and partly due to external interference.
When it comes to nuclear weapons and missiles, mending fences is irrelevant, if the regime you are trying "mend" fences with is the Kim regime. This is not an issue of "mending fences": the Kim regime has nuclear weapons precisely so that it can blackmail the South, and Japan, so that it can stay in power. Until the Kim regime falls, there will be no long term security for the South. Whenever they feel like it, for whatever reason, the Kim regime will raise the spectre of the nuclear weapons.
S Koreans are not more selfish and addicted than people in any rich country in the world: the US, Canada, Aussie, western EU, Japan, etc.
"The elite and the upper middle class in many countries decide the policies adopted, especially regarding aligning with a superpower such as the US, because they stand to benefit from such a relationship. Given a chance, many Koreans would like to avoid the compulsory 2+ year military service, and some already find ways to avoid this thing."
S Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world after the war. I'd say, that at least from a materialist standpoint, S Koreans, as a whole, not just the elite and upper middle class have benefited from the policies taken by the S Korean government since the war. Certainly when compared to N Koreans and the N Korean gov.. Yes, many S Koreans don't like the military service, ask them how of them would prefer to live in the North under the Kim regime instead.
And as the article points out, the Americans are there increasingly for China, not N Korea.
Yes, the divisions are artificial. But, while language and ethnicity might be the same, 50 years DOES result in real divisions too: the gap in wealth, in education, between people in the South and the North is going to be very difficult to bridge. There is little chance that the majority of N Koreans are going to be able to compete with S Koreans for jobs, for education, in the event of unification, not without huge amounts of affirmative action of some sort. Without huge amounts of affirmative action, and huge amounts of government support, N Koreans are going to end up working as janitors, waiters, road sweeps, all manner of low paying menial jobs that S Koreans won't do. Colonial divisions over time, can become real divisions.
Once again, you are missing my points - all of them related to the main issue at hand:
What is stopping the South Koreans from demanding that the US vacate its bases, pack up and go? They certainly have the money to pay for the "relocation" as per whatever one-sided agreement they had entered into in the past.
The S. Korean economy can function the way it can only under the U.S. protection. The elite and the middle class people have become used to, or addicted to this economy. If they want to be free of the U.S. protection, they should be in a position to defend themselves against North Korean aggression.
But here is where you seem to insist on something as a given: that the North Korean regime is inherently crazy and incorrigible. Have you wondered about the kind of paranoia that the N.Korean regime may have about western intentions?
Is it possible that they just want a guarantee that they would be left alone, without external interference or aggression? The track record of the superpowers - that includes the Soviet Union of the past, imperial Japan before that, China and of course the USA in that region indicates that **NO** country will be left alone to mind their own business. I have to include France and Britain, too, if I look at the history of the countries slightly to the south. In fact, the **only** way any country can survive today is either by aligning itself with one or the other superpowers (although people talk of the "lone" superpower, Russia and China are not far behind, and if you think there aren't any countries benefiting from a closer relation with China, you would be wrong), or by arming itself heavily, or sometimes both. Incidentally, the only countries that have managed to fend off overt aggression by the imperialist powers are also those with some minimal deterrence by way of air defense, missiles and nukes.
S Koreans as a whole may have benefited from the policies taken by their government, but they also had to pay a heavy price by way of facing brutal repression and subjecting themselves to some heavy nationalistic conditioning, verging on brainwashing, and some elements of fascism too. Corporate interests were enforced by brute force in some instances. And this requires ongoing maintenance, so democracy is still some way off. It is true that many of them seem to have accepted this reality, maybe even internalized it all. It is not that the South is democratic and the North is authoritarian. The South too is authoritarian, but less overtly in recent years, and corporatist, but the people seem to have accepted that as a price to pay for prosperity. All of this prevents their unification or even rapprochement with the North.
I am not defending Kim Jong-il's regime, and I even have some contempt for the kind of ego he displays when his people are suffering. I am just saying that there are historical factors that would make anyone paranoid and the outside powers never stopped meddling in that region.
"The S. Korean economy can function the way it can only under the U.S. protection. The elite and the middle class people have become used to, or addicted to this economy. If they want to be free of the U.S. protection, they should be in a position to defend themselves against North Korean aggression.
"
No not really. As I state repeatedly, and as the article states, they ARE in a position to defend themselves from N Korean aggression. Given the economic disparity between the two, the only threat from the North is nuclear armageddon for everyone in the area, in which case, American protection doesn't help. They do not need America to defend them from convetional N Korean aggression.
As for the S Korean economy needing American protection to function, nope. S Korea is one of the most highly industrialised, highly techonological country in the world. They make industrial, and high tech goods that much of the world wants. They provide engineering services that much of the world wants. And no, it isn't simply the elite and the upper middle class S Koreans who benefit from this. Go ask ANY S Korean, do they want to live in the North? Do they want to go back to the days right after the war, when S Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world? By most measures of income inequality, income distribution, S Korea is one of the more income equal rich countries in the world, easily more equal than the US or the UK, better than Aussie, NZ, Canada, about the same as France, slightly worse than Germany.
"But here is where you seem to insist on something as a given: that the North Korean regime is inherently crazy and incorrigible. Have you wondered about the kind of paranoia that the N.Korean regime may have about western intentions?
"
I insists on no such thing. I do not insist that the Kim regime is "crazy", whatever that means. I insists that the Kim regime wants to maintain its power. Unification would mean that they would have to give up their power (and their luxurious lifestyle at the expense of the people of the North). Not crazy, just selfish self interest. The roadblock to unification is not the South, it is the Kim regime.
"Is it possible that they just want a guarantee that they would be left alone, without external interference or aggression? The track record of the superpowers - that includes the Soviet Union of the past, imperial Japan before that, China and of course the USA in that region indicates that **NO** country will be left alone to mind their own business. I have to include France and Britain, too, if I look at the history of the countries slightly to the south. "
No country in the world is "left alone". Any guaranteed would be meaningless. In any case the Kim regime does NOT want to left alone. It wants the support of China. When they have problems supplying enough food for the people of the North, they want the help of the world (leaving them alone would mean no help from the world when the N Korean population is starving) As you yourself point out, with the countries a bit futher south. I am not defending this practice, just saying that N Korea is hardly unique in that regard. Most countries do not resort to nuclear weapons to menace their neighbours; those countries to the south that have been meddled with just as much or more (Vietnam: China, France, the US, China again, has not resorted to nuclear weapons, for example)
"In fact, the **only** way any country can survive today is either by aligning itself with one or the other superpowers (although people talk of the "lone" superpower, Russia and China are not far behind, and if you think there aren't any countries benefiting from a closer relation with China, you would be wrong"
Wherever did I say that there aren't any countries benefitting from China? The reality of most of China's neighbours, is that on the one hand, they want to benefit from proximity to China economically, yet, at the same time, want to use another power, the US, to "balance" China. That is what most of them are doing, which is why you see the grand irony of Vietnam and the US cosying up together.
"Incidentally, the only countries that have managed to fend off overt aggression by the imperialist powers are also those with some minimal deterrence by way of air defense, missiles and nukes.
"
Which are these countries? When it comes to actual overt aggression, unless you have the option of "we all die together" nuclear weapons, the only way to fend off a superpower is to make the war so painful and bloody (for everyone involved), that the superpower decides to leave. Air defences hardly help, since the superpower will crush your air defences easily. Nor missiles.
"S Koreans as a whole may have benefited from the policies taken by their government, but they also had to pay a heavy price by way of facing brutal repression and subjecting themselves to some heavy nationalistic conditioning, verging on brainwashing, and some elements of fascism too. Corporate interests were enforced by brute force in some instances. And this requires ongoing maintenance, so democracy is still some way off. It is true that many of them seem to have accepted this reality, maybe even internalized it all."
Sure, but, this is hardly different from any country in the world.
" All of this prevents their unification or even rapprochement with the North.
"
So you are stating that the Kim regime is willing to give up power, or at least to stand for elections, in a unified Korea? You seem to placing the onus for reunification on S Korea, you seem to be expecting them to make whatever concessions the Kim regime wants. Why should they?
"and I even have some contempt for the kind of ego he displays when his people are suffering"
Ego. Who the feck cares about ego? It is selfish self interest.
Our overseas bases are protecting our Burger Kings
When you hear the phrase "our interest abroad" read ''corporate interest abroad".
There is a conspiracy now in its final acts to transfer all the planet's wealth to multinational corporations. So what is going to happen to the poorest 99% of us? I see an extreme right wing theocracy on the horizon.
It can be installed by the bosses ordering the congress and supreme court they own to give the country (one court case at a time) to fundamentalists holy rollers such as the likes of John Hagee. My great great grand kids will probably be under the thumb of the church, full of the superstition they spout, and told that if they don't cause trouble for the elite there will be pie in the sky for them by and by when they die.
I'm just grateful I won't be here to see it.
What then?
Absolutely no disrespect to you, and addressed to everyone on CD: How the fuck should I know?
WB,
Here's what i wrote above:
"Finally, all the best to the brave resistance to the massive US base planned at Gangjeong on Chenju Island in South Korea. Let this be an inspiration to resistance in the USA. Many are quick to write that different forms of resistance here are futile, that tax resistance is futile, that demonstrations are futile, that whatever tactics or strategies are attempted are futile. The question is, what are we willing to risk? Our lives, our communities, our living Earth are at stake. What are we willing to risk? Giving up in despair is what is futile. Talk to your friends, your family, your co-workers, about what is at stake, what is being stolen, what is being destroyed. What are we willing to risk to protect our families, our communities, our planet?"
It's up to us to decide what to do, but we can't wait for someone to tell us. We have to decide that our commitment is strong enough, and work with the people in our lives to wrestle against the military-industrial domination and destruction of everything. This struggle is as much a personal struggle as it is a social struggle.