The National Defense Committee of the National Assembly will have its final meeting in the morning of Nov. 16, Friday, in Korean time. Its’ Nov. 12 meeting was dissipated because of wide gap between the ruling and main opposition party. But since then the Democratic United Party (DP), the main opposition party has shown its compromising attitude that it is considering to agree with the ruling Saenury Party (New Frontier Party) to pass all or part of the proposed budget on the Jeju naval base project, to the indignation of people. The people here have mobilized themselves to protest to the members of the DP through email, phone and SNS. There was people’s emergency press conference on Nov. 15. How you can help us overnight in short time? Please see the part 2 of this article.
Photo by PSPD/ People’s press conference in front of the National Assembly on Nov. 15, 2012
1.People’s emergency press conference on Nov. 15
On Nov. 15, there was people’s emergency press conference to demand ruling and opposition parties to cut the whole 201 billion won of 2013 Jeju naval base project budget in front of the National Assembly at 1:30 pm. The Press conference was hosted by the Gangjeong Village Association, Jeju Pan-Island Committee for the Stop of Military Base and for the Realization of Peace Island (26 groups), National Network of Korean Civil Society for Opposing the Naval Base in Jeju Island (125 groups). Please watch Dungree video Here (Youtube). You can see the original Korean statement here (posted by the PSPD).
Some points in the press conference statement read:
Even though the Budget and Balance committee of the National Assembly 2011 has recommended the government and navy “to objectively verify on the safety matters of entry & exit of port and coming alongside & out of port by the 150,000 ton cruises through the 3rd institute,” the government and navy have ignored it. Despite that, the members of the ruling and opposition parties in the National Defense committee are to pass 200.9 billion won on the 2013 Jeju naval base project, without asking the matter on the execution on the National assembly recommendation item. The Jeju naval base project currently being enforced is in violation of the 2007 National assembly subsidiary opinion of ‘Civilian-Military Complex Port of Call,’ (* the Lee Myung Bak government has enforced the project under the title of the Civilian-Military Complex Port for Tour Beauty) and also in violation of the 2011 Budget and Balance committee of the National Assembly recommendation item, the demand of verification on the possibility of entry & exit by 150,000 ton cruises. It is a case when a strict response by the National Assembly is needed in the sense that those are of ignorance of the authority of the National assembly that monitors the Administrative. Therefore it is reasonable that the National Assembly cut all 2013 budgets on the Jeju naval base, according to the agreement between the ruling and opposition parties. […] However, Han Ki-Ho (* a former high-rank army commander), member of the Saenuri Party, the person concerned in the ruling and opposition party’s agreement [in 2011] as a member of Budget and Balance Committee and now a chairman of the National defense committee shows shameless appearance to condemn the voice on budget as if it is from that of pro North Korea.
Photo by Tommy Shin Jung-Hyun/ People’s press conference to cut the Jeju naval base budget in front of National Assembly on Nov. 15, 2012
There are some useful points to remind in the people’s protest letters to the two big ruling and opposition parties. Here are some excerpted translations.
The Saenuri party thinks the Jeju naval base is certainly necessary for national security. However, if the Saenuri Party truly thinks security, it should take the lead to cut all budgets on the Jeju naval base project. It is because the Jeju naval base currently being constructed in Gangjeong has no validity for project purpose. It cannot even properly be used as a military port.
The government takes protection of southern sea area and sea transportation lane as the purpose of the Jeju naval base project. However, there is no need to be stubborn to build the naval base in Jeju to protect the southern sea water. The government has already measure of the 3rd fleet in Mokpo that does not need another base in Jeju. Further the task of sea transportation lane is originally the duty of coast guard and it is never appropriate that military vessel steps for that, given the geographical conditions and relationship with nearby countries.
Furthermore, it has been turned out through navy resource that the main facilities of the Jeju naval base are being designed and built according to the US military demand to fit for the vessels such as the US nuclear aircraft carrier [and submarines] that the US retain
Protest letter to the Democratic United Party: Excerpts
The remarks by Park Ji-Won, floor representative of Democratic United Party, who said that ‘[the party] would confirm on the test result on the entry/exit of port and then allocate budget,’ is never realistic, given the time to be taken for verification and schedule on budget review. Further in the situational condition that the Office of Prime Minister and navy enforce construction (destruction), ignoring the resolution by the National Assembly who demanded verification through simulation, there is no other alternative than to cut the whole budget (* so construction is to be stopped) to enforce verification. We worry to see the words by [Moon Jae-In], Presidential candidate and [Park Ji-Won] floor representative to be over turned in a week.
It seems that the reason that the Democratic United Party changed its position on the matter of cut on the Jeju naval base budget is because it judged that it would influence not good effect in the Presidential election due to expected repulsion by the navy and conservative class and political aggression by the Saenuri party. However such position is defensive and passive without clear and reasonable basis. In last [April 11] election, all the three Democratic United Party members who oppose naval base have been all elected in Jeju. If the candidate and Democratic United Party actively make public to citizens on various problems on the Jeju naval base in the mainland, it can get superior position in public opinion. The Democratic Party should take a lesson of a case that the people have rather punished the Grand National Party(former Saenuri Party) when the DP actively responded to the GP with the ‘war power vs. peace power’ frame, facing against the GP who intended to win over DP in June 2 local election, abusing the Cheonan ship incident for hunting so called the ‘pro north-Korea’ groups.
Photo by Hwang Hyun-Jin/ Humorous one man protest in front of National Assembly. ‘With 200.9 billion won, you can feed each of 50 million South Koreans with four strings of Kimbab (rice ball kind)
Photo by Cho Sung-Bong/ Despite the Island governor’s demand to the navy on Oct. 30 to pose the input of caisson until the finish of simulation on 150,000 ton cruise, the navy thoroughly ignored that. The navy-contracted company is moving caisson on Nov. 14. See more photos by Cho, here.
2. URGENT: Please take 1 min. to help us. Please copy and paste the below and send it to these address below, with your name. You may change contents, of course. Thanks so much in advance.
Title: Cut the whole budget on the Jeju naval base. The world is watching
Dear Democratic United Party members of National Defense committee of the ROK National Assembly.
Please cut all the budgets on the Jeju naval base project. I heard that your party is considering to agree with the ruling Saenuri party to pass the budget in all or part in the National Assembly. It is a shame that your party considers it despite all illegal, undemocratic, environment destructive, human rights- violating matters of the Jeju naval base project that became clear to the eyes of internationals. I was also shocked to hear that the Jeju naval base is nothing but the US base as the Commander of the US navy forces of Korea has intervened in the base design for US nuclear aircraft carrier and US submarines.
Do you truly want the South Koreans’ tax paid for the US war base against China? It will greatly disturb peace in the North East Asia and world. Please remember that your deed will affect not only Koreans but voiceless creatures and people in the world.
It is unbelievable and shame if your party agrees to pass the budget. Please stand on your original position of cutting all the budget of 201 billion won on the naval base project 2013.
Thanks for listening.
Photo by Carol Rekinga/ The hungerstrike of Sung Sim Jang, for more photos, click herePhoto by Kang Han, Catholic News Now and Here/ Construction site, Nov. 13, 2012 (post by Regina Pyon)Photo by Kang Han, Catholic News Now and Here/ protest mass in front of construction gate, Nov. 12 (Post by Regina Pyon)
3. Peace activists resist tenaciously and cry for stop of violence
Please watch this 7 min. video taken by Kim Goon, a peacekeeper that daily appears in the protest site of the naval base construction gate. . The peacekeepers in Gangjeong persistently protest to stop the cement mixer trucks .The video was taken at 3:10pm, Nov. 14. They are fighting for the Jeju naval base project budgets not to be executed but cut, despite the police violence and humiliation.
“All parts of our body are bruised… We have little time to inform about the field news since the start of 24 hour construction… All of us are longing the day when our routine life of being roughed out by the police will end…. We just hope to save the Gureombi, Gangjeong village and ourselves.” (Kim Goon)
The police from Seoul were more violent on Nov. 16. They are the maneuver units of No. 21(male) and 24(female). The police were also violent on Nov. 15, probably because the Democratic United Party members showed compromising attitude on budget. A young activist was carried to a hospital during the protest on Nov. 15.
Photo by Tommy Shin Jung-Hyun/ Village mayor Kang Dong-Kyun makes a speech against the Jeju naval base project in front of the US embassy in the center of Seoul on Nov. 13, 2012: “US, listen to me!”
Citing an article of Chosun Ilbo on Nov. 14, the Jeju Sori on Nov. 14 reports that the Democratic United Party is withdrawing from its official position of ‘whole cut’ on the 2013 Jeju naval base budget. It is considering ‘conditional pass,’ of about 200 billion won budget for 2013 naval base project. Its reasoning is told that because ‘it is afraid of bad influence to the Presidential election in December, if it cuts the 2013 budget on the project.’
To the people’s indignation, the party has attributed its failure in April 11 general election to its changed position into the critique on the currently enforced naval base project to the dislike by the general South Korean citizens for whom security consciousness is presumed by the party to be important. Such analysis has gotten much criticism from the progressive who analyzed the party’s failure as the Party’s remaining unchanged without true renovations and the Party’s weak efforts to persuade people.
The Pan-Island Committee for the Stop of Military Base and for the Realization of Peace Island stated in its refuting statement on Nov. 13.
“While the technical verification committee is not neutral, the suspicions on the flaws of base design and on the unreliable caisson production has not disappeared. The matter on simulation has not properly done under the Lee Myung Bak government. It should be righteous that all the naval base budgets should be cut.”
Photo by Cho Sung-Bong in his Ohmynews article, Nov. 13 / The illegal naval base construction (destruction) is destroying environment in thorough violation of the EIA and wasting people’s tax enormously.
“The Democratic United Party has promised on the construction stop and re-examination of the project, but is now being shifted to have an opinion of ‘partial [or all] pass with subsidiary conditions. To say ‘subsidiary opinion’ so and so is an attempt to dissipate its Presidential candidates’ promise to people.” (* How self- contradictory for the Democratic United Party to say it is, reminding that the Party has cut the budget in 2012 because the navy did not kept the National Assembly’s subsidiary conditions in 2007.)’
The Pan-Island committee has a plan to carry on one-man protest to demand the ‘whole budget cut,’ in front of the Jeju branch of the Democratic United party, Jeju City from the morning of Nov. 14.
People here are mobilizing themselves to send protest messages to the facebooks and tweets of the members of the National Assembly.
How you can help us to cut the budget? Please pressure the ROK National Assembly to cut the whole budget of naval base. Contact english@assembly.go.kr, or Moon Jae-In, Permanent Advisor, Democratic United Party, Presidential candidate: moonriver365@gmail.com
Otherwise, please leave messages in the below sites to pressure the National Assembly members (Democratic United Party)
Jang Hana’s Facebook page (Jang Hana is the Jeju-origin National Assembly woman, Democratic United Party)
# The Jeju based or origin National Assembly men/women (All are Democratic United Party members) are making their best efforts to cut the budget. Please encourage and support them to put more pressure to their party colleagues. Thanks Abigail for providing above facebook information.
TWEET/ EMAIL ADDRESS/ PHONE NUMBER of the National Defense Committee (Democratic United party):
Ahn Kyu-Baek (Floor vice- representative of the Party) @AGBhope intoan429@hanmail.net 02-788-2601
Photo by Kang Ho-Jin, Nov. 13/Peace activists are holding one-man protest in front of the National Assembly to cut the budgets on the naval base project. With 200 billion own, there are so many things that you can do for people’s welfare: Free meals and education for children, tuition support for students, irregular workers’ position change to regular workers etc.Photo by Cho Sung-Bong in his Ohmynews article, Nov. 13 /People are desperate to stop 24 hour construction(destruction) that started on Oct. 25. The photo is on Oct. 26 when people are desperate to stop construction vehicles in front of the main gates of the construction site.
Prof. Shin Yong-In on Nov. 12, 2012. The sign reads “The civil disobedience movement is a motion to make just law stand.” Image: Jang Hyun-Woo
Starting a civil disobedience movement for the peaceful settlement of the conflict of the Jeju naval base project and for the realization of just law.
By Prof. Shin Yong-In (Translated by Save Jeju Now)
Nov. 11, 2012
The Jeju naval base project has numerous problems such as doubtful selection of location, resolution on invitation by conciliation and betrayal, ignorance of Gangjeong villagers’ opinion, unreliability of the Environmental Impact Assessment by and large, cancellation of absolute preservation areas without notice, suspicion on the flaws in the base layout, unreliable and illegal construction, falsehood in the so called Civilian-Military Complex for Tour Beauty.
Still, the government and navy are not only enforcing naval base construction with the police force at the head but are recently enforcing 24 hours construction to secure the 2013 budget, indiscriminately confining and arresting Gangjeong villagers, peace activists and even clergymen who make efforts to stop construction.
In the state power’s oppression such as the above, the responsibility of court is also big. The court forgetting its constitutional mission of being the last fortress to keep the basic rights of people, has given indulgence to the wrong executions of the power by taking unjust trial to unilaterally raise the hands of government and navy. As a result, Gangjeong became the site of a lawless world where democracy is damaged and human rights are trampled down as illegality and law-evasiveness take power to themselves.
In the situation when every legal effort to stop unjustly dominating power became meaningless, there is nothing that I, a law school professor and lawyer can do to stop the forceful naval base construction.
Even now, there are Gangjeong villagers and peace activists in front of the Gangjeong construction site, who struggle risking the danger of punishment, by delaying naval base construction (destruction) even for 5 minutes. They are the people who follow the law of consciousness in the situation when the laws of the positive and of the conscious clash each other. They are in fact already doing the civil disobedience movement. Their courageous resistance make me feel shame, who have been confined inside the fence of the positive law, and make me ask what the true law is.
Henry Thoreau, a harbinger of the civil disobedience movement has said:
Now, aspiring for the peaceful settlement of the conflicts in the Jeju naval base project and for the realization of just law, I will start the civil disobedience movement until the government and navy stop the enforcement of naval base construction. I will stop, with my body, entry and exit of construction vehicles in front of the main gate of naval base construction site more than once a week. For the beginning, I will stand in front of the construction gate from 10 am to 6pm on Monday, Nov. 12.
I respect law. But when the law is not just, the law is merely violence. Therefore it is the natural right and responsibility of democratic citizens to disobey to the illegal law. It is nothing but to stop to be human being to give up that. Therefore the civil disobedience movement that I am to do is never the movement to ignore law. It is the movement to make the true law stand. It is an effort to save the Constitution being invaded by unjust power.
Before the start of the civil disobedience movement, I declare the below principles based on the spirit ofSatyagraha by Mahatma Gandhi.
Firstly, I reject every violent way. I will act whatever happens with non-violent and peaceful way. Violence kills life while non-violence respects lives and make them live.
Secondly, there is a saying that ‘You shall hate crime but not the criminals.” Even though I am infuriated from the unjust execution of power by the personnel of the government, navy and police, I never hate them. Hatred kills life. I also believe that the government, navy and police personnel are dignified beings like sky, with reason and consciousness as human beings.
Thirdly, I will be willing to suffer from any disadvantages following civil disobedience. If the police rough out and confine me, I will be willingly taken. If they want to arrest me, I will be willing to be arrested. If they imprison me, I will be willing to be imprisoned. The government can confine my body but not my spirit. If the government attempts to detain my body more and more, my spirit will freely fly up.
Through the civil disobedience movement, I hope the government, navy, court, police can change like the below.
I hope the government no more betrays and disdains citizens but recognize them as the SKY, being afraid of them and serve them.
I hope the court no more wait-and–sees the government but takes trial faithful to the Constitutional mission of control of powers and protection of basic rights.
I hope the navy is born again as the navy for citizens to whom it serves, not as the navy for their own, who fights against the citizens.
I hope the police outgrowing from the role of maid to power, to be the true cane for the people from whom they get love and respect.
I also appeal to all Jeju Island people and citizens to have courage and join the civil-disobedience movement. I urgently ask them to join us until the conflicts in the Jeju naval base project is peacefully settled and just law stands.
Shin Yong-In, Professor of Law School, Jeju University
Around 3:30 pm, Nov. 12/ Prof. Shin is carried away by the police from the protest siteHeadline Jeju, Nov. 12, 2012 Prof. Shin was detained in police circles more than 7 times on the day.Photo by Song Chang-Wook. Prof. Shin ends his first day with the 100 bows early in the next morning, 7am, Nov. 13.
“Since I aspire for Jeju to be a place for our lives and a nest for our livelihood rather than a 2nd Hawaii, a global tour site that exploits our flesh & bones and makes us playthings, I walk this way crying for the end of the Jeju Special Law, abolition of the 2nd overall development plan, and the smashing of the Minjadang[Democratic Freedom Party, ruling conservative right-wing party from 1990 to 1995].“
– Yang Yong-Chan, a true citizen of Jeju, greatly missed.
The above quote was part of testimony by Yang Yong-Chan (1965 to 1991) who immolated himself in Seogwipo City on Nov. 7, 1991. Today is anniversary of his death. He was only 25 years old.
According to Prof. Shin Yong-In, legal advisor to the village association, there was a pan-Island resistance against the central government’s development drive in 1990s. The Jeju Special Law has been nothing but legal justification for big corporations’ exploitation of Jeju. The immolation of Yang Yong-Chan who resisted against capitalist development of the Island sparked the Island people to rise up during that period.
Because of Island peoples’ resistance, the Island government at the time was eventually forced to set up some important systems to preserve the pristine nature of Jeju from the central government’s thoughtless development. One of the most important systems is the Absolute Preservation System that is supposed to ‘absolutely’ protect the natural environment of Jeju, including its coasts. Ironically, it was the very governor Woo Keun-Min who established that very system as governor at the time (1991 to 1993). Woo becoming the Island governor again in 2010, but has not cancelled previous governor Kim Tae-Hwan’s undemocratic 2009 decision to abolish the Absolute Preservation Areas in Gangjeong village (the Joongdeok coast, most of which is called Gureombi Rock, as well as Gangjeong Stream and its vicinity) made in order to force the Jeju naval base project despite the Island Council’s demands at the general meeting vote in March 2011.
“The cancellation of the Absolute Preservation Areas in Gangjeong in 2009 can be interpreted as the central government unilaterally infringing on indigenous rights to environmental protection, as well as their human rights and other creatures’ rights to live in their habitats,” Prof. Shin says.
Current Governor Woo is affiliated with big corporations like Samsung, and is neglecting his duties as it is in his authority to order the navy to stop the illegal and forced Jeju naval base construction (destruction). His statements on faux so-called “Civilian-Military Complex Port for Tour Beauty” and the two 150,000 ton cruise ships are nothing but sugar-coated words to blind the Island people through false promises of local economic development.
Succeeding the Spirit of Yang Yong-Chan: Citizens’ Urgent Action Day on November 10, 2012
What is the difference between his period and our period? Jeju, designated the “Peace Island” by the central government on January 27, 2005, is now suffering greatly because of the enforced and unreliable war base construction in Gangjeong village. The right-wing conservatives repeatedly say that they want Jeju to become a 2nd Hawaii, mixing militarism and tourism (so that big corporations like Samsung can wholly exploit Jeju Island). 24-hour construction started on Oct. 25, 2012. The navy has gone insane enforcing construction (destruction) as they try to get the 200.9 billion Won budget for next year (92.5 % of budget will go to big corporations like Samsung and Daelim who are in charge of the harbor and bay construction). Even police from the mainland have been mobilized 24 hours-a-day to serve these companies will. The people have also responded increasing their protest to 24 hours-a-day, being carried by ambulance to hospital, injured, robbed of their sleep. Even the daily 7 a.m. peaceful 100 bows have been disrupted with police forcefully removing the bowers from the construction gates. Catholic priests in robes are carried away during mass only for construction trucks to pass through the gates. Women’s clothes are taken off and bodies scratched and pinched by police women nails when the policewomen forcefully remove them from the protest sites. Men are dragged on the ground by one leg. The people are uncared for especially in the night when the police only care about removing and throwing them aside as fast as possible. A woman was almost at the risk of losing her life when a policewoman neglected her after throwing her down on the 1st night 24 hour construction, October 25.
Catholic priests in robes are surrounded by the police during mass and removed from the protest site at around 5 p.m. on November 5.A woman peacekeeper’s dirty clothes after being dragged carelessly across the ground at around 3:30 p.m., November 4.Around 10:50 pm. on November 5, Chairwoman of the village Folk Conservation Association played music. Then police attacked. Still people, including village elders played music and held pickets, inside circle of police.
Around 12:10 a.m. on November 6. The police usually come every two hours during the night time, but this time it was only after 1 hour and 40 minutes. People in solidarity right before the police’s attack.Around 12:40 a.m. on November 7Around 1:50 a.m. on November 7Around 1:50 a.m. on November 7Around 1:50 a.m. on November 7Around 4:50 a.m. on November 7
Since November 5th, the number of the police has increased even more. The police are wielding more physical power but still the people are resisting with all their energy. The intervals between police attacks have become shorter. During the day, it has shortened from the usual hourly strike, to every 30-40 minutes. During the night, from two hour intervals to every 1 hour and 30 minutes or 1 hour and 40 minutes. It is clear that the navy is getting more and more hurried with the destruction.
Because of this people nationwide are mobilizing themselves to stop the 24-hour construction (destruction), to stop the navy and big corporations’ greed about the national budget, and to save Jeju, the Peace Island, following after the spirit of Yang Yong Chan, whose poignant words still ring true, that Jeju should be a site for life, not a second Hawaii. The 15th Nationwide Citizens’ Action Day to revoke the Jeju naval base project will be held on November 10.
Let’s block together! 24 hour enforcement of construction (destruction)!
Let’s save together! Save Gangjeong by staying over the night!
Let’s cut together! 200.9 billion Won Jeju naval base project budget 2013!
Let’s remember together! Yang Yong-Chan, a martyr, a true Jeju Island citizen!
Schedule for Saturday November 10, 2012:
3pm, Citizens’ Action Event in front of the main gate of the Jeju naval base project building complex: ‘Let’s run with peace, again!”
5pm: Way-opening for the Peace Village, Gangjeong
7pm: Commemoration for Yang Yong-Chan
Sponsored by the Gangjeong Village Association, Jeju Pan-Island Committee for Stop of Military Base and for Realization of Peace Island (26 groups) and National Network of Korean Civil Society for Opposing to the Naval Base in Jeju Island (125 groups)
Finally, Please pressure the ROK National Assembly members to cut the entire budget for the Jeju naval base project next year. Contact english@asssembly.go.kr or Moon Jae-In, Permanent Advisor, Democratic United Party, Presidential candidate: moonriver365@gmail.com
‘Wright, who resigned in protest of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, points to the South Korean naval base on Jeju which, when finished, will house AEGIS-equipped destroyers linked to U.S. missile defense as an example of how the United States pressures its allies to follow certain paths.
Speaking at a Pentagon news briefing last June, PACOM commander Admiral Samuel J. Locklear basically said the same thing: “We’re not really interested in building any more U.S. bases in the Asia-Pacific,” he said. “We shouldn’t have to at this point in time. We have reliable partners and reliable allies, and together we should be able to find ways to—not only bilaterally, but in some cases to multilaterally—to be able to find these locations where we can put security forces that respond to a broad range of security issues.”
Fresh from hosting the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Honolulu last autumn, U.S. President Barack Obama recently told members of the Australian Parliament that America’s defense posture across the Asia-Pacific would be “more broadly distributed…more flexible—with new capabilities to ensure that our forces can operate freely.”
The announcement of America’s “Asia-Pacific pivot” by its first Hawaiia-born president was highly fitting, since the Hawaiian Islands are at the piko (“navel” in Hawaiian) of this vast region.
A less flattering metaphor for Hawaii’s role in the Pacific is what Maui educator and native Hawaiian activist Kaleikoa Kaeo has called a giant octopus whose tentacles reach across the ocean clutching Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, Jeju island, Guam—and, at times, the Philippines, American Samoa, Wake Island, Bikini Atoll, and Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.
The head of this beast is in Hawaii, which is home to U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), with sonar, radar, and optical tracking stations as its eyes and ears. Its brain consists of the supercomputers on Maui and the command center on Oahu that connects PACOM to distant bases. This octopus excretes waste as toxic land, polluted waters, abandoned poisons, blown-up and sunken ships, and depleted uranium (DU). Like a real octopus that can regenerate severed limbs, the military in the Pacific grows in new locations (Thailand, Australia) and returns to old ones (Philippines, Vietnam).
PACOM headquarters at Camp H.M. Smith on Oahu is a short drive from Waikiki Beach, but it’s unlikely many tourists pause to consider that tensions between the United States and Russia over missile defense, the war in Afghanistan, the destruction of Iraq, the use of drones in Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and the Philippines—as well as growing opposition to military bases in Okinawa, Guam and Jeju—are all linked to Hawaii.
Thirty-six nations— and over half the world’s population—live in PACOM’s “Area of Responsibility” which spans from the Bering Strait to New Zealand, as far west as Pakistan and Siberia and east to the Galapagos. This behemoth’s self-proclaimed duty is to defend “the territory of the United States, its people, and its interests,” and to “enhance stability in the Asia-Pacific,” “promote security cooperation, encourage peaceful development, respond to contingencies, deter aggression and, when necessary, fight to win.”
Sovereignty violated
Hawaii’s relationship with the U.S. military was cemented on January 16, 1893, when U.S. Marines overthrew what had been a sovereign kingdom recognized by the United States and dozens of countries around the world. Encouraged by Anglo-American subjects of the Hawaiian kingdom seeking tariff-free access to American markets for their sugar cane, the U.S. military—pursuing what was then already a mission of expansion in the Pacific—toppled Queen Liliuokalani, making way for the 1898 U.S. declaration of the Territory of Hawaii and, in 1959, statehood.
In 1900, President Theodore Roosevelt said, “I wish to see the United States the dominant power on the shores of the Pacific Ocean.” He and every president since have understood the importance of Hawaii in fulfilling that goal. “Our future history will be more determined by our position on the Pacific facing China than by our position on the Atlantic facing Europe,” Roosevelt said.
Since even before World War II, but especially since the 1947 establishment of PACOM, Hawaii has been at the center of testing, training, and deployment of U.S. military hardware and personnel around the region. Today Hawaii is home to118 military sites, from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai to Kaena Point Satellite Tracking Station on Oahu, from the Air Force Maui Optical and Supercomputing observatory to the Pohakuloa Training Area on the Big Island (Hawaii Island).
Besides Hawaii’s four largest islands, the military has used smaller Hawaiian islands and offshore islets for live-fire testing for decades. Best known isKahoolawe, which was a bombing range from 1941 until 1990 when, after more than a dozen years of protests and legal challenges, President George H.W. Bush ordered a cessation to bombing and the removal of unexploded ordnances. Yet as of 2004, one-quarter of Kahoolawe still had unexploded ordnances and was considered “unsafe.”
On Hawaii Island, at 133,000 acres, Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) is over four times the size of Kahoolawe. The high-altitude site between the volcanoes Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea has been used by all branches of the military for small arms training, mortar firing, and other live-fire tests.
In addition to being shelled with millions of rounds of ammunition annually—and on the receiving end of 2,000-pound inert bombs dropped from B-2 bombers—PTA is contaminated with an undetermined amount of depleted uranium (DU). In 2008, the Hawaii County Council voted 8-1 for a resolution calling for a halt to live-fire training until further assessments and clean-up can be conducted. The military, however, continues to exploit the site, according to Jim Albertini with the Malu Aina Center for Non-violent Education & Action.
Below PTA, in the sleepy town of Hilo, community advocate Lori Buchanan describes Pohakuloa today: “It’s so disheartening to drive past and see the degradation to the land. What I see will bring tears to your eyes—not only animals with no place to go, but dust storms reminiscent of Kahoolawe because of the erosion and impact of military training.” She says the bombing doesn’t make sense. “Why would you bomb the hell out of the land when it’s so limited? We live on an island…and they’re bombing a huge area, making it a wasteland.”
Although a native Hawaiian, Buchanan says she isn’t instinctively anti-military. “It’s the whole patriotic [thing]. It’s ingrained in us. We understand the importance of defense—no one is challenging that, but is all this really necessary? You cannot kill your own resources when you live on an island and have nowhere to go once you’ve killed everything off.”
“It isn’t just Pohakuloa. It’s Kahoolawe, Makua, Barking Sands, the proposed training on Maui and it’s Kalaupapa,” says Buchanan, talking about Kalaupapa peninsula, on the island of Molokai. Kalaupapa is a quiet place, best known for its 19th-century leprosy colony at the bottom of Hawaii’s highest sea cliffs. Less well known is that Kalaupapa and “topside” (upper) Molokai are used by the Navy for confined area and field carrier landing “touch-and-go” training by CH-53Dhelicopters, the type used in Afghanistan. In July 2012, activists on Molokai helped thwart plans to increase night training exercises for the controversial MV-22 Osprey and Huey attack helicopters from 112 takeoff and landings per year to 1,388.
The Navy plans to base two squadrons (12 aircraft each) of Osprey and one squadron of light attack H-1 Cobra and Huey attack helicopters in Hawaii. The Osprey, which takes off like a helicopter but can fly like an airplane, has been heavily criticized over safety concerns following at least seven fatal crashes—including two this year, in Florida and Morocco. Osprey helicopters have been used in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and they’re being deployed in Japan and Okinawa despite fervent protests.
In addition to concerns about some 2,000 new active-duty personnel and their dependents being transferred to Oahu, civic and cultural groups are worried about the impacts of the aircraft on local communities, wildlife, and historically and culturally sensitive areas on Kalaupapa, which is designated a U.S. National Historic Park. The military has said the increased training will have “no significant impact on noise levels for most communities,” but local groups wedged between high cliffs, mountains, and the sea fear otherwise.
Under my thumb
An Asia-Pacific pivot will increase testing and training beyond what has taken place in Hawaii for years—from live-fire testing in Makua Valley on Oahu to missile defense, rocket, and drone testing at the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai. Additionally, every two years, the U.S. military holds its Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) training—the “world’s largest international maritime exercise,” which was most recently held this summer across the islands.
RIMPAC 2012 included 22 regional allies (including Canada, Japan, Australia, South Korea) and more distant nations like Colombia, Netherlands, Tonga, India, and Russia. Notably absent was China, but in September 2012, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that Beijing would be invited to participate in a limited capacity in the 2014 exercise.
Retired U.S. Army Colonel Ann Wright sees RIMPAC and the growing number of multi-national joint military “exercises and engagements” in the region as an opportunity for the United States to test (and show off) its next generation of weaponry: laser-fueled, computerized, and submarine-launched drones. It’s also a chance to closely assess regional capabilities while positioning the United States to more effectively “push around” other countries and persuade them to do the foreign policy and military operational bidding of the United States, Wright says.
Wright, who resigned in protest of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, points to the South Korean naval base on Jeju which, when finished, will house AEGIS-equipped destroyers linked to U.S. missile defense as an example of how the United States pressures its allies to follow certain paths.
Speaking at a Pentagon news briefing last June, PACOM commander Admiral Samuel J. Locklear basically said the same thing: “We’re not really interested in building any more U.S. bases in the Asia-Pacific,” he said. “We shouldn’t have to at this point in time. We have reliable partners and reliable allies, and together we should be able to find ways to—not only bilaterally, but in some cases to multilaterally—to be able to find these locations where we can put security forces that respond to a broad range of security issues.”
“It’s complicated”
Much has been made of the Asia-Pacific pivot, but Oahu activist Kyle Kajihiro ofHawaii Peace & Justice says this is just the most recent wave in a series of endless waves.
“Every pivot needs a fulcrum in order to turn. Hawaii was the first fulcrum for U.S. in the Pacific and has allowed it to leverage their power to greater effect,” he says. Kajihiro points out that questions of land use and the military’s social, cultural, and environmental impacts on Hawaii are frequently overlooked or sidelined by the notion that seemingly endless infusions of money and military-based employment always trump the needs of people and the environment.
For decades the military has enjoyed solid backing from Hawaii’s congressional delegation in Washington, the Hawaii Chamber of Commerce, and unions with construction interests. Hawaii’s own population, which overwhelmingly votes Democratic, has largely accepted what Kajihiro calls “the dominant myth” that a large military presence is organic, inevitable, and naturally beneficial. He refers to events like “Military Appreciation” month and the USS Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor, where he says militarism and war are monumentalized as forms of “redemptive violence”—that is, as a source of goodness, honor, and valor from which the United States always emerges “stronger and better.”
In Hawaii, the military has widespread local support, even from some native Hawaiians (whose kingdom was overthrown), people of Japanese descent (who have suffered discrimination and internment) and others whose ancestral homelands have born the brunt of the U.S. military (Koreans, Okinawans, Chamorro, Pacific Islanders).
“When you’re severely addicted to something like the military,” asks Kajihiro, “how do you transition away without causing trauma?” He says Hawaii would face serious economic hemorrhaging if it turned away from the military cold turkey. “How do we plan for and invest in an alternate course that will take us off an addictive substance that deteriorates the body to a more diversified, healthy economic sustenance?”
Hawaii is a remote archipelago almost wholly dependent on imported oil, commodities and manufactured goods, but increasingly its people are recognizing the need to become more self-reliant, especially in terms of local food production.
In the last decade Hawaii has seen a mushrooming of businesses and educational efforts to pursue alternative energy based on sun, wind, waves and waste. Author Richard Heinberg, a senior fellow in residence at the Post Carbon Institute, has suggested Hawaii should move in a direction like New Zealand, which places very little emphasis on military strength but has become a global leader in environmental conservation.
Under the banner of an “Asia-Pacific pivot,” the United States is positioning its military to secure access to remaining resources and drive the economic and political winds of the region, but it also demonstrates that it understands the importance of finding alternatives to building large, new bases that rely on increasingly hard-to-obtain money and oil.
In order to successfully secure a place for its people in a more crowded, resource-strained world, Hawaii would do well to pursue its own pivot away from militarism and instead shift its efforts to food and energy self-reliance, environmental protection, and planning for survival in a world beset by climate change.
The sooner Hawaii recognizes that it would be better off with a drastically reduced dependency on the military, the sooner it can begin to move toward a healthier, safer, and more secure future.
In the National Assembly Inspection on the navy headquarter on Oct. 18, Kim Jae-Yoon (Democratic United Party, Seogwipo City), member of the Defense Committee of the National Assembly raised primarily on two issues. While the 1st issue has been constantly raised by many observers, the 2nd is something new and important. Anyway, here is the summary based on the Jeju Domin Ilbo, Oct. 18.
1. Regarding the harbor and bay layout of the Jeju naval base:
‘If simulation verification on the control of 150,000 ton cruise is not correctly carried out, all the budgets related to the Jeju naval base project for next year should be cut.’
Kim pointed out that:
(1) Because of the reduced size of turning basin, cruise navigation is dangerous.
(2) Because of sea route change, dredging at the bottom of sea is inevitable, which raises concern on the intrusion on the ecology system protection area.
(3) Because of arbitrary standard on wave height, there is the risk of accidents during ships’ mooring or unloading.
(4) Because of no design on emergency exit that should be prepared, according to the layout standard on the defense/ military facilities, for the cases when vessel is being attacked or running aground so the port entry is blockaded, it is difficult for vessels to move out if emergency occurs.
He claimed that:
Even though the flaws on the harbor and bay layout of the Jeju Civilian-Military Complex for Tour Beauty (* In fact, a pure military base) are very serious, the navy has attempted to hide those with false explanations. It should be verified through objective and fair simulation whether turning basin and sea route have been designed according to the legal standard and the base plan is appropriate. The Government should accept the simulation cases demanded by the Jeju Island government (* which, itself, does not trust simulations by the central government but constantly makes false propaganda on the dual complex port). And the whole budget on the naval base project should be cut for the next year, unless simulation verification, the core of 5 items recommended to the Government by the National assembly is properly carried out.
2. Regarding the government assertion on sea security
‘The base would take little role in the protection on the southern sea area and maritime traffic route. The navy cause of [so-called ‘security’] for building the naval base is only appearance.’
Kim pointed out that:
While the Korea Air Defense Identification Zone( KADIZ) is set close to the Jeju island, the Japanese Air Defense Identification Zone (JADIZ) is set below the south sea of the Jeju and the Ieodo (* a submerged rock, not the Island) in the south of the Marado(the southernmost Island in Korea) also belongs to the JADIZ.
Therefore in case the ROK navy mooring in the Jeju naval base and patrolling in the southern sea area of the Jeju, carries out operations with helicopters or aircraft embarked on vessels within the ADIZ, it should make a prior consultation with Japan and its activities could be limited by the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force(JMSDF).
Therefore Kim emphasized that:
‘Even though the navy asserts on the expansion of its influential power in the southern sea area through the building of the Jeju naval base, in reality, it is questionable to which points it can assert on its operation scope in the southern sea area. Then the role of the naval base as an outpost that guards the southern sea area is very limited. The cause to enforce the base project with tremendous budget and social costs then goes down.’
[Oct. 12] The relocation of the habitats for the endangered species in the Jeju naval base project area was driven in a rough-and-ready method: A National Assembly woman, Jang Hana, reports.
Left: Red-foot crabs that died during the process of relocation to an alternate habitat in the Jeju naval base construction process (Jeju Domin Ilbo, Oct. 12/ Original source: Press release attachment material by Jang Hana, National Assembly woman)
Right: Red-foot crabs (Sesarma intermedium, 2nd class of the endangered wild animal/plant by the ROK government) discovered in the Jeju naval base construction area. The species has been relocated to an alternative habitat. (Headline Jeju, Oct. 12)
“[T]he relocation of the endangered species in the Jeju naval base project area was unreliably processed. In the Gangjeong village port, tens of red-foot crabs (Sesarma intermedium, 2nd class of the endangered wild animal/plant by the ROK government) were discovered dead. It is because the red-foot crabs were moved in fish traps without protection of them during the process of the relocation to an alternate habitat (* Seongwenne Creek, nearby the Gangjeong village). It has been revealed that the investigation and habitat relocation on the narrow-mouth toad has not been properly performed. Even though the website of the Jeju civilian-military complex tour beauty reads that about 900 individual numbers of the Narrow-Mouth Frog( Kaloula Borealis, 2nd class of the endangered wild animal/plant by the ROK government) have been relocated, it turned out that they were all tadpoles. There is high possibility that all the adult narrow mouth toads have been killed during the construction process and there is low possibility that the relocated tadpoles survived, too.” (Press Release by Jang Hana, National assembly woman)
The below is the translation of the press release by Jang Hana, a National Assembly woman, on Oct. 12. She attached two documents (not translated here) to the press release. They are the elaboration of her press release. Otherwise, the Korean language of this site can be seen here.
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
[Press Release on the Inspection of government offices] Alternate habitats for the endangered species of the Jeju naval base project area…full of the unreliable, when applied to the US guideline.
Oct. 12, 2012
Jang Hana, National Assembly woman, says, “In South Korea, alternate habitats are an indulgence for development”
1.Jang Hana, a National Assembly woman (Democratic United Party) has submitted a report titled, ‘Analysis on the environmental contamination due to military base and independent environmental impact assessment,’ as a resource material for the National Assembly inspection of the government offices by the Environment and Labor committee of the ROK National Assembly.
2. According to the report, it was proved out that the relocation of the endangered species having been processed in the Jeju naval base construction has been in a rough-and-ready method, as a result of applying the ‘Guideline on the Relocation Plan on the Endangered Species,’ by the US department of the Interior.
3. In the report that Jang Hana, National Assembly woman, has investigated, the relocation example of Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), a worldwide endangered species, is presented. In the guideline on the relocation of Desert Tortoise, which is formed of total 7 stages, one glances elaborate concern and will on the protection of the endangered species in all the process of plan-investigation-relocation-adaptation etc.
4. According to the guideline, comparison and observation on the habitat environment between the alternate habitat and 3rd region should be done before the relocation [of species] to an alternate habitat. According to the 2nd stage in the guideline, one should choose original habitat, alternate habitat, and the 3d habitat and should observe all the three sites. Then one observes the individual numbers etc. of the Desert Tortoise in an alternate habitat and 3rd habitat to observe on the matter of success [of relocation] in the alternate habitat and catch hold of problems [on it, if any]. However, National Assembly woman Jang says, “there was no part on the comparison and observation on the 3rd habitat,’ in the service [company] report on the release of the red-foot crab (Sesarma intermedium, 2nd class of the endangered wild animal/plant by the ROK government), which was processed during the Jeju naval base project into an alternate habitat
5. There is so called evacuation investigation according to the 4th stage of the guideline, which means that all the subjected species should be relocated to an alternate habitat with no individual number left in an original habitat. It means ALL individual numbers because the original habitat would be destroyed. Further an individual with abnormality in health should get heath check and rehabilitation medical treatment that costs $ 9,000 for an individual number for five years.
6. In the 6th stage of the guideline, concrete explanations on relocation method is presented. The relocation should be done as possible as in spring, while release should be done within the range of 18~30 centigrade and safekeeping box should be moved through a clean and oxygen-enough container. The sanitary condition of the container is important, as well. Containers should be sterilized with household bleach or manufactured goods certified by the Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Also all the Desert Tortoises must make contact with water within 12 hours before their release and must be released in a protection zone of no high density.
7. The last 7th stage is on the monitoring and adaption management after relocation. In the guideline , monitoring point time and period is very elaborately presented. After the relocation to an alternative habitat, at least five years should be monitored. The monitoring should be done once within 24 hours right after release, minimum twice within two weeks’ release right after release, minimum once a week. However according to Jang, the monitoring cycle on the red-foot crabs in the alternative habitat (* Seongwenne Creek, nearby the Gangjeong village.See HERE) of the Jeju naval base project area was merely once in 6 months.
8. However, the relocation of the endangered species in the Jeju naval base project area was unreliably processed. In the Gangjeong village port, tens of red-foot crabs (Sesarma intermedium, 2nd class of the endangered wild animal/plant by the ROK government) were discovered dead. It is because the red-foot crabs were moved in fish traps without protection of them during the process of the relocation to an alternate habitat. It has been revealed that the investigation and habitat relocation on the narrow-mouth toad has not been properly performed. Even though the website of the Jeju Civilian-Military Complex Tour Beauty reads that about 900 individual numbers of the Narrow-Mouth Frog(Kaloula Borealis, 2nd class of the endangered wild animal/plant by the ROK government) have been relocated, it turned out that they were all tadpoles. There is high possibility that all the adult narrow mouth toads have been killed during the construction process and there is low possibility that the relocated tadpoles survived, too.
9. Jang Hana, National Assembly woman criticized, saying, “The alternative habitats are becoming indulgence for the big size environmental destruction. Still [relocation itself] is being processed very unreliably in a rough-and ready method. She plans to strongly demand protection measures on the endangered species in the Jeju naval base projection area during the National Assembly inspection on the government affairs.
10. Otherwise, the report submitted by Jang has been made by the Green Korea United and Endangered Species International (ESI), an IUCN member group and overseas environmental group who made joint investigation.
Photo sent by Toshio Takahashi (For more photos, click here) ‘In the afternoon on the 5th of September 2012, I and two of my friends, Mr. Masahiro Tomiyama and Mr. Eiji Tomita, were prohibited entry into Republic of Korea (ROK) at the Incheon International Airport.’ (source)
Update: April 24, 2013, Wang Yu-Hsuan (Taiwan), 21st subject to be denied entry to Korea, in relation to the Jeju naval base project. Since the inauguration of Park Geun-Hye government, she is the 2nd human rights defender to be deported after Ban Hideyuki, Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center, Japan, on April 19, 2013.(see here)
Update: [IUCN letter to Dr. Imok Cha, Nov. 13, 2012] IUCN so regrets the decision for The ROK governmentnot not to allow Dr. Imok Cha (Fwd) : CLICK HERE
Update: A Japanese peace activist has been denied entry at the Gimpo Airport, Seoul, on Oct. 16, 2012 when he was to visit his sick friend. Mr. Koto Shoji has visited Gangjeong last year and has written an article on it in the magazine named “Power of People’.With his forcefully denied entry, the total numbers of people who have been denied entry, related to the Jeju naval base project have become at least 20. 3 of them have been repeatedly denied entries.
………………………………………………………………
The below summary is primarily based on the Korean summaries here and here. Please come by later for any fix, revision or update. ( See the original post here)
Summary on the matter of entry denial against internationals, Regarding the issue of the Jeju naval base project
: Report as of Oct. 3, 2012
(1) Preface
On Sept. 25, 2012, PSPD (People’s Solidarity for Peace and Democracy) issued a press release that the ROK government denied to make public the reasons of entry denial against the targeted internationals. See the Korean document here and summary of it in No. (2).
The numbers of international activists who were denied entry to Korea, related to the Jeju naval base project have been at least 15 from Aug. 26, 2011 to June 29, 2012. See the Korean document here.
However, it was not precedent that as many as 9 people were denied entry to Korea and deported during the WCC period (Sept. 6 to 15, 2012), beginning with Dr. Cha Imok on Sept. 3. Therefore the numbers of entry denial related to the Jeju naval base project have become at least 24. See the Korean document here.
Please see No. (5) for the details of list of the internationals who were denied entry from Aug. 26, 2011 to Sept. 6, 2012.
Among 24, it is still uncertain whether two Nigerians who were denied entry on Sept. 6 had the will against the naval base. 3 of 9 people had to go through repeated entry denials (Yagi Ryuji, a Japanese peace activist, Tomiyama Masahiro, an Okinawa peace activist and Umisedo Yutaka, an Okinawa musician)
During the period of the WCC co-sponsored by the IUCN, at least two people were official IUCN nation representative or member and four people carried the invitation letters and identity certification letter from a ROK National Assembly woman.
Even though excluded of two Nigerians and repeated entry denial numbers, the international personnel who have been denied entry to Korea then deported, related to the Jeju naval base project currently enforced in the Gangjeong village, despite the opposition by the majority of villagers, have become at least 19 from Aug. 26, 2011 to Sept. 6, 2012 (One Korean American, three from the United States and 15 from Japan and Okinawa)
It should be noted that it is a matter of serious human rights violation internationally committed by the current Lee Myung-Bak government, Republic of Korea, which disrespects the UN human rights chapter and other international agreements, as well as domestic laws and regulations. Above all, it was confirmed that the government has made and is operating a black list against some internationals. The suspicion on the police’s illegal information collection on the foreigners in the Gangjeong village is also being raised. (See (4)-14).
Further international investigation should be earnestly looked for regarding this matter so that constructive and positive measures should come out.
This report is merely a summary and we hope any concerned Korean associated groups or international institutes pay attention to this matter and work on it.
Any corrections and added facts will be updated here.
Gangjeong village international team
……………………………………………………………………………
(2) PSPD Press Release on Sept. 25, 2012
According to the PSPD press release on Sept. 25, titled, the “Government being consistent not to make public the reasons of entry denial on international activists,” the Ministry of Justice has sent one page reply on Sept. 18 to the 7 page open inquiry letter by the PSPD on the entry denial of international activists on Sept. 6. See here.
In summary, the PSPD press release reads that: 1.The basis of information collection to prohibit the entry of overseas activists for the reasoning of “past works” is opaque, 2. The ambiguous basis to prohibit the entry of the overseas activists does not fit to the international human rights standard.
The Ministry of National Justice saying that “the foreigners who have been denied entry to Korea were judged to ‘deem likely to commit any act detrimental to national interests of the Republic of Korea or public safety, in the reflection of their past works,” totally refused replies to the inquires. It said “The entry denial measure to specific foreigners is the nation’s sovereign discretionary act and in case when its detailed contents are to be known, there is concern that there might occur foreign diplomatic matter or trouble in the government institutes’ activities to protect the national interest.”
The PSPD Press release reads that:
“To prohibit the entry of overseas activists without clear basis is a violation of the UN Human Rights statement that states that ‘everyone has the right individually or in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels’ ( *article 1 of the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups, and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, UN) and of the agreement on the civic political rights that prohibits dealing with citizens as potential criminals.
Claiming that the Lee Myung Bak government is infringing the freedom on the peaceful rally and assembly by the international human rights defenders who take opposing opinion against the government, the PSPD says it will make public opinion on the issue of oppression on the international activists through the examination on the Universal Periodic Review on human rights in coming October.
……………………………………………………………………………
(3) Noticeable points of the human rights violation by the South Korean immigration office
1. The Korean Immigration Office’s entry denial of some internationals regarding the Jeju naval base project has been earnestly practiced since August, 2011.
Case: On Aug. 26, 2011, when an entry-denied Japanese peace activist asked when she has become the subject of entry denial to Korea, a Korean immigration office replied her it was since August, [2011]. See AWC (Asian Wide Campagn)_Japan statement on Aug. 28, here.
2. Internationals are denied entries merely for the fact that they have visited the Gangjeong village ‘for tour,’ in the past or merely for the Immigration Office’s ‘presumption’ that they might visit the village.
Case 1: Nakamura Sugae who was denied entry along with her college student daughter on March 26, 2012, says, “Regarding my visit to the Gangjeong village, Jeju, I have dropped by a village and talked with villagers for a short time on my way of group tour last August, which was guided by my daughter who was an exchange student in a Korean traditional medical college in Daeku then. That was all. I haven’t joined protest but wanted to learn one another there. [The entry denial] is totally nonsense. [..] Further the visit this time was to drop by the Daejeon-Choongchung nam-do province, nothing to do with the Jeju.” She has applied the visa to the Korean Consulate in Japan again on July 31 to visit the Independence Museum, Cheonan in Choongchung nam-do on Aug. 22. However, despite her appeal to cancel the entry prohibition measure against her, she saying that she ‘would never visit the Jeju Island, she did not receive any reply from the Consulate even after 9 days. It was found later that she had been labeled as the ‘[Korea]-entry-prohibited,’ by the Lee Myung-Bak government.
Case 2: On June 15, Arime Yuuri (25), an Okinawa peace activist, was denied entry. She had visited Gnagjeong with an Okinawa Broadcasting Co. for a short time. But it is told that she had not planned to include the visit to Gangjeong this time. She just wanted to watch the Korean baseball game and to meet her friends in Korea. (See here)
3. The Korean Immigration Office openly expresses that it denies their entry for the reason that they have visited the Gangjeong village in the past. The reasoning is nothing to do with their visit purpose at their entry-denied time.
Case: Nakamura Sugae stated on March 29, 2012, through her phone interview with the Ohmynews, a Korean independent media, that “an immigration officer in the entry-checking desk of the Busan International Terminal said that I, [Nakamura], cannot enter Korea since I had visited the village last August therefore violated the Korean law.” It should be noted that there is no legal basis that visiting the village is the violation of Korean laws. Further Nakamura had no purpose to visit the village in the Jeju Island but to visit the Choongchung South Province for tour and forum purpose on March 27, 2012 when she was denied entry to Korea, along with her college student daughter. (Please see here.)
4. Some of the entry denied internationals were labeled from the outset as the ‘entry-prohibited,’ by the Korean government.
Case 1: On its July 2, 2012 statement, AWC_Japan stated that as many as 7 of its members and their family members seem to have been labeled as the ‘entry-prohibited’ to Korea by the Korean government. See here.
Case 2: On Sept. 5, Toshio Takahashi got the words from the Korean Immigration Officer that “you are applicable to the entry-prohibition. I don’t know the reason. The Ministry of Justice has just contacted us so you should exit out of the country, when he was denied entry in the Incheon airport on the day.’ (Toshio Takahashi’s letter to the Hankyoreh, Sept. 9, 2012) See here.
5. The entry-denial is being suspected to be practiced under the international mutual cooperation by the individual government institutes.
Case 1: The AWC_Japan statement on July 2 reads that the Japanese and South Korea police have exchanged information on the targeted subjects for the entry-denial before an international conference. See here.
Case 2: When Tarak Kauff, Eliott Adams, and Mike Hastie were met by South Korean authorities when they landed on Jeju Island [or in the departure airplane to it], the ‘South Korean authorities had a photo of each of them in their hands and told them they would not be allowed to enter Jeju Island.’ See here.
6. Sometimes the visa procedures are intentionally delayed to the obstruction of entry.
Case: On Jan. 28, a representative of BAYAN, Philippine was frustrated to enter Korea since the Korean Immigration Office had prolonged the issuing of visa for him and had not eventually issued the visa until the planned day. See AWC_Japan’s Jan. 30 statement, here.
7. There is neither a reasonable explanation, nor a letter-form notice but irresponsible answer that the entry-denied internationals should hear the reasons in the overseas Korean Embassy or Consulates.
Case 1: On Jan. 27, 2012, an immigration officer said to Ikeda Takane, Secretary of AWC_Japan, that “you have become the subject of entry-prohibition since you oppose the Korean government policy.” (See here)
Case 2: On March 31, 2012, a colleague of Yagi Ryuji, a Japanese peace activist inquired to the Immigration office why Yagi was denied entry on the day. The only reply he got was that “You know well.” (See here)
8. Lie is used for the reasoning of entry denial.
Case: The Korean immigration office denied entry of Dr. Cha Imok on Sept. 3, 2012. One of the main reasons that the Office took was that Dr. Cha had joined rally in the Washington D. C. However, it was confirmed that Dr. Cha has never joined it. Her home is in California, far from the Washington D. C. ( See the Commentary by the National Organizing Committee for Opposing the Jeju Naval Base Project, on Sept. 7 (here) and Ohmynews interview with Dr. Cha on Sept. 12 (here)
9. The Korean Immigration Office denies the subject of the chance to file for a different opinion. Further it lies to the subject that there is no such chance.
Case: The AWC_Japan statement on Aug. 28, 2011 reads: ‘When two members of AWC-Japan, who were denied entry on Aug. 26, 2011 asked the ROK Immigration workers, “Please let us informed of the way since we want to file a different opinion to the ROK Minister of Justice,” the workers replied to them that, “there is no such way. You cannot but return back to your country,” and “ask to the ROK embassy or Consulate in Japan after your return.” However it was a big lie. During the talk with them, one of the two members had a chance to talk with a lawyer of the KCTU (Korean Confederation of Trade Unions) who said the two can report on different opinion. It means the ROK, Republic of Korea, the democratic country, robs of even a chance for opposing opinion, hides and even lies on it. Isn’t it an infringement on human rights done by the workers of the Japanese Immigration Office as well?”
10. The Korean Immigration Office demanded signs to the entry-denied internationals that they should return back to their countries with their own money according to the immigration law.
Case: On Aug. 26, 2012, the Korean Immigration Office demanded Sakoda Hideumi(46), his son(6) and Yamaguchi Yukiko(56, woman), coordinator of west regional branch of AWC, that they should do such signs. The two AWC-Japan members refused to sign it. (See here)
11. The Korean Immigration Office brought in a private airplane company worker as a translator.
Case: The AWC_Japan and Korea, Jeju Regional branch of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions and Pan-Island Committee for the Stop of Military Base and for Realization of Peace Island say in its Aug. 28 statement regarding the entry denial of two AWC_Japan members on Aug. 26 that “the conversation between the two members and Immigration Office workers were processed through a Korean translator. The Immigration Office employed K, an Asiana airplane co. worker as a Japanese translator, since there was no person who could speak Japanese among the Immigration Office workers. K did not precisely deliver but summarized the two members’ words. Sometimes K mixed one’s own subjective viewpoint or opinion in doing that. It was a clear example of how the Korean government considers the human rights of international people.’ (See here)
12. The Korean Immigration Office dared to commit detention and forceful repatriation.
Case1: According to a report by Heo Young-Ku, representative of the AWC_Korea, Ikeda Takae, Secretary of International dept., AWC_Japan who was denied entry on Jan. 27 , 2012, stated as the below:
When I was in the waiting room (around 5:50pm), two men who self-claimed ‘Korean Airline workers,’ came to me. One spoke Japanese well. Even though they used polite words in the beginning, saying, ‘you might return back to Japan by a 7pm airplane,’ their words gradually became oppressive. That is why I became to know they are NOT the Korean airline workers. They looked like the airport police. When I said to them, “I will not return back to Japan, allow me to enter Korea,” they and Immigration Office workers tried to cheat me, saying, “There is a room where you can sleep in the upper floor so let’s move to there.” When I rejected them, Immigration Office worker(s) were trying to drag me. It was very forcing. I resisted hanging to chair. Later, so called a ‘Korean Airline worker’ who speak Japanese threatened me saying, ‘You should return back to Japan. If you persist, we should call the police.” It repeated many times then around 6:30pm, four more workers joined the ‘Korean Airline worker,’ therefore total six people grabbing my two arms, two legs and two armpits, forcibly dragged me from the office. Even though I protested in loud voice, very strongly resisting, they rook me toward a bus to an airplane, with my body being lifted in the air (except for the elevator time). Finally they forcefully boarded me in an airplane KE 721 around 7pm then took me a forced deportation. (See here)
Case 2: It is told that Yamaguchi Yukiko has been under detention in the Jeju airport when she made a sit-in in protest for 3 days since she was denied entry on Aug. 26, 2011. She was forcefully deported on Aug. 28. She was also demanded to pay her own meals during the sit-in (See here)
Case 3: It is told that Mike Hastie, a member of the Veterans for Peace, United States, was forcefully dragged out from a plane to Jeju in 10 minutes he boarded in and detained in the room of the Korean Immigration Office.
# On the same day, Benjamin Monnet (32), a French citizen who had been falsely charged for his activities opposing the naval base project was forcefully relocated to the detention center for foreigners in Hwaseong, Gyunggi province (He was forcefully and inhumanly deported soon under the injunction order) and Angie Zelter(61), a UK citizen and a Nobel Peace laureate has also gotten order of exit from the Korean Immigration Office for her activities to stop the base project.
Case 4: Toshio Takahashi who was denied entry along with two others on Sept. 5, 2012: ‘Officials from the immigration and Asiana Airlines ordered me and my friends to get on the Asiana OZ-136 plane departing at 5.20pm for Fukuoka. We were forcefully dragged out of the immigration office by six or seven male officials. Our passports were returned once they confirmed our identifications on board.’ (See here)
13. A series of infringement on human rights violation and inhuman deeds have been done. One of them is finger print, taking photos of faces etc.
Case 1: On the 5th of September, three of us left the Naha International Airport by Asiana Airline OZ-171 at 12.40pm, and arrived at the Incheon International Airport around 2.45pm. We showed our passports for a visa approval in front of immigration window. However, the immigration official turned his head, looked at the computer screen, and then asked us to go to the immigration office while handing us back passports. Two female officials were at the immigration office, and one of them asked again for passports from each of us, collected finger-prints from hands, and took photo of faces. (See here )
Case 2: For Dr. Cha Imok, it has not even been allowed to meet her elderly parents(90 and 88 years old)
See the note on Sept. 3 here.
Case 3: Japanese peace activists who entered the Incheon airport at 2:40 pm, Sept. 5, were carrying the invitation letter and identity certification issued by Jang Hana, member of the Democratic United Party. They demanded the related authority to explain them persuasive reasons for their entry denial and expressed their opinions that they would stay in the airport until the next day morning since Jang’s Office was looking for the solution. However, they were forcefully deported via an airplane to Japan at 5:20pm.
(Commentary by the National Organizing Committee, Sept. 7. See here.)
One of them was Toshio Takahashi from Okinawa who said he cannot accept that the Korean Immigration Office would send him to a site apart from Okinawa and demanded that he want to hear the entry-denial reason from the ROK Ministry of Justice. He says, “I insisted that being deported back to cities far from my original departure is not acceptable. Also, I added that the Ministry of Justice should inform us in a letter explaining the reason of forbidding our entry into the country and demanded for Japanese interpreter. But the employee from Asiana Airlines simply dismissed my requests and said this is the “Korean system”, which was by no means convincing answer.’ (See here.)
Jang Hana, the National Assembly woman complained later. ‘I contacted an Immigration Officer in the airport to see one of those denied entries, saying that ‘I invited them and I want to apologize them.’ But [the Immigration Office] intentionally moved up his air plane schedule at 6:05pm while it was possible that he could return back by 7:30pm airplane. (Jang’s interview on Sept. 10)
14: It was confirmed that the government black list exists. Suspicion is also raised that there is an illegal investigation against the foreigners.
Case 1: The fact of visiting Gangjeong village is merely a personal activity and it does not even remain in the official record. Still the thing that the Korean authority denies entry against the foreigners for the reason of “visiting to the Gangjeong village,’ is a certain proof that illegal investigation on the foreigners by government institute is being done. (Jang Hana’s commentary on Sept. 6)
Case 2: Jang Hana, a member of the Democratic United Party said that persons who have never visited the village are included among the entry-denied international activists. It means that not only routine investigation on the international activists by the Lee Myung Bak government is being done but also a black list exists.[..] It is an example of infringement on human rights that the government ignored the recommendation of the nation human rights committee that says it to positively protect the human rights of the foreigners who were denied entries. (Commentary by the National Organizing committee on Sept. 7)
Case 3: A person of the Ministry of Justice stated that it ‘is making and operating a list of foreigners who violates national interest or are threat to safety.” But he/she did not tell at all on the specific standards on the prohibition of entry denial. (Hankyoreh article, Sept. 10, that introduced a letter by Toshio Takahashi)
Case 4: ‘There is a common point of people who were denied entries. They are the people who have made solidarity with the Gangjeong village, with personal or group purpose. A suspicion is raised that illegal information collection by the police has even been applied to the foreigners in the Gangjeong village, given that personnel who came personally are in the government list for entry control.’ ( Kim Mi-Hwa’s interview with Jang Hana, National Assembly woman, on Sept. 10)
Case 5: ‘The immigration office workers openly say that “we know that you have worked in the Gangjeong village. We know what you have done entering Korea. And you are in the black list.” Here, the official name of black list is ‘the name list on the entry-controlled people,’ managed by the Ministry of Justice. However, the list is originally on the terrorists, people who have committed crimes in Korea, or people who have joined an international crimes such as smuggling. The government should make an official explanation on why the NGO activists are being dealt with like criminals for the reason that they have done peace activities and should make apology to them.’ (Kim Mi-Hwa’s interview with Jang Hana, National Assembly woman, on Sept. 10.See here.)
15. Suspicion on domestic email hacking is being raised.
Case: ‘Given that four speakers for the symposium [ on the environmental matter due to the US bases in the East Asia] have been denied entries and the symposium-hosting Korean groups are of the anti-war/ peace movement, we even think that emails exchanged by people might have been hacked.’ (Kim Mi-Hwa’s interview with Jang Hana, National Assembly woman, on Sept. 10. See here.)
16. The victims of the denied entry do not have protection measures from their own governments. Not only domestic pressure but international measure on the infringement of such human rights is urgent.
Case: ‘I called the Japanese embassy in Seoul (the respondent was named Mr. Shinsaka) around 15:14pm. I told him that my entry was being prevented, I was not noticed with reasons, and I was carrying an invitation letter and identity certificate. But he hanged off my phone, saying, “If you are in the stage before receiving the notice on the entry denial, please call again once you receive the notice.”
Since it was clear that the ROK Ministry of Justice was clearly denying my entry, I called him again around 16:05pm and told him process, asking him whether he working in the embassy can take any measures since it was an infringement on human rights that I was to be forcefully deported without a proper document from the ROK Ministry of Justice and explanation of reason for denial. However, Mr. Shinsaka replied me that the entry denial is by the judgment and authority of the ROK government, there was nothing the Japanese government can do.” ( A letter by Toshio Takahashi, Sept. 6, 2012)
15. Even the request by a National Assembly member for the resource material to the Ministry of Justice is being shunned.
Case: ‘Regarding [Sept. 6] incident, we (* Office of Jang Hana, a member of Environment and Labor committee, National Assembly) made a request for resource material to the Ministry of Justice. But the Ministry was not cooperative. Instead it said that we should request it after we get the stamp by Park Young-Sun, Democratic United Party, and a Chairwoman of the Legal Affairs committee, National Assembly, which was totally nonsense. It seems the Ministry must very strongly hide something. I hope that the members of the legal affairs committee clearly make public on that matter. (Kim Mi-Hwa’s interview with Jang Hana, National Assembly woman, on Sept. 10)
16. The ROK government’s serious infringement on human rights of the internationals is considered as its fear for the international exposure of the oppression on human rights being placed in the Gangjeong village (See here)
Case : ‘[ToshioTakahashi] said, “ It was for the first time for me. I have visited Korea more than 10 times by now.” He was suspecting whether his visit this February when the opposition activities against the Jeju naval base was at the peak caused him to be denied entry. He said, “It is an oppression being done by the ROK government since it feels burden that infringement on human rights being placed in the Gangjeong village is to be internationally exposed.” (Toshio Takahashi’s letter to the Hankyoreh, Sept. 9. See here. )
17. It was not only in cases related to the Gangjeong village. There have been about 463 people who were denied for unknown reasons, according to an article (May 28, 2012). Even the high ranking members of Green peace, and a Japanese activist who was invited by the Seoul Metropolitan government were denied entries.
Case1: [On April 2, 2012] Three of [four high-ranking members of Greenpeace] – its Korean manager and East Asia leaders – were denied entry and ordered to return to Hong Kong. Only Greenpeace International executive director Kumi Naidoo was admitted to the country. They were not told why they were banned. They guessed the reason may be the group’s anti-nuclear campaign, running counter the Korean government’s plan to expand atomic power generation. “But Greenpeace has not conducted a single activity yet except for a campaign (against nuclear power). Korea is the only country that has banned Greenpeacers though no activity has been launched,” Rashid Kang, manager for Greenpeace Seoul, said.
Case 2: The Ministry of Justice has denied a total of 8,203 people entry to Korea from October to April 2. The lion’s share of cases involved false-name passports, uncertain purpose of stay or those without places to stay.What observers find problematic are the 463 people who were denied for reasons unknown. They claim that the authorities are abusing the law to screen out civic or labor activists from holding campaigns against the government.
Case 3: In 2011, the authorities banned entrance of Japanese civic activist, Matsumoto Hajime, who was invited by the Seoul Metropolitan Government. Hajime shot to the fame for starting several nonviolent protests against the government. But since he was invited by a city government, many called the decision bizarre. “We have asked the ministry to figure out why Hajime could not get into the event but we were told nothing,” said a member of Haja center, a youth job training facility operated by Seoul City. “We are concerned that there is no clear guideline to the regulation. Simply opposing government policies does not constitute denial or prohibition,” an official of the Center for Freedom of Information and Transparent Society said. None were clearly informed of the reason why they were denied entry into Korea.
(See the article at http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Asia/Story/A1Story20120528-348805.html )
18. Victims as well as their colleagues who have accompanied them appeal for mental shock after their colleagues being denied entries.
Case1: [On March 14, 2012], two US veterans, both members of Veterans For feace, were asked to come by the people [in Gangjeong village]. Elliott Adams and Tarak Kauff responded to the request by traveling for 2 days from New York to Shanghai to Jeju, including 19 hours in the air. But when they got off the plane they were rudely told by the Korean government (not the Jeju government) that they must leave. Tarak Kauff says, “they were waiting for us, they had our photos as we arrived on the plane.” The veterans were left with little money, just tickets home that would not be good for a week. “This is gratitude. I served in Korea with the 2nd Infantry Division defending the people from North Korea, I come back to again defend the people and I am pushed off into no-man’s-land,” said Elliott Adams . (See here)-
Case 2: Nakamura Sugae who was denied entry along with her college student daughter on March 27, 2012, later appealed to the Omynews. “Further it was a visit to Daejeon and Choongnam province, nothing to do with Jeju. “I cannot understand the ROK government measure of entry denial, and I can hardly forgive it because I am so infuriated. I was shocked because I couldn’t imagine it. If I could, I want to appeal not only to Korea but also to the whole world.” (See Ohmynews, March 29, here)
Case 3: Nakamura Sugae’s colleague, Hasegawa, who was left alone for the entry denial of two could not but visit Daejeon alone in the afternoon of March 29. Hasegawa said, “All the programs have been prepared for by Nakamura who was denied entry. I got tremendous shock since I became to be left alone.” Hasegawa even had tears, saying that “It was for the first time for me to land on Korea. I could not read Koreans and could not figure out directions.” (See Ohmynews, March 29, here)
19. In conclusion, it is a clear infringement on human rights.
Case: The AWC_Japan has stated in its statement on Jan. 30, 2012
1.The ROK Korean Immigration Office does not make public entry denial reason(s) 2. It does not acknowledge the entry-denied people’s right to file on different opinion. 3. It repeats threat to the victims, saying lots of lies for forceful deportation of those. 4. Finally, it boards the subject(s) on planes with violent methods and forcefully deports. Those are clearly infringement on human rights.’ (See here)
20. The ROK Ministry of Justice is consistent in its arrogant and arbitrary position.
Case 1: The Ministry of Justice admitted that the rules can be ambiguous. “We cannot specify all the details about who cannot come and who can. We are capable of discerning detrimental figures,” a ministry official said. “We don’t need to disclose our criteria either, even to the person him or herself. There is no rule forcing us to. We are abiding by the rules. Besides, they all know why Korea does not want them anyway.” (See here.)
Case 2: The Korean Immigration Office having a call with the Bupyung Shinmoon on April 20 said that “The decision on the entry denial is registered not only by us but also by the Minister of the Ministry of Justice who decides that [the subject(s)] are detrimental to the national interest of ROK,” and “[The subjects] could be denied entry not only by us but if prosecutor, police and taxation office request. If their activities are not exact, it is possible to deny their entries. The entry-denial is established according to the demand(s) by the related department(s), if something is seen against the national interest of ROK.” (See here)
(4) Measures Taken
1. The AWC_Japan has driven the Korea-Japan joint statement, along with the AWC_Korea, to demand the withdrawal of entry-prohibition measure in August, 2011.
2. On Jan. 18, 2012, the both above filed a suit to the National Human Rights Commission of ROK, adding the signs by 394 civic activists from the both countries of ROK and Japan who demanded the withdrawal of unjust entry-prohibition measure (See AWC_Japan statement on Jan. 30, 2012, here)
3. The Center for Freedom of Information ( http://www.opengirok.or.kr/ ) has requested the Ministry of Justice, detailed contents including the nationality and entry denial reason of the targeted foreigners from Oct. 2011 to April 2, 2012. However, the Ministry of Justice has not made public those, reasoning that it would impede the diplomatic relationships. (See here.)
4. The village stated in its March 15 statement that denounces the ROK government’s entry denial of three members of Veterans for U.S., as well as its’ injunction of Benjamin Monnet, France and deportation of Angie Zelter, UK, saying that: “The oppression on the international activists is a mean and barbarous oppression to break down the chains of struggle against the Jeju naval base project against which international solidarity has been vital. In its statement on March 15, as well as on April 2 when a Japanese peace activist was denied entry on March 31, it claimed that the ROK government should make clear on what legal basis, it has taken measures on the prohibition of entry denial and on injunction order against them. It also claimed that the ROK government should make apology to the related groups and overseas civic societies, not to mention the victimized international peace activists, while taking measure for compensation and prevention on repetition. (See here)
5. On July 2, 2012, the AWC_Japan has demanded the both governments of ROK and Japan to make public all the lists of unjust entry prohibition and strongly demanded making public of all the information and officially withdrawing of the lists. It also demanded to stop construction, saying the scheme of the Jeju naval base project is to destroy environment, community, as well as to heighten the military tension in the North East Asia. The AWC_Japan has been carrying out regular protest in front of the Korean Consulate in Osaka.
6. As mentioned in (2), PSPD issues a press release on Sept. 25, titled, the “Government being consistent not to make public the reasons of entry denial of international activists,” the Ministry of Justice has sent one page reply on Sept. 18 to the 7 page open inquiry letter by the PSPD on the entry denial of international activists on Sept. 6. See here.
(5) Detailed records of the international activists who have been denied entries by the Korean government
Dr. member of the Emergency Action to Save Jeju Island. A consultant to the Center for Human and Nature, IUCN member group, a speaker for a Knowledge Cafe program, Sept. 7, WCC participant
Update: [IUCN letter to Dr. Imok Cha, Nov. 13] IUCN so regrets the decision for The ROK governmentnot not to allow Dr. Imok Cha (Fwd) : Click HERE
[2] Sept. 5, 2012
_Yagi Ryuji, a Japanese peace activist, Jeju airport, arriving Incheon airport at 2:40pm.
A speaker for the international symposium on the environment matters by the US bases in the East Asia, Incheon airport. He was carrying invitation letters and identification certification issued by Jang Hana, a National Assembly woman
_Tomita Eiiji, Takahashi Toshio, Tomiyama Masahiro, three Okinawa peace activists, arriving Incheon airport at 2:40pm.
Three speakers for the international symposium on the environment matters by the US bases in the East Asia, Incheon Airport. They were carrying invitation letters and identification certification issued by Jang Hana, a National Assembly woman
[3] Sept. 6, 2012: 4
-Umisedo Yutaka, Okinawa, Japanese representative of the IUCN
Okinawa musician, a member of Hallasan Association and Save Dugong Campaign, a member group of the IUCN
– Matsushima Yuske, Japan, a member of the Save Dugong Campaign, a member group of the IUCN group
– Unidentified two Nigerians, WCC participants
– It is still uncertain whether they had the will to oppose the Jeju naval base project.
……………………………………………….
Reference
A Summary of United Nations Agreements on Human Rights
http://cafe.daum.net/peacekj/I51g/628
[Toshio Takahashi] A report on the South Korean govt’s refusal to allow entry of 3 Okinawa Peace Activists (delegates to the IUCN WCC)
Thurs. Sept. 6, 2012
http://space4peace.blogspot.kr/2012/09/push-turns-to-shove.html
Sept. 14, 2012
PUSH TURNS TO SHOVE
World’s largest environmental organization in ethical quandary:
Should it answer to conference sponsors Samsung and Korean government, or it to its historical mission to protect environment and social justice?
http://cafe.daum.net/peacekj/I51g/753
[IUCN letter to Dr. Imok Cha, Nov. 13] IUCN so regrets the decision for The ROK governmentnot not to allow Dr. Imok Cha (Fwd)
To: Ashok Khosla
President
International Union for Conservation of Nature
Rue Mauverney 28
1196 Gland
Switzerland
RE: South Korean Non-Governmental Organizations Endorse the Motion #181. Protection of the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village
Dear Dr. Ashok Khosla,
We, South Korean non-governmental organizations, are writing to you today to show our full support and endorsement to the Motion #181 “Protection of the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village”. The naval base construction in Gangjeong has endangered rare marine and land species, destroyed local peoples’ lives and cultures while human rights violations are frequently occurring on environmental defenders.
We support recommendations to the Republic of Korea in the motion suggested by the Center for Humans and Nature, IUCN member organization. The construction of the naval base must be stopped immediately. A recommendation in the version that was modified by the Resolution Working Group reads, “Take appropriate measures to prevent adverse environmental and socio-cultural consequences associated with the construction of the Civilian-Military Complex Port Project”. It already implies and acknowledges the environmental and socio-cultural destruction by the enforced naval base project in Gangjeong, despite the opposition by the majority of villagers. We, as South Korean civil society organizations, do not agree with this recommendation because construction of naval base contradicts a core value of the UN World Charter for Nature and the Earth Charter.
On 30 May 2012, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Human Rights Defenders, and Peaceful Assembly and Association sent a joint allegation letter to South Korean government on ongoing human rights violations in Gangjeong towards environmental defenders who peacefully protested. Unfortunately, even though the letter kindly requests a response within sixty days, the Government has not responded yet. We would like to kindly remind you that IUCN Res. 2.37 is on Support for Environmental Defenders indicating “UNDERSTANDING that the participation of non- governmental organizations and individual advocates is essential to the fundamentals of civil society to assure the accountability of governments and multinational corporations; and AWARE that a nation’s environment is only truly protected when concerned citizens are involved in the process;”
In this vein, we, as South Korean non-governmental organizations, firmly stand in solidarity with the Motion #181 “Protection of the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village” as originally suggested by the Center for Humans and Nature. If you have any questions or need a clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us at peace@pspd.org or +82-2-723-4250.
Yours Sincerely,
Mr. Dong-kyun Kang Village Mayor Gangjeong Village Association
Mr. Gi-ryong Hong Co-convenor Jeju Pan-Island Committee for Stop of Military Base and for Realization of Peace Island
(26 Jeju based NGOs: 곶자왈사람들, 노래패청춘, 서귀포시민연대, 서귀포여성회,양용찬열사추모사업회, 전국공무원노조 제주지역본부, 전국교직원노동조합 제주 지부, 전국농민회총연맹 제주도연맹, 전국민주노동조합총연맹 제주본부, 전국여성 농민회총연합 제주도연합, 제주 4.3 도민연대, 제주 4.3 연구소, 제주민족예술인 총연합, 제주여민회, 제주여성인권연대, 제주주민자치연대, 제주참여환경연대, 제 주통일청년회, 제주평화인권센터, 제주환경운동연합, 참교육을 위한 전국학부모회 제주지부, 천주교 제주교구 평화의섬 실현을 위한 특별위원회, 탐라자치연대, 평 화를 위한 그리스도인 모임, 한국기독교장로회 제주노회 정의평화위원회, 한국장 애인연맹 제주 DPI)
Motion 181: Protection of the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village
World Appeal to Protect the People, Nature, Culture and Heritage of Gangjeong Village
UNDERSTANDING that Gangjeong Village, also known as the Village of Water, on the island of Jeju, also known as Peace Island, is a coastal area home to thousands of species of plants and animals, lava rock freshwater tide pools (“Gureombi”), endangered soft coral reefs, freshwater springs, sacred natural sites, historic burial grounds, and nearly 2,000 indigenous villagers, including farmers, fishermen, and Haenyo women divers, that have lived sustainably with the surrounding marine and terrestrial environment for nearly 4000 years;
NOTING that Gangjeong Village is an Ecological Excellent Village (Ministry of Environment, ROK) of global, regional, national and local significance, sharing the island with a UNESCO designated Biosphere Reserve and Global Geological Park, and is in close proximity to three World Heritage Sites and numerous other protected areas;
NOTING that numerous endangered species live in and around Gangjeong Village, including the Boreal Digging Frog (Kaloula borealis) listed on IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species; the red-footed crab (Sesarma intermedium); the endemic Jeju fresh water shrimp (Caridina denticulate keunbaei); and the nearly extinct Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins;
NOTING the global uniqueness of the Jeju Soft Coral habitats, designated as Natural Monument 422 of Korea: the only location in the world known to have temperate octocoral species forming a flourishing ecosystem on a substrate of andesite, providing ecological balance to the Jeju marine environment and the development of the human culture of Gangjeong Village for thousands of years;
UNDERSCORING that of the 50 coral species found in the Soft Coral habitats near Gangjeong, 27 are indigenous species, and at least16 are endangered species and protected according to national and international law, including Dendronephthya suensoni, D. putteri, Tubastraea coccinea, Myriopathes japonica, and M. lata;
THEREFORE CONCERNED of the Civilian-Military Complex Tour Beauty project, a 50-hectare naval installation, being constructed within and adjacent to Gangjeong Village, estimated to house more than 8,000 marines, up to 20 warships, several submarines, and cruise liners;
NOTING the referendum of Gangjeong Village on August 20, 2007, in which 725 villagers participated and 94% opposed the construction;
ACKNOWLEDGING that the construction of the military installation is directly and irreparably harming not only the biodiversity, but the culture, economy and general welfare of Gangjeong Village, one of the last living remnants of traditional Jeju culture;
NOTING the Absolute Preservation Act, Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (1991) and that Gangjeong Village was named an Absolute Preservation Area on October 27, 2004: a permanent designation to conserve the original characteristics of an environment from the surge in development, therefore prohibiting construction, the alteration of form and quality of land, and the reclamation of public water areas;
CONCERNED that this title was removed in 2010 to allow for the Naval installation, and that this step backwards in environmental protection violates the Principle of Non-Regression;
RECALLING the numerous IUCN Resolutions and Recommendations that note, recognize, promote and call for the appropriate implementation of conservation policies and practices that respect the human rights, roles, cultural diversity, and traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples in accordance with international agreements;
CONCERNED of reports that the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) for the naval construction was inaccurate and incomplete and may have violated well-known principles of international law concerning EIAs, transparency, public and indigenous participation, right to know, and free, prior and informed consent;
CONCERNED of the destruction of sacred natural sites in and near Gangjeong Village, noting that the protection of sacred natural sites is one of the oldest forms of culture based conservation (Res. 4.038 recognition and conservation of sacred natural sites in Protected Areas);
ACKNOWLEDGING that IUCN’s Mission is “To influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable;” and that “equity cannot be achieved without the promotion, protection and guarantee of human rights.”;
NOTING Resolution 3.022 Endorsement of the Earth Charter (Bangkok, 2004) that endorsed the Earth Charter as “the ethical guide for IUCN policy and programme,” and that the military installation is contrary to every principle of the Earth Charter;
NOTING the U.N. World Charter for Nature (1982), and that the military installation is contrary to each of its five principles of conservation by which all human conduct affecting nature is to be guided and judged;
AND ALARMED by reports of political prisoners, deportations, and restrictions on freedom of assembly and speech, including the arrests of religious leaders, for speaking against the naval installation and for speaking in promotion of local, national, regional and world conservation and human rights protections;
NOTING Res. 2.37 Support for environmental defenders, “UNDERSTANDING that the participation of non-governmental organizations and individual advocates is essential to the fundamentals of civil society to assure the accountability of governments and multinational corporations; and AWARE that a nation’s environment is only truly protected when concerned citizens are involved in the process;”
NOTING principles enshrined in the Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development such as those concerning military and hostile activities (Art. 36), culture and natural heritage (Art. 26), and the collective rights of indigenous peoples (Art. 15);
FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that militarization does not justify the destruction of a community, a culture, endangered species or fragile ecosystems;
AND UNDERSCORING that IUCN’s aim is to promote a just world that values and conserves nature, and the organization sees itself as nature’s representative and patrons of nature;
The IUCN World Conservation Congress at its 5th session in Jeju, Republic of Korea, 6-15 September 2012:
1. REAFFIRMS its commitment to the UN World Charter for Nature and the Earth Charter;
2. CALLS ON the Republic of Korea to:
(a) immediately stop the construction of the Civilian-Military Complex Tour Beauty;
(b) invite an independent body, to prepare a fully transparent scientific, cultural, and legal assessment of the biodiversity and cultural heritage of the area and make it available to the public; and
(c) fully restore the damaged areas.
Sponsor – Center for Humans and Nature
Co-Sponsors
-Chicago Zoological Society (USA)
-International Council of Environmental Law (Germany)
-El Centro Ecuatoriano de Derecho Ambiental, CEDA (Ecuador)
-Sierra Club (USA)
-Fundacion Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Argentina)
-Center for Sustainable Development CENESTA (Iran)
-Asociación Preserve Planet (Costa Rica)
-The Christensen Fund (USA)
-Terra Lingua (Canada)
-Ecological Society of the Philippines (Philippines)
-Citizen’s Institute Environmental Studies (Korea)
-Departamento de Ambiente, Paz y Seguridad, Universidad para la Paz (Costa Rica)
-Coastal Area Resource Development and Management Association (Bangladesh)
-Fundação Vitória Amazônica (Brazil)
-Fundación para el Desarrollo de Alternativas Comunitarias de Conservación del Trópico, ALTROPICO Foundation (Ecuador)
-Fundación Futuro Latinoamericano (Ecuador)
-EcoCiencia (Ecuador)
-Fundación Hábitat y Desarrollo de Argentina (Argentina)
-Instituto de Montaña (Peru)
-Asociación Peruana para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, APECO (Peru)
-Coordinadora de Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica, COICA (Ecuador)
-Fundación Biodiversidad (Argentina)
-Fundacao Vitoria Amazonica (Brazil)
-Fundación Urundei (Brazil)
-Dipartimento Interateneo Territorio Politecnico e Università di Torino (Italy)
-Programa Restauración de Tortugas Marinas (Costa Rica)
-Corporación Grupo Randi Randi (Ecuador)
-Living Oceans Society (Canada)
-Instituto de Derecho y Economía Ambiental (Paraguay)
-Korean Society of Restoration Ecology (Korea)
-Ramsar Network Japan (Japan)
-The Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (Isreal)
-Chimbo Foundation (Netherlands)
-Endangered Wildlife Trust (South Africa)
