Maybe I’m being cynical, but this blows it for me. If Rep Taylor is right, the whole point of this mess isn’t about the citizens rights being violated or anything like that, it’s about Greed, pure and simple. They want the government to give it back free, so they can turn around and sell 18 miles of virtually untouched beaches to developers and everyone can make a nice pile at the expense of National Security.
So, here’s the point. This isn’t about getting rid of the Navy, or innocent islanders wanting their island back for their uses. Nope, they’re going to get it back and sell it to developers at astonomical rates. Why doesn’t the government just sell it to the developers straight out and take the profit?
Undoubtedly, this is a large part of the motivation of the protesters, though I caution that what I understand of Bush’s plan is to end live-fire exercises in 2003, not to turn over the property to the locals then. Given the U.S.'s experience over the past 10-odd years with base closures, the general policy has been to auction off or lease the bases to the highest bidder, or turn the land over to local government for them to auction or lease the property.
Besides which, what is wrong with this being the motivation of the protestors? They live on an absolutely gorgeous tropical island (I visited about 10 years ago), but are unable to develop their economy very successfully because, well, tourists don’t like explosions waking them up. Absolutely, it’s selfish, but no more selfish than Nevada not wanting a nuclear waste depository in their state. It’s called NIMBY, and it’s common across the country.
I’d rather them be honest about it, I suppose. I hate to be led to believe that they are simply tired of bombing. I mean, why don’t they come out and say “Look, we’ve got a better offer from Harrah’s to develop the next Ultramega Casino, costing $3billion. Give us the land back so we can sell it for a huge markup.”
The problem is that their actions will contribute to the deaths of our military personnel in the next conflict. I also have a big problem with their false claims of health problems as a result of the test range and their continuing drama play that is so overdone that they would like us to believe the Navy is actually bombing their neighborhoods instead of a firing range.
OK, first of all a factual error in the article quoted in the OP:
It says “Island residents sold the land [to the Navy, in 1941]” . Actually, it was the absentee landlords (an American corporation) of the sugarcane plantation who sold most of that land. What land was in private Viequense hands that was needed for the base was taken by Eminent Domain.
(Ironically, a victim of the retro-land grab is the local Conservation Trust, which was recently handed over 3,000 acres for a nature preserve. Some local yoyos are now suing the CT to pay THEM off at CURRENT market price because the Navy never properly filed the new title to “their” family land.)
Second of all, they have every right to want whatever it is they want. Whether they get it or not is a matter for negotiation and in the hands of the political decision-makers. Yes, the political decision makers. Thank God in this nation the military are still subordinates of the elected political officials (and yes, I served; Army, mid-80s; and yes, I support Presidents Clinton AND Bush on the phase-out). May they ever be so.
In the Vieques context talk about “costing lives of the military” is morally equal to talk about “health problems, environmental damage, and arrested economic development” – in practice it’s mostly used as rhetoric to whip up emotion, with the data subject to challenge – and each side accusing the other’s data of being “false”. In the whole of US territory there is only this one exact couple of miles of beach where you can practice a full combined-arms Marine landing? Sounds as believable as that the people 5 miles downwind from shelling would get a “vibration disease” that somehow does not seem to affect those living right under the SJU airport final approach.
That said, there is one thing that has been obvious from my talking with the Viequenses… during 1999 and 2000 as a local legislative staffer: if the presence of Camp García had meant prosperity for them, they would not be so receptive to offers of a better deal from someone else. And by that they mean prosperity relative to other communities of US citizens – not a patronizing “hey, you’re doin’ good compared to other crummy islands” attitude. The presence of the range places restrictions on how the civilian area can develop, while Camp García is essentially just the maneouver/bombing range and radar stations, and all the economic activity happens back at NS Roosevelt Roads in the Main Island of Puerto Rico (and even back in the 50s and 60s when there was a real “Camp” the only businesses that thrived were the bars). Vieques also sees the example of nearby Culebra, which 25 years after their Navy range closed has seen 3-fold population growth and the lowest unemployment in PR and the USVI (something like 2%).
However there was stonewalling by all parties, hoping the election would bring about a more accommodating environment – all that did was allow outside political (NY State office-seekers like Pataki and Sharpton) and economic interests to grab a hold of the Viequenses ears. It was easy for them to take advantage of their legitimate complaints and to say to the islanders: “Here’s what we’ll do: we’ll back you up on how terrible, terrible this is and help you get rid of them… we’ll advice you on legal tactics, and fundraising, and publicity, we’ll make statements and demands… and then… when they’re gone… then we hope you’ll think of how to thank us…” By the time we got to the other side of the election all the new administrations – Vieques, Puertorrican, Federal – were cornered by their own words.
The vast majority of the people in Vieques were not seeking to have some grand Land Grab or to collect some juicy reparations package (the almost-sure next thing Sharpton and kin will plant in their heads) – they’d just come to the conclusion that since having that military installation has NOT made their lives significantly better, and since the Navy and the Congress seem to expect them to just suck it up and take it forever, maybe they should try something else. However , being as the Navy’s supporters in Congress have inequivocally expressed their preference would be to go back to the statu-quo-ante-1999 with ZERO accommodation or compensation to the Viequenses, and if left to their druthers to “punish” Vieques and all of P.R. for daring to not assume the position upon hearing the magic word “national security”, it’s hard to blame the Viequenses for succumbing to the siren song of the “Navy Out!” radicals.
To equate the bizarre claims of the protestors with the need for the US military to train is pure nonsense. Vieques offers a combination of deep water and beach with a combination of low civilian air and sea traffic that makes it an ideal training ground. There are other places they can train but not with combined arms. They’ll have to train the different aspects of warfare separately at various sites and then hope that it will all magically work together when the need arises. If you happen to know of a site where the Navy can conduct combined arms training by all means please share.
So basically one accident in a rather dangerous work environment is the root cause of this? And am I to believe that the vigilant people of Puerto Rico also rise up and protest other work related deaths wherever they many happen on their islands?
The Navy is not in the habit of paying out bribes to quell folks who disagree with its polices. The Navy had to halt its operations temporarily after the fatal accident to ensure that procedures could be improved to decrease the probability of another accident. Failure to do so would make the Navy as evil as its detractors would like to believe. It is hardly the fault of the Navy that it paused its training at Vieques or that it has not elected to use more strong arm tactics. The protesters rely heavily on the Navy’s moral obligation not to cause them harm when they camp on a firing range.
Puerto Rico is a US territory which gives them the full right to secede from the US and become an independent nation. If they truly wished to remove the US Navy, they’d be willing to take this course of action.
Well, actually, it may contribute to deaths of military personnel in the next conflict that requires a forced landing with combined arms. As we haven’t done that since Inchon (and indeed lack the capability to do so anymore - I think we have the sealift capacity for a forced landing of one regiment at most), the odds of the actions of the citizens of Vieques costing lives is low.
Look, I’m neutral on this issue, but I think it is wrong to cast the people of Vieques in the role of the Bad Guys. They are NIMBYans - the bombing range harms their quality of life and their economy. Short-sighted, selfish - perhaps. Different from anywhere else in this country - nah.
May I just say - BWA-HA-HA. Check out Okinawa. The Marines are part of the US Navy.
It is impossible to predict what our next conflict might require. By the time of Vietnam, pilots were assured that the days of the dogfight were over. By the time of Iraq, it was assumed that any major tank battle that involved the US would take place in Europe as it would take far too long to transport armored units to the middle-east. During that conflict, a substantial number of marines diverted the Iraqis from the true place of attack because we had the capability of a combined arms landing. If the US is no longer capable of such actions, please provide us with a link to such info.
The people of of Vieques certainly are NIMBYs with all the shortsightedness and selfishness that goes with that label. They want all the benefits that US security brings but are unwilling to put up with the costs.
The people of Okinawa have a much more substantial complaint than the people of Vieques.
Which is their full right as US citizens – you may wish to remember there are millions of US citizens all across the States and Territories who oppose official government policy on scores of issues. Just as it’s your and 'Uigi’s right to believe that that attitude is somehow deserving of punishment (in the latter case not just for them but for the whole of P.R.!), with all that conveys about what you think the American Way is all about. The Navy’s attitude that the civilian community has to just take it or get stuffed has only given more ammunition to the political-economic opportunists that are using the people of Vieques for their own purposes. It’s not “paying out bribes” to make sure that if you’re doing something necessary but unpleasant, you make it worth their while to the neighbors to bear with it.
And I would love to see proof (not quotes from Admirals – independent, unbiased proof) of the utter irreplaceability of those 2 miles of beach in Vieques. Maybe that way I could convince some people down here to think again about what they’re demanding (they’re operating on precious little facts). The threat that “if you don’t let us do it our way we’ll pack our bags and leave altogether” seems to tell them that it’s not so darn irreplaceable.
Sure, it’s their right. It’s the also the right of Americans to say nonsensical things, sue manufacturers for frivolous things, and wear poka dots with stripes. It doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing to do or that it reflects the best interest of the nation as a whole.
It would be a difficult task for an independent nonmilitary body to make a valid evaluation on a military requirement. It’s all moot at this point anyway as politics have settled the issue without letting any annoying facts get in the way.
It’s not a threat, it’s their legal right as a territory. And I don’t understand your logic here. The protestors want the Navy to leave period. The Navy is willing to cease using live ammunition, but that wasn’t enough. What “way” is it that the Navy wanted to force? It is the protestors that are leaving no room for compromise.
On which principle it is evident we are all in agreement, and the difference is in our appreciation on how right or wrong the parties are in each specific case. Me, I believe everybody is partly right and partly wrong on this and am willing to have a look at more facts.
**
Sorry, reading it again I see I was indeed not addressing the right issue there. I allowed myself to get annoyed by the “we’ll show those ingrates” attitude from 'Uigli’s post, and that’s just not fodder for debate.
OKay, the situation is this: For many years there had been a growing movement for the end of the use fo the Vieques range which had been pretty much evenly distributed among those who sincerely felt it hurt their quality of life, and those who were looking to reap economic benefit. But it was the '99 incident that brought it to the attention of career politicians and so-called “community rights advocates”, including such luminaries as dear Hillary, Gov. Pataki, and that pillar of respectability, Al Sharpton. Unfortunately by the time there was a response from D.C. with the Clinton plan, election year was upon us and of course everybody made wild promises about what they could achieve.
BTW: Original Clinton deal: hold a vote Nov. 2001 - choose between going to dummy rounds and phasing out gradually in 2 years, plus $40 million in investment ; or restart of live bombing (with tighter limitations) and $90 million in investment. Lands to be transferred to P.R. central government with part being set aside as peservation zones
One thing that happened after the Clinton offer was out, was that a lot of Congressmen yelled and screamed. They they modified the offer by law so much of the land would pass instead to a combination of the US DoI and the Conservation Trust and the Navy would hold on to some key spots; and so there is only a deal if the maneouvers are allowed to proceed uninterrupted durign the transition. Plus they kept rattling on about how they should scrap the whole deal. Bush decided to do an end-run around it and say “we leave in 2003, period.” The House ASC as amended the bill to instead say “we leave in 2003 IF the USN says they found an equal or better place.”
This is the crux of the matter: all the statements from the congressional hardliners, and all the statements from various naval sources, indicate they WANT to go back to unrestricted live-fire use. That is what the public sees as “the Navy Way” . This has been grabbed ahold of by the political-business opportunists I mentioned earlier, in a vicious propaganda campaign that the USN’s congressional friends intend to renegue on the offer as soon as Vieques looks the other way. Since there is a history of previous “understandings” being unfulfilled, this is believable to the viequenses. The radicals, and even members of the incoming new administration, adopted the “brilliant” position that a “hardline” stance would give them more leverage to make any agreement stick. Over 2 years of having this drummed into them morning, noon and night, 70% of the Viequense electorate has become convinced that the President and the USN will renegue on any negotiated agreement and thus the only choice is to demand that it all be over now. (30% actually want the Navy to stay, w/o objections)
To complicate matters, the now-current P.R. administration used the Vieques issue during the campaign to paint those of us who wanted anything other than “Navy Out Now!!” as nothing more than Uncle Toms kowtowing to The Man (and that touches a really, really raw nerve in this land that is dead-even stalemated on whether we want to get closer to the US or not). One candidate even promised that in 60 days she could get the exercises halted. Well, guess what: it’s 8 months later, and NOW the new administration is saying “we’ll take Bush’s offer, after all!” All in all, the Viequenses are going to be disappointed – as a result of political wheelings having little to do with them. They DO have a fair complaint, deserving of attention and not of condemnation or of impugnation of their sensibility or loyalty; the Navy could have saved itself a lot of grief by having been a better neighbor before '99, giving less fodder to the professional activists. I can only hope that at least there will be some worthwhile development after 2003.
And you know what? I just realized I haven’t addressed the OP. And what do you know… I would have NO problem with that at all! After all, if the Feds are the ones who sell/lease the land, the common people would still get the JOBS and the municipality would still get the TAXES – and the so-called “leaders” with business interests would be the ones stuck.