Works In Progress - February 2005 - The Militarization of the Port of Olympia and "Humanitarian Aid" From the Port

Unbeknownst to the residents of Thurston County, on December 10, 2004 the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established what they call a "permanent security zone" with military control of the Port of Olympia when a military ship comes to the Port. This was done in semi-secret because the public was not informed of this action at the time it was proposed, or when it occurred. On October 12, 2004, (perhaps, appropriately, Columbus Day), the USCG and DHS published in the Federal Register (Vol.69, #196, pages 60600-60603) that they were planning to create a "Security Zone" at the Port of Olympia and that comments should be made by November 26, 2004.

Even as a professional political scientist, I rarely read the Federal Register (nor does hardly anyone else). This is where bureaucrats and agencies make rules and regulations that presumably enforce the laws that are passed by congress and the president. It is also where controversial proposals are made if the US government (USG) wants to hide activity that likely will bring resistance from the people.

One of the stated reasons (p.60601) for this "national security" action was the need to protect Olympia's waterways from Al Queda. Al Queda. In Olympia. The essence of the proposed regulation was to give military control of the Port of Olympia to the Captain of Port Puget Sound in Seattle whenever a military ship, DOD "assets," or military cargo are at the Port. (The Captain can be reached at 206-217-6200, 206-217-6232, or 800-688-6664.)

On Friday, December 10, 2004, the USCG and DHS made the "Final rule" to implement their plan. [See Federal Register, Vol. 69, #237, pages 71709-71711. Friday is a traditional day for the US Government (USG) to bury information.] The USCG-DHS stated that "no written comments" were made and "A public hearing was not requested and none was held."

This, of course, was at a time (October- December) when there was great controversy in Olympia on the use of the Port for military shipments to Iraq -- a war that many legal experts, the UN and even some of Bush's advisers have found to be illegal under international and national law. This was also the time-frame that the Port commissioners had a large public hearing (November 11, 2004) where the vast majority of the citizens present expressed opposition to the use of the Port for the war. The commissioners did not tell the citizens assembled that the USCG-DHS was planning to militarize the Port, even though this issue dominated the meeting for hours.

Either the commissioners did not know of the impending takeover, in which case the USCG-DHS treated them with contempt and disdain and were derelict in their duties, or the commissioners did know about the impending takeover and did not inform the public who elected them on an issue that was obviously of great interest to the public. If that is the case it was the general public who was treated with contempt by the commissioners. According to the December 10 "Final rule," "No written comments were received by the Coast Guard regarding this proposed rule." This means that if the Port commissioners knew about this proposed rule, they themselves did not even comment on this major port event.

There are several questions that need to be asked of the Port commissioners. What did they know and when did they know it? If they knew about this proposal at the large public meeting on 11/11/2004, why did they not inform the public who were there to discuss this issue? Are they/were they in favor of the militarization of the Port? Since the regulation prohibits entry into the Port area on land and water when military cargo is at the port without permission of the "Captain of the Port," who will enforce this besides the military? What is the danger to the general public? How much will this action cost the public and public agencies, including the Port? The regulation states that the "Captain . . . . may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies." Were other agencies informed? The Olympia City Council was not. According to the December 10 "final rule" the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act states only when federal laws "results in expenditures by a state, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate of $100,000,000 or more in any one year" does the USCG-DHS have to consider the cost. While the cost of this rule is unlikely to reach that level, what is the estimated cost to the state and local governments? The commissioners have a responsibility to answer these questions to the citizens and other local officials.

More than the wasted resources, this local militarization of the port is an unnecessary act for unnecessary shipments to an unnecessary, illegal, and immoral war. These shipments make us, the citizens of Thurston County, complicit in the continuing American and Iraqi deaths and carnage.

So-called humanitarian aid of "New Horizons"

The Port has been used for the current war six times over the past year. The most recent shipment in January has been designated by Ft. Lewis public relations (and dutifully reported by the Olympian) as a "Humanitarian Mission" to Nicaragua and Haiti. The name of this so-called "humanitarian aid" mission is "New Horizons." To call "New Horizon" humanitarian work would make Orwell cringe, as even some elementary research would have shown. The military itself (USSOUTHCOM) admits that "the primary objective remains providing excellent, comprehensive, training opportunities to U.S. Military personnel" and not humanitarian work. The term New Horizons was invented from the old title "Fuertes Caminos/Strong Roads." Strong Roads to where? To and in Central America, the Caribbean, and the Andes countries.

In Haiti, where the US military has been a major source of repression for two centuries (see Paul Farmers, The Uses of Haiti, among other books) including the most recent coup against Aristide, "New Horizons" is known and it is not welcome. Even before Bush, the US government stated that the purpose of this program was just "changing the configuration . . . by replacing permanent bases with rotational assistance teams under the auspices of the Southern Command's Operation New Horizons." (Haiti Progres, September 1-7, 1999)

The USG sees unrest (i.e. people's resistance) in Haiti and elsewhere and wants to save resources for future military operations. In 1998, Gen. Charles E. Wilhelm, the commander of US forces in Latin America told Congress, "unrest generated by political instability requires us to constantly reassess the safety and security environment . . . I have recommended that we terminate our permanent military presence in Haiti and conduct routine engagement activities." The pentagon estimated that it could save considerable resources doing so. Haitian operations cost $22 million in 1998 "as oppose to $38 million for Operation New Horizons hurricane relief training missions, which took place in five countries." (Haiti Progress, September 1-7, 1999)

The mayor of Milot, Haiti is an example of the type of resistance that exists, even among elected Haitian officials. In 2000, he stopped the construction of a supposed orphanage, "Children of Promise" (Orwell is still rolling over in his grave) because the US military -- who said they were acting as "volunteers" for an unnamed "U.S. Non-governmental organization" had no permission, as U.S. commander Michael Brennan admitted -- from any Haitian authorities to build such a facility. The mayor considered Operation New Horizons to be "a program to provide the U.S. Military with training, public relation stunts, and an excuse to be in someone else's country" (Haiti Progres, August 9-15, 2000). The U.S. commander Brennen arrogantly stated that the confrontation in Milot was "an unimportant problem which shouldn't affect the continuation of our activities."

The situation in Nicaragua and the rest of Central America is just as serious, if not more so. The Olympian actually gave a "thumbs up" (1/22/05) for the "humanitarian aid" that was being shipped to Nicaragua now, and to Guatemala and Honduras in the recent past. To believe that the United States Government is concerned about the humanity of the people of Central America in general and Nicaragua in particular requires a case of historical amnesia that is beyond comprehension. Conservatively, the US government is directly responsible, over the past three decades, for the deaths of 200,000 people in Guatemala, 80,000 in El Salvador and 50,000 in Nicaragua. The present conditions in those countries are the result of CIA sponsored coups, deaths squads, and a contra war in Nicaragua, where the USG was condemned by the World Court in 1984 for its war crimes in that country. Cynicism does not begin to describe USG "humanitarian aid" to that region.

Then what is the US doing with "New Horizons" in Central America? Global Exchange, the internationally respected Human Rights Organization, has several articles about the New Horizons on its website at http://www.globalexchange.org . They point out that it is, as the US government admits to itself, a training mission in a region where the US has specific interest and where it wants to build an infrastructure for future plans. Specifically these plans include Plan Puebla Panama (PPP), the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, and preparation for the possible implementation of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Cesar

Montes, Secretary of the Democratic Left Party in Guatemala has called the operation "an invasion." The indigenous Zapatista Movement of Chiapas in Southern Mexico has declared that PPP will not pass through their lands, despite the signing on to this project by the government of Mexico and Guatemala. This will bring only more death and destruction to the people in the area.

Plan Puebla Panama and the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor are related programs. The plan is to build industrial operations for the use of multinational corporations from southern Mexico through Central America. They also look "to exploit the vast natural resources of the zone for large transnational corporations." New Horizons gives training on the ground for US forces, especially National Guard, scouts the landscape, builds some infrastructure, especially helicopter landings, while giving a veneer of "humanitarian work." I have no doubt that some of the lower ranking US troops are well meaning in their motivations and may believe the public relations efforts of the brass themselves. However, the US military is not the Red Cross or Habitat for Humanity and we should not confuse its mission as the armed wing of US foreign policy, for missionary work.

The people of Latin America are not confused. At a recent meeting (March, 2002) dozens of Latin American human rights groups convened at the First Mesoamerican Forum for Life in Guatemala to discuss several issues, especially dams and water rights. They specifically discussed PPP and New Horizons as part of the military planning for the "imposition of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and the militarization of our communities in all the Continent under the auspices of Plan Columbia, where US Military presence is unfolding all over Latin America in order to control strategic resources."

The activities of New Horizon are not lost on the rest of the world. The Columbia Solidarity Campaign of England as well as the Campaign Against the FTAA and The Regional Intervention Plans in Latin America (Netherlands) have also written about New Horizons.

During the Vietnam War, Nixon conducted a "secret war in Cambodia and Laos." However it was not a secret from the people of Cambodia or Laos or from our so-called "enemies." The only people who did not know what was going on with the US government were the American people. At the present time we have an open, albeit illegal war, against the people of Iraq. We also have the continuation of Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) against the people of Latin America. The public relations branch of the armed forces wants us to believe that the US government is concerned about the humanity of the people of Iraq and Latin America. The USG is losing the public relations battle regarding Iraq. It is perhaps a testament to the peace movement here that the military felt the need to pull this PR venture at this time.

As citizens and residents of Thurston County we should not allow ourselves to be duped into believing that the LIC against Latin Americans is "Humanitarian Aid." This is beyond Orwell, it is obscene. The residents of Thurston County should remain vigilant against the continuing use of the port for the illegal war in Iraq. We also should not be fooled into believing Public Relations personnel from the Army who call war materials "humanitarian aid."

Furthermore, we should not accept the slander that those who oppose the Iraq war do not "support the troops." As I have stated elsewhere in "A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders," (http://www.counterpunch.org , 2/27/03) "The idea that those who oppose the Bush plans for war are against the troops is a fundamental lie. Support for the troops is not done by sending them off to a war which is fundamentally unnecessary -- support is keeping them home. Support for the troops is not done by lying to them about the purpose and goals of the war and allowing those who will benefit and profit a free ride on the backs of the troops. Support for the troops is not done by making them complicit in an illegal and immoral war -- it is done by exposing the lies and giving the troops an opportunity not to be complicit in war crimes."

Larry Mosqueda, PhD, teaches at the Evergreen State College and is a member of the Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace. "OMJP is committed to building a society that meets the needs of all people, not one based on profit and economic values. We actively support movements that challenge corporate-sponsored globalization, and those that further racial, gender and economic equality. Our efforts are focused on working in solidarity and in coalition with individuals and groups on a local, regional, national, and global level."