Toggle menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Anti-base movement: Difference between revisions

From ProleWiki, the proletarian encyclopedia
More languages
(added map and info to location section)
Tag: Visual edit
No edit summary
(28 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:US military bases.png|thumb|Map of U.S. military bases and troops deployed abroad.]]
[[File:US military bases.png|thumb|Map of U.S. military bases and troops deployed abroad.]]
'''Anti-base movement''' is a term<ref>{{Citation|author=David Vine|year=2019|title=No Bases? Assessing the Impact of Social Movements Challenging US Foreign Military Bases|title-url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/701042|quote=I use the term “antibase movement” because it is widely used by movement members and scholars and because such movements, strictly speaking, are “anti-” in the sense that they are opposed to some aspect of the life of a base or its personnel.|pdf=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/701042|publisher=Current Anthropology|volume=Volume 60, Number S19}}</ref> which refers to various movements which focus on opposing aspects of military bases, which can range from opposition to specific activities of bases or base personnel, to opposing their presence or construction in particular locations, to opposing their existence in general. It can also refer to these movements collectively.<ref>Yeo, Andrew. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/27735112 "Not in Anyone's Backyard: The Emergence and Identity of a Transnational Anti-Base Network."] International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Sep., 2009), pp. 571-594. Oxford University Press.</ref>  
'''Anti-base movement''' is a term which refers to various movements which focus on opposing aspects of military bases, which can range from opposition to specific activities of bases or base personnel, to opposing their presence or construction in particular locations, to opposing their existence in general. It can also refer to these movements collectively.<ref name=":8">{{Citation|author=David Vine|year=2019|title=No Bases? Assessing the Impact of Social Movements Challenging US Foreign Military Bases|title-url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/701042|quote=|pdf=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/701042|publisher=Current Anthropology|volume=Volume 60, Number S19}}</ref><ref>Yeo, Andrew. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/27735112 "Not in Anyone's Backyard: The Emergence and Identity of a Transnational Anti-Base Network."] International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Sep., 2009), pp. 571-594. Oxford University Press.</ref>  


Given that the majority of foreign military bases around the world are [[United States of America|United States]] bases,<ref>David Vine, Patterson Deppen and Leah Bolger. [https://quincyinst.org/research/drawdown-improving-u-s-and-global-security-through-military-base-closures-abroad/ "Drawdown: Improving U.S. and Global Security Through Military Base Closures Abroad."] Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, September 20, 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240312130118/https://quincyinst.org/research/drawdown-improving-u-s-and-global-security-through-military-base-closures-abroad/ Archived] 2024-03-12.</ref><ref>Jawad, Ashar. [https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/5-countries-with-the-most-overseas-military-bases-1237758/5/ "5 Countries With the Most Overseas Military Bases."] Insider Monkey, December 15, 2023.</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amusB9j7Oz4 "Why 90% Of Foreign Military Bases Are American."] AJ+ on YouTube, Jan 13, 2022.</ref> many anti-base movements around the world have been directed at U.S. bases.  
Given that the majority of foreign military bases around the world are [[United States of America|United States]] bases,<ref>David Vine, Patterson Deppen and Leah Bolger. [https://quincyinst.org/research/drawdown-improving-u-s-and-global-security-through-military-base-closures-abroad/ "Drawdown: Improving U.S. and Global Security Through Military Base Closures Abroad."] Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, September 20, 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240312130118/https://quincyinst.org/research/drawdown-improving-u-s-and-global-security-through-military-base-closures-abroad/ Archived] 2024-03-12.</ref><ref>Jawad, Ashar. [https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/5-countries-with-the-most-overseas-military-bases-1237758/5/ "5 Countries With the Most Overseas Military Bases."] Insider Monkey, December 15, 2023.</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amusB9j7Oz4 "Why 90% Of Foreign Military Bases Are American."] AJ+ on YouTube, Jan 13, 2022.</ref> many anti-base movements around the world have been directed at U.S. bases.  


Among the many grievances expressed by anti-base movement activists are issues such as criminal and negligent activity of base personnel, the environmental pollution and destruction generated by U.S. bases, the erosion of national sovereignty that occurs with the U.S. military presence in host locations, and the international provocations and tensions that occur when countries host US bases and collaborate with US military exercises (such as the biennial US-led [[Rim of the Pacific Exercise|RIMPAC]] exercises).<ref>[https://socialistchina.org/2022/07/27/the-feminist-response-to-rimpac-and-the-us-war-against-china/ “The Feminist Response to RIMPAC and the US War against China.”] Friends of Socialist China, July 27, 2022. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230922091207/https://socialistchina.org/2022/07/27/the-feminist-response-to-rimpac-and-the-us-war-against-china/ Archived] 2023-09-22.</ref>  
Among the many grievances expressed by anti-base movement activists are issues such as criminal and negligent activity of base personnel, the environmental pollution and destruction generated by U.S. bases, the erosion of national sovereignty that occurs with the U.S. military presence in host locations, and the international provocations and tensions that occur when countries host US bases and collaborate with US military exercises.<ref>[https://socialistchina.org/2022/07/27/the-feminist-response-to-rimpac-and-the-us-war-against-china/ “The Feminist Response to RIMPAC and the US War against China.”] Friends of Socialist China, July 27, 2022. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230922091207/https://socialistchina.org/2022/07/27/the-feminist-response-to-rimpac-and-the-us-war-against-china/ Archived] 2023-09-22.</ref>


== Prevalence of US bases ==
== Background ==
 
=== Prevalence of US bases ===
[[File:US military bases map.png|alt=A map showing the distribution of US bases worldwide, with many in Europe, West Asia, and the Pacific region, as well as many small bases in Africa and some in Latin America. |thumb|Map of U.S. base presence around the world.]]
[[File:US military bases map.png|alt=A map showing the distribution of US bases worldwide, with many in Europe, West Asia, and the Pacific region, as well as many small bases in Africa and some in Latin America. |thumb|Map of U.S. base presence around the world.]]
As of a 2021 estimate, the U.S. has approximately 750 bases around the world in at least 80 countries, with the largest concentration of them being in [[Japan]] (especially in [[Okinawa Prefecture|Okinawa]]), followed by [[Federal Republic of Germany|Germany]] and [[Republic of Korea|south Korea]],<ref>Mohammed Hussein and Mohammed Haddad. [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive#:~:text=Upwards%20of%20750%20US%20bases,is%20published%20by%20the%20Pentagon. "Infographic: US military presence around the world."] Al Jazeera, 10 September 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240328094244/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive#:~:text=Upwards%20of%20750%20US%20bases,is%20published%20by%20the%20Pentagon. Archived] 2024-03-28.</ref> resulting in many corresponding anti-base movements. There are also anti-base movements within locations claimed by the U.S. as its own territory, some examples being [[Guam]] and [[Hawaii|Hawaiʻi]].<ref>Chris Gelardi and Sophia Perez. [https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/guam-colonialism/ “‘Biba Guåhan!’: How Guam’s Indigenous Activists Are Confronting Military Colonialism.”] The Nation, October 21, 2019.</ref><ref>Jedra, Christina. [https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/03/how-hawaii-activists-helped-force-the-militarys-hand-on-red-hill/ “How Hawaii Activists Helped Force the Military’s Hand on Red Hill.”] Honolulu Civil Beat, March 14, 2022. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240222203207/https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/03/how-hawaii-activists-helped-force-the-militarys-hand-on-red-hill/ Archived] 2022-02-22.</ref>
As of a 2021 estimate, the U.S. has approximately 750 bases around the world in at least 80 countries, with the largest concentration of them being in [[Japan]] (especially in [[Okinawa Prefecture|Okinawa]]), followed by [[Federal Republic of Germany|Germany]] and [[Republic of Korea|south Korea]],<ref>Mohammed Hussein and Mohammed Haddad. [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive#:~:text=Upwards%20of%20750%20US%20bases,is%20published%20by%20the%20Pentagon. "Infographic: US military presence around the world."] Al Jazeera, 10 September 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240328094244/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive#:~:text=Upwards%20of%20750%20US%20bases,is%20published%20by%20the%20Pentagon. Archived] 2024-03-28.</ref> resulting in many corresponding anti-base movements. There are also anti-base movements within locations claimed by the U.S. as its own territory, some examples being [[Guam]] and [[Hawaii|Hawaiʻi]].<ref>Chris Gelardi and Sophia Perez. [https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/guam-colonialism/ “‘Biba Guåhan!’: How Guam’s Indigenous Activists Are Confronting Military Colonialism.”] The Nation, October 21, 2019.</ref><ref name=":10">Jedra, Christina. [https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/03/how-hawaii-activists-helped-force-the-militarys-hand-on-red-hill/ “How Hawaii Activists Helped Force the Military’s Hand on Red Hill.”] Honolulu Civil Beat, March 14, 2022. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240222203207/https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/03/how-hawaii-activists-helped-force-the-militarys-hand-on-red-hill/ Archived] 2022-02-22.</ref> A 2024 study by [[The Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research|The Tricontinental]] described 902 known US military bases.<ref>[https://thetricontinental.org/studies-on-contemporary-dilemmas-4-hyper-imperialism/ “Hyper-Imperialism: A Dangerous Decadent New Stage.”] Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, January 23, 2024. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240521175133/https://thetricontinental.org/studies-on-contemporary-dilemmas-4-hyper-imperialism/ Archived] 2024-05-21.</ref>
 
Additionally, some anti-base movements oppose bases which are not formally considered to be a US base by law, but which effectively serve as a US base. An example of this would be the [[Military-Civilian Port Complex]] in south Korea, technically a south Korean base, but which local activists have explained is a place where "strategic assets in the US military can stop by whenever they please according to American interests."<ref>[https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/820635.html “American Nuclear Submarine Enters Jeju Naval Base.”] Hankyoreh, 2017. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230325090226/https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/820635.html Archived] 2023-03-25.</ref>
 
Another example of a legally ambiguous de facto base is the [[West Africa Logistics Network]] (WALN) at Kotoka International Airport in [[Republic of Ghana|Ghana]], a "cooperative security location" where the US military and related personnel are afforded numerous privileges, including the ability to conduct construction activities and store defense equipment, supplies, and materiel, enter into Ghana without visa or passport nor customs inspection for U.S. personnel, and protection for U.S. soldiers from being prosecuted by Ghanaian authorities for crimes, following a 2018 [[Status of Forces Agreement]].<ref name=":0">[[Vijay Prashad|Prashad, Vijay]]. [https://peoplesdispatch.org/2022/06/15/why-does-the-united-states-have-a-military-base-in-ghana/ “Why Does the United States Have a Military Base in Ghana?”] [[Peoples Dispatch]], June 15, 2022. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240318182332/https://peoplesdispatch.org/2022/06/15/why-does-the-united-states-have-a-military-base-in-ghana/ Archived] 2024-03-18.</ref><ref name=":1" />


Additionally, some anti-base movements oppose bases which are not formally considered to be a US base by law, but which effectively serve as a US base. An example of this would be the [[Military-Civilian Port Complex]] in south Korea, technically a south Korean base, but which local activists have explained is a place where "strategic assets in the US military can stop by whenever they please according to American interests."<ref>[https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/820635.html “American Nuclear Submarine Enters Jeju Naval Base.] Hankyoreh, 2017. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230325090226/https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/820635.html Archived] 2023-03-25.</ref> Another example is the [[West Africa Logistics Network]] (WALN) at Kotoka International Airport in [[Republic of Ghana|Ghana]], a "cooperative security location" where the US military and related personnel are afforded numerous privileges, including the ability to conduct construction activities and store defense equipment, supplies, and materiel, enter into Ghana without visa or passport nor customs inspection for U.S. personnel, and protection for U.S. soldiers from being prosecuted by Ghanaian authorities for crimes, following a 2018 [[Status of Forces Agreement]].<ref name=":0">[[Vijay Prashad|Prashad, Vijay]]. [https://peoplesdispatch.org/2022/06/15/why-does-the-united-states-have-a-military-base-in-ghana/ “Why Does the United States Have a Military Base in Ghana?”] [[Peoples Dispatch]], June 15, 2022. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240318182332/https://peoplesdispatch.org/2022/06/15/why-does-the-united-states-have-a-military-base-in-ghana/ Archived] 2024-03-18.</ref><ref name=":1" />
=== History of US bases ===
[[File:US native nations.png|alt=A map showing names and location of indigenous nations in the US accompanied by a list of US military forts and corresponding locations on the map.|thumb|A map depicting indigenous nations in the territory claimed by the U.S., as well as numbers showing U.S. military forts.]]
The US [[Settler colonialism|settler-colonial]] state was established on [[North America]] through a series of military forts expanding across the continent. The settler state used its military force to defend and advance "civilian" settlers (and their volunteer militias) in their encroachment on more and more land, including punishing indigenous peoples' defense of their borders agreed on in treaties with the settler state, and used its military presence to "force compliance" when indigenous tribes and bands refused to live on reservations or make treaties on the invading settlers' terms.<ref>Stewart, Richard W. [https://history.army.mil/html/books/030/30-21/CMH_Pub_30-21.pdf "American Military History." Chapter: "Winning the West: The Army  in the Indian Wars, 1865-1890."] Volume 1: The United States Army and the Forging of a Nation, 1775-1917. Second Edition. Center of Military History, United States Army. Washington, D.C., 2009. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240422123311/https://history.army.mil/html/books/030/30-21/CMH_Pub_30-21.pdf Archived] 2024-04-22.</ref>  
 
By this process of expanding military power across the continent, the US occupied much of North America, and then began expanding its base presence to numerous other locations throughout the world starting in the 1890s, leading to further resistance movements. For example, the US military "faced opposition and an insurgency seeking independence almost immediately after seizing the [[Republic of the Philippines|Philippines]] in 1898".<ref name=":8" /> As it expanded its empire in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the U.S. built bases in [[State of Alaska|Alaska]], Hawaiʻi, [[Commonwealth of Puerto Rico|Puerto Rico]], the Philippines, Guam, [[Republic of Panama|Panama]], and [[Guantánamo Bay concentration camp|Guantánamo Bay]], [[Republic of Cuba|Cuba]].<ref>David Vine. ''The United States of War'', University of California Press, 2020.</ref>
 
Author David Vine describes the dynamics of coercion and power imbalance which has accompanied the establishment of many of the U.S.'s post-[[Second World War|WWII]] bases which had, "to one degree or another" been "consented to" by the host nations' governments in the context of "gaping power disparities" and inflated fears about the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]]:<blockquote>Although the United States has been an empire occupying Native American lands with military bases since independence, its post–World War II collection of foreign bases has been distinguished by the fact that most national governments have, to one degree or another, consented to the country’s presence [...]  Importantly, however, this consent has come in a context of often gaping power disparities, where US officials have used US dominance, forms of political-economic coercion, and fears of the Soviet Union (at times, intentionally inflated) to ensure national governments consented to a US base presence.<ref name=":8" /></blockquote>


== Issues with US bases ==
== Issues with US bases ==
Line 17: Line 29:
The violent crimes of U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilian contractors working in base areas include numerous killings and sexual assault crimes committed against the citizens of the countries where they are stationed.<ref>Mitchell, Jon. [https://theintercept.com/2021/10/03/okinawa-sexual-crimes-us-military/ “NCIS Case Files Reveal Undisclosed U.S. Military Sex Crimes in Okinawa.”] The Intercept. October 3, 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220806191815/https://theintercept.com/2021/10/03/okinawa-sexual-crimes-us-military/ Archived] 2022-08-06.</ref>  
The violent crimes of U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilian contractors working in base areas include numerous killings and sexual assault crimes committed against the citizens of the countries where they are stationed.<ref>Mitchell, Jon. [https://theintercept.com/2021/10/03/okinawa-sexual-crimes-us-military/ “NCIS Case Files Reveal Undisclosed U.S. Military Sex Crimes in Okinawa.”] The Intercept. October 3, 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220806191815/https://theintercept.com/2021/10/03/okinawa-sexual-crimes-us-military/ Archived] 2022-08-06.</ref>  


In addition to violence perpetrated by individual personnel against locals, negligence during routine activities of bases have also caused violent damage to local populations, such as people being seriously injured and killed by errant bombs.<ref>[https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20120905010200315 "Bombing ends, but village still not free from past."] Yonhap News Agency. September 12, 2012. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220927084225/https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20120905010200315 Archived] 2022-09-27. </ref>
In addition to violence perpetrated by individual personnel against locals, negligence during routine activities of bases have also caused violent damage to local populations, such as people being seriously injured and killed by errant bombs.<ref name=":12">[https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20120905010200315 "Bombing ends, but village still not free from past."] Yonhap News Agency. September 12, 2012. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220927084225/https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20120905010200315 Archived] 2022-09-27. </ref>


Areas with a base presence also face issues of increased [[sex trafficking]]. In south Korea, a legally-sanctioned prostitution industry was purposely encouraged and maintained by the government in special zones around US bases, with this system persisting for decades.<ref>Shorrock, Tim. [https://newrepublic.com/article/155707/united-states-military-prostitution-south-korea-monkey-house “Welcome to the Monkey House.”] The New Republic. December 2, 2019. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220926021611/https://newrepublic.com/article/155707/united-states-military-prostitution-south-korea-monkey-house Archived] 2022-09-26.</ref>
Areas with a base presence also face issues of increased [[sex trafficking]]. For example, in south Korea, a legally-sanctioned prostitution industry was purposely encouraged and maintained by the government in special zones around US bases, with this system persisting for decades.<ref>Shorrock, Tim. [https://newrepublic.com/article/155707/united-states-military-prostitution-south-korea-monkey-house “Welcome to the Monkey House.”] The New Republic. December 2, 2019. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220926021611/https://newrepublic.com/article/155707/united-states-military-prostitution-south-korea-monkey-house Archived] 2022-09-26.</ref>


=== Environmental destruction ===
=== Environmental destruction ===
Line 35: Line 47:
Though SOFAs are not formally basing agreements, a 2021 article in [[The Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research|The Tricontinental]] explains how [[Republic of Ghana|Ghana]]'s 2018 SOFA agreement nonetheless allows the U.S. such a level of authority over facilities in Ghana so as to be able to effectively set up a base through Articles 5 and 6 of the agreement, designating agreed facilities to be of "unimpeded" and "exclusive" use to the U.S. and that Ghana "shall also provide access to and use of a runway that meets the requirements of United States forces."<ref name=":1">[https://thetricontinental.org/dossier-42-militarisation-africa/ “Defending Our Sovereignty: US Military Bases in Africa and the Future of African Unity.”] Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, July 5, 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240304132814/https://thetricontinental.org/dossier-42-militarisation-africa/?__cf_chl_rt_tk=BefthYHecF74THe06.g5YSAwPo6HDUzuvqwoPG6QvUM-1709558894-0.0.1.1-1578 Archived] 2023-03-04.</ref> Furthermore, the agreement gives the U.S. forces and U.S. contractors the ability to "undertake construction activities" and make alterations to agreed facilities and to "preposition and store defense equipment, supplies, and materiel" at agreed facilities and areas,<ref name=":2">[https://web.archive.org/web/20240415081248/https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/18-531-Ghana-Defense-Status-of-Forces.pdf "Agreement Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and GHANA."] May 9, 2018. United States Department of State.</ref> gives U.S. soldiers the right to carry arms on duty, allows U.S. army and civilians to enter Ghana without a passport nor a visa but just identification cards, allows the U.S. army to not take responsibility for the death of any other person aside from U.S. military personnel, and third party issues involving U.S. military personnel will only be resolved according to the laws of the United States, among other preferential treatments.<ref name=":2" /><ref>Maxwell Boamah Amofa. [https://www.modernghana.com/news/1217749/the-sandhurst-colonial-mentality-and-the-rule-of.html “The Sandhurst Colonial Mentality and the Rule of Law.”] Modern Ghana. March 13, 2023. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230314222209/https://www.modernghana.com/news/1217749/the-sandhurst-colonial-mentality-and-the-rule-of.html Archived] 2023-02-14.</ref><ref name=":0" /> Such agreements between the U.S. and Ghana have led to the establishment of the West Africa Logistics Network (WALN) at Kotoka International Airport in Accra to "ferry supplies and arms to special forces troops across the region".<ref>Katie Bo Williams. [https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2019/02/africom-adds-logistics-hub-west-africa-hinting-enduring-us-presence/155015/ “AFRICOM Adds Logistics Hub in West Africa, Hinting at an Enduring US Presence.”] Defense One, February 20, 2019. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240402134707/https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2019/02/africom-adds-logistics-hub-west-africa-hinting-enduring-us-presence/155015/ Archived] 2024-04-02.</ref>
Though SOFAs are not formally basing agreements, a 2021 article in [[The Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research|The Tricontinental]] explains how [[Republic of Ghana|Ghana]]'s 2018 SOFA agreement nonetheless allows the U.S. such a level of authority over facilities in Ghana so as to be able to effectively set up a base through Articles 5 and 6 of the agreement, designating agreed facilities to be of "unimpeded" and "exclusive" use to the U.S. and that Ghana "shall also provide access to and use of a runway that meets the requirements of United States forces."<ref name=":1">[https://thetricontinental.org/dossier-42-militarisation-africa/ “Defending Our Sovereignty: US Military Bases in Africa and the Future of African Unity.”] Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, July 5, 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240304132814/https://thetricontinental.org/dossier-42-militarisation-africa/?__cf_chl_rt_tk=BefthYHecF74THe06.g5YSAwPo6HDUzuvqwoPG6QvUM-1709558894-0.0.1.1-1578 Archived] 2023-03-04.</ref> Furthermore, the agreement gives the U.S. forces and U.S. contractors the ability to "undertake construction activities" and make alterations to agreed facilities and to "preposition and store defense equipment, supplies, and materiel" at agreed facilities and areas,<ref name=":2">[https://web.archive.org/web/20240415081248/https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/18-531-Ghana-Defense-Status-of-Forces.pdf "Agreement Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and GHANA."] May 9, 2018. United States Department of State.</ref> gives U.S. soldiers the right to carry arms on duty, allows U.S. army and civilians to enter Ghana without a passport nor a visa but just identification cards, allows the U.S. army to not take responsibility for the death of any other person aside from U.S. military personnel, and third party issues involving U.S. military personnel will only be resolved according to the laws of the United States, among other preferential treatments.<ref name=":2" /><ref>Maxwell Boamah Amofa. [https://www.modernghana.com/news/1217749/the-sandhurst-colonial-mentality-and-the-rule-of.html “The Sandhurst Colonial Mentality and the Rule of Law.”] Modern Ghana. March 13, 2023. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230314222209/https://www.modernghana.com/news/1217749/the-sandhurst-colonial-mentality-and-the-rule-of.html Archived] 2023-02-14.</ref><ref name=":0" /> Such agreements between the U.S. and Ghana have led to the establishment of the West Africa Logistics Network (WALN) at Kotoka International Airport in Accra to "ferry supplies and arms to special forces troops across the region".<ref>Katie Bo Williams. [https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2019/02/africom-adds-logistics-hub-west-africa-hinting-enduring-us-presence/155015/ “AFRICOM Adds Logistics Hub in West Africa, Hinting at an Enduring US Presence.”] Defense One, February 20, 2019. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240402134707/https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2019/02/africom-adds-logistics-hub-west-africa-hinting-enduring-us-presence/155015/ Archived] 2024-04-02.</ref>


==== Occupation ====
=== War provocations ===
The presence of military bases in a location leads to the concern of that location becoming a strategically significant location with regard to international tensions involving the host country, the hosted country, and their various neighbors, allies, targets, and/or rivals. People who live in the host nation are confronted with the potential wartime actions resulting from the presence of a base in their territory in addition to the peacetime concern of the base's potential to provoke international tensions, such as through military build-up, exercises, and shows of force. Individuals and organizations within anti-base movements may express a variety of perspectives on such issues, such as locals' urgent safety concerns over their location becoming a diplomatic pawn or wartime hotspot or launch pad, general [[Anti-war movement|anti-war]] or [[Pacifism|pacifist]] sentiments, promotion of [[Non-Aligned Movement|non-alignment]], and explicitly [[Anti-imperialism|anti-imperialist]] sentiment.<ref name=":8" />
 
In the present-day context, of high concern in host locations of US bases is what this portends in regard to conflicts between the US-led imperialist bloc on one hand, and the imperialists' perceived or declared targets and rivals on the other, sometimes referred to as the [[New Cold War]].<ref>Joseph Gerson and Michael Klare. [https://www.saneuschinapolicy.org/founding-statement "Statement on Averting a New Cold War Between the United States and China."] Committee for a SANE U.S.-China Policy, October 2020. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220119003404/https://www.saneuschinapolicy.org/founding-statement Archived] 2022-01-19.</ref>


=== War provocations ===
As political scientist and Guam independence advocate<ref>Michael Lujan Bevacqua. [https://www.postguam.com/in-wake-of-trump-s-win-let-s-consider-independence-for-gu-han/article_2d15acc2-ad40-11e6-900d-6b0aaa3f0ba5.html “In Wake of Trump’s Win, Let’s Consider Independence for Guåhan.”] The Guam Daily Post, November 19, 2016.</ref> [[Kenneth Gofigan Kuper]] has described, writing about the highly militarized US [[Colonialism|colony]] of Guam:<blockquote>In the coming years, I am afraid things will get worse for the people of Guam unless restraint enters the picture. [...] One of Guam’s former non-voting representatives in Congress, Ben Blaz, once said of our island, “We are equal in war, but not in peace.” I think he was only half-right. While we are clearly not equal in peace, as no colony can be, we are NOT equal in war. We in Guam bear the brunt of U.S. power projection in the Indo-Pacific, both as provocative threat and as a target. The task of securing a “free and open” Indo-Pacific is disproportionately on our backs.<ref>Kenneth Gofigan Kuper. [https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/07/20/living-at-the-tip-of-the-spear-guam-and-restraint/ "Living at the tip of the spear: Guam and restraint."] Responsible Statecraft, July 21, 2020. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230927145711/https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/07/20/living-at-the-tip-of-the-spear-guam-and-restraint/ Archived] 2023-09-27.</ref></blockquote>Representing [[Oceania Rising]] at a 2017 talk about militarization and resistance in the Pacific, Kuper gave an example of the dynamic at play in US-occupied Guam, where the U.S. military presence threatens Guam more than protects it. Explaining that Guam is within range of China's [[Intermediate-range ballistic missile|IRBM]] the [[Dong Feng-26|DF-26]], as well as within the range of the DPRK's precision strike means, Kuper stated "I remember, when all this news was coming out, you had people on [[Meta Platforms, Inc.|Facebook]] and [[social media]] saying, 'Thank God the U.S. military is here. They're gonna protect us from these threats.' And I countered, saying, 'Why the Hell are these threats here to begin with--in Guam? It's exactly the United States military presence.'" Kuper continued, clarifying that rather than offering protection, the military presence "makes everything so much more dangerous." He added that the people of Guam experience periodic threats over geopolitical tensions, stating "we are pawns in a game we don't even want to be a part of."<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8X24iuveJ8 "Militarization and Resistance in the Pacific, In the Age of Trump."] University of Hawai'i at Manoa, March 13, 2017.  APECEpic on YouTube,  Apr 1, 2017. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240418112255/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8X24iuveJ8 Archived] 2024-04-18.</ref>


== Anti-base movements by location ==
== Bases and anti-base movements by location ==
[[File:US Combatant Commands.png|alt= A world map divided by US combatant command, generally corresponding to major continents and regions. Includes USNORTHCOM (North America), USSOUTHCOM (South America), USEUCOM (Europe), USAFRICOM (Africa), USCENTCOM (Middle East), USINDOPACOM (Indo-Pacific).|thumb|Areas of responsibility of US combatant commands.]]
[[File:US Combatant Commands.png|alt= A world map divided by US combatant command, generally corresponding to major continents and regions. Includes USNORTHCOM (North America), USSOUTHCOM (South America), USEUCOM (Europe), USAFRICOM (Africa), USCENTCOM (Middle East), USINDOPACOM (Indo-Pacific).|thumb|Areas of responsibility of US combatant commands.]]
The United Stated Department of Defense divides its commands into various areas of responsibility, with seven combatant commands covering geographic areas (one of them being US Space Command, USSPACECOM), while the remaining commands cover functions such as transportation and special operations.<ref>[https://usafa.libguides.com/combatantcommands/overview “USAFA Library Guides: Combatant Commands: Combatant Command Overview.”] U.S. Air Force Academy.</ref><ref>[https://www.defense.gov/About/combatant-commands/ "Combatant Commands."] U.S. Department of Defense. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240415020523/https://www.defense.gov/About/Combatant-Commands/ Archived] 2023-04-15.</ref> As US bases are generally managed and strategically conceptualized according to this structure, and likewise anti-base movements in different nations are thus strategically linked and affected by which areas of responsibility they fall under or adjoin, this section will be divided roughly following its scheme and some of its terminology.
The [[United States Department of Defense]] (DoD) divides its commands into various areas of responsibility (AOR), with seven combatant commands covering geographic areas (one of them being US Space Command), while the remaining commands cover functions such as transportation and special operations.<ref>[https://usafa.libguides.com/combatantcommands/overview “USAFA Library Guides: Combatant Commands: Combatant Command Overview.”] U.S. Air Force Academy.</ref><ref>[https://www.defense.gov/About/combatant-commands/ "Combatant Commands."] U.S. Department of Defense. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240415020523/https://www.defense.gov/About/Combatant-Commands/ Archived] 2023-04-15.</ref> As US bases are generally managed and strategically conceptualized according to this structure, and likewise anti-base movements in different nations are thus strategically linked and affected by which areas of responsibility they fall under or adjoin, this section will be divided roughly following its scheme and some of its terminology.


=== Africa ===
=== Africa ===
[[United States Africa Command|U.S. Africa Command]] (USAFRICOM) began its operations on October 1, 2007 and became fully operational on October 1, 2008. It is headquartered at Kelley Barracks in [[Stuttgart]], [[Federal Republic of Germany|Germany]].<ref name=":25">[https://www.africom.mil/about-the-command "About the Command."] Africom.mil. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240516100404/https://www.africom.mil/about-the-command Archived] 2024-05-16.</ref> The US's main "enduring" base in [[Africa]] is [[Camp Lemonnier]] in [[Republic of Djibouti|Djibouti]].<ref>[https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12566 "China and Sub-Saharan Africa."] Congressional Research Service, January 8, 2024.</ref>
The US justifies its military presence in [[Africa]] by claiming to assist African governments in building capacity in their armed forces to deal with violent extremists and to respond to crises.<ref name=":25" /> However, despite claiming to combat terrorism, the increased presence of the US military in Africa has been followed by an increase in terrorist incidents,<ref>Turse, Nick. [https://theintercept.com/2019/07/29/pentagon-study-africom-africa-violence/ “Violence Has Spiked in Africa since the Military Founded AFRICOM, Pentagon Study Finds.”] [[The Intercept]], July 29, 2019. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240409232650/https://theintercept.com/2019/07/29/pentagon-study-africom-africa-violence/ Archived] 2024-04-09.</ref> and essentially functions as a [[protection racket]].<ref>Dan Glazebrook. [https://www.herald.co.zw/recolonisation-of-africa-by-endless-war/ “Recolonisation of Africa by Endless War.”] The Herald, November 7, 2017. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220705125656/https://www.herald.co.zw/recolonisation-of-africa-by-endless-war/ Archived] 2022-07-05.</ref> As an article in [[Peoples Dispatch]] points out, "the main cause behind the explosion of terrorist organizations in the region was the 2011 [[Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1977–2011)|Libyan]] war in which AFRICOM itself was an aggressor."<ref>Kulkarni, Pavan. [https://peoplesdispatch.org/2021/06/01/africom-militarys-exercise-the-art-of-creating-new-pretexts-for-propagating-us-interests/ “AFRICOM Military’s Exercise: The Art of Creating New Pretexts for Propagating US Interests.”] Peoples Dispatch, June 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20231202123112/https://peoplesdispatch.org/2021/06/01/africom-militarys-exercise-the-art-of-creating-new-pretexts-for-propagating-us-interests/ Archived] 2023-12-02.</ref>
As was observed by Tunde Osazua of [[Black Alliance for Peace]] (BAP), the occupation of countries and bombings that the US has used to achieve its goals in Africa are acts of terror, along with the economic terrorism of murderous [[Economic sanctions|sanctions]] enforced by the US and [[austerity]] programs imposed via the [[International Monetary Fund|IMF]] and [[The World Bank|World Bank]].<ref>Tunde Osazua. [https://blackagendareport.com/africom-and-guise-terrorism “AFRICOM and the Guise of Terrorism.”] [[Black Agenda Report]], July 15, 2020. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230402063913/https://www.blackagendareport.com/africom-and-guise-terrorism Archived] 2023-04-02.</ref> The actual purpose of AFRICOM has been summarized by BAP as "to use U.S. military power to impose U.S. control of African land, resources and labor to service the needs of U.S. multi-national corporations and the wealthy in the United States".<ref>[https://blackallianceforpeace.com/usoutofafrica “U.S. Out of Africa! Shut Down AFRICOM.”] The Black Alliance for Peace. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240519130712/https://blackallianceforpeace.com/usoutofafrica Archived] 2024-05-19.</ref>
==== Niger ====
[[File:Here is Agadez not Washington US Army Get Out.jpg|alt=Demonstrators in Niger hold a French and English language sign which says: "Mouvement M62 Union sacrée pour la sauvegarde de la souveraineté et la dignité du peuple Here is Agadez not Washington US Army Get Out"|thumb|256x256px|Demonstrators in Niger calling for departure of US troops.]]
[[Republic of the Niger|Niger]] has previously been a center for US operations in west and north Africa, as part of a chain of US bases and outposts across the [[Sahel]] region.<ref name=":23">[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/17/niger-suspends-military-cooperation-with-us “Niger Suspends Military Cooperation with US: Spokesman.”] Al Jazeera, March 17, 2024. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240521080524/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/17/niger-suspends-military-cooperation-with-us Archived] 2024-05-21.</ref><ref>Banks, Chris. [https://www.liberationnews.org/niger-declares-american-military-presence-illegal-kicks-out-u-s-troops/ “Niger Declares American Military Presence ‘Illegal,’ Kicks out U.S. Troops.”] [[Liberation News]], March 28, 2024. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240515133227/https://www.liberationnews.org/niger-declares-american-military-presence-illegal-kicks-out-u-s-troops/ Archived] 2024-05-15.</ref> Prominent US bases in Niger are Air Base 101 in [[Niamey]] and Air Base 201 in [[Agadez]], and a [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]]-run base in [[Dirkou]]. Airbase 201 is the second largest US base in Africa (the largest being in Djibouti).<ref name=":24">Kulkarni, Pavan. [https://peoplesdispatch.org/2024/03/19/why-has-niger-declared-us-military-presence-in-its-territory-illegal/ “Why Has Niger Declared US Military Presence in Its Territory Illegal?”] [[Peoples Dispatch]], March 19, 2024. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240414113932/https://peoplesdispatch.org/2024/03/19/why-has-niger-declared-us-military-presence-in-its-territory-illegal/ Archived] 2024-04-14.</ref>
In 2023, Niger's newly-formed [[National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland]] (CNSP) terminated Niger's military agreements with [[French Republic|France]] and ordered the withdrawal of French troops. France initially resisted this and attempted to mobilize the pro-western grouping of [[Economic Community of West African States|ECOWAS]] into a war against Niger,<ref>Marie, Kayla. [https://www.liberationnews.org/nigers-new-government-defies-imperialist-backed-ecowas-war-threats/ “Niger’s New Government Defies Imperialist-Backed ECOWAS War Threats.”] Liberation News, August 11, 2023. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240523142453/https://www.liberationnews.org/nigers-new-government-defies-imperialist-backed-ecowas-war-threats/ Archived] 2024-05-23.</ref> but eventually stood down and withdrew its troops.<ref name=":24" /> In March of 2024, CNSP suspended Niger's military cooperation with the US.<ref name=":23" />


=== Middle East ===
=== Middle East ===
Line 50: Line 76:


=== Indo-Pacific ===
=== Indo-Pacific ===
[[File:U.S. Indo-Pacific Command AOR and Selected Bases.png|alt=Map showing USINDOPACOM covering the Pacific and Indian Oceans and much of Asia, as well as multiple locations of U.S. bases throughout the area.|thumb|U.S. Indo-Pacific Command area of responsibility and selected U.S. bases.<ref name=":4">[https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2024-03-05_IF12604_16dda9ffa3c9cc7b2e4f90afb51f092e6c63690d.pdf "U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM)."] Congressional Research Service, March 5, 2024.</ref>|249x249px]]
The U.S. designates the area covering the [[Pacific Ocean]], [[Indian Ocean]], and much of [[Asia]] as [[United States Indo-Pacific Command|USINDOPACOM]]. It is the oldest and largest of the U.S.'s unified commands, and it has been referred to by the DoD as its "priority theater". The DoD has identified competition with China as the organizing principle of the Indo-Pacific posture since the early 2010s.<ref name=":4" /> Its area of responsibility covers more area than any of the other geographic commands and shares borders with all five of the other geographic commands.<ref>[https://www.pacom.mil/About-USINDOPACOM/USPACOM-Area-of-Responsibility/ "USPACOM Area of Responsibility."] U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.</ref>


[[File:Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean with distances to other locations.png|alt=Map shows Diego Garcia situated in the Indian Ocean, with labels stating it is 2000 miles from Somalia; 2290 miles from Aden, Yemen; 2700 miles from Bahrain and Qatar; 2900 miles from Kabul, Afghanistan; 1100 miles from India; 3800 miles from Taiwan strait, 3650 miles from East Timor; 4000 miles from Darwin, Australia; and 3270 miles from Perth, Australia (Fremantle).|thumb|A map of Diego Garcia's location in the Indian Ocean, including labels of distances to various other locations.|245x245px]]U.S. military presence in the Indo-Pacific is headquartered in the occupied nation of Hawaiʻi,<ref name=":3">[https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11208 "The Pacific Islands."] Congressional Research Service, January 25, 2024. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240211123330/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11208 Archived] 2024-02-11.</ref> whose sovereign government the US Navy overthrew in an 1893 [[Coup d'état|coup]].<ref name=":21">Jon Olsen (2022-11-15). [https://covertactionmagazine.com/2022/11/15/hawaii-the-very-first-u-s-regime-change/ "Hawai’i—The Very First U.S. Regime Change."] ''[[CovertAction Magazine]]''. [https://web.archive.org/web/20221116072327/https://covertactionmagazine.com/2022/11/15/hawaii-the-very-first-u-s-regime-change/ Archived] from the original on 2022-11-16.</ref> Some of the US's most significant overseas bases and forces are in the Indo-Pacific, with many positioned in south Korea and Japan, as US strategy in this area targets [[People's Republic of China|China]], [[Democratic People's Republic of Korea|DPRK]], and [[Russian Federation|Russia]]. This area is the location of the world's largest maritime exercise, the US-led RIMPAC.<ref>Takahashi Kosuke. [https://thediplomat.com/2022/07/us-led-rimpac-worlds-largest-maritime-exercise-starts-without-china-or-taiwan/ “US-Led RIMPAC, World’s Largest Maritime Exercise, Starts without China or Taiwan.”] The Diplomat, July 01 2022. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240226085933/https://thediplomat.com/2022/07/us-led-rimpac-worlds-largest-maritime-exercise-starts-without-china-or-taiwan/ Archived] 2024-02-26.</ref>
In [[Oceania]], the U.S. has significant air and naval bases on its occupied [[Colonialism|colony]] Guam, and operates the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll in the [[Republic of the Marshall Islands|Marshall Islands]]. The Department of Defense is building a high-frequency radar system in [[Republic of Palau|Palau]]. Additionally, the U.S. military has ties with [[Republic of Fiji|Fiji]], [[Independent State of Papua New Guinea|Papua New Guinea]], and [[Kingdom of Tonga|Tonga]].<ref name=":3" /> Also significant is the [[Diego Garcia]] base in the [[Indian Ocean]], built after the forced displacement of the island's inhabitants through a joint US-[[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|UK]] effort.<ref name=":5">Asoka Bandarage. [https://covertactionmagazine.com/2019/08/12/u-s-military-presence-and-popular-resistance-in-sri-lanka/ “U.S. Military Presence and Popular Resistance in Sri Lanka.”] CovertAction Magazine, August 12, 2019. [https://web.archive.org/web/20231003012015/https://covertactionmagazine.com/2019/08/12/u-s-military-presence-and-popular-resistance-in-sri-lanka/ Archived] 2023-10-03.</ref><ref name=":6">David Vine. [https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-truth-about-the-u-s-military-base-at-diego-garcia/ “The Truth about the U.S. Military Base at Diego Garcia.”] Truthdig, June 15, 2015. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230129214450/https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-truth-about-the-u-s-military-base-at-diego-garcia/ Archived] 2023-01-29.</ref> Diego Garcia's location is strategically significant, enabling the U.S. military to reach numerous locations in surrounding regions, for example having been used for launching U.S. bombings of [[Republic of Iraq|Iraq]] and [[Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan|Afghanistan]].<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":22" />
==== Japan ====
===== Okinawa =====
Okinawa has more than half of the 54,000 U.S. troops based in Japan.<ref name=":4" /> Okinawa was once the independent Ryukyu Kingdom which was then colonized by Japan, later falling under the rule of the United States for 27 years (until 1972),<ref>Sayo Saruta. [https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2024/03/04/japan/okinawa-taiwan-contingency-diplomacy/ “Okinawa’s Peace Movement Carves Its Own Path.”] The Japan Times, March 4, 2024. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240406104533/https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2024/03/04/japan/okinawa-taiwan-contingency-diplomacy/ Archived] 2024-04-06.</ref> and is currently regarded as a Japanese prefecture.<ref>Moé Yonamine. [https://mronline.org/2017/07/28/fighting-for-okinawa/ “Fighting for Okinawa.”] MR Online, July 28, 2017. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230928012751/https://mronline.org/2017/07/28/fighting-for-okinawa/ Archived] 2023-09-28.</ref> Protests against US occupation and land seizures in Okinawa began within months of the end of the [[Second World War]].<ref name=":8" />
===== Sunagawa struggle =====
In the 1950s, a significant anti-base struggle emerged in the [[Tokyo]] suburb [[Sunagawa]], in protest of the expansion of Tachikawa Air Base. The expansion was to occur via land expropriations on behalf of the [[United States Air Force|U.S. Air Force]],<ref name=":8" /> slated to evict 140 families from their homes and farmland.<ref name=":9">Dustin Wright. [http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2015/05/03/issues/sunagawa-struggle-ignited-anti-u-s-base-resistance-across-japan "‘Sunagawa Struggle’ ignited anti-U.S. base resistance across Japan."] The Japan Times, May 3, 2015. [https://web.archive.org/web/20150505231320/http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2015/05/03/issues/sunagawa-struggle-ignited-anti-u-s-base-resistance-across-japan Archived] 2015-05-05.</ref> The local farmers began trying to prevent the work of land surveyors, such as by blocking the path of their vehicles and forming the [[Sunagawa Anti-Base Expansion Alliance]]. Over time, regional and national [[Trade union|labor unions]], student groups, Buddhist monks and nuns, lawmakers and other citizens became involved in the struggle as well.<ref name=":9" /> A report in The Japan Times explains that by 1956, "2,000 police officers were ordered to evict the farmers from the land that they continued to occupy, only to be met with 6,000 protesters, resulting in a clash that left roughly 1,000 people injured, many seriously." The struggle against the base expansion continued, and by 1968, the U.S. military "quietly announced it had given up on the planned runway extension" and returned the base to the Japanese government in 1977.<ref name=":9" />
[[Dennis Banks]], who would later be a co-founder of the [[American Indian Movement]], was present during some of these events in 1956, while stationed in Japan at age 17. Banks described being ordered to "shoot to kill" if the demonstrators entered the base and did not respond to warning shots, and recounted feeling unable to comprehend the order: "We could not understand this. These people were nothing more than nonviolent demonstrators. This was their land that our Air Force was trying to take away." Banks then witnessed the Japanese police rushing the demonstrators "in a frenzy" and "cracking skulls with a terrible sound" and Banks saw "elderly nuns with blood streaming down their faces." Banks recounted, "I felt sick at what I had seen and ashamed of the uniform I was wearing. [...] That terrible scene has remained with me all of these years. I shall never forget those demonstrators were peaceful people literally being beaten to death. Since that time, during my struggles in the American Indian Movement, I have seen [[Bureau of Indian Affairs|BIA]] police wield their clubs at [[Indigenous peoples of the Americans|Indians]] like that. Each time my memory flashed back to what I saw that day in Japan." Soon, following these and other experiences while "guarding the ramparts of the American Empire" in Japan, Banks went [[Desertion|AWOL]] and "wanted nothing more to do with the military or the U.S. government."<ref>Dennis Banks, Richard Erdoes. [https://archive.org/details/dennis-banks-ojibwa-warrior-dennis-banks-and-the-rise-of-the-american-indian-movement/page/n63/mode/1up?q=%22shoot+to+kill%22 "Ojibwa Warrior: Dennis Banks and the Rise of the American Indian Movement."] University of Oklahoma Press, 2004.</ref>
==== Korea ====
[[File:Unification Vanguard of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions Anti-US Demonstration.png|alt=A group of demonstrators at a command post are all dressed in blue uniforms unfurling large banners reading "This land is our land" in Korean, "YANKEE GO HOME" in English, and "Stop practicing for a war of aggression" in Korean.|thumb|The Unification Vanguard of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions unfurls large banners reading "This land is our land, [[Yankee go home|YANKEE GO HOME]]" and "Stop practicing for a war of aggression" in an August 2022 anti-US military demonstration.<ref>김준. (Kim Jun). [http://worknworld.kctu.org/news/articleView.html?idxno=500588 "쌍용훈련 재개 예고에 23기 중앙통선대, 포항 한미연합상륙훈련장 지휘소 기습점거투쟁" ("23rd Central Telecommunication Battalion, Pohang ROK-U.S. Combined Amphibious Training Center Command Post, Surprise Occupation Struggle to Announce Resumption of Ssangyong Training").] 노동과세계. 2022.08.12. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220828050027/http://worknworld.kctu.org/news/articleView.html?idxno=500588 Archived] 2022-08-28.</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXCK3s-vic8 "23기 민주노총 중앙통일선봉대 활동영상" ("23rd KCTU Central Unification Vanguard Activity Video").] 민주노총 (Confederation of Trade Unions). Aug 14, 2022. YouTube.</ref>|290x290px]]
The single nation of [[Korea]] has been divided by U.S. occupation since shortly after the Second World War, when the U.S. refused to withdraw its forces and helped orchestrate the holding of separate elections in the south, establishing the "Republic of Korea," a U.S. puppet state ruled by a series of [[Right-wing politics|right-wing]] dictatorships, which the U.S. continues to occupy and reserves control over the south Korean military during wartime. This puppet state is postured against the DPRK, which formed after the U.S.-sponsored separate elections in the south.<ref>People's Democracy Party and Liberation School. [https://www.liberationschool.org/korean-war-70-years/ “70 Years Too Long: The Struggle to End the Korean War.”] 25 June 2020. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230926063347/https://www.liberationschool.org/korean-war-70-years/ Archived] 2023-09-26.</ref> It is also positioned against China<ref>[https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/THAAD-missile-system-agitates-South-Korea-China-ties “THAAD Missile System Agitates South Korea-China Ties.”] Nikkei Asia, June 22, 2023.
‌</ref> and other targets of US imperialism, for example supplying thousands of soldiers on the imperialist side in the [[Vietnam War|Vietnam war]] and [[Iraq War|Iraq war]].<ref>[https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/155533 “Voices from Iraq: Why Is South Korea There?”] Hankyoreh, 2006-09-09. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240522070954/https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/155533 Archived] 2024-05-22.</ref>
Anti-US and anti-base movements in south Korea have existed since the beginning of U.S. occupation in Korea and continue to this day, both on the mainland of the Korean peninsula and on [[Jeju Island]], where locals and their supporters (including activists from other occupied nations in the Pacific)<ref>[https://socialistchina.org/2022/08/01/with-rimpac-south-korea-expands-its-military-footprint/ “With RIMPAC, South Korea Expands Its Military Footprint.”] Friends of Socialist China, August 2022. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230927054347/https://socialistchina.org/2022/08/01/with-rimpac-south-korea-expands-its-military-footprint/ Archived] 2023-09-27.</ref> attempted to prevent the construction of a naval base for over a decade.<ref>Benjamin, Medea. [https://www.telesurenglish.net/opinion/-Koreas-Jeju-Island-A-Model-for-Opposing-Militarism-20150530-0019.html “Korea’s Jeju Island: A Model for Opposing Militarism.”] Telesurenglish.net. teleSUR. 2015. [https://web.archive.org/web/20200119144150/https://www.telesurenglish.net/opinion/-Koreas-Jeju-Island-A-Model-for-Opposing-Militarism-20150530-0019.html Archived] 2020-01-19.</ref>
===== Maehyang-ri Kooni Firing Range =====
Between 1954 and 2005, two small islets, accessible by foot at low tide, off the coast of the village of Maehyang-ri were used as a bombing range for the U.S. Air Force. Residents of Maehyang-ri suffered deaths and injuries from errant bombs, extreme noise exposure, psychological damage, a heightened suicide rate, and pollution of the land and sea. Media coverage of the firing range was forbidden until south Korea's democratization movement in 1988.<ref name=":12" />
An article from 2000, before the range's closure, describes the situation at the time, stating that overall management of the range had been contracted out to [[Lockheed Martin Corporation|Lockheed Martin]]. The firing range's activities are described as follows:<blockquote>The Kooni Range is composed of a bombing range for bomber planes on the Nong-do island (which can be reached on foot during low tide) off the coast and a strafing range on the edge of the village. U.S. Air Force fighter jets and bombers, such as F-16, A-10, and OV-10, not only from the U.S. Air Force based in Korea, but also in Okinawa, Thailand, Guam, and the Philippines swoop on Maehyang-ri to drop their bombs and spray their bullets on the targets in the range in bombing practice and gunnery drills. The bombing and firing take place throughout the daylight hours and even until late at night for 250 days a year, stopping only for weekends and holidays.<ref>[https://www.peoplepower21.org/english/37772 "Maehyang-ri: From a Firing Range to a Test Ground for Human Rights and International Justice."] National Action Committee for the Closure of the Maehyang-ri U.S. Armed Forces International Bombing Range (August 15, 2000).</ref></blockquote>Though persistent struggle against the firing range finally resulted in its 2005 closure, the U.S. Air Force made no known effort to clean up the bombs left over from practice drills, leaving used shells to disintegrate and bleed chemicals into the ground and water. Fishermen from the village have trouble selling their products as some buyers are concerned over the contamination. Meanwhile, residents who were not killed by errant bombs from the range live with physical and psychological damages and the remaining pollution of their village.<ref name=":12" />
===== Soseong-ri anti-THAAD struggle =====
Since the US's introduction of the [[Terminal High Altitude Area Defense]] (THAAD) system, residents of the village of Soseong-ri have conducted ongoing protests against it, regularly holding rallies on the road leading to the THAAD site and coming into conflict with the police who were tasked with clearing the protestors to make way for US military supply trucks.<ref>Elich, Gregory. [https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/05/01/the-fight-over-thaad-in-korea/ "The Fight Over THAAD in Korea."] Counter Punch, May 1, 2024. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240503132441/https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/05/01/the-fight-over-thaad-in-korea/ Archived] 2024-05-03.</ref>
==== Hawaiʻi ====
The occupied nation of Hawaiʻi, whose sovereign government was overthrown by the US Navy in an 1893 coup d'etat, is the current location of the headquarters of the US military presence in the Indo-Pacific.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":21" />
===== Kahoʻolawe struggle =====
The island of [[Kahoʻolawe]] was taken under U.S. military control during the Second World War, first by a 1941 sublease from Kahoʻolawe Ranch Company, where the U.S. Army acquired bombing rights for $1 per year. It was then sequestrated by the Army for use as a live ordinance training area and its southern and eastern cliffs used for torpedo bomb testing and its western beaches as rehearsal landing areas. Following the war, the island was placed under the jurisdiction of the secretary of the U.S. Navy and continued to be used as a bombing target.<ref name=":13">[http://www.protectkahoolaweohana.org/history.html "History."] Protect Kaho'olawe 'Ohana.</ref> During the [[Korean War]], a mock airfield and vehicle convoys were set up on the island for practice bombing and strafing. During the Vietnam War, replicas of Vietnamese surface-to-air missile sites and radar stations were set up and bombed. In 1965, the Navy exploded 500 tons of [[Trinitrotoluene|TNT]] to simulate an [[Nuclear weapon|atomic]] blast and observe its effects on target ships moored nearby. This left a massive crater on the island as well as cracked the island's freshwater aquifer, destroying the island's ability to hold freshwater.<ref>Graff, Cory. [https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/kahoolawe-island-us-navy "Kaho’olawe: The Pacific’s Battered Bullseye."] The National WWII Museum, New Orleans, November 20, 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240415120918/https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/kahoolawe-island-us-navy Archived] 2024-04-15.</ref>
Though efforts to return the island to the people of Hawaiʻi had begun since 1941,<ref name=":14">[http://www.protectkahoolaweohana.org/mo699olelo-699256ina.html "moʻolelo ʻāina."] Protect Kaho'olawe 'Ohana.</ref> it was in the 1970s that a series of protest occupations of the island escalated and brought increased attention to the movement. Members of [[Aboriginal Lands of Hawaiian Ancestry]], or ALOHA, had been seeking recognition for Native Hawaiian rights and reparations, "inspired by recognition given to [[Indigenous peoples of the Americans|Native Americans]] at [[Wounded Knee]], and to [[Native Alaskans]]," as one activist later described.<ref name=":15">Noe Tanigawa. [https://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/arts-culture/2022-02-18/navy-bombs-and-the-rescue-of-kahoolawe-in-the-1970s "Navy bombs and the rescue of Kahoʻolawe in the 1970s."] Hawaiʻi Public Radio, February 18, 2022. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240502051559/https://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/arts-culture/2022-02-18/navy-bombs-and-the-rescue-of-kahoolawe-in-the-1970s Archived] 2024-05-02.</ref> However, as legal methods stalled, they wanted to call attention to the condition of Native Hawaiians by occupying federal land, and organizing began to occupy Kahoʻolawe.<ref name=":15" />
The first successful landing on the island occurred on January 4, 1976 when nine individuals in one boat managed to get past the Coast Guard which was blocking most of the other people who came to join the occupation. Two of the nine individuals managed to remain on the island for two days, surveying the land. Witnessing the devastation of the bombings and acting out of [[Aloha ʻAina]], love of the land, a movement to stop the bombing also formed, notably coalescing into the organization [[Protect Kahoʻolawe ʻOhana]] (PKO).<ref name=":15" />
Bombing on Kahoʻolawe was finally halted in 1990. The Navy finally transferred Kahoʻolawe to the state of Hawaiʻi in 2003, halting its clean up efforts, including the clean up of [[unexploded ordinance]], in 2004, with approximately 25% of the island remaining uncleared.<ref name=":15" /><ref name=":13" /> As noted on PKO's website, "Selected areas were cleared for specific uses including revegetation with native species, trails and roads, cultural sites, camping areas, and educational facilities. However, the island and its surrounding waters remain dangerous. Therefore, access continues to be restricted."<ref name=":14" />
Regarding the significance of Kahoʻolawe and the struggle for its return and rehabilitation, PKO's website says "In working for the return of Kaho‘olawe, many of the current generation rediscovered what it means to be Hawaiian. Restoring the island will provide a place and a purpose for a new generation of Hawaiians to be trained in the rights and responsibilities of 'kahu o ka ‘āina,' or stewards of the land."<ref name=":14" /> One member of PKO was quoted in a 2011 Honolulu Civil Beat article as saying, "Coming out of a very conservative Cold War era to challenge the [[Military–industrial complex|military industrial complex]] was to set yourself outside of the dominant norm. It wasn’t easy."<ref name=":16">LaFrance, Adrienne. [https://www.civilbeat.org/2011/10/13158-who-remembers-the-hawaiian-renaissance/ “Who Remembers the Hawaiian Renaissance?”] Honolulu Civil Beat, October 7, 2011. [https://web.archive.org/web/20231202023826/https://www.civilbeat.org/2011/10/13158-who-remembers-the-hawaiian-renaissance/ Archived] 2023-12-02.</ref> The struggle for Kahoʻolawe has also been described as a significant landmark in the [[Hawaiian Renaissance]] of the 1970s.<ref name=":16" /><ref>[https://www.kaainamomona.org/post/5-major-events-of-the-1970s-hawaiian-renaissance-movement “5 Major Events of the 1970s Hawaiian Renaissance Movement.”] ʻĀina Momona, September 27, 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240505073710/https://www.kaainamomona.org/post/5-major-events-of-the-1970s-hawaiian-renaissance-movement Archived] 2024-05-05.</ref>
===== Pōhakuloa Training Area =====
===== Mākua Valley struggle =====
===== Shut Down Red Hill =====
A fuel storage facility built during the Second World War and located on [[Kapūkaki]], also known as Red Hill, has been leaking since 1943, releasing a conservative estimate of 200,000 gallons of fuel into the surrounding environment. It is located just 100 feet (30.48 meters) above Oʻahu’s primary drinking water supply. A 2021 fuel leak from the facility poisoned the water system for nearly 100,000 residents, sending thousands of people into acute reactions due to petroleum exposure.<ref>[https://sierraclubhawaii.org/redhill "Shut Down Red Hill."] Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi.</ref> Following the incident, more than 70 organizations joined in the cause for closing Red Hill, including organizations such as [[Oʻahu Water Protectors]] and the [[Sierra Club]]. The military initially denied the problems, but finally suspended operation of the facility, though still fought against citizens' demands to close the facility completely. In the face of continued pressure, the Department of Defense eventually agreed to shut down the facility.<ref name=":10" />
Though the DoD agreed to shut down the facility, the medical repercussions for citizens harmed by the past leaks are ongoing, and residual fuel remains in the facility and the soil which poses a danger of contaminating Oʻahu's sole source aquifer. Speaking on the state of affairs in a 2024 interview with [[The Red Nation Podcast|The Red Nation]], activist [[Mikey Inouye]] commented "At this point, we are going to have to organize around Red Hill for, probably, the rest of our lives."<ref name=":11">Mikey Inouye, Jen Marley. [https://therednation.org/the-red-nation-podcast-from-hawaii-to-palestine-occupation-is-a-crime-w-mikey/ "From Hawai’i to Palestine, occupation is a crime w/ Mikey."] Episode 348, [[The Red Nation Podcast]], March 5, 2024. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240503140758/https://therednation.org/the-red-nation-podcast-from-hawaii-to-palestine-occupation-is-a-crime-w-mikey/ Archived] 2024-05-03. ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKLNxHjELGA YouTube version]).</ref> Inouye observed that the facility was not "defueled" so much as it was "dispersed [...] into our drinking water, into our sole source aquifer that provides water to nearly half a million people on the this island, it was dispersed into our bloodstreams, into the blood of children, including civilian children, including Kānaka Maoli children--Native Hawaiians, into our ecosystem, into our other-than-human relatives, and until that is removed from Hawaiʻi, Red Hill, to me, has not been shut down yet. And so, it's going to be the work of, possibly, generations."<ref name=":11" />
==== Guam ====
Guåhan, also called Guam, is a heavily militarized US colony with 27% of its land occupied by the US military. Guam is sometimes referred to as the "tip of the spear" of US military presence in the Pacific.<ref>Kenneth Gofigan Kuper. [https://fpif.org/guam-the-sharpening-of-the-spears-tip/ “Guam: The Sharpening of the Spear’s Tip.”] Foreign Policy In Focus, July 20, 2022. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240128004148/https://fpif.org/guam-the-sharpening-of-the-spears-tip/ Archived] 2024-01-28.</ref>
==== Philippines ====
===== Subic Bay =====
==== Diego Garcia ====
Diego Garcia is part of the [[Chagos Islands]] in the Indian Ocean, where a U.S. base is sustained on a British land lease. Over a ten year period beginning in 1965, a joint US-UK effort expelled the population in order to build a US military base.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6" /> [[John Pilger]], writing in Al Jazeera, explained: "People were herded into the hold of a rusting ship, the women and children forced to sleep on a cargo of bird fertiliser. They were dumped in the [[Republic of Seychelles|Seychelles]], where they were held in prison cells, and then shipped onto [[Republic of Mauritius|Mauritius]], where they were taken to a derelict housing estate with no water or electricity. Twenty-six families died there in brutal poverty, nine individuals committed suicide, and girls were forced into prostitution to survive."<ref name=":7">[[John Pilger|Pilger, John]]. [https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/2/25/how-britain-forcefully-depopulated-a-whole-archipelago “How Britain Forcefully Depopulated a Whole Archipelago.”] Al Jazeera, February 25, 2019. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240331143352/https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/2/25/how-britain-forcefully-depopulated-a-whole-archipelago Archived] 2023-03-31.</ref>
The strategically significant location of Diego Garcia enables the U.S. military to reach numerous locations, for example helping to launch the U.S. bombings of [[Republic of Iraq|Iraq]] and [[Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan|Afghanistan]].<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":22">Marsh, Jenni. [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/09/asia/chagos-islands-feature-intl/index.html “Is the United States about to Lose Control of Its Secretive Diego Garcia Military Base?”] CNN, March 9, 2019.</ref>
Though not strictly an anti-base movement, there is a movement for the survivors of the forced expulsion to be able to return to their home. However, this has been blocked by various political maneuvers by the West, including by the establishment of a marine nature reserve in the area, which would prevent them from engaging in necessary subsistence fishing if they were able to return.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":6" />
=== North America ===
=== North America ===
==== United States of America ====
[[File:Activists from the School of Americas Watch engage in protest.jpg|alt=Activists take part in a peaceful protest outside the entrance of Ft. Benning, by laying down and covering the Fort's entry sign with photos and posters depicting its victims.|thumb|Activists protest against the training of Latin American officers in terroristic repression tactics in Ft. Benning (now Ft. Moore), commonly known as the School of the Americas.<ref name=":17">[[Alan MacLeod|MacLeod, Alan]]. [https://www.mintpressnews.com/notorious-georgia-army-school-became-americas-training-ground-for-global-torture/285223/ “How a Notorious Georgia Army School Became America’s Training Ground for Global Torture.”] [[MintPress News]], July 5, 2023. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240418022331/https://www.mintpressnews.com/notorious-georgia-army-school-became-americas-training-ground-for-global-torture/285223/ Archived] 2024-04-18.</ref>]]
===== School of the Americas =====
The [[Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation]], often (and formerly) called the School of the Americas, is infamous for its training of officers in tactics used for violent suppression, torture, and massacres throughout [[Iberoamerica|Latin America]]. It was originally founded in 1948 in [[Republic of Panama|Panama]], but was expelled in 1984 and relocated to the US, and is currently located in Fort Moore (formerly Fort Benning), [[State of Georgia|Georgia]], USA.<ref name=":17" />
===== Fort Lawton occupation =====
[[Fort Lawton]] was a 1,100-acre Army post in [[Seattle]], [[State of Washington|Washington]], USA. It was located on land from which the local indigenous peoples had been forcibly removed in the wake of the 1855 [[Treaty of Point Elliot]]. By the 1960s, the U.S. government began a process of declaring the fort as surplus,<ref name=":18">[https://www.seattle.gov/parks/allparks/discovery-park/discovery-park-history "Discovery Park History."] Seattle.gov. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240509142830/https://www.seattle.gov/parks/allparks/discovery-park/discovery-park-history Archived] 2024-05-09.</ref> and amid various proposals for the land's future use, an organization called the United Indians People's Council (later, [[United Indians of All Tribes]])<ref name=":19">Patrick McRoberts and Kit Oldham. [https://www.historylink.org/File/5513 “Fort Lawton military police clash with Native American and other protesters in the future Discovery Park on March 8, 1970.”] Essay 5513, HistoryLink.org, 2003-08-15. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230406044126/https://www.historylink.org/File/5513 Archived] 2023-04-06.</ref> made a claim on Fort Lawton, citing rights under 1865 US-Indian treaties which had promised "the reversion of surplus military land to their original landowners."<ref name=":18" />
In 1970, when the base was in the process of being decommissioned, Native leaders met with Senator Henry M. Jackson and presented him with a detailed plan for turning the base into a center for indigenous arts, culture, and social services, intending to create a facility that could help Native people who had been displaced into the city by federal relocation policies. However, the senator was not receptive, and as [[Sid Mills]], who participated in the events recounted, "After that, we realized if we were going to get any land back, we were going to have to take it."<ref name=":20">Hopper, Frank. [https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justice/2023/08/31/indians-seattle-fort-lawton-land-back “The Day the Indians Took over Seattle’s Fort Lawton—and Won Land Back.”] YES! Magazine, August 31, 2023. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240509145503/https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justice/2023/08/31/indians-seattle-fort-lawton-land-back Archived] 2024-05-09.</ref>
A week later,<ref name=":20" /> on March 8, 1970, a protest occupation by over 100 Native Americans and supporters occurred at the fort, which had been "virtually empty and dormant for months" and used only intermittently.<ref name=":18" /> The occupation began first with a breach of the base's perimeter, after which "about 30 Native American men, women, and children were setting up camp and had managed to erect a teepee when they were discovered by a patrol."<ref name=":19" /> Military police attacked the occupiers with nightsticks and chased them with Jeeps and arrested them,<ref name=":20" /> though some people managed to escape and roam the base for some time.<ref name=":19" /> Two more takeover attempts occurred over the next three weeks. Meanwhile, outside the front gate, a 24-hour occupation camp was maintained. After a third takeover attempt on April 2, negotiations began with city, state, and federal officials to get at least some of the land back, eventually resulting in a 99-year agreement in which the city would receive the land, but would lease 17 acres to the [[United Indians of All Tribes Foundation]]. The [[Daybreak Star Indian Cultural Center]] was built on the land and opened in 1977 while other parts of the area were turned into a park.<ref name=":20" />
==== Vieques, Puerto Rico ====
The U.S. military used the island of [[Vieques]] as a bombing range and as a location for training exercises from 1941 until 2003. Over the course of its activity there, the U.S. military forcibly displaced people from their homes; seized 77% of the island;<ref name=":26">{{Web citation|author=Monisha Rios|newspaper=Foreign Policy in Focus|title=The Toxic Legacy of U.S. Foreign Policy in Vieques, Puerto Rico|date=2023-04-23|url=https://fpif.org/the-toxic-legacy-of-us-foreign-policy-in-vieques-puerto-rico/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926191719/https://fpif.org/the-toxic-legacy-of-us-foreign-policy-in-vieques-puerto-rico/|archive-date=2023-09-26}}</ref> caused injury, illness and deaths<ref>{{Web citation|author=Monisha Rios|newspaper=Foreign Policy in Focus|title=The Toxic Legacy of U.S. Foreign Policy in Vieques, Puerto Rico|date=2023-04-23|url=https://fpif.org/the-toxic-legacy-of-us-foreign-policy-in-vieques-puerto-rico/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926191719/https://fpif.org/the-toxic-legacy-of-us-foreign-policy-in-vieques-puerto-rico/|archive-date=2023-09-26|quote=With as little as a 24-hour notice, their belongings were tossed into uncleared resettlement plots that “lacked any previous conditioning, water, or basic sanitary provisions,” and their family homes were bulldozed. Some, including pregnant women and children, were given only tarps to live under for three months until the Navy brought materials for them to build a new home.  Under these conditions, several people became severely ill, and a pregnant woman died.}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|author=Linda Backiel|year=2003|title=The People of Vieques, Puerto Rico vs. the United States Navy|title-url=https://monthlyreviewarchives.org/index.php/mr/article/view/MR-054-09-2003-02_1|quote=On April 19,1999, two F-18 jets mistook the navy's red-and-white checked observation post on the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico for a target, and dropped 500 pound bombs on it. Vieques resident David Sanes was working at the observation post as a security guard for the navy. He was killed almost instantly. Three other men from Vieques were seriously injured.|publisher=Monthly Review|doi=10.14452/MR-054-09-2003-02_1|volume=Vol. 54, No. 9 February 2003}}</ref> among the local population and committed acts of sexual violence and harassment; polluted the land and water with [[lead]], [[depleted uranium]], [[napalm]], and other toxic substances; and left behind [[unexploded ordinance]].<ref name=":27">{{Web citation|author=Wilfred Chan|newspaper=The Guardian|title=‘I thought they’d kill us’: how the US navy devastated a tiny Puerto Rican island|date=2023-05-01|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/30/vieques-puerto-rico-us-navy-base-training|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240902031832/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/30/vieques-puerto-rico-us-navy-base-training|archive-date=2024-09-02}}</ref>
Vieques has been reported to have higher cancer rates than any other municipality of Puerto Rico, with one study showing a 27% higher cancer rate than the rest of Puerto Rico.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Valeria Pelet|newspaper=The Atlantic|title=Puerto Rico’s Invisible Health Crisis|date=2016-09-03|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/vieques-invisible-health-crisis/498428/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241011054315/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/vieques-invisible-health-crisis/498428/|archive-date=2024-10-11}}</ref> As a result of the extreme health and environmental damages caused in Vieques, it was declared a [[Superfund]] cleanup site, meaning it requires a special protocol for decontamination due to its toxicity. The military and its contractors cleanup methods have included open-air bombing of found munitions and open-air burning of vegetation, both of which have been criticized as exacerbating the health and environmental damage.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Denise Oliver Velez|newspaper=Daily Kos|title=Women in Vieques, Puerto Rico, lead the fight against U.S. Navy contamination of their island|date=2018-03-11|url=https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/11/1745739/-Women-in-Vieques-Puerto-Rico-lead-the-fight-against-U-S-Navy-contamination-of-their-island|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127115608/https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/11/1745739/-Women-in-Vieques-Puerto-Rico-lead-the-fight-against-U-S-Navy-contamination-of-their-island|archive-date=2023-01-27}}</ref>
The U.S. began forced removals of the population and land theft of the island of Vieques in 1941, with people being removed from their homes with as little as 24-hour notice, losing access to their [[Subsistence agriculture|subsistence]] farm plots and their homes getting bulldozed. Another wave of forced removals began in 1947, with the U.S. Department of Defense seizing 17,500 acres of agricultural land; by 1948, the U.S. Navy had forcibly taken 77% of the island of Vieques away from the local population, with the displaced people either having to leave entirely or be crowded into the remaining 23% of the island.<ref name=":26" />
Among the protests of the people against the Navy's activity in Vieques were the actions in the wake of the death of Davis Sanes in 1999, a local who was killed when the Navy misidentified a target and dropped a bomb on the security guard post where he worked, as well as wounding others. Activists engaged in acts of [[civil disobedience]] as well as instances of breaking into the base<ref name=":27" /> and occupying the base, with their activities preventing naval exercises for a year until the military forcibly cleared their encampments in 2000.<ref>{{Video citation|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uluOaP697NA|channel=AJ+|title=The US Navy's Toxic Playground: Vieques, Puerto Rico {{!}} AJ+|date=2019-06-12}}</ref>
==== Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba ====


=== South America ===
=== South America ===
== See also ==
* [[United States imperialism]]
* [[Yankee go home]]
== External links ==
* [https://worldbeyondwar.org/no-bases/ USA’s Military Empire: A Visual Database] by World Beyond War. A database of the USA's network of military bases around the world, with an interactive map.


== References ==
== References ==
<references />
<references />
[[Category:Anti-imperialism]]

Revision as of 12:21, 18 November 2024

Map of U.S. military bases and troops deployed abroad.

Anti-base movement is a term which refers to various movements which focus on opposing aspects of military bases, which can range from opposition to specific activities of bases or base personnel, to opposing their presence or construction in particular locations, to opposing their existence in general. It can also refer to these movements collectively.[1][2]

Given that the majority of foreign military bases around the world are United States bases,[3][4][5] many anti-base movements around the world have been directed at U.S. bases.

Among the many grievances expressed by anti-base movement activists are issues such as criminal and negligent activity of base personnel, the environmental pollution and destruction generated by U.S. bases, the erosion of national sovereignty that occurs with the U.S. military presence in host locations, and the international provocations and tensions that occur when countries host US bases and collaborate with US military exercises.[6]

Background

Prevalence of US bases

A map showing the distribution of US bases worldwide, with many in Europe, West Asia, and the Pacific region, as well as many small bases in Africa and some in Latin America.
Map of U.S. base presence around the world.

As of a 2021 estimate, the U.S. has approximately 750 bases around the world in at least 80 countries, with the largest concentration of them being in Japan (especially in Okinawa), followed by Germany and south Korea,[7] resulting in many corresponding anti-base movements. There are also anti-base movements within locations claimed by the U.S. as its own territory, some examples being Guam and Hawaiʻi.[8][9] A 2024 study by The Tricontinental described 902 known US military bases.[10]

Additionally, some anti-base movements oppose bases which are not formally considered to be a US base by law, but which effectively serve as a US base. An example of this would be the Military-Civilian Port Complex in south Korea, technically a south Korean base, but which local activists have explained is a place where "strategic assets in the US military can stop by whenever they please according to American interests."[11]

Another example of a legally ambiguous de facto base is the West Africa Logistics Network (WALN) at Kotoka International Airport in Ghana, a "cooperative security location" where the US military and related personnel are afforded numerous privileges, including the ability to conduct construction activities and store defense equipment, supplies, and materiel, enter into Ghana without visa or passport nor customs inspection for U.S. personnel, and protection for U.S. soldiers from being prosecuted by Ghanaian authorities for crimes, following a 2018 Status of Forces Agreement.[12][13]

History of US bases

A map showing names and location of indigenous nations in the US accompanied by a list of US military forts and corresponding locations on the map.
A map depicting indigenous nations in the territory claimed by the U.S., as well as numbers showing U.S. military forts.

The US settler-colonial state was established on North America through a series of military forts expanding across the continent. The settler state used its military force to defend and advance "civilian" settlers (and their volunteer militias) in their encroachment on more and more land, including punishing indigenous peoples' defense of their borders agreed on in treaties with the settler state, and used its military presence to "force compliance" when indigenous tribes and bands refused to live on reservations or make treaties on the invading settlers' terms.[14]

By this process of expanding military power across the continent, the US occupied much of North America, and then began expanding its base presence to numerous other locations throughout the world starting in the 1890s, leading to further resistance movements. For example, the US military "faced opposition and an insurgency seeking independence almost immediately after seizing the Philippines in 1898".[1] As it expanded its empire in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the U.S. built bases in Alaska, Hawaiʻi, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, Panama, and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.[15]

Author David Vine describes the dynamics of coercion and power imbalance which has accompanied the establishment of many of the U.S.'s post-WWII bases which had, "to one degree or another" been "consented to" by the host nations' governments in the context of "gaping power disparities" and inflated fears about the Soviet Union:

Although the United States has been an empire occupying Native American lands with military bases since independence, its post–World War II collection of foreign bases has been distinguished by the fact that most national governments have, to one degree or another, consented to the country’s presence [...]  Importantly, however, this consent has come in a context of often gaping power disparities, where US officials have used US dominance, forms of political-economic coercion, and fears of the Soviet Union (at times, intentionally inflated) to ensure national governments consented to a US base presence.[1]

Issues with US bases

Violence toward local population

The violent crimes of U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilian contractors working in base areas include numerous killings and sexual assault crimes committed against the citizens of the countries where they are stationed.[16]

In addition to violence perpetrated by individual personnel against locals, negligence during routine activities of bases have also caused violent damage to local populations, such as people being seriously injured and killed by errant bombs.[17]

Areas with a base presence also face issues of increased sex trafficking. For example, in south Korea, a legally-sanctioned prostitution industry was purposely encouraged and maintained by the government in special zones around US bases, with this system persisting for decades.[18]

Environmental destruction

Outdoor photo showing a major leak of PFAS foam, with a parked car partially submerged in the foam almost up to its windows.
Toxic PFAS foam leak at Kadena Air Base in Okinawa.

The environmental destruction brought about by base presence takes a range of forms, arising from the initial construction of the base and how it alters the environment, to the ongoing activities of the base in that particular location, to the after-effects that remain even after a base has ceased operation. Some examples of environmental hazards are leakages of jet fuel into local drinking water, toxic PFAS foam leaks, litter from practice drills bleeding chemicals into the ground and water, and extreme noise pollution. In addition to physically hazardous pollution, culturally or spiritually significant sites can be destroyed or desecrated by base presence. A 2018 petition by World Can't Wait to stop RIMPAC exercises, addressed to the then-governor of Hawaiʻi, describes further examples:

Retired military ships are towed out to sea and then targeted with missiles and torpedoes until they sink to a watery graveyard on the ocean floor. There they leach toxic chemicals, including PCBs, which accumulate in the bodies of fish, dolphins and whales – and ultimately into our food. Amphibious landing exercises, which include heavy tracked vehicles, damage reefs, erode shoreline, and endanger wildlife. [...] Areas that have been used for live fire training and bombing practice are uninhabitable; bombing and live fire practice is not only continuing but escalating in the age of the “Pacific Pivot”. Indigenous Hawaiian cultural sites have been destroyed. U.S. Military fuel storage tanks are leaking poisons into the drinking water in Hawai`i's most populous city. Vast areas of land and water are so toxic as to be unusable.[19]

National sovereignty concerns

Protestors hold signs reading "STOP RIMPAC", "STOLEN LAND" and "END U.S. OCCUPATION" while standing beside an inverted Hawaiian flag
Hawaiians protesting the occupation of their nation by the U.S.

Bases may be established and their continuing presence maintained by a variety of methods, ranging from mutual legal agreements to brute force and occupation. Often, a combination of these factors is employed in installing and maintaining a base's presence when its presence is based in imperialist, bourgeois interests not premised on local popular support or when local popular support diminishes and wavers over time.

The presence of foreign bases in one's territory raises concerns over the effect the base presence has on national sovereignty in the host (or occupied) nation. This may range from issues such as which nation has authority to prosecute crimes committed by base personnel in the host country, to what the land area, local resources, and local labor consumed by the base could be otherwise used for by the host nation's populace, to the potential consequences that large concentrations of foreign military personnel and their equipment being present in the location may have on the host nation's overall national security, domestic policymaking, and diplomatic bargaining power.[20]

Status of Forces Agreements

The legal agreements made between countries to host foreign military personnel and how domestic laws apply to them are commonly known as Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs). There is no standard form of SOFA and they may include a variety of provisions. In the case of SOFAs made with the U.S., the most commonly addressed issue in a SOFA is legal protection from prosecution for U.S. personnel while present in a foreign country, and whether the U.S. will exercise sole jurisdiction over U.S. personnel or shared jurisdiction with the host. SOFAs are not themselves security arrangements nor basing agreements. As is noted by a Congressional Research Service report, "a SOFA itself does not constitute a security arrangement; rather, it establishes the rights and privileges of U.S. personnel present in a country in support of the larger security arrangement." The 2012 report noted that, at time of writing, the U.S. was party to more than 100 agreements that may be considered SOFAs.[21]

Though SOFAs are not formally basing agreements, a 2021 article in The Tricontinental explains how Ghana's 2018 SOFA agreement nonetheless allows the U.S. such a level of authority over facilities in Ghana so as to be able to effectively set up a base through Articles 5 and 6 of the agreement, designating agreed facilities to be of "unimpeded" and "exclusive" use to the U.S. and that Ghana "shall also provide access to and use of a runway that meets the requirements of United States forces."[13] Furthermore, the agreement gives the U.S. forces and U.S. contractors the ability to "undertake construction activities" and make alterations to agreed facilities and to "preposition and store defense equipment, supplies, and materiel" at agreed facilities and areas,[22] gives U.S. soldiers the right to carry arms on duty, allows U.S. army and civilians to enter Ghana without a passport nor a visa but just identification cards, allows the U.S. army to not take responsibility for the death of any other person aside from U.S. military personnel, and third party issues involving U.S. military personnel will only be resolved according to the laws of the United States, among other preferential treatments.[22][23][12] Such agreements between the U.S. and Ghana have led to the establishment of the West Africa Logistics Network (WALN) at Kotoka International Airport in Accra to "ferry supplies and arms to special forces troops across the region".[24]

War provocations

The presence of military bases in a location leads to the concern of that location becoming a strategically significant location with regard to international tensions involving the host country, the hosted country, and their various neighbors, allies, targets, and/or rivals. People who live in the host nation are confronted with the potential wartime actions resulting from the presence of a base in their territory in addition to the peacetime concern of the base's potential to provoke international tensions, such as through military build-up, exercises, and shows of force. Individuals and organizations within anti-base movements may express a variety of perspectives on such issues, such as locals' urgent safety concerns over their location becoming a diplomatic pawn or wartime hotspot or launch pad, general anti-war or pacifist sentiments, promotion of non-alignment, and explicitly anti-imperialist sentiment.[1]

In the present-day context, of high concern in host locations of US bases is what this portends in regard to conflicts between the US-led imperialist bloc on one hand, and the imperialists' perceived or declared targets and rivals on the other, sometimes referred to as the New Cold War.[25]

As political scientist and Guam independence advocate[26] Kenneth Gofigan Kuper has described, writing about the highly militarized US colony of Guam:

In the coming years, I am afraid things will get worse for the people of Guam unless restraint enters the picture. [...] One of Guam’s former non-voting representatives in Congress, Ben Blaz, once said of our island, “We are equal in war, but not in peace.” I think he was only half-right. While we are clearly not equal in peace, as no colony can be, we are NOT equal in war. We in Guam bear the brunt of U.S. power projection in the Indo-Pacific, both as provocative threat and as a target. The task of securing a “free and open” Indo-Pacific is disproportionately on our backs.[27]

Representing Oceania Rising at a 2017 talk about militarization and resistance in the Pacific, Kuper gave an example of the dynamic at play in US-occupied Guam, where the U.S. military presence threatens Guam more than protects it. Explaining that Guam is within range of China's IRBM the DF-26, as well as within the range of the DPRK's precision strike means, Kuper stated "I remember, when all this news was coming out, you had people on Facebook and social media saying, 'Thank God the U.S. military is here. They're gonna protect us from these threats.' And I countered, saying, 'Why the Hell are these threats here to begin with--in Guam? It's exactly the United States military presence.'" Kuper continued, clarifying that rather than offering protection, the military presence "makes everything so much more dangerous." He added that the people of Guam experience periodic threats over geopolitical tensions, stating "we are pawns in a game we don't even want to be a part of."[28]

Bases and anti-base movements by location

A world map divided by US combatant command, generally corresponding to major continents and regions. Includes USNORTHCOM (North America), USSOUTHCOM (South America), USEUCOM (Europe), USAFRICOM (Africa), USCENTCOM (Middle East), USINDOPACOM (Indo-Pacific).
Areas of responsibility of US combatant commands.

The United States Department of Defense (DoD) divides its commands into various areas of responsibility (AOR), with seven combatant commands covering geographic areas (one of them being US Space Command), while the remaining commands cover functions such as transportation and special operations.[29][30] As US bases are generally managed and strategically conceptualized according to this structure, and likewise anti-base movements in different nations are thus strategically linked and affected by which areas of responsibility they fall under or adjoin, this section will be divided roughly following its scheme and some of its terminology.

Africa

U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) began its operations on October 1, 2007 and became fully operational on October 1, 2008. It is headquartered at Kelley Barracks in Stuttgart, Germany.[31] The US's main "enduring" base in Africa is Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti.[32]

The US justifies its military presence in Africa by claiming to assist African governments in building capacity in their armed forces to deal with violent extremists and to respond to crises.[31] However, despite claiming to combat terrorism, the increased presence of the US military in Africa has been followed by an increase in terrorist incidents,[33] and essentially functions as a protection racket.[34] As an article in Peoples Dispatch points out, "the main cause behind the explosion of terrorist organizations in the region was the 2011 Libyan war in which AFRICOM itself was an aggressor."[35]

As was observed by Tunde Osazua of Black Alliance for Peace (BAP), the occupation of countries and bombings that the US has used to achieve its goals in Africa are acts of terror, along with the economic terrorism of murderous sanctions enforced by the US and austerity programs imposed via the IMF and World Bank.[36] The actual purpose of AFRICOM has been summarized by BAP as "to use U.S. military power to impose U.S. control of African land, resources and labor to service the needs of U.S. multi-national corporations and the wealthy in the United States".[37]

Niger

Demonstrators in Niger hold a French and English language sign which says: "Mouvement M62 Union sacrée pour la sauvegarde de la souveraineté et la dignité du peuple Here is Agadez not Washington US Army Get Out"
Demonstrators in Niger calling for departure of US troops.

Niger has previously been a center for US operations in west and north Africa, as part of a chain of US bases and outposts across the Sahel region.[38][39] Prominent US bases in Niger are Air Base 101 in Niamey and Air Base 201 in Agadez, and a CIA-run base in Dirkou. Airbase 201 is the second largest US base in Africa (the largest being in Djibouti).[40]

In 2023, Niger's newly-formed National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP) terminated Niger's military agreements with France and ordered the withdrawal of French troops. France initially resisted this and attempted to mobilize the pro-western grouping of ECOWAS into a war against Niger,[41] but eventually stood down and withdrew its troops.[40] In March of 2024, CNSP suspended Niger's military cooperation with the US.[38]

Middle East

Europe

Indo-Pacific

Map showing USINDOPACOM covering the Pacific and Indian Oceans and much of Asia, as well as multiple locations of U.S. bases throughout the area.
U.S. Indo-Pacific Command area of responsibility and selected U.S. bases.[42]

The U.S. designates the area covering the Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, and much of Asia as USINDOPACOM. It is the oldest and largest of the U.S.'s unified commands, and it has been referred to by the DoD as its "priority theater". The DoD has identified competition with China as the organizing principle of the Indo-Pacific posture since the early 2010s.[42] Its area of responsibility covers more area than any of the other geographic commands and shares borders with all five of the other geographic commands.[43]

Map shows Diego Garcia situated in the Indian Ocean, with labels stating it is 2000 miles from Somalia; 2290 miles from Aden, Yemen; 2700 miles from Bahrain and Qatar; 2900 miles from Kabul, Afghanistan; 1100 miles from India; 3800 miles from Taiwan strait, 3650 miles from East Timor; 4000 miles from Darwin, Australia; and 3270 miles from Perth, Australia (Fremantle).
A map of Diego Garcia's location in the Indian Ocean, including labels of distances to various other locations.

U.S. military presence in the Indo-Pacific is headquartered in the occupied nation of Hawaiʻi,[44] whose sovereign government the US Navy overthrew in an 1893 coup.[45] Some of the US's most significant overseas bases and forces are in the Indo-Pacific, with many positioned in south Korea and Japan, as US strategy in this area targets China, DPRK, and Russia. This area is the location of the world's largest maritime exercise, the US-led RIMPAC.[46]

In Oceania, the U.S. has significant air and naval bases on its occupied colony Guam, and operates the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The Department of Defense is building a high-frequency radar system in Palau. Additionally, the U.S. military has ties with Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and Tonga.[44] Also significant is the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean, built after the forced displacement of the island's inhabitants through a joint US-UK effort.[47][48] Diego Garcia's location is strategically significant, enabling the U.S. military to reach numerous locations in surrounding regions, for example having been used for launching U.S. bombings of Iraq and Afghanistan.[49][50]

Japan

Okinawa

Okinawa has more than half of the 54,000 U.S. troops based in Japan.[42] Okinawa was once the independent Ryukyu Kingdom which was then colonized by Japan, later falling under the rule of the United States for 27 years (until 1972),[51] and is currently regarded as a Japanese prefecture.[52] Protests against US occupation and land seizures in Okinawa began within months of the end of the Second World War.[1]

Sunagawa struggle

In the 1950s, a significant anti-base struggle emerged in the Tokyo suburb Sunagawa, in protest of the expansion of Tachikawa Air Base. The expansion was to occur via land expropriations on behalf of the U.S. Air Force,[1] slated to evict 140 families from their homes and farmland.[53] The local farmers began trying to prevent the work of land surveyors, such as by blocking the path of their vehicles and forming the Sunagawa Anti-Base Expansion Alliance. Over time, regional and national labor unions, student groups, Buddhist monks and nuns, lawmakers and other citizens became involved in the struggle as well.[53] A report in The Japan Times explains that by 1956, "2,000 police officers were ordered to evict the farmers from the land that they continued to occupy, only to be met with 6,000 protesters, resulting in a clash that left roughly 1,000 people injured, many seriously." The struggle against the base expansion continued, and by 1968, the U.S. military "quietly announced it had given up on the planned runway extension" and returned the base to the Japanese government in 1977.[53]

Dennis Banks, who would later be a co-founder of the American Indian Movement, was present during some of these events in 1956, while stationed in Japan at age 17. Banks described being ordered to "shoot to kill" if the demonstrators entered the base and did not respond to warning shots, and recounted feeling unable to comprehend the order: "We could not understand this. These people were nothing more than nonviolent demonstrators. This was their land that our Air Force was trying to take away." Banks then witnessed the Japanese police rushing the demonstrators "in a frenzy" and "cracking skulls with a terrible sound" and Banks saw "elderly nuns with blood streaming down their faces." Banks recounted, "I felt sick at what I had seen and ashamed of the uniform I was wearing. [...] That terrible scene has remained with me all of these years. I shall never forget those demonstrators were peaceful people literally being beaten to death. Since that time, during my struggles in the American Indian Movement, I have seen BIA police wield their clubs at Indians like that. Each time my memory flashed back to what I saw that day in Japan." Soon, following these and other experiences while "guarding the ramparts of the American Empire" in Japan, Banks went AWOL and "wanted nothing more to do with the military or the U.S. government."[54]

Korea

A group of demonstrators at a command post are all dressed in blue uniforms unfurling large banners reading "This land is our land" in Korean, "YANKEE GO HOME" in English, and "Stop practicing for a war of aggression" in Korean.
The Unification Vanguard of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions unfurls large banners reading "This land is our land, YANKEE GO HOME" and "Stop practicing for a war of aggression" in an August 2022 anti-US military demonstration.[55][56]

The single nation of Korea has been divided by U.S. occupation since shortly after the Second World War, when the U.S. refused to withdraw its forces and helped orchestrate the holding of separate elections in the south, establishing the "Republic of Korea," a U.S. puppet state ruled by a series of right-wing dictatorships, which the U.S. continues to occupy and reserves control over the south Korean military during wartime. This puppet state is postured against the DPRK, which formed after the U.S.-sponsored separate elections in the south.[57] It is also positioned against China[58] and other targets of US imperialism, for example supplying thousands of soldiers on the imperialist side in the Vietnam war and Iraq war.[59]

Anti-US and anti-base movements in south Korea have existed since the beginning of U.S. occupation in Korea and continue to this day, both on the mainland of the Korean peninsula and on Jeju Island, where locals and their supporters (including activists from other occupied nations in the Pacific)[60] attempted to prevent the construction of a naval base for over a decade.[61]

Maehyang-ri Kooni Firing Range

Between 1954 and 2005, two small islets, accessible by foot at low tide, off the coast of the village of Maehyang-ri were used as a bombing range for the U.S. Air Force. Residents of Maehyang-ri suffered deaths and injuries from errant bombs, extreme noise exposure, psychological damage, a heightened suicide rate, and pollution of the land and sea. Media coverage of the firing range was forbidden until south Korea's democratization movement in 1988.[17]

An article from 2000, before the range's closure, describes the situation at the time, stating that overall management of the range had been contracted out to Lockheed Martin. The firing range's activities are described as follows:

The Kooni Range is composed of a bombing range for bomber planes on the Nong-do island (which can be reached on foot during low tide) off the coast and a strafing range on the edge of the village. U.S. Air Force fighter jets and bombers, such as F-16, A-10, and OV-10, not only from the U.S. Air Force based in Korea, but also in Okinawa, Thailand, Guam, and the Philippines swoop on Maehyang-ri to drop their bombs and spray their bullets on the targets in the range in bombing practice and gunnery drills. The bombing and firing take place throughout the daylight hours and even until late at night for 250 days a year, stopping only for weekends and holidays.[62]

Though persistent struggle against the firing range finally resulted in its 2005 closure, the U.S. Air Force made no known effort to clean up the bombs left over from practice drills, leaving used shells to disintegrate and bleed chemicals into the ground and water. Fishermen from the village have trouble selling their products as some buyers are concerned over the contamination. Meanwhile, residents who were not killed by errant bombs from the range live with physical and psychological damages and the remaining pollution of their village.[17]

Soseong-ri anti-THAAD struggle

Since the US's introduction of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, residents of the village of Soseong-ri have conducted ongoing protests against it, regularly holding rallies on the road leading to the THAAD site and coming into conflict with the police who were tasked with clearing the protestors to make way for US military supply trucks.[63]

Hawaiʻi

The occupied nation of Hawaiʻi, whose sovereign government was overthrown by the US Navy in an 1893 coup d'etat, is the current location of the headquarters of the US military presence in the Indo-Pacific.[44][45]

Kahoʻolawe struggle

The island of Kahoʻolawe was taken under U.S. military control during the Second World War, first by a 1941 sublease from Kahoʻolawe Ranch Company, where the U.S. Army acquired bombing rights for $1 per year. It was then sequestrated by the Army for use as a live ordinance training area and its southern and eastern cliffs used for torpedo bomb testing and its western beaches as rehearsal landing areas. Following the war, the island was placed under the jurisdiction of the secretary of the U.S. Navy and continued to be used as a bombing target.[64] During the Korean War, a mock airfield and vehicle convoys were set up on the island for practice bombing and strafing. During the Vietnam War, replicas of Vietnamese surface-to-air missile sites and radar stations were set up and bombed. In 1965, the Navy exploded 500 tons of TNT to simulate an atomic blast and observe its effects on target ships moored nearby. This left a massive crater on the island as well as cracked the island's freshwater aquifer, destroying the island's ability to hold freshwater.[65]

Though efforts to return the island to the people of Hawaiʻi had begun since 1941,[66] it was in the 1970s that a series of protest occupations of the island escalated and brought increased attention to the movement. Members of Aboriginal Lands of Hawaiian Ancestry, or ALOHA, had been seeking recognition for Native Hawaiian rights and reparations, "inspired by recognition given to Native Americans at Wounded Knee, and to Native Alaskans," as one activist later described.[67] However, as legal methods stalled, they wanted to call attention to the condition of Native Hawaiians by occupying federal land, and organizing began to occupy Kahoʻolawe.[67]

The first successful landing on the island occurred on January 4, 1976 when nine individuals in one boat managed to get past the Coast Guard which was blocking most of the other people who came to join the occupation. Two of the nine individuals managed to remain on the island for two days, surveying the land. Witnessing the devastation of the bombings and acting out of Aloha ʻAina, love of the land, a movement to stop the bombing also formed, notably coalescing into the organization Protect Kahoʻolawe ʻOhana (PKO).[67]

Bombing on Kahoʻolawe was finally halted in 1990. The Navy finally transferred Kahoʻolawe to the state of Hawaiʻi in 2003, halting its clean up efforts, including the clean up of unexploded ordinance, in 2004, with approximately 25% of the island remaining uncleared.[67][64] As noted on PKO's website, "Selected areas were cleared for specific uses including revegetation with native species, trails and roads, cultural sites, camping areas, and educational facilities. However, the island and its surrounding waters remain dangerous. Therefore, access continues to be restricted."[66]

Regarding the significance of Kahoʻolawe and the struggle for its return and rehabilitation, PKO's website says "In working for the return of Kaho‘olawe, many of the current generation rediscovered what it means to be Hawaiian. Restoring the island will provide a place and a purpose for a new generation of Hawaiians to be trained in the rights and responsibilities of 'kahu o ka ‘āina,' or stewards of the land."[66] One member of PKO was quoted in a 2011 Honolulu Civil Beat article as saying, "Coming out of a very conservative Cold War era to challenge the military industrial complex was to set yourself outside of the dominant norm. It wasn’t easy."[68] The struggle for Kahoʻolawe has also been described as a significant landmark in the Hawaiian Renaissance of the 1970s.[68][69]

Pōhakuloa Training Area
Mākua Valley struggle
Shut Down Red Hill

A fuel storage facility built during the Second World War and located on Kapūkaki, also known as Red Hill, has been leaking since 1943, releasing a conservative estimate of 200,000 gallons of fuel into the surrounding environment. It is located just 100 feet (30.48 meters) above Oʻahu’s primary drinking water supply. A 2021 fuel leak from the facility poisoned the water system for nearly 100,000 residents, sending thousands of people into acute reactions due to petroleum exposure.[70] Following the incident, more than 70 organizations joined in the cause for closing Red Hill, including organizations such as Oʻahu Water Protectors and the Sierra Club. The military initially denied the problems, but finally suspended operation of the facility, though still fought against citizens' demands to close the facility completely. In the face of continued pressure, the Department of Defense eventually agreed to shut down the facility.[9]

Though the DoD agreed to shut down the facility, the medical repercussions for citizens harmed by the past leaks are ongoing, and residual fuel remains in the facility and the soil which poses a danger of contaminating Oʻahu's sole source aquifer. Speaking on the state of affairs in a 2024 interview with The Red Nation, activist Mikey Inouye commented "At this point, we are going to have to organize around Red Hill for, probably, the rest of our lives."[71] Inouye observed that the facility was not "defueled" so much as it was "dispersed [...] into our drinking water, into our sole source aquifer that provides water to nearly half a million people on the this island, it was dispersed into our bloodstreams, into the blood of children, including civilian children, including Kānaka Maoli children--Native Hawaiians, into our ecosystem, into our other-than-human relatives, and until that is removed from Hawaiʻi, Red Hill, to me, has not been shut down yet. And so, it's going to be the work of, possibly, generations."[71]

Guam

Guåhan, also called Guam, is a heavily militarized US colony with 27% of its land occupied by the US military. Guam is sometimes referred to as the "tip of the spear" of US military presence in the Pacific.[72]

Philippines

Subic Bay

Diego Garcia

Diego Garcia is part of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean, where a U.S. base is sustained on a British land lease. Over a ten year period beginning in 1965, a joint US-UK effort expelled the population in order to build a US military base.[47][48] John Pilger, writing in Al Jazeera, explained: "People were herded into the hold of a rusting ship, the women and children forced to sleep on a cargo of bird fertiliser. They were dumped in the Seychelles, where they were held in prison cells, and then shipped onto Mauritius, where they were taken to a derelict housing estate with no water or electricity. Twenty-six families died there in brutal poverty, nine individuals committed suicide, and girls were forced into prostitution to survive."[49]

The strategically significant location of Diego Garcia enables the U.S. military to reach numerous locations, for example helping to launch the U.S. bombings of Iraq and Afghanistan.[49][50]

Though not strictly an anti-base movement, there is a movement for the survivors of the forced expulsion to be able to return to their home. However, this has been blocked by various political maneuvers by the West, including by the establishment of a marine nature reserve in the area, which would prevent them from engaging in necessary subsistence fishing if they were able to return.[49][48]

North America

United States of America

Activists take part in a peaceful protest outside the entrance of Ft. Benning, by laying down and covering the Fort's entry sign with photos and posters depicting its victims.
Activists protest against the training of Latin American officers in terroristic repression tactics in Ft. Benning (now Ft. Moore), commonly known as the School of the Americas.[73]
School of the Americas

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, often (and formerly) called the School of the Americas, is infamous for its training of officers in tactics used for violent suppression, torture, and massacres throughout Latin America. It was originally founded in 1948 in Panama, but was expelled in 1984 and relocated to the US, and is currently located in Fort Moore (formerly Fort Benning), Georgia, USA.[73]

Fort Lawton occupation

Fort Lawton was a 1,100-acre Army post in Seattle, Washington, USA. It was located on land from which the local indigenous peoples had been forcibly removed in the wake of the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliot. By the 1960s, the U.S. government began a process of declaring the fort as surplus,[74] and amid various proposals for the land's future use, an organization called the United Indians People's Council (later, United Indians of All Tribes)[75] made a claim on Fort Lawton, citing rights under 1865 US-Indian treaties which had promised "the reversion of surplus military land to their original landowners."[74]

In 1970, when the base was in the process of being decommissioned, Native leaders met with Senator Henry M. Jackson and presented him with a detailed plan for turning the base into a center for indigenous arts, culture, and social services, intending to create a facility that could help Native people who had been displaced into the city by federal relocation policies. However, the senator was not receptive, and as Sid Mills, who participated in the events recounted, "After that, we realized if we were going to get any land back, we were going to have to take it."[76]

A week later,[76] on March 8, 1970, a protest occupation by over 100 Native Americans and supporters occurred at the fort, which had been "virtually empty and dormant for months" and used only intermittently.[74] The occupation began first with a breach of the base's perimeter, after which "about 30 Native American men, women, and children were setting up camp and had managed to erect a teepee when they were discovered by a patrol."[75] Military police attacked the occupiers with nightsticks and chased them with Jeeps and arrested them,[76] though some people managed to escape and roam the base for some time.[75] Two more takeover attempts occurred over the next three weeks. Meanwhile, outside the front gate, a 24-hour occupation camp was maintained. After a third takeover attempt on April 2, negotiations began with city, state, and federal officials to get at least some of the land back, eventually resulting in a 99-year agreement in which the city would receive the land, but would lease 17 acres to the United Indians of All Tribes Foundation. The Daybreak Star Indian Cultural Center was built on the land and opened in 1977 while other parts of the area were turned into a park.[76]

Vieques, Puerto Rico

The U.S. military used the island of Vieques as a bombing range and as a location for training exercises from 1941 until 2003. Over the course of its activity there, the U.S. military forcibly displaced people from their homes; seized 77% of the island;[77] caused injury, illness and deaths[78][79] among the local population and committed acts of sexual violence and harassment; polluted the land and water with lead, depleted uranium, napalm, and other toxic substances; and left behind unexploded ordinance.[80]

Vieques has been reported to have higher cancer rates than any other municipality of Puerto Rico, with one study showing a 27% higher cancer rate than the rest of Puerto Rico.[81] As a result of the extreme health and environmental damages caused in Vieques, it was declared a Superfund cleanup site, meaning it requires a special protocol for decontamination due to its toxicity. The military and its contractors cleanup methods have included open-air bombing of found munitions and open-air burning of vegetation, both of which have been criticized as exacerbating the health and environmental damage.[82]

The U.S. began forced removals of the population and land theft of the island of Vieques in 1941, with people being removed from their homes with as little as 24-hour notice, losing access to their subsistence farm plots and their homes getting bulldozed. Another wave of forced removals began in 1947, with the U.S. Department of Defense seizing 17,500 acres of agricultural land; by 1948, the U.S. Navy had forcibly taken 77% of the island of Vieques away from the local population, with the displaced people either having to leave entirely or be crowded into the remaining 23% of the island.[77]

Among the protests of the people against the Navy's activity in Vieques were the actions in the wake of the death of Davis Sanes in 1999, a local who was killed when the Navy misidentified a target and dropped a bomb on the security guard post where he worked, as well as wounding others. Activists engaged in acts of civil disobedience as well as instances of breaking into the base[80] and occupying the base, with their activities preventing naval exercises for a year until the military forcibly cleared their encampments in 2000.[83]

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba

South America

See also

External links

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 David Vine (2019). No Bases? Assessing the Impact of Social Movements Challenging US Foreign Military Bases, vol. Volume 60, Number S19. [PDF] Current Anthropology.
  2. Yeo, Andrew. "Not in Anyone's Backyard: The Emergence and Identity of a Transnational Anti-Base Network." International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Sep., 2009), pp. 571-594. Oxford University Press.
  3. David Vine, Patterson Deppen and Leah Bolger. "Drawdown: Improving U.S. and Global Security Through Military Base Closures Abroad." Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, September 20, 2021. Archived 2024-03-12.
  4. Jawad, Ashar. "5 Countries With the Most Overseas Military Bases." Insider Monkey, December 15, 2023.
  5. "Why 90% Of Foreign Military Bases Are American." AJ+ on YouTube, Jan 13, 2022.
  6. “The Feminist Response to RIMPAC and the US War against China.” Friends of Socialist China, July 27, 2022. Archived 2023-09-22.
  7. Mohammed Hussein and Mohammed Haddad. "Infographic: US military presence around the world." Al Jazeera, 10 September 2021. Archived 2024-03-28.
  8. Chris Gelardi and Sophia Perez. “‘Biba Guåhan!’: How Guam’s Indigenous Activists Are Confronting Military Colonialism.” The Nation, October 21, 2019.
  9. 9.0 9.1 Jedra, Christina. “How Hawaii Activists Helped Force the Military’s Hand on Red Hill.” Honolulu Civil Beat, March 14, 2022. Archived 2022-02-22.
  10. “Hyper-Imperialism: A Dangerous Decadent New Stage.” Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, January 23, 2024. Archived 2024-05-21.
  11. “American Nuclear Submarine Enters Jeju Naval Base.” Hankyoreh, 2017. Archived 2023-03-25.
  12. 12.0 12.1 Prashad, Vijay. “Why Does the United States Have a Military Base in Ghana?” Peoples Dispatch, June 15, 2022. Archived 2024-03-18.
  13. 13.0 13.1 “Defending Our Sovereignty: US Military Bases in Africa and the Future of African Unity.” Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, July 5, 2021. Archived 2023-03-04.
  14. Stewart, Richard W. "American Military History." Chapter: "Winning the West: The Army  in the Indian Wars, 1865-1890." Volume 1: The United States Army and the Forging of a Nation, 1775-1917. Second Edition. Center of Military History, United States Army. Washington, D.C., 2009. Archived 2024-04-22.
  15. David Vine. The United States of War, University of California Press, 2020.
  16. Mitchell, Jon. “NCIS Case Files Reveal Undisclosed U.S. Military Sex Crimes in Okinawa.” The Intercept. October 3, 2021. Archived 2022-08-06.
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2 "Bombing ends, but village still not free from past." Yonhap News Agency. September 12, 2012. Archived 2022-09-27.
  18. Shorrock, Tim. “Welcome to the Monkey House.” The New Republic. December 2, 2019. Archived 2022-09-26.
  19. "For People, Land, Air and Sea: Stop RIMPAC Military Exercises." Petition to Governor of Hawaii David Ige, started by World Can't Wait-Hawai`i. Change.org, May 17, 2018. Archived 2024-04-03.
  20. Yeo, Andrew. "Security, Sovereignty, and Justice in U.S. Overseas Military Presence." International Journal of Peace Studies, Volume 19, Number 2, Winter 2014. Archived 2023-04-13.
  21. "Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA): What Is It, and How Has It Been Utilized?" Congressional Research Service, March 15, 2012. (PDF). Archived 2024-04-15.
  22. 22.0 22.1 "Agreement Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and GHANA." May 9, 2018. United States Department of State.
  23. Maxwell Boamah Amofa. “The Sandhurst Colonial Mentality and the Rule of Law.” Modern Ghana. March 13, 2023. Archived 2023-02-14.
  24. Katie Bo Williams. “AFRICOM Adds Logistics Hub in West Africa, Hinting at an Enduring US Presence.” Defense One, February 20, 2019. Archived 2024-04-02.
  25. Joseph Gerson and Michael Klare. "Statement on Averting a New Cold War Between the United States and China." Committee for a SANE U.S.-China Policy, October 2020. Archived 2022-01-19.
  26. Michael Lujan Bevacqua. “In Wake of Trump’s Win, Let’s Consider Independence for Guåhan.” The Guam Daily Post, November 19, 2016.
  27. Kenneth Gofigan Kuper. "Living at the tip of the spear: Guam and restraint." Responsible Statecraft, July 21, 2020. Archived 2023-09-27.
  28. "Militarization and Resistance in the Pacific, In the Age of Trump." University of Hawai'i at Manoa, March 13, 2017.  APECEpic on YouTube,  Apr 1, 2017. Archived 2024-04-18.
  29. “USAFA Library Guides: Combatant Commands: Combatant Command Overview.” U.S. Air Force Academy.
  30. "Combatant Commands." U.S. Department of Defense. Archived 2023-04-15.
  31. 31.0 31.1 "About the Command." Africom.mil. Archived 2024-05-16.
  32. "China and Sub-Saharan Africa." Congressional Research Service, January 8, 2024.
  33. Turse, Nick. “Violence Has Spiked in Africa since the Military Founded AFRICOM, Pentagon Study Finds.” The Intercept, July 29, 2019. Archived 2024-04-09.
  34. Dan Glazebrook. “Recolonisation of Africa by Endless War.” The Herald, November 7, 2017. Archived 2022-07-05.
  35. Kulkarni, Pavan. “AFRICOM Military’s Exercise: The Art of Creating New Pretexts for Propagating US Interests.” Peoples Dispatch, June 2021. Archived 2023-12-02.
  36. Tunde Osazua. “AFRICOM and the Guise of Terrorism.” Black Agenda Report, July 15, 2020. Archived 2023-04-02.
  37. “U.S. Out of Africa! Shut Down AFRICOM.” The Black Alliance for Peace. Archived 2024-05-19.
  38. 38.0 38.1 “Niger Suspends Military Cooperation with US: Spokesman.” Al Jazeera, March 17, 2024. Archived 2024-05-21.
  39. Banks, Chris. “Niger Declares American Military Presence ‘Illegal,’ Kicks out U.S. Troops.” Liberation News, March 28, 2024. Archived 2024-05-15.
  40. 40.0 40.1 Kulkarni, Pavan. “Why Has Niger Declared US Military Presence in Its Territory Illegal?” Peoples Dispatch, March 19, 2024. Archived 2024-04-14.
  41. Marie, Kayla. “Niger’s New Government Defies Imperialist-Backed ECOWAS War Threats.” Liberation News, August 11, 2023. Archived 2024-05-23.
  42. 42.0 42.1 42.2 "U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM)." Congressional Research Service, March 5, 2024.
  43. "USPACOM Area of Responsibility." U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.
  44. 44.0 44.1 44.2 "The Pacific Islands." Congressional Research Service, January 25, 2024. Archived 2024-02-11.
  45. 45.0 45.1 Jon Olsen (2022-11-15). "Hawai’i—The Very First U.S. Regime Change." CovertAction Magazine. Archived from the original on 2022-11-16.
  46. Takahashi Kosuke. “US-Led RIMPAC, World’s Largest Maritime Exercise, Starts without China or Taiwan.” The Diplomat, July 01 2022. Archived 2024-02-26.
  47. 47.0 47.1 Asoka Bandarage. “U.S. Military Presence and Popular Resistance in Sri Lanka.” CovertAction Magazine, August 12, 2019. Archived 2023-10-03.
  48. 48.0 48.1 48.2 David Vine. “The Truth about the U.S. Military Base at Diego Garcia.” Truthdig, June 15, 2015. Archived 2023-01-29.
  49. 49.0 49.1 49.2 49.3 Pilger, John. “How Britain Forcefully Depopulated a Whole Archipelago.” Al Jazeera, February 25, 2019. Archived 2023-03-31.
  50. 50.0 50.1 Marsh, Jenni. “Is the United States about to Lose Control of Its Secretive Diego Garcia Military Base?” CNN, March 9, 2019.
  51. Sayo Saruta. “Okinawa’s Peace Movement Carves Its Own Path.” The Japan Times, March 4, 2024. Archived 2024-04-06.
  52. Moé Yonamine. “Fighting for Okinawa.” MR Online, July 28, 2017. Archived 2023-09-28.
  53. 53.0 53.1 53.2 Dustin Wright. "‘Sunagawa Struggle’ ignited anti-U.S. base resistance across Japan." The Japan Times, May 3, 2015. Archived 2015-05-05.
  54. Dennis Banks, Richard Erdoes. "Ojibwa Warrior: Dennis Banks and the Rise of the American Indian Movement." University of Oklahoma Press, 2004.
  55. 김준. (Kim Jun). "쌍용훈련 재개 예고에 23기 중앙통선대, 포항 한미연합상륙훈련장 지휘소 기습점거투쟁" ("23rd Central Telecommunication Battalion, Pohang ROK-U.S. Combined Amphibious Training Center Command Post, Surprise Occupation Struggle to Announce Resumption of Ssangyong Training"). 노동과세계. 2022.08.12. Archived 2022-08-28.
  56. "23기 민주노총 중앙통일선봉대 활동영상" ("23rd KCTU Central Unification Vanguard Activity Video"). 민주노총 (Confederation of Trade Unions). Aug 14, 2022. YouTube.
  57. People's Democracy Party and Liberation School. “70 Years Too Long: The Struggle to End the Korean War.” 25 June 2020. Archived 2023-09-26.
  58. “THAAD Missile System Agitates South Korea-China Ties.” Nikkei Asia, June 22, 2023. ‌
  59. “Voices from Iraq: Why Is South Korea There?” Hankyoreh, 2006-09-09. Archived 2024-05-22.
  60. “With RIMPAC, South Korea Expands Its Military Footprint.” Friends of Socialist China, August 2022. Archived 2023-09-27.
  61. Benjamin, Medea. “Korea’s Jeju Island: A Model for Opposing Militarism.” Telesurenglish.net. teleSUR. 2015. Archived 2020-01-19.
  62. "Maehyang-ri: From a Firing Range to a Test Ground for Human Rights and International Justice." National Action Committee for the Closure of the Maehyang-ri U.S. Armed Forces International Bombing Range (August 15, 2000).
  63. Elich, Gregory. "The Fight Over THAAD in Korea." Counter Punch, May 1, 2024. Archived 2024-05-03.
  64. 64.0 64.1 "History." Protect Kaho'olawe 'Ohana.
  65. Graff, Cory. "Kaho’olawe: The Pacific’s Battered Bullseye." The National WWII Museum, New Orleans, November 20, 2021. Archived 2024-04-15.
  66. 66.0 66.1 66.2 "moʻolelo ʻāina." Protect Kaho'olawe 'Ohana.
  67. 67.0 67.1 67.2 67.3 Noe Tanigawa. "Navy bombs and the rescue of Kahoʻolawe in the 1970s." Hawaiʻi Public Radio, February 18, 2022. Archived 2024-05-02.
  68. 68.0 68.1 LaFrance, Adrienne. “Who Remembers the Hawaiian Renaissance?” Honolulu Civil Beat, October 7, 2011. Archived 2023-12-02.
  69. “5 Major Events of the 1970s Hawaiian Renaissance Movement.” ʻĀina Momona, September 27, 2021. Archived 2024-05-05.
  70. "Shut Down Red Hill." Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi.
  71. 71.0 71.1 Mikey Inouye, Jen Marley. "From Hawai’i to Palestine, occupation is a crime w/ Mikey." Episode 348, The Red Nation Podcast, March 5, 2024. Archived 2024-05-03. (YouTube version).
  72. Kenneth Gofigan Kuper. “Guam: The Sharpening of the Spear’s Tip.” Foreign Policy In Focus, July 20, 2022. Archived 2024-01-28.
  73. 73.0 73.1 MacLeod, Alan. “How a Notorious Georgia Army School Became America’s Training Ground for Global Torture.” MintPress News, July 5, 2023. Archived 2024-04-18.
  74. 74.0 74.1 74.2 "Discovery Park History." Seattle.gov. Archived 2024-05-09.
  75. 75.0 75.1 75.2 Patrick McRoberts and Kit Oldham. “Fort Lawton military police clash with Native American and other protesters in the future Discovery Park on March 8, 1970.” Essay 5513, HistoryLink.org, 2003-08-15. Archived 2023-04-06.
  76. 76.0 76.1 76.2 76.3 Hopper, Frank. “The Day the Indians Took over Seattle’s Fort Lawton—and Won Land Back.” YES! Magazine, August 31, 2023. Archived 2024-05-09.
  77. 77.0 77.1 Monisha Rios (2023-04-23). "The Toxic Legacy of U.S. Foreign Policy in Vieques, Puerto Rico" Foreign Policy in Focus. Archived from the original on 2023-09-26.
  78. “With as little as a 24-hour notice, their belongings were tossed into uncleared resettlement plots that “lacked any previous conditioning, water, or basic sanitary provisions,” and their family homes were bulldozed. Some, including pregnant women and children, were given only tarps to live under for three months until the Navy brought materials for them to build a new home. Under these conditions, several people became severely ill, and a pregnant woman died.”

    Monisha Rios (2023-04-23). "The Toxic Legacy of U.S. Foreign Policy in Vieques, Puerto Rico" Foreign Policy in Focus. Archived from the original on 2023-09-26.
  79. “On April 19,1999, two F-18 jets mistook the navy's red-and-white checked observation post on the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico for a target, and dropped 500 pound bombs on it. Vieques resident David Sanes was working at the observation post as a security guard for the navy. He was killed almost instantly. Three other men from Vieques were seriously injured.”

    Linda Backiel (2003). The People of Vieques, Puerto Rico vs. the United States Navy, vol. Vol. 54, No. 9 February 2003. Monthly Review. doi: 10.14452/MR-054-09-2003-02_1 [HUB]
  80. 80.0 80.1 Wilfred Chan (2023-05-01). "‘I thought they’d kill us’: how the US navy devastated a tiny Puerto Rican island" The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-09-02.
  81. Valeria Pelet (2016-09-03). "Puerto Rico’s Invisible Health Crisis" The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2024-10-11.
  82. Denise Oliver Velez (2018-03-11). "Women in Vieques, Puerto Rico, lead the fight against U.S. Navy contamination of their island" Daily Kos. Archived from the original on 2023-01-27.
  83. AJ+ (2019-06-12). "The US Navy's Toxic Playground: Vieques, Puerto Rico | AJ+". YouTube.