Op-ed: Opposing US military bases and arms sales

M V Ramana

The worldwide resentment against the US invasion and now occupation of Iraq should be channelled into opposing US militarism through, for example, opposing the setting up and maintenance of US military bases around the world as well as opposing US arms sales or purchases

On the midnight of April 30, the US Navy gave up a firing range that it had occupied for six decades in the Caribbean island of Vieques, Puerto Rico. The Navy’s withdrawal was a direct result of the protest movement that emerged over the decades, which was itself fuelled by the Navy’s expropriation of lands of the local inhabitants and their forcible removal, as well as the environmental contamination that has been suspected as the cause of numerous health problems among inhabitants of the island. The US Navy’s withdrawal is an impressive victory and shows that the US military machine can actually be countered through peaceful protest. As the Vieques Support Campaign had predicted, this represents “not only... a victory for the people there” but also would “deny the US military network a key strategic launching pad for its military invasions in other parts of the world.”

This success story (hugely welcome in between news item after news item of excesses by the US military in Iraq and elsewhere) suggests one way to channelise global sentiment against US military actions. Even before the US attacked Iraq millions of people around the world had joined immense demonstrations in protest of the impending attack. This scale of mobilisation prior to the start of a war has been unprecedented. The announcement of an American administration headed by Paul Bremer, which signals the transition from the military invasion phase to the occupation phase in Iraq, is bound to provoke further resentment. It is this sentiment that should be channelised into continued peaceful opposition to US militarism.

Quite apart from the peace movement and civil society at large, the invasion has also prompted rethinking amongst political and strategic elites around the world. As well as right-wingers of all stripes. Their solutions, however, tend to be military focused, often ending up advocating the acquisition of nuclear or chemical or biological weapons. That is precisely the wrong lesson to have drawn from the recent events, and this interpretation of the Iraq war should be challenged. After all, the US defence budget, already the largest in the world and more than ten times the military budget of the second highest country, could be further increased.

An alternative possibility suggested by the success at Vieques is mobilising local and domestic opposition to US military bases. Overseas bases are important to US military planners. According to the US Department of Defense 2001 Base Structure Report, the US has military bases in 38 countries and separate territories. Independent analysts list more. Some of them have been cut down or are in the process of being dismantled, for example the ones in the Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, the US does seek greater military presence around the globe. Despite protestations by Donald Rumsfeld, there is still the likelihood that the US will establish permanent bases in Iraq. Closer home, Indo-US Military Relations: Expectations and Perceptions, a recent US Department of Defense sponsored study that was quoted widely in the Indian media, suggests that US military leaders would like access to Indian bases and military infrastructure.

Thwarting this ambition to set up military bases around the world may be one way to focus the simmering global discontent against the US following its military invasion of Iraq. As India and Pakistan make overtures towards beginning diplomatic ties after a tumultuous few years, one agreement they could sign onto is not to allow any foreign military bases, especially US ones, in either country.

If military machinery is one arm of US imperialism, its aggressive actions around the world are also driven by weapons manufacturers. Companies like Lockheed Martin or Raytheon or McDonnell Douglas stand to gain billions of dollars from Pentagon purchases of their missiles and other deadly products. However, arms exports to countries around the world also contribute heftily to their profits, while also subsidising their research into the next generation of lethal weaponry. Between 1992 and 2000, US companies made $143 billions in foreign sales, dominating the world arms market. Hence just as opposing military bases would be one way to combat US militarism, not purchasing US arms would be another.

Both of these are primarily domestic projects in that they involve putting pressure on one’s own government to not allow the US to set up military bases or purchase some weapons system. However, in regions with conflicts and/or arms races, such as South Asia, such opposition would have to be coordinated with similar efforts in the “other” country. There should be no one-upmanship when it comes to this. And given the immensity of the task, a strong international networking component may prove necessary in any case. Such a set of coordinated actions could offer a way to work with the US peace movement, which may yet prove to be an important factor in changing US policy.

Two Updates: One of my previous columns (Censoring nuclear truths, Daily Times, June 27, 2002) dealt with the Indian censor board demanding a number of cuts in Anand Patwardhan’s epic documentary Jang Aur Aman (War and Peace). Patwardhan had appealed the decision and last week the Bombay High Court came out with a judgment defending the film and the filmmaker’s “legitimate right to decide as to what should be included therein.” This is an important victory for freedom of expression in India.

In another column (Remembering the Chernobyl catastrophe, Daily Times, April 24, 2003) I had discussed the upsurge in thyroid cancers in the region exposed to fallout from the Chernobyl. On the same day, the French Institute of Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety (IRSN) announced that the number of thyroid cancer cases continues to increase among those aged 2-16 at the time of the accident, now between 15 and 29. Preliminary data show between 140 and 180 new cases each year since 1999, and the epidemic is unlikely to be over. Another study discovered an increase in cases of childhood leukaemia. One must remember that these are official studies and are likely to be very conservative. The real effect may be even more severe.

M V Ramana is a physicist and research staff member at Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security and co-editor of Prisoners of the Nuclear Dream

Home | Editorial