1 / 40

The US Bases in the Philippines

Explore the history of Filipino resistance against U.S. military bases from 1521 to 1991, highlighting key events and interventions. Discover the challenges faced during various periods of conflict and the fight for sovereignty. Learn about the impact and significance of these struggles on Philippine history and foreign relations.

brendaj
Download Presentation

The US Bases in the Philippines

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The US Bases inthe Philippines Peoples Task for Bases Clean Up / ABC INTERNATIONAL

  2. History of Resistance 1521 - 1896 Filipino Revolutionaries fought against Spain and was winning when Spain sold the Philippines to the U.S. The U.S. Coopted Gen.Aguinaldo the Bourgeoisie Revolutionary Leader 1899 - 1942 Filipino Revolutionaries fought against the US and were defeated in bloody wars For every Us trooper killed 50 Filipino revolutionaries were killed or 200,000 out of 700,000 population. 1942 - 1945 Filipino fought against Japan and was winning when U.S. came back to invade it under the guise of liberators 1946 - 1969 Filipino revolutionaries continued to fight against u.S. and the puppet governments 1971 - 1986 Filipino fought against the dictator Marcos 1986 - 1991 Filipino fought against the bases and won

  3. U.S. Military Bases in the PhilippinesChronology of Foreign Intervention from the Military • 1898-1901 U.S. suppression of Philippine revolution • 1900 Philippine serves as staging area for US military contingents sent to China to crush the Boxer Rebellion • 1918-20 Philippines serves as base for UN intervention in Siberia during the Russian civil war • Philippines serves as base for protecting the “international Settlement” in Shanghai, China • 1942-45 Japanese conquer Philippines and use Clark for their 201st Air group ; Kamikaze base established nearby • 1950-53 Clark Air Base and Subic naval Base play key logistical role in support of US forces in the Korean war

  4. U.S. Military Bases in the PhilippinesChronology of Foreign Intervention from the Military • 1954 Plan drawn up to use bombers based at Clark Air Base t drop 3 tactical nuclear weapons on Viet Minh positions at Denbienphu to aid France’s colonial war . Plan not carried out • 1955-56 Subic used for CIA operations against China • 1958 Philippines Bases used for clandestine supply drops to US-backed right-wing rebels in Indonesia • Air Force units from Clark deployed o Thailand as show of force to back US-allied rightists in neighboring • 1965-75 Bases in Philippines play crucial logistical role during US intervention in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Us ships departed from Subic on combat missions. No direct bombing missions from Clark, in part because of Philippine sensitivity and in part because it was cheaper to fly from Thailand

  5. U.S. Military Bases in the PhilippinesChronology of Foreign Intervention from the Military 1971 Naval force from Subic deployed to Bay of Bengal to support Washington’s “tilt toward Pakistan” Policy during the India Pakistan- Bangladesh war 1975 Subic serves as staging for US military actions against kampuchea during “Mayaguez” incident 1978-80 Carrier task forces from Subic sent to the Indian Ocean and Arabian sea, with major deployments during the Iranian revolution, the north Yemen-South Yemen border war, and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan 1980 Marcos government announce that it has agreed that US bases can be used at staging areas fir US marines bound for Arabian Sea. Clark Air Base used as a staging point for the abortive mission of US Special operations Force who tried to free embassy hostages in Teheran 1986 Clark used to evacuate Marcos and his retinue to Guam and then Hawaii

  6. 1987 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON FOREIGN MILITARY BASES Article II, Section 8 : The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory. Article XVIII, Section 25 : After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under 2 treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.

  7. Extent of Contamination at Military Bases in the United States as of FY 1993(excluding overseas bases) 19,694 identified sites at 1,722 military installations plus 2,815 identified sites at 1,632 former defense facilities TOTAL : 22,509 sites in 3,354 actives and former bases Source : “The Defense Environment Cleanup Program ; Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1993,” Development of Defense, March 31, 1994

  8. By Aimee Houghton and Lenny Siegel Pacific Studies Center and Career IPRO, San Francisco State University The US military list 80 distinct facilities with a projected Defense Department cleanup cost, from start to completion of more than $100 million each. We list them, in descending order by total estimated cleanup cost. Containing more than 4,100 individual sites where investigation or cleanup is in progress, these bases represent the bulk of the currently planned cleanup program. Though fiscal year 1994, nearly $4billion had been spent at these installations, and the Pentagon projects an additional expenditure – from fiscal year 1995 on – of over $17 billion, for a total exceeding $21 billion. None of these figures include expenditures by other responsible parties, such as shell Oil at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal or Intel at Moffett Field.

  9. Cleanup of U.S. Air Force Bases Overseas (as of 1990) Source : Air Force survey of worldwide cleanup costs conducted for the Environmental Quality Division, Directorate of Engineering and Service, U.S. Air Force, April 1990;Cited in Defense Cleanup, Vol.3, No. 16, July 24, 1992

  10. “U.S. bases are encountering increasing numbers of cases where host countries are taking legal action against the bases or the officials responsible for hazardous waste management because of past practices of improper handling, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste” • From October 1984 to 1991 • There were 1,259 host country claims against the U.S. totaling about $25.8 million with 140 claims for an undetermined amount • Incidents of pollution confirmed at 113 additional sites and more are suspected at others. The preliminary cost estimate to settle claims that may arise at the 113 sites is $111 million, but the actual cost may be much higher. • Source : “Hazardous Waste: Management problems Continue at Overseas Base.” General Accounting Office Report, August 1991

  11. U.S. General Accounting Office, “Military Base Closures : U.S. Financial Obligations in the Philippines” January 22, 1992 Environmental officers at both Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Facility have identified contaminated sites and facilities that would not be in compliance with U.S. environmental standards… For examples, the underground storage tanks lack leak detection equipment, and fire fighting facilities have no drainage system. Instead, the fuel and chemical used in fire-fighting exercises seep directly into the soil and water table, and at the Navy facilities, the overflow goes directly into Subic Bay. … according to Air force and navy officials, if the United Sates unilaterally decided to clean up these bases in accordance with U.S. standards, the costs for environmental cleanup and restoration could approach Superfund proportions.

  12. (“to correct environmental hazardous and remedy situations that pose serious health and safety threats’) at Clark and Subic that were abandoned Pollution Abatement and Environmental Projects U.S. General Accounting Office report , January 22, 1992

  13. Examples of contaminated sites found at both Clark and Subic : • Dumping of untreated wastewaters into Subic Bay • Dumping of lead and other toxic metals from the Ship Repairpacility’s sandblasting site into Subic Bay or in the landfill • PCB contamination at the Subic Power Plant • Underground storage tanks • Fire-fighting training facilities U.S. General Accounting Office report , January 22, 1992

  14. List of 46 contaminated Sites at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility(Clark-27, Subic 19)

  15. List of 46 contaminated Sites at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility(Clark-27, Subic 19)

  16. CLARK US AIR FORCE BASE

  17. Migration of contamination in US Air Force Base

  18. Summary of Analytical Result on Soil from CDC(cited from : Weston International, “Soil and Water Baseline Study Report” Final Report, August 1997)

  19. Chemicals (exceeding WHO/PNS standards) founded in Clark Air Bases Well - Documented in 1997 Weston International Soil and Water Baseline Study, commissioned by the Clark Development Mercury Tetrachloroethane Lead Dichloroethane Benzene Dichloropropylene Toulene dibromo- Xylene chloromethane Dieldrin Ethylbenzene

  20. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances(RTECS) : 1985-86 Aldrin/Diedrin : in humans : potential for cancer; in animal : produced tumors of the lungs, liver, tyroid and adrenal gland. Benzene : Cancer(leukemia) Lead(Pb) : Kidney , blood, and nervous system effects Mercury (Hg) : Central nervous system depressant; mental effects PCB(Arochlors) : Potential for cancer in humans; produced tumors of the liver, pituitary gland and leukemia in animals ; skin, liver, and reproductive system effects. Blood testing required; females of child-bearing age and nursing mothers should be warned of potential harmful effects 1,1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethane : potential for cancer in humans;produced tumors of the liver in animals; liver gastrointestinal, and nervous system effects Toluene : Central nervous system depressant; respiratory effects Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon(TPH): Xylene : Central nervous system depressant; respiratory irritation

  21. Summary of Analytical Result on Water from Various Well in CDC(cited from : Weston International, “Soil and Water Baseline Study Report” Final Report, August 1997)

  22. McClellan Air Force Base 258 identified sites Including 18 acres of contaminated soil, 3 plumes of contaminated groundwater, PCB hot spots in DRMO area, disposal pits. 350 groundwater monitoring wells installed Some of the contaminants found in groundwater and soil samples ; benzene, carbon tetrachloride, toluene, perchloroethylene, Xylenes, chloroform, trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, lead, arsenic, cadium, mercury, PCBs and dioxin. 150 USTs removed Since 1979, 548 residences supplied with alternate drinking water source

  23. McClellan Air Force Base (near Sacramento, CA) Operable Unit(OU) A B B1 C C1 D E F G H Number Of Site 121 47 2 42 6 15 2 1 9 8 F G E D H Placed on NPL in 1997 Scheduled for closure Total estimated cleanup cost : $1.6 billion Expected date of cleanup completion : 2040 C C1 A B1 B

  24. Hazrdous Waste Accumulation PointsATTACHMENT 3

  25. SUBIC US NAVAL BASE

  26. Some contaminated sites in Subic - Woodward Clyde Report

  27. Comparisons of Size and Function Estimated Cleanup Cost : $95 million Est. Date of Completion : 2016 Estimated Cleanup Cost : $402m (52site) Est. Date of Completion : 2005 Estimated Cleanup Cost : $207m (42site) Est. Date of Completion : 2010

  28. Comparisons of Identified Sites

  29. Top 20 Hazardous Substances U.S.Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR) Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) Priority List for 19999

  30. Disease Related to Toxic Waste Cotamination Leukemia Research and Statistics Date : Feb 2000 Resource Person : Ronnie Geronimo Resources : Universal of Santo Tomas Hospital(UST) James L.Gordon Hospital (former Olongapo City Gen.Hosp) U.S.T. Hospital James L.Gordon Hospital

  31. FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND VULNERABILITY Fetal period extends from day 5(at 2 months) to birth(at 9 months) By 2 months after conception(10weeks LMP) organogenesis(the formation of organs) is almost complete and the fetus starts to resemble the human body. From this time on intrauterine fetal development is predominantly growth and maturation. Once the fetus is formed, it is less susceptible to toxic insult although the central nervous system is still sensitive. The brain continues to develop during the entire pregnancy and it is not known what agents may harm it in the latter stages of pregnancy.

  32. FETAL DEVELOPMENT AND VULNERABILITY SIXTH WEEK 35 - 41 days 8TH week LMP Hands feet and ears begin developing. Liver is identifiable. SEVENTH WEEK 42 - 48 days 9TH week LMP Most of heart structural development completed. Sexual differentiation of ovaries and testes begins. SIXTH WEEK 49 - 55 days 10TH week LMP Kidneys begin to form Bone calcification. Closure of palate occurs. Differentiation of external genitalia begins.

  33. Summary of Documents of Contamination at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility • The Environmental Review of he Drawdown Activities at Clark Air Base, Republic f the Philippines, U.S. Air Force, September 1991 • A preliminary and incomplete study which identifies some sites where hazardous materials were stored, used, and disposed of, sits where spills had taken place and where samples were taken showing varying levels of contamination. • Military Base Closures : U.S. Financial Obligations in the Philippines, U.S. General Accounting Office, January 1992 • Report by the investigative arm of Congress. Identifies some contaminated areas by environmental officers at both Clark and Subic. Estimates that the costs for environmental clean up could approach Superfund proportions. • 3. U.S. Navy Potential Restoration Sites on Board the U.S. Facility, Subic Bay, October 1992 • Identifies 28 potentially contaminated sites on Subic, as well as 28 potentially contaminated training areas and range utilized by Naval forces. At many sites, contamination was documented, but no cleanup had occurred; a limited cleanup had occurred but was found to be ineffective; or no investigation had occurred but contamination was suspected due to records indicating many years of toxic discharge

  34. Summary of Documents of Contamination at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility 4. World Health Organization Mission Report - Subic Bay Environmental Risk assessment and Investigation Program, May 1993 Prepared for the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR).Contains a brief history of SBFZ, lists operations conducted when the facility was still a naval base, and physical description of area. Identifies and classifies the 32 activity areas at Sublc based on potential contamination. Fifteen activity areas were identified as high priority, meaning areas requiring detailed site inspection and sampling. Based on the priority ranking, a physical sampling program costing $600,000 was recommended 5. An Environmental and Health Impact Report on Known and potentially Contaminated Sited at Former U.S. military Base in the Philippines, P. Bloom etal., August 1994 Written by a team of US and Filipino scientists sponsored by the Philippine program of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee(UUSC), a NGO in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Review of DOC, WHO, and other exciting information including site visits and interviews. Identifies 14 known contaminated sites, 17 potentially contaminated sites, and 5 areas of further concern at former Subic naval Station. Also identifies 5 contaminated sites and more than 10 potentially contaminated sites at Clark Air base. Describes potential health effects due to migration of toxic and human exposures.

  35. Summary of Documents of Contamination at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility • 6. Soil and Groundwater baseline Study of Clark Development Corporation, weston International(USA), August 1997 • Commissioned by the Clark Development Corporation for $26,000. Groundwater baseline study tested water for chemicals and bacteria within Clark field and CBCOM evacuation center. A total of 21 of the 24 locations sampled had at least one pollutant that exceeded drinking water standards. The soil study identified contamination at 13 of the sites studied. Recommended that the soil and groundwater of 75% of the soil sites be further investigated. • Environmental Baseline Study at Subic Bay Freeport Zone(SPFZ), Woodward -Clyde International (USA), February 1997 • Commissioned by the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority with a $670,000 oan from the World Bank.. Identified potential areas of significant contamination and determined the presence of toxic materials based on a review f past land uses and activities, sampling, and analysis of soils, Groundwater, and sediments within the developed areas of the Freeport. Recommended remediation of 9 sites costing $7-10 million and futher investigation of 13 sites costing $1.4 million.

  36. Summary of Documents of Contamination at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility 8. Technical Review of the Woodward – Clyde Environmental Baseline Studyat SBFZ, Clearwater Revival Company (USA), July 1998 Commissioned by Arc Ecology, a California based environmental and military toxic NGO, for the People’s Task Force for Bases Clean Up. Purpose was to determine whether the methodology and recommendations of the Woodward-Clyde report were technically sound. Determined that the study did not accurately characterize contaminations at Subic BAY Free Port Zone. Concluded that “ the results of sampling performed during the EBS indicate that existing environmental conditions within the Freeport Zone present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and environment” 9. Technical Review of the Weston Soil and Groundwater baseline Study of Clark Development Corporation, Clearwater Revival Company (USA), 1998 Commissioned by Arc Ecology for the People’s Task Force for Bases Clean Up. Purpose was to determine whether the methodology and recommendations of the report which was to continue to use the drinking water supply. Found flaws in the sampling methodology which could underestimate the extent of contamination. Also found Iimitations in the analysis of soil sampling results.

  37. Summary of Documents of Contamination at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility • Health for All, A Study of the health of People Living on or near the former US Clark Air Force Base 1996-1998. A joint project of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health and the Peoples Task force for Base Cleanup. • Principal investigator Dr,. Rosalie Bertell. • Survey of 759 family respondents from 13 communities around Clark Air Base. Survey included health problems, economic status, environmental conditions, and living conditions. The dominant health problems noted were female, urinary tract, and nervous system problems. Respiratory problems were reported in 24-31% of children in each community surveyed. Dust and poor water quality were each associated with kidney and urinary tract problems, corrosive drinking water with respiratory problems, and water with unusual taste or smell with nervous system problems. The highest percentage of female, urinary tract, and nervous system problems occurred in Margot, Sapang Bato,(Angeless)Macpagal, Poblacin, San Joaquin, nd cbcom(Mabakacat). Bertell recommended officials target these area for improvement, remediation, and cleanup. • “It is the polluters who should prove they are not causing the illness. • Victims Should not have to prove that they are victimized” • – Dr. Rosalie bertell Nov. 1998

More Related