Misstated claims, false presuppositions

Craig Whelden, the top civilian at Marine Forces Pacific makes misstated claims, false presuppositions, and continually invites himself into islander affairs with his public remarks regarding the Marianas as evidenced in the June 24, 2015 Saipan Tribune article by Jayson Camacho “Military: Pagan would be a training area, not a bombing range.” U.S. PACOM wants to assert American military influence through the DEIS process and through continual visits to persuade islanders that it is acceptable and OK to produce environmental and cultural damage onto Pagan and to further compromise Tinian for military training and bombing purposes. I disagree with what the military wants to do in Pagan and in Tinian.

Whelden states that, “it is a false characterization to liken the military’s use of Pagan to Farallon de Medenilla, Vieques or Ko’olawe.” Whelden fails to state what he means by “training area” and “bombing range” and he fails to demonstrate how and why FDM, Vieques and Ko’olawe are different from proposals to “bomb” and “train” on Pagan. Whelden and the U.S. Pacific Command also fail to convey that previous environmental damage caused by the military on Tinian and on Guam has been fully remediated and restored. If the military wants to grow its credibility with islanders, start showing us what was done to fully remediate all environmental damage in Guam as one starting point.

The second example of how Craig Whelden makes misstated public claims is when he makes statements like “We have demonstrated in many locations around the world how the Department of Defense is a good steward of the environment. We would be so at Pagan as well.” What comparative locations is Whelden referencing and how are his analogies important and useful to Chamorros and Carolinians? Are his references contained in the draft EIS? What does Whelden mean by saying that the DoD would be a good environmental steward? What information does Whelden have that somehow evidences that Pagan is up for negotiation and that islanders approve and consent to Pagan being damaged by military training and bombing? I believe Mr. Whleden makes poor references that are misstated because they are incomplete and not contextualized.

Whelden also falsely presumes that Pagan’s residents somehow want to “co-exist” with the American military. Whelden falsely presupposes that Pagan residents also want to co-exist with U.S. Special Operations personnel conducting training operations in the southern portion of Pagan and he falsely presupposes, by implication, that there will be a co-existence arrangement between islanders and the military on Pagan in the first place. Whelden also omits to discuss how the undersea coral beds and limestone will be damaged or destroyed for amphibious maneuvers and “training” on Pagan as well as on Tinian. Whelden omits to state how the destruction of topsoil, limestone, and coral beds will create the conditions that will cause erosion throughout the island when typhoons and storms come into the area.

Whelden demonstrates self-inviting rudeness as demonstrated in Mr. Camacho’s article when it is stated that “Whelden thinks there would be some benefit for his team to accompany Tenorio to the island so they can better understand the CNMI’s aspirations for Pagan as well as the CNMI understanding the limitations and care of the military’s planned use of Pagan.” This statement presupposes that CNMI officials want the military tagging along on CNMI governmental trips and it demonstrates just how badly the military wants Pagan. It reminds me of the phrase “ugly American” because Whelden’s aggressiveness is a sign of PACOM desperation founded on military desires and wants. It also demonstrates PACOM’s refusal to take “no” as the answer to proposed military activities on Pagan.

A second example of self-inviting rudeness is when Whelden wrongly claims that “It’s time to take the next step, by opening the dialogue to find out how we can both benefit by the DoD’s use (for training) of an island we recognize has special significance to the people of the CNMI. There is no commitment made by sitting down and talking. We may just learn that there are benefits to both sides.” This kind of public statement demonstrates Whelden’s lack of attentiveness to islander sentiments because the community has overwhelmingly stated that it does not approve or consent to the military taking of Pagan and to additional military activity taking place on Tinian. This statement also demonstrates PACOM’s misread of just how important the Marianas Islands are to Chamorros and Carolinians alike because all islands of the Marianas are sacred and special, not just one island.

If Whelden and the U.S. Pacific Command want to build lasting trust with islanders, all they need to do is say upfront what is the worst possible scenario and plainly state how the air, water, land, sub terrestrial, space and sea domains will be damaged and/or destroyed and show us how it will be cleaned up. If Whelden wants to grow credibility with islanders, he needs to demonstrate how past congressional appropriations have been used to clean up Guam and Tinian. I distrust U.S. Pacific Command and the Pentagon because I think military officials such as Mr. Whelden lack the moral courage and the political will to be upfront and tell islanders just how damaging and destructive military activities will be on Pagan and on Tinian should the military get its way.

Rick Perez
Hanover, New Hampshire