Chamber draws line on Air Force’s divert airfield proposal for Saipan

The Saipan Chamber of Commerce has taken a firm stance against the U.S. Department of Defense’s insistence to build the U.S. Air Force divert airfield on Saipan instead of the CNMI government’s preference that it be built on Tinian.

“The Saipan Chamber of Commerce has been very supportive of our armed forces and the women and men in uniform that bravely defend our freedom daily. We appreciate the ship visits into our port and the economic benefit that comes from the support of businesses in the CNMI, but a line must be drawn in the sand when military brass press the envelope of negotiation to a tipping point that frustrates the CNMI community,” Chamber president Alex Sablan wrote in the organization’s monthly newsletter.

Sablan said placing the divert airfield on Tinian will have a substantial benefit to that island, while putting it on Saipan will have a negative effect on the recovering tourism industry.

“Designating Tinian as the divert airfield location (we would hope) would also improve airport infrastructure, which more than likely would enhance the Tinian municipality’s ability to receive direct flights, which in turn improves their economic opportunity. The idea that establishing the divert airfield on Saipan would not disrupt our tourism industry sounds a little farfetched and not something we want to risk toying with just because the Air Force wants to save some money.”

The Chamber president said the local community’s continuing frustration with the military also involves the empty promises related to the long-delayed military buildup in the region.

“[It] stems from the original discussion of a military buildup in the region, the expansion of the range complex encompassing thousands of square miles of sea and air space within the CNMI (their military playground) for nothing more than relative scraps budgeted for the CNMI when Marine relocation to Guam is set to be completed in 2021; again, billions will be spent on Guam and mere breadcrumb scraps on Tinian.”

Sablan also reminded the military how its planned use of Paghat in Guam was stopped dead in its tracks by public uproar.

“Then there is the ongoing (non) discussion of the Marine’s use of Pagan but, as with Paghat on Guam, the military again fumbles the proverbial ball with Pagan 2.0 by allowing a groundswell of public sentiment to build in opposition to use by the military of Pagan because a plan has not been established before an announcement was made with regard to their interest.”

Sablan said while the military has updated the CNMI with timelines before it receives a “record of decision,” this has been “drowned out by the lack of respect the CNMI is receiving with respect to true and sincere negotiations and by all accounts relatively no economic benefit within and outside their military fence.”

He said that in five meetings with various consultants, meetings with different admirals, and a host of support staff, the military said they are cognizant that they need good public relations to sell their ideas and that they need to negotiate fairly.

“It is our hope that they learn from their more recent episode on Guam and not take the CNMI people, their fellow United States citizens, for granted,” said Sablan.