Economic drain

Contents

From the claims made by supporters of US overseas
bases, you might think that the coming of a
big base would spell prosperity for the host community.
The expenditure of thousands of GI and
their families, coupled with favourable trade relations
as a US ally – what could possibly go wrong?
Plenty, it seems. The economies of areas around
bases do not reward such optimism. US military
families, be they in Britain or Okinawa, tend to
want to replicate their lives back home. This means
that, far from buying everything from fridges to
chocolate from local suppliers, massive quantities of
goods are shipped in by US companies or the military
itself. US companies, such as Home Depot on
Guam, set up shop to supply this homesick market,
providing only low-level jobs to local people rather
than opportunities for indigenous business to
expand.

The situation on Guam also illustrates how the high
living allowances granted to US military families stationed
abroad can distort local economies, driving
property and commodity prices up beyond the
reach of local people. The large military population
with high lifestyle expectations also means a huge
drain on the island's water, infrastructure and land,
raising basic living costs and taxes for local people.
Bases can also directly destroy jobs and livelihoods.
On Okinawa, for instance, base expansion has
destroyed villages with sustainable livelihoods
based on the sea, while in Greenland economies
founded on exploitation of natural resources have
also been wrecked once communities were no
longer allowed onto their traditional hunting and
fishing grounds. Once the bases leave, national
governments are often left with the costs of massive
environmental clean-up operations which, as
in Panama (see page 30), inhibit the redevelopment
of former military sites.

In addition to the economic impacts on communities
around the bases themselves, the coming of
the US military can contribute to wider economic
distortions. Base agreements often come with
sweeteners for national governments, including
US investment and trade treaties. But these can
tie countries into US models of trade relations, liberalisation
and privatisation, which are of dubious
benefit to host nations. In the Philippines, for
example, military agreements were tied to economic
deals that gave US and Filipino investors
equal rights in one another's markets. But how
many Filipino investors benefited from access to
the USA, whilst US companies went on a spending
spree of Filipino companies in the late 1990s after
the Asian Bubble burst, and made a quick killing
from buying them up at bargain prices?

Hawai’i

The current status of the US military in Hawai’i is a
continuation of colonialism, and has its roots in outside
economic interests. Kathy Ferguson and Phyllis
Turnbull, researchers on militarism in Hawai’i, explain:

The US acquired Hawai’i through the 1893 overthrow
of the legitimate, internationally recognised
government by a coalition of US and European businessmen
with the backing of the US military. The US
military has retained and expanded its presence
since that time.

The military is the second largest industry in the
state, far behind tourism and preceding construction.
In fact, it is difficult to separate these three
economies, since much of the tourism is militarised
(the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor and the
National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific are two
of the most visited sites on the islands) and considerable
construction takes place on military bases,
including housing for military families.

While accurate figures are difficult to establish, the
military owns or controls between 5 to 10 per cent of
the state and approximately one quarter of the
island of O`ahu, the most populated island. Some
Hawaiian activists charge that over half of the land
sold or leased to the military by the state and private
owners rightfully belongs to Hawaiians, who never
ceded their claims. Current military expansion to
accommodate a Stryker Brigade [a military unit of
armoured combat vehicles], while contested in the
courts and through the Environmental Impact
Statement process, will probably take another
25,663 acres of land, the largest expansion since
World War II.

A 1984 Bank of Hawai’i publication found the military
to have the most consistent growth pattern of
the major sectors of the island’s economy, and calculated
that every dollar spent by the military
turned around three times in the local economy.
However, economic costs are usually undercounted
in state and bank summaries. These include:
Environmental degradation. The military is the
biggest polluter in the state. Uncontrolled fires
resulting from live fire training, degradation of
ocean and fresh water, toxic contaminants in soil,
water, and air, and unexploded munitions all endanger
residents, especially Native Hawaiians who live
more closely to land and ocean.

Cultural destruction. While there is no definitive
inventory of Hawaiian cultural and archeological
sites, military building, development and training
inevitably destroys cultural traces. The environmental
and cultural impacts of the military also have the
potential to impact on other economic sectors,
including farming and tourism.

Education. Federal Impact Aid, ostensibly intended
to compensate states for the costs of educating the
children of military personnel, is woefully inadequate,
covering less than 11 per cent of the state’s
costs.

Housing. Pressure on local housing markets by military
families drives up prices for residents.

Alternative economies. Traditional fishing grounds
have been destroyed or rendered inaccessible to
local fishermen by military development. Ancient
fishponds have been destroyed. Military occupation
of land removes it from use by farmers.

Some Hawaiian and environmental groups continue
to protest the military, including organisations
opposing the Stryker expansion in the courts,
engaging in peace education and fighting environmental
and cultural damage by the military.