Base Articles

In Goodenough's article, I was struck by the part that mentioned the Chamorro indigenous population. I am reminded of Okinawa in that both populations desire self-determination, but the US military presence there all but eliminates any possibility of self-determination. It's doubly oppressive, in that the military presence is obtrusive in and of itself, but the US further impedes on the autonomy of the local government to the point of infantalizing it in favor of US interests and initiatives.

The movie today in class mentioned something about how the US occupation was merely a war under the guise of basing. This idea brought me back to the self-determination issue, and I started thinking about all the cases around the world where the US actively participates in preventing self-determination, from the obvious case of Palestine, to Okinawa, to Diego Garcia, to Guam. I hadn't really thought before about the way our militarization around the world through basing is in part a way of attempting to maintain a status quo in international relations. If these areas that we occupy were actually granted independence and statehood, not only would our "national security" interests and economic interests be threatened, but the creation of these new states could throw entire regions off-balance, and upset the current atmosphere of international relations.

I guess these all sound like somewhat obvious conclusions now, but I hadn't made all the connections together until now. For instance, Landler's article on Schweinfurt, Germany demonstrates how the US is willing to close bases, so long as those locations no longer pose a threat of instability or unpredictability. With EU relations secure, and the balance of power shifting slowly and steadily in a fairly pro-West direction, there is little concern about instability in terms of sub-national threats to the state, or radical movements for self-determination in East Germany today.

Although it seems that the economic ties are what bind the US military to the communities where bases are located, I am starting to agree with Joe (was it Joe?), that resources are not the sole impetus for military basing. Balance of power - US primacy - can only be maintained if revolutions are crushed, if self-determination is prevented - but only where that self-determination could upset US power in the region. Hegemony is as important, if not more important, than resources - and hegemony can help guarantee resources without "direct" force. Thus, we have military bases that local communities become dependent on, so that local communities will hopefully become complacent and cooperate with the US without being openly coerced. My hope lies with people like those in Korea who sit night after night and refuse to accept the status quo, because without openly questioning the motives for and decision to implement basing it will continue unchecked.