Keynote Speech
before the 1997 First International Conference on "US Military
Toxics and Bases Clean-up, Nov. 23-26, 1997, Asian Social Institute,
Manila, Philippines. This was co-sponsored and hosted by the
People's Task Force on Bases Clean-up and the Nuclear-Free
Philippines Coalition. Seven (7) countries in the Asia-Pacific
including Panama and Puerto Rico which host US bases were
represented.
Admiral Carroll
is a former Commanding Officer of the U.S. Aircraft Carrier USS
Midway and the Pacific Task Force of the U.S. Navy. He also served
as Commander of Southern NATO Forces in Europe. Upon retirement, he
became Director of the Center for Defense Information, an
organization of retired senior military officers dedicated to
monitoring Pentagon weapons systems, spending and policies. He has
become an active pro-peace advocate.
You have gathered here today to develop a
plan to attack the problem of pollution created on military bases around
the world. Yours is not an easy task for many reasons, all of which
require thoughtful appraisal. Chief among the problems facing you are the
problem of identifying the nature and extent of the pollution; identifying
the means and resources needed to reduce or remove the pollution; and,
fixing responsibility for the remedial action in polluted areas.
Before addressing these issues, let me take
a few moments to discuss the genesis of these problems so that we can put
our considerations in context. Early in the Cold War, President Dwight
Eisenhower said, "The problem in defense is how far you can go without
destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without." In
this statement, he identified a very serious problem but no American
official ever tried to solve it. We just went on making more guns, more
bombs, more pollution, and the consequences of those we are going to
address today. Their failure is evident today in global pollution
produced by going too far on defense out of fear of the Soviet Union. It
is their intense irrational fear, that we were all going to become
communist.
Two major factors can explain why and how
we went too far. The first was the global scope of the Cold War and the
sense of urgency that it produced in the United States. Far more than
anywhere else, America was caught up in its self-appointed role as leader
of the free world effort to contain the spread of communism. These
produced a network of major US Military Bases to form a ring around the
Soviet Union. NATO nations hosted the European bases, while Japan, Korea
and the Philippines had the honor of providing lands, sea, and air bases
in the Pacific.
It is fair to note that the United States
also subjected itself to massive military build-up and industrial
facilities devoted to the Cold War. In a mindless, criminally negligent
process, we poured resources into military expansion both at home and
abroad without any regard for the environmental consequences. Pollution
was ignored on the grounds that "national security" took absolute priority
over all other considerations.
The second factor which describes the
nature of this pollution has to do with new technologies, turned modern
military forces into vast industrial enterprises which generated materials
of life-threatening toxicity. These account for the horrible pollution
around us today. Nuclear weapons manufacture generated the most poisonous
portions of the problem. The great bulk of this material was originally
confined to the United States and the Soviet Union except for the fallout
from nuclear testing in the atmosphere which peaked in 1962.
Popular opposition around the world to
atmospheric testing brought about the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1962.
The success of a global grassroots campaign to end such testing should be
an inspiration to all of us here working on pollution issues. We can take
heart that an informed public working together on an international level
can bring about changes at governmental levels.
Nevertheless, the manufacture of fissile
material and nuclear weapons proceeded unabated. The pollution today in
Russia and America are devastating. Both countries suffer major
radioactive contamination in their nuclear factories which far exceeds
pollution created in military bases elsewhere. In the United States, we
have areas at Hanford, Washington; Rocky Flats, Colorado; Fernald, Ohio;
and Savannah, Georgia which probably can never be fully remediated. They
may be fenced-off forever and termed "national sacrifice zones." The
situation is as bad, or worse, in Russia today.
Just as nuclear technology produced these
special problems, so did new conventional military technologies produce
acute problems on military bases around the world. New munitions, new
materials in aircraft and ships, new industrial materials to support these
weapons systems such as metallic paints, PCBs, chemical solvents, bonding
materials and synthetic lubricants all became sources of severe
pollution. This factor was more serious overseas because growing civilian
concern about the environment in the United States resulted in increasing
military attention there to controlling the environmental threats of these
new, highly toxic substances. I can recall, as commanding officer of an
aircraft carrier in 1970, being closely monitored in US ports to insure
proper control and disposal of waste material. This increased caution was
not evident to me here in Subic Bay in 1971 where ships, our aircraft and
our industrial facilities were spewing polluted materials into the air,
water and soil with no regard for the short term or long term effects. I
began to see then the double standard.
When you consider the intense pace of
operations generated by various Cold War crises such as the Korea, and
Vietnam and the Gulf Wars, it is easy to understand that environmental
issues were completely ignored in the rush to meet operational
commitments. Not only did we generate these materials but when we used it
we were out of control. I RECALL VIVIDLY COMING TO SUBIC AND THE ENTIRE
IN-PORT PERIOD BEING GIVEN WAS 24-HOUR WORKDAY ON THE SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT
OF THE TASK FORCE. CUTTING, WELDING, SAND BLASTING, CORROSION CONTROL,
PAINT STRIPPING, PAINTING AND TANK FLUSHING BOTH OF SHIP AND AIRCRAFT,
WENT ON AROUND THE CLOCK AND THE DEBRIS WAS SIMPLY FLUSHED INTO THE GROUND
AND THE BAY.
When one adds the long-term effects of the
discharge of untreated sewage, leakage from underground petroleum tanks
and the escape of PCP from electrical generators, it is beyond doubt that
Subic Bay (and many other active and inactive US military facilities
around the world) are contaminated in many ways which threaten the
long-term health and safety of local residents. The contamination also
constitutes a potential barrier to investment and development necessary to
convert closed facilities into useful assets for the benefit of the
economy and citizens of the host nations.
With this background as to how and why the
pollution exists, we come to the critical questions to be raised here.
How much and what kind of pollution exists? Where is it? What must be
done to get rid of it? What resources are required? And, who is
responsible to resolve the problem? Because answers to the first three
questions are all dependent on who is responsible, we should examine that
question first. In preparing for this forum, I reviewed all the official
documents I could gather in Washington, DC which define interpretation of
its responsibilities. The outlook is bleak. This was October 1995 and
lays out the most formal and straight forward expression of US Policy.
The US Department of Defense issued a
directive titled, ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION POLICY FOR DOD ACTIVITIES
OVERSEAS. This directive addresses separately the responsibilities at
facilities which are open and not designed for closure; and, facilities
which have been designated for return to the host nation or that have been
returned already. We have one set of standard for those who are present
and operating and another for those gone or going.
In the case of operating facilities, a
clear statement of US responsibility is made. "Service components and
defense agencies shall take prompt action to remediate know imminent and
substantial endangerment to human health and safety due to environmental
contamination caused by DOD operations." Obviously, if Americans are
present on site, the military service has a strong motive to identify
significant contamination and imminent and substantial endangerment to
their own people and to take prompt remedial action.
By contrast, the same attention and
response at closed facilities being turned over to host nations is less
likely. Furthermore, the statement about US responsibilities contains an
escape clause. It says that corrective action shall "not exceed a
remediation scheme approved before return by the service or defense agency
consultation with the DOD environmental executive agent." There has to be
an existing formal agreement as to what is to be done before we depart.
Those schemes could include what sites are to be remediated and acceptable
contamination levels and measures to be used in the remediation. Such
schemes shall include "...sites to be remediated and... acceptable
contaminant levels and/or measures to be used." Thus, if no agreeable
remediation scheme exists, there is no clear obligation to clean up the
site.
An important point to note is that the
directive states that only US officials are authorized to determine if
site pollution constitutes an imminent and substantial endangerment; and,
to decide the extent of the remedies which the US will undertake.
Acceptable measures can extend from permanent remediation to simply
restricting access to polluted areas.
Furthermore, US officials are quick to
point out that the US basing agreement in the Philippines did not require
the US to return bases in their original condition and that the US is held
harmless for damages to base facilities. This is probably the most
extreme disclaimer of US responsibility for environmental conditions on
foreign base. The reason for that is clear: We more or less imposed the
bases on the Philippines during our some 90 years of presence here. Cold
War bases that came into existence to ring the Soviet Union were more
equitably or justly developed. Most basing agreements around the world
absolve the US of full accountability for damages created by their
military presence.
The DOD directive does not recognize that
international agreements may require the US to fund environmental
remediation beyond that necessary to correct imminent and substantial
endangerment to human health and safety. So we've said in one case the
obligation is absolute and the next one, we might recognize it.
Commanders are cautioned, however, that before clean-up is undertaken
there must be a legal determination that a mandatory requirement exists;
and, that it arises from a binding international agreement pertaining to
US military operating rights in the host country. Once the host nation
takes over a returned facility, DOD will not fund any remediation actions
not required by international agreements or approved remediation schemes.
No matter how bad it is and how much a host nation wants it done, it has
to be approved and
formalized.
In a sense, the directive adds insult to
injury by authorizing host nations to use their own resources to clean-up
US bases, subject to operational and security requirements. If it's
polluted, okay, you can come and clean it up as long as it conforms with
our security requirements. The US does not acknowledge a requirement to
maintain information concerning pollution on its bases overseas and
authorizes release of that information to host nations.
Overall, it is clear that official US
policy is to minimize or deny responsibility for dealing with pollution at
overseas military bases and facilities, particularly at those which have
been returned to host nations. This is inequitable because awareness of
military pollution in the United States has grown dramatically in recent
years. In 1984, the total funds available to American military forces for
environmental protection and clean-up was less than $200 million in 1984.
In 1997, the total will be almost $5 billion. This is in addition to
nearly $6 billion to be spent by the Department of Energy on environmental
management, most of which is related to nuclear weapons manufacturing.
In all candor, I must point out that even
these huge sums, spent only in the United States, do not guarantee
successful cleanup efforts. I have reviewed the reports which document
lack of progress within the US and identify unresolved problems. First,
far too much of the money is being spent on studies and too little on
actually cleaning up polluted sites. Studies are very profitable and we
can go on doing studies even if there are frequent disagreement on the
level of remediation which will restore the bases to useful purposes.
This is compounded by arguments between agencies within the US government
as to which ones are responsible for which remediation measures.
One official survey of six major US
military bases in the United States which evaluated environmental cleanup
progress was made recently. The only fair appraisal of the findings of
this survey is to call them "Documentation of Chaos." Not one of the six
bases had even determined the nature and extent of pollution present, nor
settled on effective remediation measures. For example, at one landfill on
one base, eight remedial options were still under consideration. These
ranged in cost from zero dollars (no action) to $183 million dollars
(complete excavation and incineration of all waste). When one considers
that there are more than 2,000 polluted sites on military bases in the US,
it is obvious that solutions and effective action are a long way in the
future in spite of the billions of dollars now being appropriated.
Of course, these huge sums are authorized
because of political pressure on the White House and Congress to protect
Americans against the consequences of military pollution generated during
the Cold War; and, to prevent further damage through more rigorous
enforcement of sound environmental management practices on military bases.
None of this intensified awareness and
commitment of resources within the United States will help in anyway on
foreign military bases unless host nations resort to the same political
pressures on the American government that domestic politics have placed on
the White House and Congress. It is a political issue and it has to be
resolved through political processes that host nations have to use and
whatever clout they can muster to get the US to take action. Pressure to
do what? First, to conduct thorough surveys of foreign bases and
surrounding areas to determine the exact nature and extent of pollution
present. I was informed that the survey in Subic was very sketchy. It
hasn't even scratched the surface. There can be no positive program of
remedial action until such surveys are done and the results evaluate.
Second, work programs must be designed
thoroughly and implemented with full participation by the United States.
In this process, host nations should benefit from the $700 million the US
is spending each year to advance the science and technology of
environmental remediation. With improved knowledge, equipment and
procedures, far more remediation can be accomplished now in less time and
cost than in the past.
Finally, the United States should be
pressured for funding to restore the returned bases to environmental
levels which are safe for the residents and which will permit useful
enterprises to go forward on the sites. America was willing to spend
tremendous sums of money in order to use these bases in the Cold War.
Whether or not there is any binding agreement or legal obligation to do
so, shared concern for the well-being and safety of local citizens as well
as simple justice should impel the United States to devote a fraction of
what was spent in the bases during the Cold War to remedy the ravages of
US occupation.
One warning, during my research, I found
references to the existence and enforcement of published environmental
standards within host nations. It is clear that if its own local
environmental standards are not being enforced by a host nation, the
United States will use this failing as an argument that it cannot be
required to honor those standards in its base remediation efforts.
Let me close by stating that base cleanup
is a POLITICAL problem, first and foremost. How host nations can produce
the desired political responses from the United States is very hard to
predict. One obvious pressure point exists: wherever American armed forces
are seeking continued access to host nation ports and air bases. For
example, this is the case in the Philippines today. It seems only logical
to link such access with satisfactory levels of support from the United
States in cleaning up the poisonous legacy of US occupation during 45
years of the Cold War (US military presence, i.e. basing was from 1900 to
1992 -- ed.).
I wish all of you well in your efforts to
promote improved conditions in your own nations and to make this a
cleaner, safer, more peaceful abode for our children in the 21st century
than we have created in the 20th century.
