Base Information/Correspondence - Installations in Guam Page: 40 of 742
View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
process.
We refrain from telling you the history, since we believe much has
been handed to you by our Government officials about the way these
lands were taken, and later maintained by the military to this day,
50 years later. A book will memorialize Guam's sacrifice one day!
However, we urge that all BRAC commission members avail themselves
of the history of the post-war landtakings here on Guam and
conclude for themselves, whether or not different rules for turn-
over should be exist for Guam. No other base on the base-closure
list in the Continental United States, we believe, was created by
the same historical injustices committed by the Federal Government,
as the military bases here on Guam. Our original landowners deserve
different treatment by BRACC, by GSA and by the almighty congress,
different from the rest of the main land, whose people never saw
war. If the federal Government choses to keep us so different in
terms of political stature and the right to vote, why do we have to
be the same when it comes to rules that hurt us, hurt our island,
hurt our original landowners, disturb our peace and tranquility,
meanwhile continuing to keep us from constitutional representation
in federal lawmaking bodies.
Today we are proposing the following:
The Navy should reassess its importance in the Pacific region.
Guam is the furthest outpost of the United States in the Pacific.
How can we show strength in the Pacific without continued strong
presence in our furthest American outpost? This reassessment should
lead to the decision of keeping FRS intact and in use by the Navy,
perhaps with limited downsizing, but ready in time of need.
The military and civilian jobs of the majority of people working at
SRF and FISC and related agencies should stay intact, serving the
Pacific Fleet in its most distant outpost from the mainland.
If this cannot be achieved due to military budget constraints, then
let us look into collaborative ventures - a private sector and
military joint use of the facilities, which would allow for
considerately more downsizing of the Navy.
If both the above are not acceptable, we must insist that the land
be returned and the considerable assets be left behind, so we as
a people, can create a harbor economy for ourselves and help our
people to be similarly employed in private sector development and
enterprise, something, which will be hard to do, we realize, but
can be done, if the land, the facilities and the assets are
available to us. Taking the assets with you would certainly be the
ultimate penalization for a people which has loyally served the
United States Flag, especially through a cruel war which lead to
their own deprivation and economic ruin. Mothballing your assets
and hanging on to lands for military use for future possible need
is not ethical nor is it fiscally prudent. It leaves us
economically defenseless and cripples us even more emotionally,
since the federal government would deny us exactly what they are
stressing our economic gains would be under the BRACC plan and
under President Clinton's 5 point program.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Base Information/Correspondence - Installations in Guam, text, Date Unknown; (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc27609/m1/40/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.