1994 CPEO Military List Archive

From: Polly Parks <pparks@igc.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 21:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Reply: cpeo-military

Polly Parks. The past two years I led the U.S. advocacy campaign
(under the auspices of UUSC) on U.S. responsibility for
environmental damage at the former military bases in the
Philippines. Program shut down mainly due to lack of funding,
currently I'm fundraising to do book on the Philippine case and
ALSO to get public dialogue going on public oversight of overseas
base closure process -- particularly enviro ramifications.

Brief background for folks not familiar.
 1991 -- Phil. Senate rejects treaty; Clark drawdown
 1992 -- GAO report; Subic drawdown -- no obligation
 1993 -- letter to Clinton; discussions with Exec. branch; June DoD
says no legal barrier to release of info, wants through official
channels; State says: U.S. wants "positive legacy in Philippines;
Aug. Phil govt (RP) formally asks for info.; Nov. 5, info on Subic
turned over (turns out to be info supposed to have been turned over
at withdrawal), verbal offer for further info and tech. assist. on
request; Nov. 22, Clinton/Pres. Ramos meet (also Gore and Ramos
party), cleanup issue raised, but not thoroughly enough.
 1994 -- April, info on Clark turned over; State sends letter to
UUSC reiterating they have offered further info and tech. assist on
request; May, June-July Positive Legacy Tour '94: U.S.-based public
policy, scientific, health, technical, and community professionals
work with Phil. govt., ngos and local communities to 1) assess tech
capacity, 2) understand methodology and options of clean-up, 3)
develop the knowledge necessary to take advantage of U.S. offer;
October, RP Senate is holding hearings; early Nov. Phil. govt.
agencies sponsoring a policy position writing workshop, have
invited NGOs. At this time, Jorge Emmanuel, PhD (long-time
activist on this issue) and Dr. Ted Schettler, (PSR) both on the
second delegation of the Positive Legacy Tour, will be
participating; Nov. 12 Clinton stops in Manila for 36 hours.
According to senior NSC official in June, this issue was one of
main reasons determining whether he would go.

Obviously what happened with the Philippines was quite political.
This is because there is no law or independent regulatory procedure
on overseas enviro or base closure policy. However, there is DoD
policy and service branch policy. It was ignored in this instance
-- and is getting ignored in other instances. This is causing
foreign policy and military mission problems for the U.S. -- as the
Philippines case shows, not just down the road, but now.

Anybody interested in the Philippine issue or working on developing
this issue further, please communicate: pparks@igc.org

Thanks Lenny for putting me on the conference.

Polly Parks

  Prev by Date: Re: introduction
  Prev by Thread: Introduction

CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index