US used chemical weapons on Americans(10-23-2002)by Matt Kapko |
| I wasn’t surprised, but shocked last week to read
the Pentagon’s admitted use of chemical weapons during numerous military-training
operations in the late ‘60s. Vieques, a small island off the eastern shore of Puerto Rico’s main island, was among the list of many beautiful places which continue to suffer from these Cold War-era tests. This came as another somber note in the sad, unmerciful song of Viequenses struggle for peace, justice and sovereignty from foreign, imperialist rule. The past couple years have brought many similar admissions from the Pentagon. Throughout 2001, numerous reports came out condemning the contamination of Vieques. The Navy was forced to come clean and admit to firing 273 rounds of uranium projectiles on the island as late as 1998. These are evidenced in photos of missiles washed up on shorelines and underwater photos of toxic barrels decomposing on what was once a lush coral reef. These admissions were, in large part, brought on by veterans claiming serious health conditions demanding to know the cause of their suffering. “In Vieques, the test was conducted in May 1969. Both an amphibious unit of Marines, as well as the U.S.S. Fort Snelling, were sprayed with trioctyl phosphate, a nontoxic substitute for the much more sinister VX, a nerve agent,” wrote Gwyneth Shaw in the Orlando Sentinel. Even TV ads for Rep. Mike Thompson focus on his successful pressuring of the Defense Department, which finally agreed to release details about the tests and contact the participants. One of the longstanding arguments coming from Navy spokespersons is that the location of Vieques is unmatched in the world and offers the only place where sea-to-land tests can be conducted. They can continue their claims, but I doubt many in this area would sit back and relax if the Navy made similar claims about Arcata Bay — especially after admitting to the use of chemical weapons in our waters. I know these “what -ifs” are not founded, but I do so in hopes of bringing the Viequenses struggle closer to home. After all, these are fellow American citizens who cannot vote in national elections, not to mention their lack of control over local issues. The population of 9,100 has been slowly squeezed into the center of the island, unable to stop the Navy’s expropriation of two-thirds of the island since 1938. While veterans rightfully demand answers to the tests, they are not the only ones affected by government lies. The local populations are left to pick up the debris after the military leaves. Constant reminders of the tragedy loom in their front yards — their paradise in the Caribbean. It is pure hypocrisy for President Bush to cite Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish population, “his own people,” as reason to invade Iraq. With the Pentagon admitting that U.S. military forces and American civilians, “our own people,” have been subject to chemical weapons, how can the government make such outlandish claims? We could argue that the United States did not have knowledge about health conditions caused by these chemicals in the late ‘60s, but what shall we make of the depleted uranium seeping into Vieques from war games in 1998? This is no justification for Hussein’s vicious use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. I have no doubt that he was aware of the lethal potential and the desired end result. But, should the U.S. government exploit this tragic period in Iraq’s history as reason for war? More so, what moral superiority can the United States represent when it has now admitted to using chemical weapons against Americans — regardless of the desired end result? Robert Fisk, a Middle-East correspondent for the Independent in London, reminds us that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield was the special envoy sent by former President Ronald Reagan to “secure better trade and economic relations with the Butcher of Baghdad.” Fisk goes on to write, in 1989, one year after “Saddam’s genocide was complete,” it was none other than the first President Bush who doubled the U.S. government subsidy to Iraq at $1 billion, and supplied Hussein with “germ seed for anthrax, helicopters, and the notorious “dual-use” material that could be used for chemical and biological weapons.” It would be far-fetched to argue that the United States had no knowledge in the late ‘80s of the lethal potential of anthrax and the other machines of war given to Hussein. The government must come clean and lighten the opaque screen it holds up, blinding the public from the truth. The Pentagon admissions are a step, but what else are the men in suits hiding? Why has the 64-year long struggle to free the Viequenses from military rule not been met with understanding and solidarity from their own government? How long can we expect the people of Vieques to sit back and ignore the incessant bombing practices the U.S. military unleashes on their small island? The ground is rumbling in Vieques. The noise is not only the sounds of war, but the momentum of a people unwilling to give in and the distant drones of those dying from cancers and sickness related to environmental contamination. If we Americans are expected to support a war in Iraq to free their people from genocide, why can’t the same standards apply to our own people in Vieques, freeing them from a foreign enemy claiming to be its brother? Matt Kapko is the opinion editor and tears really fall into his pint when
he is left with no choice but to rely on a foreign journalist stationed
in Beirut, Lebanon to remind him of just how friendly previous administrations
were to Saddam Hussein. |
Click here to go back to Cryin In My Beer index