By Dave Davis
For Variety

FORMER governor Paul Calvo was interviewed last week on local talk radio. The discussion centered mainly on the imminent arrival of several thousand military personnel and dependents, and what we should do and expect in that regard. The tone and context of the interview were adversarial from the outset. The host repeatedly alluded to the need to “go up against the federal government”, while Governor Calvo, a savvy businessman and political force in Guam, came across in a way, and with language, that promises to make things difficult for our society and economy if his attitude prevails. He used the unfortunate term ‘demand’ more than once to describe his preferred mode of interaction with the federal government relative to the troop movement. It seems that he learned little from his front-row presence at the 1998 Commonwealth hearings when, along with former Governor Ada and Governor Gutierrez, they presented a Guam position that included several ‘non-negotiable’ demands including a race-specific political status plebiscite, local immigration control, mutual consent approval provisions for federal law, and others. They were sent home with stern marching orders to do it again, and do it right next time, in consonance with federal law and the US Constitution. The Congress and the Clinton administration were fully in accord in that position. Today, nine years later, there’s no meaningful movement or change in any direction, other than the ongoing waste of out tax money on job factories for a few rabid anti-American activists. Now, we see and hear former governor Calvo and others again advocating ‘demands’ that the feds commit to fix virtually everything that’s chronically and historically wrong with Guam. Little is said about how it got that way – just that we deserve to have it fixed at the expense of mainland US taxpayers. Let’s assume, for a moment, that the political eunuchs we’ve elected decide it’s a good idea to pull the tiger’s tail again with pie-in-the-sky ‘demands’. Any demand, in any situation, must be backed up by a meaningful and enforceable “or else” that’s available if the demand is rejected. What’s the “or else” in this case? Armed insurrection? Name calling? Boycott the commissaries and exchanges? Dispatch the usual malcontents to whine at the UN (again)? Do you really believe that US national security posture and strategic planning will be affected in any significant way? Will the Administration and the Congress say “Oops! Sorry, Guam. We’ll change our plan — send the troops someplace else!”? Get real! Another round of non-negotiable demands from Guam will simply cause the military to shift focus on infrastructure and other upgrades to inside the fences, which will become higher and wider, further isolating that which is outside.
The Marines are coming, along with their dependents and the members and dependents of other services, and we’d better soon learn to accept that.
We must exercise common sense and discretion in working out what really needs to be done to make that happen smoothly and amicably – without any demands involved – to ensure that when all is said and done we are no worse off than we are now. We deserve that, and should expect that, but there’s certainly no legal or moral justification to ‘demand’ anything further. On the other hand we can, and should, demand a far better brand of local leadership than we’ve suffered over the past half-century. The “or else” for that can be applied in the voting booth.