December 9, 1999

The Honorable William J. Clinton

President of the United States

The White House Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

This past Friday, December 3, 1999, we received your statement in which you indicated that the Navy could resume training operations with inert ordnance in Vieques during a five-year period beginning in the Spring. Although I am pleased that your proposal acknowledges and highlights the distrust that has been building for decades, as well as the need to address the concerns of the residents of Vieques, the proposal neither adequately recognizes the Navy’s execrable conduct in Vieques, nor addresses the Navy’s total lack of credibility with Vieques and Puerto Rico that is essential to validate any agreement. The hallmark of Puerto Rico’s relationship with the Navy has been one of broken promises; when time and time again, despite pledges and commitments to the contrary, the Navy has ignored, lied, and flagrantly failed to meet the obligations to which they adhered by signing the Memorandum of Understanding of 1983.

Three Navy Admirals testified and asserted to the Congress that the Navy has reduced, by half, the use of live ordnance in Vieques; yet, their own records clearly evidence that the quantity of live ordnance used, the amount of high explosives in the ordnance, the number of range users and the number of training days at the Vieques range all have increased substantially since FY 1984, the first full year after the MOU was signed, and FY 1998, the last full year before the tragic death of David Sanes Rodríguez. The statistics also demonstrate a significant increase in the use of specialized ordnance such as cluster bombs, and the use of depleted uranium bullets and napalm among other toxic ordnance. Enclosed is a copy of the letter that I sent to you pointing out the Navy’s obvious violation of their commitment to reduce the use of explosive ordnance to an absolute minimum.

If we are indeed to move forward in a cooperative manner, it is totally unacceptable to appoint either the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Navy to work directly with the people of Vieques to resolve the issue. It is wrong to expect that the 9,300 disenfranchised American citizens who reside in the small municipality of Vieques and who have one of the lowest per capita income levels in the nation, will have the same resources and political muscle as the Department of Defense or the Navy, who both have such vast resources at their disposal. For obvious reasons, the representatives of Vieques would be at a great disadvantage in such discussions and such an effort is doomed to failure. I am convinced that your personal involvement is both necessary and essential if progress is to be accomplished in resolving the fundamental problems that underlie this injustice.

I am gravely concerned that your recommendation falls short of a permanent solution. The Secretary of the Navy’s comment during last Friday’s press conference that “we do not have here in the present arrangement a definitive solution” heightens my concerns. It is clear that the Navy recognizes that there is no firm and permanent resolve on the part of the Administration. Almost every statement at the Defense press conference substantiates my concern that they have no intention of seriously seeking alternatives sites to Vieques.

Even your recommendation to use inert ordnance during bombing maneuvers has been immediately discounted by Secretary Danzig’s announcement that “I think we would want to talk seriously with people on Vieques about how it could be enriched if we could go on to use live-fire.” Not only is it offensive to dangle financial incentives to disenfranchised and impoverished American citizens, but the Navy’s statements are abundant proof that yet one more time, they have no intention of meeting their obligations to develop satisfactory alternatives to Vieques.

It is the height of hypocrisy to on one hand support your plan, while on the other make it perfectly clear that they have no intention of meeting the requirements. How can we possibly ever trust the Navy? Admiral Johnson’s statement that “We do not want to leave Vieques,” is perhaps the most clear indication of the firmly entrenched position that has been taken by the Navy and Department of Defense. It suggests that they are prepared to do anything to maintain Vieques and will not seriously look for alternatives because they fully expect to renew their bombing operations there. When questioned about seeking replacements to Vieques, Admiral Johnson indicated that they are concerned for the “work-around, if you will, for our inability to use Vieques right now....that’s our challenge, to work with the people of Vieques to take us back there....and we want to work very carefully to get there.” These statements obviously mean that the Navy is paying lip service for the moment, but that they have no intention whatsoever to seek a permanent solution that involves ceasing the live bombing at Vieques. While we have been expecting a good faith approach in seeking a final solution to this sensitive issue, it is this type of underhanded behavior that we have confronted time and time again in our dealings with the Navy.

Our concern is further borne out by Admiral Johnson’s response to a question from a member of the press who asked “So can I just ask you, I mean, is in fact for the uniformed Navy still the ultimate goal here to resume live-fire exercises on Vieques?” Admiral Johnson responded that “We are hopeful that as we rebuild the relationship that will be the end-state, yes.” There is clearly no desire to seek alternative sites and that the Navy’s goal is to resume live fire training.

It is a slap in the face to all Puerto Rican-Americans that the Navy’s offer of economic assistance is strictly contingent on the resumption of training activities on Vieques. As indicated by Secretary Danzig, “The Secretary’s recommendation includes a 10-point outline of some economic steps that we would be prepared to take as part of the resumption of training activities on Vieques.” I find that this comment highlights the Navy’s remarkably insensitive behavior and is particularly offensive because it underscores their arrogant behavior and treatment of their fellow American citizens in Vieques when compared to the actions that the Navy takes elsewhere in the 50 states.

What makes this behavior even more remarkable is their contention that Vieques was “the crown jewel training experience” as the Navy described Vieques. This statement reminds us of the imperialistic attitude of the British as they referred to India as the Empire’s “Jewel in the Crown.”

During 57 years the Navy has actively discouraged and actually prevented the economic development and economic prosperity of the 9,400 residents sandwiched between the Navy sites in Vieques. Further, considering that a war game exercise can cost upwards of $50 million dollars per day, to put a price of $40 million on the population’s anxiety, fears and burden of 50 years, is most inappropriate. Now, in its efforts to try to resume bombing, the Navy attempts to dangle economic incentives, the very actions that they should have been taking during the last 50 years to try now to equate actions that they take in their dealings with any other community in the United States. Clearly, the Navy’s intention to remain in Vieques and resume their operations is as if nothing had ever happened.

The proposal is indeed a slap in the face to all Puerto Rican-Americans and a blow to the fairness of this entire process. You may remember that I expressed my feelings of powerlessness and disenfranchisement when I met with you at the White House and discussed the issue of Vieques in front of the entire Hispanic Caucus. I found great comfort and encouragement in your words and your commitment to “level the playing field” to enable us to be treated equitably as “fully enfranchised Americans.” But it now appears that the Navy’s arrogance against disenfranchised American citizens will not stop. The gross insensitivity shown against American citizens who lack economic influence and political leverage, but who have borne a burden for the national defense for 57 years that has been borne by few other Americans in times of peace, will continue unless you intervene and put an end to it.

The failure to establish a clear directive with respect to the return of the lands to the people of Vieques and Puerto Rico with a specific commitment for environmental clean-up operations is most unacceptable. In response to a question on the cost of the clean-up, Secretary Danzig evaded accepting responsibility by declaring that “one of the concerns that hasn’t really come to the fore but would need to be dealt with in a longer term is, it is very costly if we were to leave Vieques, either to achieve that environmental restoration or — and addition to equip another facility elsewhere with the very expensive, more than the environmental restoration cost kinds of levels of support that would be required to transfer to another place.” Contrary to what Secretary Danzig indicates, the requirement for environmental clean-up has been one of our principal goals and one of the requirements of the MOU. Since 1983, the Navy committed itself to the cleaning of all unexploded ordnance at the range two times per year, or more often if required, an obligation that they have consistently violated. Unexploded ordnance litters the fields of Vieques, the range, the reefs, the corals and the surrounding ocean. Yet, now the Navy suggests that they will evade this obligation if they are to leave Vieques.

The decision to grant the Navy another five years to find a substitute for Vieques is all for naught when the Navy does not intend to comply with that order. The Navy has alternatives for training the Eisenhower Battle Group that enable the Group to sail with a satisfactory level of readiness. Admiral Johnson acknowledged this in last Friday’s press conference. We are firmly convinced that those alternatives are available for all future missions. Yet, because Vieques is the most convenient place for the Navy, they are unwilling to accept that it is the most inconvenient place for the 9,300 American citizens that reside there.

From the time of our founding fathers and throughout the history of our Nation, the armed forces, under the leadership of our Commander in Chief, have been the keepers of our Nation’s defense. However, they have always been subject to the will of the people. Weapons in our arsenal are used to intimidate our enemies, but should not be used to endanger our own innocent civilians in the world’s greatest democracy. Only you can put an end to this injustice. Will you continue to allow the Navy to shell, bomb, degrade and contaminate a tropical island paradise in the name of “national defense” ?

The tragic accident of April 19, 1999, at the live impact range in Vieques that resulted in the death of David Sanes-Rodríguez, was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back and brought to the surface the frustration felt by the American citizens in Vieques and Puerto Rico in our quest for equality, empowerment and participation in the American democratic process.

Simply put, this would not be happening and is not happening in any other community of American citizens in any of the 50 states. The Navy now identifies Vieques as a “crown jewel,” but the inhabitants of that jewel have been mistreated as though they were adversaries or enemies, not as fellow American citizens. I have no doubt that this would never happen in Martha’s Vineyard. Massachusetts’ two powerful Senators would quickly put an end to such an effort. But here in Vieques and in Puerto Rico, our lack of voting representation, condemns us to the mercies of the political process and the Navy’s intransigence.

Beyond it being merely a “training accident,” the tragedy exposed a great injustice, and brought out all the tensions and frustrations underlying that injustice. The accident has forced many people to think about things that they do not want to hear or think about.

You may ask what is this injustice that we are challenging? What is this injustice that has brought almost all Puerto Rican-Americans across all religious, civic and political beliefs to demand justice and that moves us to convey our opinion so firmly with respect to this issue? Why should one group of disenfranchised American citizens bear a burden for the national defense that puts their lives and livelihoods at risk during times of peace? Fundamentally, we are demanding our right as American citizens to fully participate in America’s democratic system of government. We are challenging the notion that some American citizens, by virtue of geographic location, can not enjoy equal rights and equal participation in their own government.

We are challenging an unfair and inequitable policy that dictates that some American citizens do not have the same rights and obligations as all citizens in the 50 states do. It is clear that a century of encouraging and maintaining colonialism is quite enough. We are tired of being aliens in our own land. The notion that the ruled are also the rulers is one of the most basic tenets of the American Republic. This implies that citizens are the makers of their own laws and are responsible for them. Our cause is right and just and we are right to petition our government and challenge the status quo. Those of us who cannot cast our vote, lack influence. We are subject to the laws of the land, but have no vote in the Congress. We serve in the Armed Forces, but do not vote to elect the Commander in Chief that sends us in harm’s way. We support the statement that we cannot send “our boys” in harm’s way unless they are properly trained. But, we also strongly believe that we cannot put the disenfranchised American-Puerto Ricans of Vieques in “harm’s way” so that “our boys” may be properly trained.

It is my heartfelt desire that our discontent can be channeled into positive action. We do not seek a confrontation, yet there are some who do. Those who advocate violent action against the Navy are doing so in an effort to further aggravate rifts and underscore differences, so as to create a schism that perhaps could never be healed. I am convinced that the time is right to consider this as an opportunity to right political and civil injustices. We want to reaffirm our belief in our democracy and ensure that when we declare “We the people...,” we are truly part of a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

I call on you to reaffirm our rights as equal Americans. Martin Luther King, Jr. said it best when he stated that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial ‘outside agitator’ idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.”

The nation cannot afford to continue ignoring the rights of the American citizens in Puerto Rico. The Navy’s flagrant violations with respect to the Memorandum of Understanding of 1983, their arrogance and their failure to establish a mutually cooperative relationship with their fellow citizens in Vieques, abundantly and clearly establishes their lack of credibility. We believe that the Navy has abused its privileges and because, as Reverend King also asserted “privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily,” coupled by the fact that “justice too long delayed is justice denied,” make it imperative that it is up to you to resolve this situation o nce and for all.

The Navy has alternatives to Vieques that enables them to train our sailors and marines to a satisfactory level of readiness. The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Johnson, confirmed this during the press conference. In response to a question on whether we are shortchanging the men and women aboard those ships, he clarified that “The short answer is no. It is our mandate to ensure that is not the case. And as the Secretary outlines, the combination of the training experience that they’re undergoing right now in the East Coast of the United States, plus — plus — the commitment that we’ve made to train in the forward theater — that combination will take us to a satisfactory level of readiness--...They will be trained before they are put into combat. They will be sufficiently trained in live fire before they are put into combat....They will receive good training. They are receiving good training right now.”

Defense officials have confirmed our contention that there are alternatives to Vieques. Perhaps it would be appropriate to equate their intransigence to the Army’s opposition to give up the cavalry even after it became an obsolete form of warfare. Clearly, simulators and electronic training mechanisms are quickly gaining acceptance as the most appropriate venue for training and war games, besides being quite a bit less expensive.

Neither the governor, nor the 3.8 million American citizens in Puerto Rico, nor I accept a proposal that does not set forth as an objective the ceasing of all bombing and that sets forth a schedule with a firm commitment to return the lands in Vieques to the Government of Puerto Rico with the necessary environmental clean-up requirements. I call on you to reaffirm your commitment to ensure that American democratic values apply to all Americans regardless of where they live.

Mr. President, during your term in office you have exercised your leadership to create opportunities for peace and dialogue and to open doors that appeared to be nailed shut everywhere in the world. We approach the millennium with a glimmer of hope in situations that millions had given up for lost. Because of your firm commitment, the people in Northern Ireland are now united in a common vision towards peace and mutual respect. We need you to work with us in developing constructive solutions so that the residents of Vieques can also enjoy peace and prosperity together with their fellow citizens throughout the 50 states. I believe that the appointment of Ambassador George Mitchell as mediator would help to enable all of us to come to terms and find the most positive course of action.

Sincerely,

Carlos Romero-Barceló