Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

The US Bases in the Philippines

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The US Bases in the Philippines"— Presentation transcript:

1 The US Bases in the Philippines
Peoples Task for Bases Clean Up / ABC INTERNATIONAL

2 History of Resistance Filipino Revolutionaries fought against Spain and was winning when Spain sold the Philippines to the U.S. The U.S. Coopted Gen.Aguinaldo the Bourgeoisie Revolutionary Leader Filipino Revolutionaries fought against the US and were defeated in bloody wars For every Us trooper killed 50 Filipino revolutionaries were killed or 200,000 out of 700,000 population. Filipino fought against Japan and was winning when U.S. came back to invade it under the guise of liberators Filipino revolutionaries continued to fight against u.S. and the puppet governments Filipino fought against the dictator Marcos Filipino fought against the bases and won

3 U.S. Military Bases in the Philippines Chronology of Foreign Intervention from the Military
U.S. suppression of Philippine revolution 1900 Philippine serves as staging area for US military contingents sent to China to crush the Boxer Rebellion Philippines serves as base for UN intervention in Siberia during the Russian civil war Philippines serves as base for protecting the “international Settlement” in Shanghai, China Japanese conquer Philippines and use Clark for their 201st Air group ; Kamikaze base established nearby Clark Air Base and Subic naval Base play key logistical role in support of US forces in the Korean war

4 U.S. Military Bases in the Philippines Chronology of Foreign Intervention from the Military
1954 Plan drawn up to use bombers based at Clark Air Base t drop 3 tactical nuclear weapons on Viet Minh positions at Denbienphu to aid France’s colonial war . Plan not carried out Subic used for CIA operations against China 1958 Philippines Bases used for clandestine supply drops to US-backed right-wing rebels in Indonesia Air Force units from Clark deployed o Thailand as show of force to back US-allied rightists in neighboring Bases in Philippines play crucial logistical role during US intervention in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Us ships departed from Subic on combat missions. No direct bombing missions from Clark, in part because of Philippine sensitivity and in part because it was cheaper to fly from Thailand

5 U.S. Military Bases in the Philippines Chronology of Foreign Intervention from the Military
1971 Naval force from Subic deployed to Bay of Bengal to support Washington’s “tilt toward Pakistan” Policy during the India Pakistan- Bangladesh war 1975 Subic serves as staging for US military actions against kampuchea during “Mayaguez” incident Carrier task forces from Subic sent to the Indian Ocean and Arabian sea, with major deployments during the Iranian revolution, the north Yemen-South Yemen border war, and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan 1980 Marcos government announce that it has agreed that US bases can be used at staging areas fir US marines bound for Arabian Sea. Clark Air Base used as a staging point for the abortive mission of US Special operations Force who tried to free embassy hostages in Teheran 1986 Clark used to evacuate Marcos and his retinue to Guam and then Hawaii

Article II, Section 8 : The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory. Article XVIII, Section 25 : After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under 2 treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.


8 19,694 identified sites at 1,722 military installations
Extent of Contamination at Military Bases in the United States as of FY 1993 (excluding overseas bases) 19,694 identified sites at 1,722 military installations plus 2,815 identified sites at 1,632 former defense facilities TOTAL : 22,509 sites in 3,354 actives and former bases Source : “The Defense Environment Cleanup Program ; Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1993,” Development of Defense, March 31, 1994

9 By Aimee Houghton and Lenny Siegel
Pacific Studies Center and Career IPRO, San Francisco State University The US military list 80 distinct facilities with a projected Defense Department cleanup cost, from start to completion of more than $100 million each. We list them, in descending order by total estimated cleanup cost. Containing more than 4,100 individual sites where investigation or cleanup is in progress, these bases represent the bulk of the currently planned cleanup program. Though fiscal year 1994, nearly $4billion had been spent at these installations, and the Pentagon projects an additional expenditure – from fiscal year 1995 on – of over $17 billion, for a total exceeding $21 billion. None of these figures include expenditures by other responsible parties, such as shell Oil at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal or Intel at Moffett Field.

10 Cleanup of U.S. Air Force Bases Overseas (as of 1990)
Host Country No. of Installation Sites $ Spent as of 1990 Project Total Cost Canada Germany Greenland Italy Japan Korea Netherlands Portugal(Azores) Spain Turkey United Kingdom 21 6 2 1 3 28 8,400,000 920,000 1,201,000 70,000 200,000 568 ,000 1,000 8,000 500,000 61,400,000 30,751,000 1,559,000 1,580,000 650,000 986,000 1,000,000 151,000 51,000 115,000 1,950,000 Total 39 68 $11,887,000 $100,193,000 Source : Air Force survey of worldwide cleanup costs conducted for the Environmental Quality Division, Directorate of Engineering and Service, U.S. Air Force, April 1990;Cited in Defense Cleanup, Vol.3, No. 16, July 24, 1992

11 “U.S. bases are encountering increasing numbers of cases where host countries are taking legal action against the bases or the officials responsible for hazardous waste management because of past practices of improper handling, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste” From October 1984 to 1991 There were 1,259 host country claims against the U.S. totaling about $25.8 million with 140 claims for an undetermined amount Incidents of pollution confirmed at 113 additional sites and more are suspected at others. The preliminary cost estimate to settle claims that may arise at the 113 sites is $111 million, but the actual cost may be much higher. Source : “Hazardous Waste: Management problems Continue at Overseas Base.” General Accounting Office Report, August 1991

12 U. S. General Accounting Office, “Military Base Closures : U. S
U.S. General Accounting Office, “Military Base Closures : U.S. Financial Obligations in the Philippines” January 22, 1992 Environmental officers at both Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Facility have identified contaminated sites and facilities that would not be in compliance with U.S. environmental standards… For examples, the underground storage tanks lack leak detection equipment, and fire fighting facilities have no drainage system. Instead, the fuel and chemical used in fire-fighting exercises seep directly into the soil and water table, and at the Navy facilities, the overflow goes directly into Subic Bay. … according to Air force and navy officials, if the United Sates unilaterally decided to clean up these bases in accordance with U.S. standards, the costs for environmental cleanup and restoration could approach Superfund proportions.

13 Pollution Abatement and Environmental Projects
(“to correct environmental hazardous and remedy situations that pose serious health and safety threats’) at Clark and Subic that were abandoned At Subic Sanitary sewer and waste treatment facility Oil/Water separator Hazardous material storage structure Improvements to fuel storage tanks At Clark PCB removal Asbestos survey and removal Hazardous waste removal U.S. General Accounting Office report , January 22, 1992

14 Examples of contaminated sites found at both Clark and Subic :
Dumping of untreated wastewaters into Subic Bay Dumping of lead and other toxic metals from the Ship Repairpacility’s sandblasting site into Subic Bay or in the landfill PCB contamination at the Subic Power Plant Underground storage tanks Fire-fighting training facilities U.S. General Accounting Office report , January 22, 1992

15 List of 46 contaminated Sites at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility(Clark-27, Subic 19)
Known Contamination Sites at Clark Air Base(27 total sites) Based on the weston Environmental Baseline Study Mabalacat Landfill Fire training Area Power Plant Corrosion Control Areas Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office Storage Yard Area Jet Engine Test Cell Civil Engineering Entomology California Bus Line Motor Pool Motor Pool Fuel System Repair Shop Philippine Area Exchange Motor Pool Wagner Aviation Transformer Operational Well 1 in CABCOM Evacuation Center Operational Well 2 in CABCOM Operational Well 3 in CABCOM Operational Wells near former (CDC-2,8,and 9) Operational Back-up Wells Upgradient (Near Golf course and Housing CDC-16,17) Operational Well Downgradient to the Golf course (CDC-23) Operational Well near the former DRMO (CDC 4) Well Downgradient to the former DRMO (CDC -12) Operational Well near the former DRMO (CDC -4) Based on the U.S. Air Force Environmental Review of the Drawdown Activities at Clark Air Base, Republic of the Philippines Mechanical Room, Bldg 7509 Supply Storage Yard Adjac at to the DRMO Clark – Subic POL pipeline Phil. Rock Products Compound, Bldg 18 Asbestos Land fill

16 List of 46 contaminated Sites at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility(Clark-27, Subic 19)
Known Contamination Sites at Subic Naval Facility(19 sites) Based on the Woodward-Clyde Environmental Baseline Study Subic Landfill Osir Basin Old Landfill Navy Exchange Taxi Compound Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard/Deltic Yard PWC Vehicle Maintenance Yard Cubi Hospital Incinerator Fire Fighting Training Area Former Demilitarization Facility / NAVMAG SRF Causeway Explosive Ordance Disposal Area / NAVMAG Based on U.S. Navy’s Potential Restoration Sites on Board the U.S. facility, Subic Bay Sanitary Landfill Subic Power plant (Building 1800) Fleet Mooring / Sandblasting Yard Foundry Shop. Building 30 Naval Supply Depot Tank Farm, area around UST structure No. 1758 Wood Preservation and Treatment Facility, Bldg. 2259/NAVNAG Fuel Farm Area in Cubi Point naval Air Station Washrack holding Tanks, Structure No and 8416 Cubi Point Plant


18 Migration of contamination in US Air Force Base

19 Summary of Analytical Result on Soil from CDC (cited from : Weston International, “Soil and Water Baseline Study Report” Final Report, August 1997) Site Pollution which exceed US EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations for Soil Ingestion Mabalacat Land Fill Aldrin ; Dieldrin ; Lindane ; Hexachlorobenzene ; TPH (C10 to C28) Fire Training Area Aldrin , Lindane , TPH (C6 to C36) Power Plant TPH (C15 to C36) Corrosion Control Defense Reutilization Marketing Office(DRMO) storage area Jet Engine Test Cell (JETC) TPH (C15 to C28) CE Entomology (CEE) Deldrin, Heptachlor, TPH(C6 to C36) California Bus Lines (CBL) Lead, Aldrin, 4,4’-DDD, TPH(C to C36) Motor Pool (MP) Lead, TPH (C10 to C36) Fuel System Repair (FSR) TPH (C6 to C36) Philippine Area Exchange Motor Pool (PAX) Chlordane, Heptachlor, Heptachlor epoxide, TPH (C15 to C28) Hospital (transformers) PCBs Wane Aviation (transformers) PCBs (7,800mg/kg)

20 Mercury Tetrachloroethane Lead Dichloroethane
Chemicals (exceeding WHO/PNS standards) founded in Clark Air Bases Well - Documented in 1997 Weston International Soil and Water Baseline Study, commissioned by the Clark Development Mercury Tetrachloroethane Lead Dichloroethane Benzene Dichloropropylene Toulene dibromo- Xylene chloromethane Dieldrin Ethylbenzene

21 Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS) : 1985-86
Aldrin/Diedrin : in humans : potential for cancer; in animal : produced tumors of the lungs, liver, tyroid and adrenal gland. Benzene : Cancer(leukemia) Lead(Pb) : Kidney , blood, and nervous system effects Mercury (Hg) : Central nervous system depressant; mental effects PCB(Arochlors) : Potential for cancer in humans; produced tumors of the liver, pituitary gland and leukemia in animals ; skin, liver, and reproductive system effects. Blood testing required; females of child-bearing age and nursing mothers should be warned of potential harmful effects 1,1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethane : potential for cancer in humans;produced tumors of the liver in animals; liver gastrointestinal, and nervous system effects Toluene : Central nervous system depressant; respiratory effects Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon(TPH): Xylene : Central nervous system depressant; respiratory irritation

22 Pollution which exceed Water Quality Criteria
Summary of Analytical Result on Water from Various Well in CDC (cited from : Weston International, “Soil and Water Baseline Study Report” Final Report, August 1997) Site Pollution which exceed Water Quality Criteria Evacuation Camp Well Mercury Near Former Landfills (CDC-2) Dieldrin Near former Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) storage yard (CDC-4) Lead;1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane;1,2- Dichloroethane;1,3- Dichloropropylene, Benzene, Cis- 1,2dichloroethene; Dibromochloromethane Ethylbenzene; Toluene; Trans-1,2- Dichloroethene; Xylenes Near former Landfills (CC-8 and 9) Downgradient of DRMO (CDC-12) Lead Downgradient of Golf Course Maintence (CDC-23)

23 Limitation of Measure Taken
Measure Taken by CDC Limitation of Measure Taken 1. Immediate and permanent shutdown of wells with contaminants exceeding health standard so as to prevent ingestion and ensure further dilution of faint traces of contaminants noted in some wells Only prevents further contamination from vandalism. Existing studies indicate that the aquifers have already been contaminated. 2. Sealing of decommissioned wells to prevent pilferage and further contamination Same as above. A fuller investigation into the aquifer system, water hydrology, and ongoing testing can only determine the size of the plume and extent f contamination that has already reached these water systems. 3. Regular monitoring of water in Clark CDC has yet to release their monitoring results to people around the Clark area or to other government officials. Undetermined whether this water monitoring is testing for the whole range of contaminants, that could endanger the health of nearby communities.

24 McClellan Air Force Base
258 identified sites Including 18 acres of contaminated soil, 3 plumes of contaminated groundwater, PCB hot spots in DRMO area, disposal pits. 350 groundwater monitoring wells installed Some of the contaminants found in groundwater and soil samples ; benzene, carbon tetrachloride, toluene, perchloroethylene, Xylenes, chloroform, trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, lead, arsenic, cadium, mercury, PCBs and dioxin. 150 USTs removed Since 1979, 548 residences supplied with alternate drinking water source

25 McClellan Air Force Base (near Sacramento, CA)
Operable Unit(OU) A B B1 C C1 D E F G H Number Of Site 121 47 2 42 6 15 1 9 8 F McClellan Air Force Base (near Sacramento, CA) G E D H Placed on NPL in 1997 Scheduled for closure Total estimated cleanup cost : $1.6 billion Expected date of cleanup completion : 2040 C C1 A B1 B


27 Hazrdous Waste Accumulation Points ATTACHMENT 3


29 - Woodward Clyde Report
Some contaminated sites in Subic - Woodward Clyde Report

30 Comparisons of Size and Function
Alameda NAS Hunters Point Annex Mare island Naval Shipyard Subic Naval Base *largest in the world Since 1930 2,842 acres of land and water Naval Air Station Naval Aviation Depot Since 1941 522 acres Naval Shipyard/Ship repair Facility Naval Radiological Lab Since 1854 5,677 acres of land wetlands Naval Magazine Naval Shipyard Logistical Support for Assigned Ships Since 1899 16,452 acres of land plus 27,932 acres of land and water Naval Shipyard / Naval Supply Depot* / Naval Magazine / Naval Ship repair Facility / Naval Air Station (Cubi) / Naval Regional Medical Center Logistical Support for Seventh Fleet and Naval Patrol Wing Interm / Aircraft Repair Command, Control, Comm Bombing Practice Areas Jungle Survival Training Estimated Cleanup Cost : $95 million Est. Date of Completion : 2016 Estimated Cleanup Cost : $402m (52site) Est. Date of Completion : 2005 Estimated Cleanup Cost : $207m (42site) Est. Date of Completion : 2010

31 Comparisons of Identified Sites
Alameda NAS Hunters Point Annex Mare Island Naval Shipyard 23 IDETIFIED SITES including landfills, Fuel storage areas, Pest control area, Plating shop, aircraft maintenance facility, contaminated buildings, power plant, fire fighting training, transformer storage area, lagoon,hazardous waste storage yard, sewer system, fuel lines 58 IDETIFIED SITES Including asbestos in buildings, PCB leas, hazardous waste in landfill and sewer, transformer storage area, tank farm, possible radiological contamination, soil and groundwater contaminated with heavy metals, sandblast waste dumped in landfill, electroplating shop (28 of 46 USTs found leaking) 24 IDETIFIED SITES Including landfill, oil sump, berths, lagoon, acid tank, contaminated buildings, electroplating shop, acid battery storage area, waste treatment plant, fuel oil tank

32 v CONTAMINANT 1. Arsenic 11. Chloroform Detected 2. Lead 12. DDT,P’P’-
Top 20 Hazardous Substances CONTAMINANT Present at Subic Above Screening Levels 1. Arsenic v 11. Chloroform Detected 2. Lead 12. DDT,P’P’- 3. Mercury 13. Aroclor 1260 4. Vinyl chloride 14. Aroclor 1254 5. Benzene 15. Tricloroetylene 6. Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCBs) 16. Chroium(+6) 7. Cadmium 17. Dibenz[a,h]anthraene 8.Benzo(a)pyrene 18. Dieldrin 9. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 19. Hexachlorobutadiene 10. Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 20. DDE, P, P’ U.S.Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR) Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) Priority List for 19999

33 Disease Related to Toxic Waste Cotamination
Leukemia Research and Statistics Date : Feb 2000 Resource Person : Ronnie Geronimo Resources : Universal of Santo Tomas Hospital(UST) James L.Gordon Hospital (former Olongapo City Gen.Hosp) U.S.T. Hospital Year 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 Adult 21 16 3 28 35 Children 18Y/O Below 70 61 60 44 47 Total 91 77 63 72 82 James L.Gordon Hospital Name Address Age Jacquelyn Tubig Olongapo City 3 years old Melane Basco 4 years old Jay RYANGatmn Christopher Diwa Unknown Name Address Age Romar Devillener Olongapo City Unknown Rommel Lopez 14 years old Jasper Catubay Zambales 4 years old Adonis Vinluan 9 years old

Fetal period extends from day 5(at 2 months) to birth(at 9 months) By 2 months after conception(10weeks LMP) organogenesis(the formation of organs) is almost complete and the fetus starts to resemble the human body. From this time on intrauterine fetal development is predominantly growth and maturation. Once the fetus is formed, it is less susceptible to toxic insult although the central nervous system is still sensitive. The brain continues to develop during the entire pregnancy and it is not known what agents may harm it in the latter stages of pregnancy.

SIXTH WEEK days 8TH week LMP Hands feet and ears begin developing. Liver is identifiable. SEVENTH WEEK days 9TH week LMP Most of heart structural development completed. Sexual differentiation of ovaries and testes begins. SIXTH WEEK days 10TH week LMP Kidneys begin to form Bone calcification. Closure of palate occurs. Differentiation of external genitalia begins.

36 Summary of Documents of Contamination at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility
The Environmental Review of he Drawdown Activities at Clark Air Base, Republic f the Philippines, U.S. Air Force, September 1991 A preliminary and incomplete study which identifies some sites where hazardous materials were stored, used, and disposed of, sits where spills had taken place and where samples were taken showing varying levels of contamination. Military Base Closures : U.S. Financial Obligations in the Philippines, U.S. General Accounting Office, January 1992 Report by the investigative arm of Congress. Identifies some contaminated areas by environmental officers at both Clark and Subic. Estimates that the costs for environmental clean up could approach Superfund proportions. 3. U.S. Navy Potential Restoration Sites on Board the U.S. Facility, Subic Bay, October 1992 Identifies 28 potentially contaminated sites on Subic, as well as 28 potentially contaminated training areas and range utilized by Naval forces. At many sites, contamination was documented, but no cleanup had occurred; a limited cleanup had occurred but was found to be ineffective; or no investigation had occurred but contamination was suspected due to records indicating many years of toxic discharge

37 Summary of Documents of Contamination at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility
4. World Health Organization Mission Report - Subic Bay Environmental Risk assessment and Investigation Program, May 1993 Prepared for the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR).Contains a brief history of SBFZ, lists operations conducted when the facility was still a naval base, and physical description of area. Identifies and classifies the 32 activity areas at Sublc based on potential contamination. Fifteen activity areas were identified as high priority, meaning areas requiring detailed site inspection and sampling. Based on the priority ranking, a physical sampling program costing $600,000 was recommended 5. An Environmental and Health Impact Report on Known and potentially Contaminated Sited at Former U.S. military Base in the Philippines, P. Bloom etal., August 1994 Written by a team of US and Filipino scientists sponsored by the Philippine program of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee(UUSC), a NGO in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Review of DOC, WHO, and other exciting information including site visits and interviews. Identifies 14 known contaminated sites, 17 potentially contaminated sites, and 5 areas of further concern at former Subic naval Station. Also identifies 5 contaminated sites and more than 10 potentially contaminated sites at Clark Air base. Describes potential health effects due to migration of toxic and human exposures.

38 Summary of Documents of Contamination at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility
6. Soil and Groundwater baseline Study of Clark Development Corporation, weston International(USA), August 1997 Commissioned by the Clark Development Corporation for $26,000. Groundwater baseline study tested water for chemicals and bacteria within Clark field and CBCOM evacuation center. A total of 21 of the 24 locations sampled had at least one pollutant that exceeded drinking water standards. The soil study identified contamination at 13 of the sites studied. Recommended that the soil and groundwater of 75% of the soil sites be further investigated. Environmental Baseline Study at Subic Bay Freeport Zone(SPFZ), Woodward -Clyde International (USA), February 1997 Commissioned by the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority with a $670,000 oan from the World Bank.. Identified potential areas of significant contamination and determined the presence of toxic materials based on a review f past land uses and activities, sampling, and analysis of soils, Groundwater, and sediments within the developed areas of the Freeport. Recommended remediation of 9 sites costing $7-10 million and futher investigation of 13 sites costing $1.4 million.

39 Summary of Documents of Contamination at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility
8. Technical Review of the Woodward – Clyde Environmental Baseline Studyat SBFZ, Clearwater Revival Company (USA), July 1998 Commissioned by Arc Ecology, a California based environmental and military toxic NGO, for the People’s Task Force for Bases Clean Up. Purpose was to determine whether the methodology and recommendations of the Woodward-Clyde report were technically sound. Determined that the study did not accurately characterize contaminations at Subic BAY Free Port Zone. Concluded that “ the results of sampling performed during the EBS indicate that existing environmental conditions within the Freeport Zone present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and environment” Technical Review of the Weston Soil and Groundwater baseline Study of Clark Development Corporation, Clearwater Revival Company (USA), 1998 Commissioned by Arc Ecology for the People’s Task Force for Bases Clean Up. Purpose was to determine whether the methodology and recommendations of the report which was to continue to use the drinking water supply. Found flaws in the sampling methodology which could underestimate the extent of contamination. Also found Iimitations in the analysis of soil sampling results.

40 Victims Should not have to prove that they are victimized”
Summary of Documents of Contamination at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Facility Health for All, A Study of the health of People Living on or near the former US Clark Air Force Base A joint project of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health and the Peoples Task force for Base Cleanup. Principal investigator Dr,. Rosalie Bertell. Survey of 759 family respondents from 13 communities around Clark Air Base. Survey included health problems, economic status, environmental conditions, and living conditions. The dominant health problems noted were female, urinary tract, and nervous system problems. Respiratory problems were reported in 24-31% of children in each community surveyed. Dust and poor water quality were each associated with kidney and urinary tract problems, corrosive drinking water with respiratory problems, and water with unusual taste or smell with nervous system problems. The highest percentage of female, urinary tract, and nervous system problems occurred in Margot, Sapang Bato,(Angeless)Macpagal, Poblacin, San Joaquin, nd cbcom(Mabakacat). Bertell recommended officials target these area for improvement, remediation, and cleanup. “It is the polluters who should prove they are not causing the illness. Victims Should not have to prove that they are victimized” – Dr. Rosalie bertell Nov. 1998

Download ppt "The US Bases in the Philippines"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google