Federalism and The Rights of Indigenous P-1

Federalism and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
A Hawaiian Perspective
Pk Laenui Respondent to Papers Presented At the Conference on Federalism & the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Comparative Perspectives and Strategies
January 9 10, 2007 William S. Richardson School of Law
Table of Content
I. Introduction: ...............................................................................................................................1 II. Hawaiìs Story...........................................................................................................................6 A. Hawaiì's early history a background...................................................................................6 B. The recycling of Hawaiì 1900 - 1959:.................................................................................14 III. PROCESSES OF DECOLONIZATION.................................................................................28 A. Phase One: REDISCOVERY AND RECOVERY ..............................................................28 B. Phase Two: MOURNING.....................................................................................................33 C. PhaseThree: DREAMING.....................................................................................................36 D. Phase Four: COMMITMENT..............................................................................................38 E. Phase Five: ACTION...........................................................................................................43 IV. A New Federalism Structure Respecting Rights of Indigenous Peoples ................................45 1. Territory: ...........................................................................................................................45 2. Population: ........................................................................................................................45 3. Economy: ..........................................................................................................................46 4. Political Arrangement: ......................................................................................................46 5. International Stature:..........................................................................................................48 6. National Security: .............................................................................................................48 7. Property Ownership:..........................................................................................................50 8. Outstanding Claims Post Colonization:.............................................................................51 V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................51
I. Introduction:
The conference Federalism and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Comparative Perspectives and Strategies examined the colonial structures brought into indigenous territories in North America (Canada and the United States of America), Hawaiì (United States of America), Australia,
and New Zealand. The definition of federalism under examination is generally that as defined by the colonial powers. For example, the federalism within the United States of America, is the Federal or central government at the center, with the States, District of Columbia, the unincorporated territories such as American occupied Samoa, and Guam, and the Commonwealth territories of Puerto Rico, and the Northern Marianas, making up the periphery. Much of the discussion revolved around the centers management of the Indigenous questions. As such, discussion of Indigenous Peoples breaking out of the grasp of the centers control, is not given sufficient thought in such conferences. A Pacific Islanders story from Kanaky (aka New Caledonia) appears to ring true for Indigenous peoples in many other parts of the Pacific and throughout indigenous, or what has been known as the 4th, world. This story came to me by way of the late Yann Uregei, advocate for the rights of the Kanak people and the independence of Kanaky. We met in the mid 1980s in Suva, Fiji at a conference sponsored by the Law Association of Asia and the Pacific. Following the passage of these many years, some details may have been altered by my retelling it. For any inaccuracies, of course, I take full responsibility. This is the story I remember: The people in my village in Kanaky are very hospitable, taking great joy in welcoming friends and strangers alike. One day, a Kanak man resting on the front porch of his house saw a stranger, a Frenchman, walking down the footpath that crosses the front of his house. When the Frenchman came closer to the house, the Kanak stood up and invited the Frenchman into the house to rest and take some refreshments. The Frenchman accepted this invitation, entered the house, and sat at the table for the refreshments. After the Frenchman was through eating and drinking, he approached the Kanak to pay for the cost of his meal. The Kanak, taken aback, declined any payment, explaining that he had only wanted to share the hospitality of the house by his invitation and sharing of what humble food he had. The Frenchman was happy because he got a free meal. The Kanak was also happy to have been able to have someone appreciate his culture. The following day, the Frenchman came down the same footpath, bringing along with him two friends. The Kanak was not on the porch this day, so the Frenchman decided that rather than standing on ceremony, he would simply invite himself and his companions into the house, and wait at the table to be served. The Kanak, walking through his house, was surprised to find three Frenchmen in his home, sitting at his table waiting to be served with refreshments, thinking what strange social customs these strangers practice. But his culture of hospitality soon overcomes his astonishment, and he provides these guests with refreshments. When they are done with their food and drink, rather than leaving the home, they remain at the table in animated conversation, observing how comfortable this Kanaks house is, built for the particular weather of New Caledonia, and the possibilities for this house. Finally, they approach the Kanak inquiring how many people live in the home, (two-the Kanak and his wife) and where do they sleep? Again the Kanak is surprised by the inquiry, but still able to overcome the awkwardness of these strangers behaviors, he takes them to a small back room and shows them his and his wifes sleeping quarters. 2
The first Frenchman declared that they liked the room, and they wanted to move into the room. The Kanak, surprised by this declaration, asks, If you move into my room, where would my wife and I sleep? The Frenchman suggested they might enjoy the kitchen, or better yet, perhaps the porch! The Kanak takes this as a serious insult which goes far beyond the boundaries of hospitality. He speaks in a loud, harsh voice, demanding that they get out of his house or he will throw all three of them out. He prepares to fight the Frenchmen and they prepare in kind. But one Frenchman steps between the Kanak and the others, and proclaims, Let us not resort to violence. Lets act as civilized men. Let us be rational beings. Let us be orderly. Democratic. Lets take a vote! The practice of transmigrating the colonizing nations population into the territories of the indigenous peoples has been common in many territories. It is more insidious, more subtle, and more long lasting than an outright landing and takeover. Whether by a resort to arms, a resort to the ballot box, the destruction of their environment, or the whittling away of indigenous peoples culture and their robust social structures, the imprint of colonization upon indigenous peoples have been disastrous. Another Pacific Islander, Professor of Psychology and advocate for the integrity of native wisdom is the late Virgilio Enriques1, a native son of the Philippines discusses the process of colonization. The contribution from Professor Enriques is taken from his discussions with the author in Waiànae, Hawaiì in the mid 1990's. Only portions of these discussions were recorded. Professor Enriques has since passed on. The author confesses to having repeated, expanded and expounded on this conversation over the years. The following words are mine, built upon the foundation given to me by Professor Enriques: The colonization of indigenous peoples generally follows five steps. Not all steps are found in the colonization of all indigenous peoples, and there may be variations in experiences, but generally, here are my thoughts: Step 1) Denial and Withdrawal: When a colonizing people first come upon an indigenous people, the colonial strangers will immediately look upon the indigenous as a people without culture, no moral values, nothing of any
The critique provided by Professor Enriques was aired on Hawaii Public Radio program entitled A Second Glance on April 17, 1993. Copy of the program is available for $12 (U.S.) from the Hawaiian National Broadcast Corporation, 86-641 Puùhulu Rd. Waiànae Hawaiì 96792 via U.S.A.
social value to merit kind comment. Thus, the colonial people deny the very existence of a culture of any merit among the indigenous people. Indigenous people themselves, especially those who develop a closer relationship with the newcomers, gradually withdraw from their own cultural practices. Some may even join in the ridicule and the denial of the existence of culture among the native people. They may become quickly converted and later lead in the criticism of indigenous societies. Step 2) Destruction/Eradication: The colonists take bolder action, physically destroying and attempting to eradicate all physical representations of the symbols of indigenous cultures. This may include the burning of their art, their tablets, their god images, the destruction of their sacred sites, etc. At times, the indigenous people themselves may participate in this destruction - some may even lead in the destruction. Step 3) Denigration/Belittlement/Insult: As colonization takes a stronger hold, the new systems which are created within indigenous societies, such as churches, colonial style health delivery systems, education systems and new legal institutions, will all join to denigrate, belittle, and insult any continuing practice of the indigenous culture. Churches will style indigenous religious practices as devil worship and condemn the practitioners to physical torture or their souls to hell. Colonially trained medical practitioners will refer to the indigenous doctors as witches if their medicine is successful and ignorant superstitious fools if their medicine fails. The education system will substitute colonial heroes for indigenous ones, colonial histories for indigenous ones, colonial languages for indigenous ones. The new legal institutions will criminalize the traditional practices, fine the practitioners and may declare illegal the possession of traditionally sacred or healing materials. Here, even symbols of evil must be imported by the colonizer in order for evil to gain legitimacy within the society. Thus, we find in many colonized societies, the importation of Dracula, Halloween, or other representations of evil through the colonial societies literature or legends, all the while alluding to the Indigenous peoples representations of evil as more ignorant superstitions. Step 4) Surface Accommodation/Tokenism: In this stage of colonization, whatever remnants of culture have survived the onslaught of the earlier steps are given surface accommodation. They are tolerated as an exhibition of the colonial regimes sense of leniency to the continuing ignorance of the natives. These practices are called folkloric, of showing respect to the old folks and to tradition. They are given token regard. 4
Step 5) Transformation/Exploitation: The remnant of the traditional culture, which simply refuses to die or go away is now transformed into the culture of the dominating colonial society. A Christian church may now use an indigenous person as a priest, permitting the priest to use the indigenous language, to incorporate some indigenous terms and practices, within the churchs framework of worship. Indigenous art, which has survived may gain popularity and now forms the basis for economic exploitation. Indigenous symbols in print may decorate modern dress. Indigenous musical instruments may be incorporated into modern music. To support indigenous causes within the general colonial structure may become the popular political thing to do so the culture is further exploited. This exploitation may be committed by indigenous as well as non-indigenous peoples. The opening story of Yann Uregeis Kanaky and the subsequent analysis of Vergilio Enriques stages of colonization are told in the descriptive model of the situation of Indigenous Peoples. In the Kanaky story, another chapter of that story is in the writing, a chapter describing the re-inscription at the United Nations of Kanaky upon the list of places to be decolonized. Discussions have taken place and appear to be continuing over who should constitute the self in the future exercise of self-determination. Professor Enriques stages of colonization is today being joined by another model, one of visioning what can and should become of the future of Hawaiì a model of the five stages of decolonization (at Part II). Within that model of decolonization is consideration over the self question, like that being addressed in Kanaky. The Hawaiì story put forth here challenges the common story about Hawaiì and the Native Hawaiians as seen through the perspective of the Federal Government and the federalist who parcel out governmental powers in terms of the center and the peripheries. This is a story of Hawaiìs independence movement and of the native Hawaiians rights under a new federalism, one within a Hawaiì territory which has finally decoupled from the United States of America.
II. Hawaiìs Story

A. Hawaiì's early history a background
Hawaiì's ancestors journeyed throughout the vast Pacific, guided by stars, the rising sun, clouds, birds, wave formation, and flashing lights from the water's depth. They touched upon many lands including the most isolated landmass in the world - Hawaiì. They continued commerce with cousins of the Pacific many years after arriving in Hawaiì. They had infrequent contacts with Japan, Great Turtle Island (today "North America"), South America and other Pacific rim places. Hawaiì remained relatively unknown to Europe until the 25th of January 1778 when James Cook, Captain of the British Navy's ships Resolution and Discovery arrived. Making his third voyage into the Pacific, this time to find a northwest or southeast passage to the East Indies, Cook arrived to find a highly-developed Hawaiian society. He was welcomed in friendship and then welcomed again when he returned from exploring the arctic region nine months later. In an unfortunate misunderstanding, Cook attempted to apply violence once too often upon the Hawaiian people. He tried to recover a knife removed from his ship and several boats left tied to a buoy the night before, by holding the primary chief, Kalaniopuù, as ransom. Lower chiefs interceded, objecting to Kalaniopuù's going with Cook. Cook proceeded to beat a native with the butt of his musket, fired a shot, which injured one and fired again killing another. Retreating to his boats waiting a few yards off shore, his men on the boats fired at the natives in the crowd on shore. Cook's company on land also opened fire on the Hawaiians. As Cook entered the water, one chief stepped behind him and planted an iron dagger between his shoulders. Another struck him on the head with a club. Cook fell, more natives rushed in and ended his further exploration for a northwest passage and his life.2 Following soon thereafter, Hawaiì was cast into world attention by Cooks contact with Hawaiì. During the reign of Kamehameha I, 1779 - 1819, Hawaiì was trading with China, England and the United States. Hawaiì was dealing with other nations as well on a regular basis. In 1840, King Kamehameha III, Kauikeauoli, introduced the first written Constitution that contained a Declaration of Rights, also called the Hawaiian Magna Charta. Upon the promulgation of this document, the Hawaiian state passed from an absolute monarchy to a Constitutional monarchy, recognizing the equality of all people before the law. On November 28, 1843 Great Britain and France joined in a Declaration recognizing Hawaiì's independent statehood and pledged never to take it as a possession. When the United States was invited to join this declaration, J.C. Calhoun, U. S. Secretary of State, replied that the President adhered completely to the spirit of disinterestedness and self-denial which breathed in that declaration.
2 Gavan Daws, Shoal of Time, UH Press 1968, pp 20-23; Captain Cook's Final Voyage: The Journal of Midshipman George Gilbert, UH Press 1982, at pp. 99 et seq and 103 et seq; Hawaii: An uncommon history, Edward Joesting, 1972,W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., at Chapter 3, p.25 et seq. 6
"He had already, for his part", Calhoun pointed out, "taken a similar engagement in the message which he had already addressed to Congress on December 31, 1842."3 By 1887, Hawaiì had treaties and conventions with Belgium, Bremen, Denmark, France, the German Empire, Great Britain, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New South Wales, Portugal, Russia, Samoa, Spain, the Swiss Confederation, Sweden and Norway, Tahiti, and the United States.4 Hawaiì was a member of one of the first international organizations, the Universal Postal Union. Approximately a hundred diplomatic and consular posts around the world were established.5 Immigrants from all parts of the world came to Hawaiì. Early sailors to Hawaiì chose to remain in the islands rather than returning to Europe. Many of the early Portuguese left their whaling ships and sought refuge with Hawaiian families. They married into Hawaiian families and became part of the Hawaiian society.6 Chinese and Japanese laborers came to work on sugar plantations or accompanied such workers. Some missionary family members remained in Hawaiì even after the formal mission was terminated, taking up important roles in Hawaiian society.7 Many others, including those of African, Polynesian, and other European descents established their homes in Hawaiì. As they did this, many renounced their former citizenship and took up Hawaiian citizenship.8 Hawaiian literacy was among the highest of the world. Hawaiì had telephones and electricity built into its governing palace, Ìolani, prior to the U.S.'s White House. Multi-lingual citizens abounded. Hawaiian leaders had excellent comprehension of world and political geography. King Kalakaua was the first Head of State to circle the world in a visit of nations in 3 Dispatch from Pageot, French representative in Washington, to Guizot, French minister of Foreign affairs, No.55, June 11, 1844, AMAE (Paris), Etats Unis, Vol. C. 4 Treaties and Conventions Concluded between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Other Powers since 1825, Elele Book, Card, and Job Print., 1887. 5 Directory and Handbook of the Kingdom of Hawaii, F.M. Hustat, 1892
6 Interview with Herbert Carlos, A Second Glance, Hawaiian National Broadcast Corporation aired over Hawaiì Public Radio Oct. 2, 1993 w/ host Pk Laenui. 7 Interviews with Dr. Alfred Castle, Professor of History, Hawaiì Pacific University, President of the Samuel N. and Mary T. Castle Foundation, 6th generation missionary family in Hawaiì, A Second Glance, July 11 & 18, 1992, Hawaiian National Broadcast Corporation, aired over Hawaiì Public Radio w/ host Poka Laenui. 8 John Ricord swore allegiance to Kamehameha III and was named attorney general for the kingdom. He remained in Hawaiì from 1844 to 1847. Hawaii, An uncommon history, Edward Joesting, 1972; In the first (1840) constitution of Hawaiì, "the people" are undistinguished in terms of electing representatives. In the second (1852) constitution, (Art. 78), a distinction is now made between "subjects of His Majesty, whether native or naturalized," (emphasis added) and "denizen of the Kingdom." 7
his plan to weave a tapestry of international economic and political alliances to assure Hawaiian independence. By 1892, Hawaiì was a vibrant multi-racial, multi-cultural nation engaged in intellectual and economic commerce throughout the world. Over the years since the formation of single state from various island chiefdoms in 1810 until 1893, Hawaiì underwent many changes in its political formation, in its economy, in its population make-up, in its educational quality, and in its international presence. Hawaiì was undergoing its course of development, unfolding into its future based on its own internal culture, hopes and dreams for its future. Two powerful forces interrupted this practice of self-determination. One called itself the missionary party, aligning themselves with their ancestors who had become very influential in the religious, political and economic development of these islands since the first boatload of Christian missionaries in 1820. The second was from the expansionist segment of the United States of America. They conspired to deprive the Hawaiian people of their independent nationstate. It is important to identify two men in particular who were at the head of the missionary party. Lorrin Thurston was the grandson of one of the first missionaries, Asa Thurston. Sanford Dole was the son of Daniel Dole, another early missionary.9 As early as 1882, Lorrin Thurston had already exchanged confidences with leading American officials on the matter of Hawaii's takeover. In fact the United States Secretary of the Navy assured Thurston that the administration of U.S. President Chester A. Arthur would look with favor upon a takeover in Hawaiì. In 1892, in another visit to the United States, Thurston again received the same assurance from the administration of U.S. President Benjamin Harrison.10 In January, 1893, Thurston organized twelve of his associates to form the "Committee of Public Safety" and arranged an immediate visit to the American Minister plenipotentiary in Hawaiì, John L. Stevens, to conspire for the overthrow of Liliùokalani. Little convincing was necessary for Stevens was already one of the foremost advocates for a U.S. takeover of Hawaiì. Appointed in June, 1889 as the U.S. Minister plenipotentiary, he arrived in Hawaiì on September 20 of that year and regarded himself as having a mission to bring about annexation of Hawaiì to the United States. His letters to Secretary of State James G. Blaine, beginning less than a month after his arrival reflect his passion to take Hawaiì for the United States.11 After three years of encouraging the taking of Hawaiì, Stevens writes back to Washington on March 8, 1892, for instruction of how far he may deviate from established
9 10 11
Daws, Supra note 2, p.242 Daws p.266 53rd Congress 2 Sess., House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. no. 48 8
international rules and precedents in the event of an orderly and peaceful revolutionary movement, setting forth a step-by-step prediction of future events. On November 19, 1892, he writes to the Secretary of State, arguing that those favoring annexation in Hawaiì are qualified to carry on good government, "provided they have the support of the Government of the United States." He continued, "[H]awaii must now take the road which leads to Asia, or the other, which outlets her in America, gives her an American civilization, and binds her to the care of American destiny. . . .To postpone American action many years is only to add to present unfavorable tendencies and to make future possession more difficult." He called for "bold and vigorous measures for annexation. I cannot refrain from expressing the opinion with emphasis that the golden hour is near at hand. . . . So long as the islands retain their own independent government there remains the possibility that England or the Canadian Dominion might secure one of the Hawaiian harbors for a coaling station. Annexation excludes all dangers of this kind."12 Thus, when Thurston met with Stevens on January 15, 1893, the "golden hour" had arrived. It was agreed that United States marines would land under the guise of protecting American lives (the missionary partys). The "missionary" party would declare themselves the "provisional government." This puppet government would immediately turn Hawaiì over to the United States in an annexation treaty. The missionary party would be appointed local rulers of Hawaiì as a reward. The United States would obtain the choicest lands and harbors for their Pacific armada. On January 16, 1893, over 160 American marines and navy bluejackets landed in peaceful Honolulu armed with Gatling gun, Howitzer cannons, double cartridge belts filled with ammunition, carbines and other instruments of war. The U.S.S. Boston, with the latest high-tech weaponry, had its guns leveled straight at the palace, a mere few hundred yards away. The protest by Hawaii's Queen that such landing was a breach of treaty and international law was simply ignored. The troops marched along the streets of Honolulu, rifles facing the Queen's palace. The following day, the resident conspirators numbering 18, mostly Americans, sneaked to a government building a few yards from where the American troops lodged the night before. There, an American lawyer who had been a resident of Hawaiì less than a year previous proclaimed they were now the government of Hawaiì. Calling themselves the "provisional government" and selecting Sanford Dole president, they were to exist for the explicit purpose and until terms could be arranged with the U.S. for annexation. Before the full declaration had been read, the U.S. marines marched into the building to protect and support them. American Minister Plenipotentiary and commander of all U.S. forces in Hawaii, John L. Stevens, gave them immediate recognition as the government of Hawaii as 12 "Cleveland's Address to Congress, 18 December 1893," Richardson, A Compilation of The Messages and Papers of the Presidents: 1789-1908, Vol. IX (1908). 9
had been planned. He then joined in their demand that the Queen surrender under threat of war with the U.S.13 The landing of the U.S. marines is now a matter of history. The queen yielded her authority, trusting to the "enlightened justice" of the United States, expecting that a full investigation would be conducted and the U.S. government would restore the constitutional government of Hawaiì.14 She wrote: I, Liliùokalani, by the grace of God and under the constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom. That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose minister plenipotentiary, his excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the Provisional Government. Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest, and impelled by said force, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representative and reinstate me and the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands. On January 18, 1893, the day after Liliùokalani yielded, the "provisional government", forbade any of the Queen's supporters from boarding the only ship leaving Hawaiì and rushed off to Washington to obtain annexation. By February 16, 1893, a treaty of annexation was hurriedly negotiated, signed and presented by President Harrison to the United States Senate for ratification. However, Grover Cleveland replaced Harrison before the Senate voted. Meanwhile, the Queen's emissaries managed to sneak to the United States traveling as businessmen and upon reaching Washington pleaded with Cleveland to withdraw the treaty and conduct the promised investigation.15 James H. Blount, formerly the Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, was appointed special investigator. After several months of investigation, Blount exposed the conspiracy. Cleveland subsequently addressed Congress declaring: 13 East Wind Magazine, Vol. III, No. 1 Spring/Summer 1984, "Hawaiian Sovereignty," article by Poka Laenui. 14 Hawaiis Story by Hawaiis Queen Liliùokalani, Mutual Publishing, Honolulu, HI, 1990 at pages 387-388. 15 Attorney Paul Neumann and Prince David Kawananakoa were the Queen's representatives. See Joesting, note 9, at p.239. 10
By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown. A substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair. . . . [Liliùokalani] knew that she could not withstand the power of the United States, but believed that she might safely trust to its justice. [S]he surrendered not to the provisional government, but to the United States. She surrendered not absolutely and permanently, but temporarily and conditionally until such time as the facts could be considered by the United States [and it can] undo the action of its representative and reinstate her in the authority she claimed as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands. In summarizing the events, Cleveland wrote: The lawful Government of Hawaiì was overthrown without the drawing of a sword or the firing of a shot by a process every step of which, it may be safely asserted, is directly traceable to and dependent for its success upon the agency of the United States acting through its diplomatic and naval representatives. But for the notorious predilections of the United States Minister for annexation, the Committee of Safety, which should be called the Committee of Annexation, would never have existed. But for the landing of the United States forces upon false pretexts respecting the danger to life and property the committee would never have exposed themselves to the pains and penalties of treason by undertaking the subversion of the Queen's Government. But for the presence of the United States forces in the immediate vicinity and in position to afford all needed protection and support the committee would not have proclaimed the provisional government from the steps of the Government building. And finally, but for the lawless occupation of Honolulu under false pretexts by the United States forces, and but for Minister Stevens' recognition of the provisional government when the United States forces were its sole support and constituted its only military strength, the Queen and her Government would never have yielded to the provisional government, even for a time and for the sole purpose of submitting her case to the enlightened justice of the United States. [T]he law of nations is founded upon reason and justice, and the rules of conduct governing individual relations between citizens or subjects of a civilized state are equally applicable as between enlightened nations. The considerations that international law is without a court for its enforcement, and that obedience to its commands practically 11
depends upon good faith, instead of upon the mandate of a superior tribunal, only give additional sanction to the law itself and brand any deliberate infraction of it not merely as a wrong but as a disgrace.16 Cleveland refused to forward the treaty to the Senate as long as he remained President. Liliùokalani was advised of the President's desire to aid in the restoration of the status existing before the lawless landing of the United States forces at Honolulu if such restoration could be effected upon terms providing for clemency as well as justice to all parties. In short, the past should be buried and the restored government should reassume its authority as if its continuity had not been interrupted.17 The Queen, first protesting that such a promise from her would constitute an unconstitutional act and was therefore beyond her powers to grant, later acceded to the demands for general amnesty upon the return of the powers of government.18 The Provisional Government was immediately informed of this decision and asked to abide by Cleveland's decision, yielding to the Queen her constitutional authority; to which it refused. In doing so, they protested Cleveland's attempt to "interfere in the internal affairs" of their nation, declaring themselves citizens of the Provisional Government, thus beyond Cleveland's authority. A short time before, they had relied upon their American citizenship and thus justified the landing of U.S. marines to protect their lives! Cleveland, though filled with principled words, left the U.S. troops in Hawaiì's harbors to protect American lives. The "provisional government" was under international criticism for being a government without the support of its people, existing, in fact, without a constitution or other fundamental document to afford even the appearance of legitimacy. Faced with the predicament of an American administration which would not condone the conspiracy, yet would not abandon American lives in Hawaiì evidenced by the remaining American war ships in Honolulu Harbor, they devised a plan to restructure themselves to appear as a permanent rather than a provisional government. When a new American president came to office, the restructured government would act as the vehicle to place the conspiracy back on course. A constitution giving them permanence and validity had to be drafted. Dole, acting as President of the Provisional Government, announced a constitutional convention of thirty-seven delegates, nineteen, selected by him, and the remaining eighteen elected. The candidates and voters for these eighteen positions were first required to renounce Queen Liliùokalani and swear
16 See Cleveland's Address to the Joint Houses of the United States Congress, December 18, 1893, 17 18 Gillis, James Andrew, The Hawaiian Incident, Books for Libraries Press, p.87-88, 1970. Liliùokalani, Supra note 14, p. 245-251 12
allegiance to the provisional government.19 Less than 20% of the otherwise qualified voters participated in their election. A "Constitutional Convention" was held. A document substantially as submitted by Dole and Thurston was adopted. The constitution of the "Republic of Hawaiì" claimed dominion over all lands and waters of Hawaiì. It claimed all citizens of Hawaiì automatically its citizen. Foreigners who supported the new regime could vote; citizens loyal to the Queen could not; and because the Japanese and especially the Chinese supported Liliùokalani, they were, as a group disenfranchised. Further, only those who could speak, read and write in English or Hawaiian and explain the constitution, written in English, to the satisfaction of Dole's supporters could vote. On July 4, 1894 while Americans were celebrating their independence day by firing their cannons from their war ships in Honolulu Harbor, Dole ascended the steps of Ìolani Palace and proclaimed the Constitution and thus the "Republic of Hawaiì" into existence. In so doing, he declared all of the government lands and the crown lands and all the waters of the Hawaiian nation was now the Republic's. All Hawaiian citizens were automatically considered citizens of the Republic. No vote was taken on the matter. Liliùokalani had lost her throne for considering altering the constitution by fiat, alleged the missionary party. Now, circumstances having altered the players, the conspirators invoked the name of liberty and did substantially the same thing.20 When William McKinley replaced Cleveland as President, Dole's group rushed to Washington to complete the conspiracy. With a "Constitution" in hand declaring they governed Hawaiì, the "Republic of Hawaiì" ceded "absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands. . ." A "treaty of annexation" was signed. Realizing the "treaty" could not get the 2/3 Senate approval required of the U.S. Constitution,21 the conspirators circumvented that requirement and settled for only a joint resolution of Congress. The Newland Resolution of July 7, 1898 was passed22 over the outcry of the vast majority of people in Hawaiì.23 19 20 21 22 Daws, Supra Note 2, p 2 80-281, Hawaii--A History, Kuykendall, Ralph S., p.183. Daws, Supra Note 2, p. 281. Article 2, 2 U.S. Constitution. Newlands Resolution of July 7, 1898; 30 Stat. 750; 2 Supp. R.S. 895.
23 Memorial Statement adopted by a Mass Gathering on Oct. 8, 1897 addressed to the President, the Congress and the People of the United States of America. The mass petitions obtained by two civic organizations, Hui Aloha àina and Hui Kalaiàina contained up to 39,000 names, protesting annexation of Hawaiì by the United States. It is commonly know today as the Kuè Petition. 13
The United States now asserted its authority, backed by its military force, over Hawaiì. It soon established the government of the "Territory of Hawaiì"24 under which the President of the United States rather than the people of the territory, would select the territorial governor. As these events were happening, Liliùokalani engraved her plea to the American people: Oh, honest Americans, as Christians hear me for my down-trodden people! Their form of government is as dear to them as yours is precious to you. Quite as warmly as you love your country, so they love theirs. [D]o not covet the little vineyards of Naboth's so far from your shores, lest the punishment of Ahab fall upon you, if not in your day in that of your children, for "be not deceived, God is not mocked." The people to whom your fathers told of the living God, and taught to call "Father," and whom the sons now seek to despoil and destroy, are crying aloud to Him in their time of trouble; and He will keep His promise, and will listen to the voices of His Hawaiian children lamenting for their homes.25 Her plea fell on a deaf people. And so we find the closing of the chapter of Hawaiì as a free and unoccupied nation. Hawaiì was now to undergo years of American brainwashing, colonization and military occupation. These were to be the pay-off years for the conspirators.
B. The recycling of Hawaiì 1900 - 1959:

Hawaiì underwent traumatic changes affecting every aspect of life. Sanford Dole was appointed territorial governor by the U.S. President. He provided government positions and lucrative government contracts for friends. He was later appointed Federal District Court Judge, a lifetime tenure. Monopolies in shipping, finance and communications developed. The Big Five, a coalition of five business entities, all finding their roots in the missionary party, controlled every aspect of business, media and politics in Hawaiì. Beginning with sugar, they took steps to control transportation, hotels, utilities, banks, insurance agencies, and many small wholesale and retail businesses. When they teamed up with the Republican Party, the United States Navy and high government officials, there was virtually nothing they couldn't exploit. The ever-present U.S. Navy took more than a hand in this tyranny. When a Navy officer's wife, Thalia Massie, left a party one night intoxicated and unescorted, later declaring herself raped, the obvious suspect, another Navy officer found with his pants zipper open, semen stains present and marks of blood upon his clothing, was released after questioning and placed in military custody on the Admiral's boat, never again to be seen in Hawaiì by police officers. Yet, three Hawaiians were subsequently arrested and amid conflicting and contradictory evidence, were tried for the rape of a military white woman. The jury acquitted each defendant. 24 25 The Organic Act of April 30, 1900, C 339, 31 Stat 141. Liliùokalani p.373-374. 14
One evening soon after their acquittal, one of the three Hawaiian defendants was found murdered in the car of some navy men. Trial eventually followed in which guilty verdicts were returned for all, only to find each sentence commuted by the Governor, appointed by the President of the United States and controlled by the U.S. Navy. For murder of Mr. Kahahawai, the defendants spent an hour sipping tea on the balcony of Ìolani Palace, then were escorted to Pearl Harbor, where a Navy vessel took them back to the U.S.26 The myth of the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race was continuously propagated.27 George Washington, Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson were the fathers of our country and the heroes of modern democracy. Christopher Columbus, Leif Erickson and Ferdinand Magellan were supreme navigators and discoverers. The roots of science, technology, logic, philosophy, law and religion all grew out of Europe and America. We were shown no native heroes, taught no native systems of knowledge, given no encouragement to gain pride in our own ancestry. Instead, native practices were oftentimes belittled and forbidden. The customs and traditions and even the cultural names of the people were suppressed in this recycling effort. The great makahiki celebrations honoring Lono, an important god of peace, harvest, agriculture and medicine were never observed or mentioned in the schools. Instead, Christmas was celebrated with plays and pageants. People were coaxed into giving children American names having no ties with our ancestors; names which described no physical substance, spiritual sense or human mood; names which could not call upon the winds or waters, the soil or heat; names totally irrelevant to the surroundings. The arts and sciences of Hawaiì's ancestors were driven to near extinction. The advanced practice of healing through the medicines of plants, water, or massage, or just the uttered word, were driven into the back countryside. The science of predicting the future through animal behaviors, cloud colors, shapes and formations of leaves on trees were discounted as superstitions and ridiculed as old folks tales. The Hawaiian culture was being ground to extinction.28 26 Interview with William Isaacs in 1980 who assisted in the Prosecution of the defendants for the murder of Joseph Kahahawai. He descends from a family strongly supportive of Queen Liliùokalani. He and four other young part-Hawaiians went off to law schools across the United States and upon returning home, took the judiciary examination to practice law, all of them consistently failed, after years of testing, by scores of to 1 point. When asked to examine the results, their requests were continually denied by the legal bar. Mr. Isaacs died in 1994 as the last District Court practitioner who was never licensed to practice in the Territorial or the State Circuit or Supreme Courts. He was licensed to practice in the U.S. Federal District Court. 27 Interviews over the years with Charles Kaùhane, 1968, Stanley Hara, 1968, William Isaacs, 1984, Nalu Simeona, 1970-1988, Nadao Yoshinaga, 1966-1968. 28 Interviews with Daniel Hanakahi, 1980-1990; A.K. Chong aka Sam King Sheong aka Samuel Chong 1980-1986; Gregory Kalahikiola Naliìèlua Keawe, 1978-1988; Ephriam Makua, 1974-1982; Pilahi Paki, 1978-1985; Mary Kawena Pukuì, 1973; Louis Àila, 1974-1975; Ned Burgess, 1968-1982; Arthur Cathcart, 1982; Arthur Chun, 1982-1984; Harry Kunihi Mitchell, 15
A massive brainwashing program was begun to convince Hawaiians that the United States was the legitimate ruler and that the Hawaiians were no longer Hawaiians but Americans. The term Hawaiian was redefined as a racial rather than a national term. Large numbers of citizens of Hawaiì who had no Hawaiian blood were identified no longer as Hawaiians, but as Chinese, Korean, English, Samoan, Filipino, etc. The divide and conquer tactic was employed even among the Hawaiì race, by the U.S. Congress when it defined "native Hawaiians" (at least 50% of the aboriginal blood), as being entitled to special land privileges thus depriving others of lesser "blood."29 Children were forced to attend American schools, and there taught to pledge their allegiance to the United States, trained in the foreign laws, told to adopt foreign morality, trained to compete and stand out above one's peers rather than to share and uplift one another, to speak no language but the foreign (English), and to adopt the foreign (American) lifestyle. Official government proceedings were to be conducted in English and not the Hawaiian language. In the schools and college campuses, the language of Hawaiì was forbidden and in later years, found, if at all, taught in the foreign language departments. Transmigration took place. The United States government controlled that program. Hawaiì witnessed a tide of Americans bringing with them a barrage of cultural, moral, religious and political concepts. Hawaiians were "persuaded" into mimicking these newcomers' ways, idolizing their heroes, and adopting their living styles. As Americans infiltrated, they took choice jobs with government agencies and management positions with business interests. They bought up or stole, through the manipulation of laws applied by them, much of the lands and resources of Hawaiì. They gained power in Hawaiì, controlled greater chunks of the economy, controlled the public media, entrenched themselves in politics, and joined in the brainwashing of the Hawaiians to believe they were Americans. The military turned Hawaiì into its Pacific fortress converting Pearl Harbor from a coaling and fueling station to a major naval port. It bombed valleys (Makua, Kahanahaiki, Waikane) and took a major island (Kahoòlawe) for its exclusive use as a target range. At will it tossed families out of homes, destroying sacred Hawaiì heirlooms and built instead naval communication towers emitting radiation and ammunition depots hiding nuclear weapons (Lualualei). It declared martial law at will, violating even the U.S. constitution,30 and imposed military conscription over Hawaiian citizens.
1984-1988; David Roy, 1984-1985; Marie (Aunty Momi) Ruane, 1977-1993; Nalu Simeona, 1970-1988. 29 Title 2: 201(7), Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, Act of July 9, 1921, 42 Stat 108. 30 Hawaiì Under Army Rule, J. Garner Anthony, UH Press, 1955 16
Freedom of trade was stopped. The U.S. Congress assumed control over foreign relations. Hawaiians could buy only American goods or U.S. approved foreign goods. The Big Five, five major corporations with interlocking directorates, all traceable to the missionary families and the revolution of 1893, controlled all shipping! Every aspect of Hawaiì was Americanized. Military show of strength was constant. Trade was totally controlled. Education and media was regulated. The secret ballot was a farce. Hawaiì, that melting pot of cultures, races, languages and lore changed from a reality to an advertisement slogan for politicians and merchants. D: Hawaiian Statehood 1959 Finally, after three generations of brainwashing, "Hawaiians" were asked to become equal Americans! The United States placed the following question to the "qualified" voters in Hawaiì: Shall Hawaiì immediately be admitted into the Union as a State? "Qualified" voters were Americans who were residents of Hawaiì for at least 1 year. The U.S. provided the vote for thousands of American citizens brought in through its transmigration program, through military assignments, and through generations of socialization of Hawaiian citizens. The Hawaiian "self" which carried the ancestry, the history and the consciousness of the Hawaiian nation was now replaced by an altered "self". Those who resisted that American alteration, who refused to succumb to foreign domination and insisted on not a United States but a Hawaiian citizenship could not vote.31 The U.S. government not only altered the "self," but also manipulated and limited the "determination" options, which should have been made available. In its posing the "statehood" question so adeptly, the U.S. government simply foreclosed any real choice of "determination" by limiting Hawaiì to either remaining a territory of the United States or becoming a "State" within its union. One way or the other, Hawaiì was trapped into remaining under the domination of the United States. The question, "Should Hawaiì be independent?" was never asked. The result of this maneuver was that the qualified Americans chose Statehood overwhelmingly. In 1996, during a television interview with William F. Quinn, former governor of the Hawaiì territory in 1959, appointed by the President of the United States, he confessed to his ignorance of the international requirement of providing choices to the colonized people of the territory as set forth under U.N. Charter, Article 73.32
31 The Politics of Forgetting & Remembering (Hawaiian Statehood Revisited), Pk Laenui, Institute for the Advancement of Hawaiian Affairs, January 14, 1998, Republished in Reclaiming Indigenous Voice & Vision, Edited by Marie Battiste, UBC Press 2000, p. 50 - 53 17
Hawaiì thus became a member of the union of states, its fate said now to be sealed in a permanent political bond to the United States of America under a theory of non-secession of U.S. States, citing as authority, the war between the States a century earlier. E: Growing international awareness in Hawaiì The promotion of decolonization by the U.N., especially in the more recent period, has not been lost to the people of Hawaiì. Other events, closer to home, impacting upon Hawaiian awareness of international rights are the emergence of independent Pacific nations. Beginning with Western Samoa 1962, the Pacific Ocean saw the explosion of independence, marking the Pacific map with new nations such as Fiji, Nauru, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Cook Islands, Niue and Vanuatu. After a 10 year lull since the independence of Vanuatu, we have seen the emergence of American territories of Micronesia into full nationhood. In September 1991, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia became members of the United Nations. The struggle of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas for greater clarity in its relations to its former colonial ruler, the attempt by the Republic of Belau to achieve independence without U.S. military presence, and the developing demands in Guam to application of international standards of selfdetermination, leading to the right to select emergence as a sovereign independent nation are all struggles not lost to the Hawaiì public. Before the implosion of the Soviet Union, the emergence of the nations of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, previously fully integrated into the Soviet Union, but within a few months, welcomed into membership of the United Nations, are experiences which also add to the debate of Hawaiian sovereignty and self-determination. These international activities reflecting a world momentum toward self-determination challenge the notion that once becoming a member of the union of the United States, no state
18
may secede from that union. These activities, instead, support the proposition that the right to
19
self-determination is a continuing right, never consumed by its previous exercise.33 1: Cultural rejuvenation This international awareness has been coupled with a renewed sense of defiance against further cultural suppression of Hawaiì's indigenous culture. During the 1960's, Hawaiì witnessed the unfolding drama in the U.S. of the black struggle for equality, including the riots in Watts, the marches and the bus boycotts, the voter registration drives, and the massive rallies in Washington D.C. The American Indian Movement's activities also caught the attention of Hawaiì. Those civil rights movements, however, were soon overshadowed by the Vietnam war. Many Hawaiì citizens became directly involved in that war. By the end of the 1960's, a changed attitude towards the U.S. government had come about. The shining U.S. image was tarnished. Many in Hawaiì came out of the 1960's with greater sensitivity for racial identity and pride in the cultural heritage of Hawaiì. There came a greater willingness to challenge governments, either individually or in organizations. Hawaiian music took on new vigor. Hula halau (training schools and repositories of the Hawaiian dance) gained wider prestige and membership, canoe clubs became more popular, interest in the Hawaiian language took hold, as well as practice in the natural medicines of Hawaiì, and familiarity with Hawaiì's history. Hawaiian names were being used prominently and with greater insistence in the public. This cultural rejuvenation was joined by people of many different races in Hawaiì. Land for native Hawaiians soon became another focus of contention. Kalama Valley on Oàhu and the eviction of farmers there sparked a wave of challenges to the system. The movement to protect the island, Kahoòlawe, from military bombing expanded the target of protest to the previously "sacred" military establishment. A plethora of new Hawaiian organizations came into being. The issue of Hawaiian sovereignty and self-determination was a natural outgrowth of the disenchantment with Hawaiian social and economic conditions. The Sovereignty for Hawaiì Committee was formed, advocating Hawaiian independence in the local schools, along the beaches and at business luncheons, regionally within the Pacific, among international non-governmental organizations
20
and within the United Nations.34 The combination of all of these factors brought about a new consciousness of injustice - the denial of the Hawaiian nation of its right to decolonization. By the second half of the 1970's, the sovereignty challenges were being made more explicit. In a highly publicized trial in 1977 of a reputed Hawaiì underworld leader, the very jurisdiction of the State Courts to sit in judgment over a Hawaiian citizen was raised. The Blount Report, President Cleveland's address to Congress, the Newlands Resolution annexing Hawaiì to the United States, and other historical documents and events were openly referred to in the court proceedings. The presiding Circuit Court Judge, John Lanham, upon hearing Cleveland's message to Congress, shook his head, exclaiming that the disclosures made by Cleveland were simply unbelievable! Wide public attention was given to the case. Following that trial, the defense attorney in that case, Hayden F. Burgess, challenged the authority of the United States District Court to force him to serve as a juror on the argument that he was not a U.S. but a Hawaiian citizen. More publicity was given to this assertion of citizenship and challenge to the court's jurisdiction. Soon after, the evictions of predominantly native Hawaiians from Sand Island, followed by evictions at Makua Beach, then at Waimanalo, all challenged the jurisdiction of the courts to try Hawaiian citizens. A multitude of people were asserting their Hawaiian citizenship, denying the attribution of U.S. citizenship to themselves. Those eviction cases reflected another direction of growing Hawaiì consciousness. The "ceded lands", originally lands in the inventory of the government of Hawaiì subsequently ceded to the United States by the Republic of Hawaiì, was challenged as nothing more than stolen lands. In the Makua Beach eviction case, before a packed courtroom, the State's expert witness, when asked to trace the title of those lands stated it was simply State policy that for those lands, no such tracing was necessary. The court than ruled that the evidence was conclusive that the Republic of Hawaiì had proper title of these lands to cede them to the United States. 2: Continued challenges Many more challenges to U.S. rule in Hawaiì are coming to public notice. In the schools, children are refusing to join in the morning flag pledge of allegiance to the United States, to stand for the "national" anthem, etc. People are refusing to file tax returns or to pay income taxes. More and more defendants charged with criminal offenses are denying the jurisdiction of American courts over them. Poets and song writers are producing new works of Hawaiian national patriotism. 3: U.S. Apology -- finally!
21
The U.S. Congress passed and on November 23, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed
22
Senate Joint Resolution 19,35 a formal apology by the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. However, the apology was directed to the native Hawaiians and not to the citizens of Hawaiì. It is obvious that the apology is simply preparatory to further legislative and executive action limited to treating native Hawaiians as native Americans and not for the purpose
23
of according the full measure of human rights and fundamental freedoms encompassed in
24
international law.36 4: Local movement for Self-Determination formalized The Hawaiì State Legislature, as the decade of the 1990's appeared, concluded that the issue of Hawaiian sovereignty was indeed a subject of great importance. It began the formalizing of this process by first creating a Sovereignty Advisory Commission in 1991 to provide advise to the legislature on how to deal with this subject. In 1993, the legislature created a new body, the Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Council consisting of council members nominated from among the several organizations calling for one or another form of Hawaiian sovereignty. Than HSAC combed the communities of Hawaiì to obtain input on the process by which the people would like to proceed in this process of self-determination. That council reported its conclusion that a question should be put to the Native Hawaiian people if they would like to elect delegates to propose a native Hawaiian form of government. The State legislature adopted the recommendation, appointed an elections council, and provided funds, matched by another State agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, to place the plebiscite question. A vote was taken resulting in an overwhelming support to the election of delegates. An independent, non-governmental organization was formed to carry on the process of electing delegates and providing necessary support to the convention. An election of delegates proceeded, followed by the convening of the members of the Native Hawaiian Convention, also known as the Àha Hawaiì òiwi. That convention has most recently produced two conceptual
25
models for further consultation with the people, one calling for complete independence from the
26
United States of America and the second, for an integration relationship with the United States.37 While these processes are taking place in Hawaiì, the Federal government has also proceeded with an attempt to shut down this self-determination process. Before the U.S.
27
Congress are concurrent bills38 to mold the right to self-determination into an expression only among the Native Hawaiian race within the confines of the United States in a nation-within a nation, integration relationship. This end result is being touted as the fulfillment of the expression of self-determination of the Hawaiian nation. Thus, we have the U.S. clouding and confusing the right of self-determination by again misdirecting the self through the limitation of only a race of people, the Native Hawaiians, instead of all the Hawaiian subjects and their descendants who have suffered the ravages of colonization. They are also misdirecting the determination by declaring that the placement of these Native Hawaiians into a Native American category of folks in a nation within a nation relationship is sufficient and complete satisfaction of self-determination. These steps taken by the United States not only fails to meet the sacred trust obligation of Article 73, U.N. Charter, but actually deters from the autochthonous process of self-determination taking place in Hawaiì.
III.
PROCESSES OF DECOLONIZATION
Similar to the approach taken by Professor Enriques in his description of the phases of Colonization, (Introduction) I suggest five distinct phases of a people's decolonization. These are: 1) Rediscovery and Recovery, 2) Mourning, 3) Dreaming, 4) Commitment, and 5) Action. Each phase can be experienced at the same time or in various combinations. Like the steps of colonization, these phases of decolonization do not have clear demarcations between each other.
A. Phase One: REDISCOVERY AND RECOVERY

This phase sets the foundation for the eventual decolonization of the society. People who have undergone colonization are inevitably suffering from concepts of inferiority in relation to their historical cultural/social background. They live in a colonial society, which is a constant and overwhelming reminder of the superiority of the colonial society over that of the underlying indigenous one. Many different causes may bring a person or a society to enter the stage of rediscovery and recovery. It may be curiosity, accident, desperation, escape, coincidence, or fate. As a volunteer member of the United States military, I came across a book, found at a military base library in Hawaiì, written by Queen Liliùokalani, which started my entry into this phase of decolonization. Whether by accident or fate, I was curious enough to take it from the shelf and examine those words left by Hawaiìs Queen about 55 years before, telling of the conspiracy and overthrow of the Hawaiian nation. Once coming upon these words, I could not let the matter alone. I had to take up my own 28
study of my history I had never known before. I read and interviewed every source of information I could find on Hawaiìs history and Hawaiian cultural foundations. The Hawaiian society has been in this phase since the late 1960's as greater sensitivity for racial identity and pride as well as the growth of distrust for the government of the United States of America developed. The black struggle for equality in civil rights and the American Indian struggle for fundamental freedoms and recognition as the first people of the land, even the growing challenge to the righteousness of the U.S. war in Viet Nam played a major part in bringing home to Hawaii since the 60's this recovery and rediscovery stage. Those challenges to the U.S. government and the operation of its society showed to us in Hawaiì that this great American society was not so great after all! Information of agents of the United States in the latter 1800's conspiring with residents in Hawaiì, many of whom were American citizens, of American military spying all the while pretending to have no interest in grabbing Hawaiì, of the landing of U.S. troops and acting as the military support for a puppet governments overthrow of the Hawaiian nation, began to appear in Hawaiì. The disbelief and yet the complete inability to overcome the information stunned the general society. This is reflected in an interruption by Circuit Court Judge John Lanham in the first criminal case
29
in modern time challenging the courts jurisdiction over a Hawaiian citizen39. While the defense counsel read from the U.S. Congressional Record President
30
Clevelands message to the U.S. Congress40 confessing to a litany of aggressive acts, the judge said this was the most fantastic story he had ever heard, yet he could not deny the events having happened, especially when these are words taken out of the Congressional record, coming from the President of the United States. Lanham was no neophyte to Hawaiì, having married a native Hawaiian woman, served in the State legislature for many years, and at the time, sitting as a judge in the State Circuit Court. This phase has continued, not only in the historical and political awareness of the U.S. armed invasion and overthrow of the Hawaiian nation. New vigor in Hawaiian music and literature, both traditional and modern, added substantially to this recovery. Social and political activities took on new momentum. Hawaiians were now willing to stand up against members of Hawaiìs Supreme Court in their appointment of trustees to the Bishop Estate Trust, a non-profit entity designed to educate native Hawaiian students, with extensive assets of land throughout Hawaiì. There were new challenges to evictions of native Hawaiians from beaches and valleys and challenges to the abuse of the island of Kahoòlawe as a U.S. military bombing range. As this platform of discontent and awareness began to build, a plethora of new organizations emerged, pushing to the forefront the illegality of the overthrow of Hawaii. This phase of rediscovery and recovery has not ended. Many people are still "getting up to speed", not knowing much of the details, but generally
31
acquiescing to the overall theme of a grand illegality having occurred in
32
Hawaii 100 years ago - the theft of the Hawaiian nation.41 This phase of rediscovery of ones history and recovery of ones culture, language, identity, etc. is fundamental to the movement for decolonization. It forms the basis for the further steps to follow. One of the dangers in this phase is the elevation of form over substance, of dealing with a traditional culture from the perspective of a foreign culture. Indigenous people themselves can abuse their own culture, especially when they have been so long and completely separated from the practice or appreciation of their traditional culture that they now see and treat this culture from the perspective of the foreign one. This danger may include those who have taken on the trappings of their "traditional" culture, wearing forests of leaves and flowers on their heads, speaking the indigenous language which they learned at colonial colleges, and otherwise playing the foreigner's concept of the indigenous person. Theatrics which make good media clips could eventually be mistaken for substance. The difference, therefore, between the final stage of colonization exploitation, and the initial stage of decolonization - rediscovery & recovery, must be carefully distinguished. Caution must be taken in letting media select for the colonized people the leadership or the identification of their cultural root.
A natural outgrowth of the first phase is the mourning - a time when a people are able to lament their victimization. This is an essential phase of healing. Even in individual tragedies where one is a victim of some crime,
B. Phase Two: MOURNING
33
has experienced death of a close loved one, suffered from a sexual assault,
34
the victim must be permitted a time of mourning.42 As a young member of the U.S. military, plodding through the mounds of history and recovering from a loss of native identity, I experienced great anger, wanting to blow-up the colonial system, take up arms to drive that very same military out of my native home. Others have expressed themselves in very similar ways, finding that they had been lied to for so many years while in the educational systems in Hawaiì. Their anger and frustration have ranged from flying chairs across a room to roaming streets wanting to beat Americans, to contemplating para-military action. In Hawaiì, the symbolic mourning of the loss of the Hawaiian nation has taken place in the centennial observation of the overthrow at Ìolani Palace in the gathering of over 10,000 people. The observations over the week-end of January 16 and 17, 1993 in which people came from all parts of Hawaii and returned from parts of the world served as a focal point for
35
mourning of most of those touched in one or another way by the overthrow. 43 Many more remained at home but were tied to their radios, televisions or newspapers as reports were made of the Palace events. It is difficult to generalize how long a people remain in the mourning phase. Like individual responses to tragedies, societal mourning depends on the circumstances. Perhaps, when there does not seem to be any alternative to the present condition, the mourning seems to be the only thing to do. Thus, an extended period of mourning may be experienced. The mourning stage can also accelerate the earlier stage of rediscovery and recovery. People in mourning often immerse themselves totally in the rediscovery of their history making for an interesting interplay between these two phases, both feeding upon one another. This phase may also be expressed in great anger and a lashing out at all symbols of the colonizer. A sense of justified violence, either in words or action, can lull some into remaining in this phase, milking every advantage of the innocence of one's victimization. This abuse of the mourning phase can turn into an attempt to entrench the colonization in order to continue the mourning, the anger, the hating and the division of people. Some people are happy to go no further than the mourning, finding sufficient satisfaction in long term grumbling. People can get "stuck in the awfulizing" of their victim hood. Some build a career upon it.
C. PhaseThree: DREAMING
This phase is the most crucial for decolonization. Here is where the full panorama of possibilities are expressed, considered through debate, consultation, and building dreams on further dreams which eventually becomes the flooring for the creation of a new social order. It is during this phase where people colonized are able to explore their own cultures, their own aspirations for their future, considering their own structures of government and social order which encompass and expresses their hopes. So crucial is this phase that it must be allowed to run its full course. If the dreaming is cut short by any action plan or program designed to create a remedy meeting the perception of the issue at a premature stage, the result can prove disastrous. I liken this phase to the formation of a fetus in a mother's womb. That fetus must be allowed its time to develop and grow to its full potential. To 36
attempt to rush the process, bringing baby out earlier than its natural time, could prove dangerous if not disastrous. An examination of the Pacific as well as the world's decolonization pattern may be helpful. There are many instances in which people who underwent "decolonization" merely underwent a change in position of the colonizer. See, for example, the constitutions of the newly emerged Pacific island nations as well as African nations. Do they reflect more closely the social and legal culture of the immediate preceding colonizer or of the indigenous culture? Are those documents truly reflective of the hopes and aspirations of the people previously colonized? Or do they represent the colonial mentality, which pervades the society at the time of foreign departure? Were they written or advised by colonial experts coming from a mind set of Western political structures or were they drafted by the people themselves? True decolonization is more than simply replacing indigenous or previously colonized people into the positions held by colonizers. Decolonization includes the reevaluation of the political, social, economic and judicial structures themselves, and the development, if appropriate, of new structures, which can hold and house the values and aspirations of the colonized people. In Hawaii, the dreaming is now vibrant. One on-going process is called the Native Hawaiian Convention, where delegates elected only by native Hawaiians, are convening to review all aspects of self-determination and will make recommendations to the native Hawaiian population. This convention will explore the full range of choices from remaining integrated within the United States of America to complete independence from the United States. Other organizations are also attempting to address the selfdetermination question as well. Some have gone so far as to declare themselves the government pro tem pending success in achieving international recognition as an independent nation. Others are gathering and forming coalitions to promote continuing discussion on Hawaiìs future. Still others are dedicated to remaining part of the United States but having the indigenous people given formal recognition and equivalent treatment as many American Indian tribes, a nation within a nation approach. As the intensity in the debate of Hawaii's future gains greater momentum, there is a matching hunger for solid background information and new visions upon which the dreaming can be built. Some of the areas now being explored include: a) Ramifications of Hawaiian Sovereignty upon the following: 37
Tourism, -Population control Military presence, -International trade & business Diversified Agriculture -Control over ocean resources Taxation -Land relationship
b) International legal principles which apply to the Hawaii case, in particular, the principles of decolonization, indigenous peoples' rights, and ocean governance seen from new economic, environmental and political world arrangement perspectives. c) Review of other cases in which people have exercised selfdetermination, both as indigenous people's movements and as broader movements of decolonization. d) Identification and description of various models of nationhood. e) Methods and processes by which non-indigenous concerns and contributions can be incorporated into the overall study of Hawaiian sovereignty. Hawaii however, continues to face the threat of rushing the dreaming. Now that the topic of Hawaiian Sovereignty has "caught on" as one of the foremost political issues of the day, many are demanding immediate action, with a belief that reflection and introspection are not worth the time and effort in the development of a new social order. Those expressing impatience and even ridicule over the dreaming process often call for very short-sighted goals, measured generally by materialistic gains. Thus, there is an immediate call for lands, dollars and a "sovereign" nation whose jurisdiction and powers are fully within the United States Congress or Supreme Court. Long term planning for the future of Hawaii in relation to the Pacific and the world is not included in such plans for an immediate remedy.
D. Phase Four: COMMITMENT

In the process of dreaming, the people will have the opportunity to weigh the voices rather than becoming caught up with counting votes or bullets. They will be able to wade through the cult of personalities, family histories, and release themselves from shackles of colonial patriotism. They will now be ready for commitment to a single direction in which the society must move. This phase will culminate in people combining their voices in a clear statement of their desired direction. There is no single "way" or process for a people's expression of the commitment. In fact, over time, the commitment will become so clear that a formal process merely becomes a pro forma expression of the people's will. 38
It can be difficult to distinguish between an early termination of the dreaming phase from the start of the commitment phase. In Hawaii, we hear the call for a Hawaiian convention to create a founding document of the Hawaiian nation. In several corners of the society, this call is being made by bodies that include the Hawaii legislature, semi-autonomous organizations such as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and even the umbrella organization supporting Hawaiian sovereignty education, Hui Naàuao. All such calls for a process must be carefully scrutinized and questioned as to whether these calls are consistent with the desire to allow the full process of decolonization to take place or to cut the dreaming short and force a premature resolution of historical injustices, thus limiting the losses of those whose interests are threatened in the decolonization process. In recent years, the Hawaiì legislature and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs put up funds to conduct a vote among Native Hawaiians on whether or not to elect delegates to a Native Hawaiian Convention to propose a form
39
of Hawaiian governance44. Suspicion was raised over the fact that funding for this process came from the State of Hawaiì, that the process was therefore tainted and not truly a self-determining process contemplated in international law. The international policies well established by the United Nations, however, does call for governments to provide necessary resources
40
to assist the people in their exercise of self-determination45. The vote was taken in which any person over the age of 18, irrespective of their residence, regardless of whether incarcerated or under other civil disabilities, were permitted to participate. Among native Hawaiians throughout the world, 22,294 voted yes and 8,129, no, a 73% response in favor of electing delegates to a convention. A second step was taken in January 1999 electing such delegates to a Native Hawaiian Convention. That convention is now proceeding.
41
Several organizations claim they individually represent the Hawaiian Nation. They have gone forward and formed their national organizational structure, put in place their national leaders, and now proceed to speak for the nation. They try to be first in the action phase. Such elitists substitutes for a quick solutions for the decolonization process deprives the people a participatory role in the formation of their own social order.
32 Dialogue, a television program hosted by Professor Dan Boylan, University of Hawaiì, West Oahu Campus, with guests William F. Quinn, William S. Richardson, Mahealani Kamauù, and Pk Laenui. Transcript of the program available from Pk Laenui. 33 A Second Glance w/ Russell Barsh, hosted by Pk Laenui, Hawaiì Public Radio, Nov. 6, 20, 27, and Dec. 4, 1993 34 The Sovereignty for Hawaiì Committee, generally operated as part of the World Council of Indigenous People. That committee has since been incorporated into the Institute for the Advancement of Hawaiian Affairs, 86-641 Puùhulu Rd., Waiànae, HI 96792. 35 PL 103-150 107 Stat. 1510,
36 Poka Laenui, public comment at Mabel Smythe Auditorium, HSAC meeting with Professor Francis Boyle, Dec. 28, 1993; A 2nd Glance w/ Aò Pohaku Rodenhurst & Esther Kiaàina, Dec. 18, 1993, Hawaiì Public Radio. 37 Booklet from the International Relations Committee of the Native Hawaiian Convention used for consulting with the native Hawaiian people on the matter of self-determination. Available by contacting the author at 86-641 Puùhulu Rd., Waiànae, HI 96792, plaenui@pixi.com 38 39 Senate Bill 2899 and House Bill 4909, 106th Congress, 2d Session
State of Hawaiì vs. Wilford N. Pulawa, trial in 1977-1978 of the reputed Hawaiì underworld leader on charges of double kidnap and murder. Jury reached a not-guilty verdict. 40 "Cleveland's Address to Congress, 18 December 1893," Richardson, A Compilation of The Messages and Papers of the Presidents: 1789-1908, Vol. IX (1908) 41 Both the Hawaiì State Legislature and the United States Congress have admitted to the illegality of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Nation. House Concurrent Resolution 147 of the Hawaiì State Legislature 1991, Act 359 of the Hawaiì Legislature 1993, Joint Resolution of Apology, U.S. Senate Concurrent Resolution 19, PL 103-150 107 Stat. 1510, Signed by President Clinton on November 23, 1993. 42 The Oglala Lakota nation has the "Wiping of the Tears" ceremony to accomplish the same need for mourning. Source: Interview with Birgil Killstraight, A Second Glance, ibid, April 11, 1992 43 This event has been preserved by 9 hours audio cassette album Three Days in January The Overthrow of the Hawaiian Nation available for $49.95 through the Hawaiian National Broadcast Corporation, 86-641 Puùhulu
E. Phase Five: ACTION

This phase can be properly taken only upon a consensus of commitment reached in the 4th phase. Otherwise, the action taken cannot truly be said to be the choice of the people colonized. But the reality of many situations does not allow for such a methodical, patient, time consuming process of the four earlier phases. When a people are under physical attack, when a people are finding their children torn from their homes for reeducation in colonial societies, when people are being removed from their traditional lands in droves, action may be called for prior to the societys completion of the dreaming phase. But that kind of responsive action to colonizations onslaught is not the action spoken of here. The responsive action is one for survival. The action called for in the 5th phase of decolonization is not a reactive but a pro-active step taken upon the consensus of the people. The 5th phase action may incorporate the full spectrum from a call to reason on one end to a resort to arms on the other. Under appropriate times and in the appropriate manner, all of such actions are sanctioned by international law46. But the decolonization environment has so drastically changed in the last 30 years that the action phase today must include consideration beyond what has been historically undertaken to achieve independence. While the first thought for independence would have been to grab the rifle and march against the colonizer, it seems the new weapons are dictated by technological development. The fax machine, computer, television, radio and newsprint are perhaps more effective in executing the long battle plan. Those new weapons notwithstanding, the rifle, it's been argued, may still be necessary to defend those other media of expressions.
Rd., Waiànae, HI 96792. 44 The Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Council followed by the Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Commission were funded by the State of Hawaiì, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. 45 Chapter XI, Article 73, United Nations Charter; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights, Annex to GA Res. 2200 (XXI) of 16 Dec. 1966; Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, annex to GA Res. 2625 on 24 October 1970; ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (1989) 46 American Declaration of Independence, 1776; French Declaration des Droit de le Homme et du Citoyen of August 6, 1789, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 3 rd Preambular paragraph, (1948), Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, GA Reso. 1514 (1961), U.N. Charter, Article 51; Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UN GA Res. 2525 (XXV),
Not only have the methods of executing upon these commitments changed, the arenas of contests are now not as geographically defined as before. To speak before a national congress or an appropriate body of the United Nations may be far more effective than to storm a mountain top within ones homeland in an armed battle. This section on decolonization concludes with some propositions. These propositions are very specific in terms of the processes of colonization and decolonization based upon two indigenous individuals (V. Enriques and P. Laenui) observations from their own colonial and decolonizing experiences. These phases are presented here as distinct from one another, in a very clear sequence. Yet, the reality of colonization and decolonization is not so clear. For illustration purposes, these steps are presented in a sequence. In practice, we oftentimes see combinations of these social changes. We see them occur in individuals at different times as they do in the general society - some individuals far ahead or behind in the process. The process of decolonization, for example, has actually begun in Hawaiì, where the general society has now gone through several years of the phase of recovery and rediscovery. In 1978, during the first criminal trial in which a Native Hawaiian defendant refused to dignify the court by entering a plea of guilty or not guilty to the governments charges, and challenged the courts jurisdiction to sit in judgment over Hawaiian nationals, the general Hawaiian public and the specific Native Hawaiian population would have numbers under 1% who understood his claim or cause. Twenty years later, the subject of Hawaiian sovereignty is on the agenda of almost every politician because the vast majority of Native Hawaiians and the general public supports some form of Hawaiian sovereignty. Even in the face of all of this, we can still find individuals who remain in denial, pretending that there was no illegality in the overthrow of the Hawaiian nation, and refusing to accept the general societies recovery and rediscovery. Nor are these phases of decolonization, once passed, never to be revisited again. As one goes through the phase of recovery and rediscovery, then the mourning, next the dreaming, it is at times helpful or even necessary to return to recovery and rediscovery to aid in the dreaming. For example, in Hawaiì, as the society engages the dreaming by discussing the future of the Hawaiian nation, the question of who should make up the Hawaiian nation arises. The answer to this question lies partially in the exploration of Hawaiìs history and culture, discovering the make-up of the earlier Hawaiian nationals and the cultural principles upon which those earlier national questions were answered. The process of colonization and of decolonization deserves closer consideration in attempting to refashion societies. Otherwise, we may find
we are merely entrenching ourselves deeper in the systems, values and controls put here by the colonizer.
IV.
A New Federalism Structure Respecting Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Emerging from the Dreaming phase of Hawaiìs decolonization process has come a variety of ideas for the protection of native Hawaiian rights within a federal structure. This federal structure contemplated is not the colonial structure of the United States of America, but one based on a model of Hawaiian independence from the U.S.A. To appreciate the protection of rights of Indigenous Peoples within this Hawaiian model, one would need to see it in the broader context of the nation. Here is a model of federalism, most of which is taken from the Native Hawaiian Conventions model of an Independent Hawaiian nation. Imagine coming upon a guidebook to Hawaiì ten years following independence: 1. Territory: The territory of the nation consists of islands, which form the Hawaiian archipelago stretching from Kure atoll in the north to Hawaii in the south and the waters in between this archipelago till 12 miles beyond the shoreline of the islands furthest north and south, as well as the island of Kalama (Johnston). Hawaiì also includes the rights defined by the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea of the two hundred mile exclusive economic zone as applied to these islands. 2. Population: Between 800,000 to one million people, the exact amount still unsettled due to the increasing return of many indigenous Hawaiians and others who left Hawaii during the period of colonization. The foreign population ranges between 15% to 25% of the total population, depending on tourism, foreign student, and business conference trends. Hawaii law prohibits a foreign population of greater than 33% of the total citizen population at any one time. Ethnic character: Hawaii's citizens are perhaps the most racially diverse in the world, an anomaly for a place the most isolated from any major landmass. Its composition includes the indigenous people (most of whom are products of parents of multiple racial extractions) who number approximately 300,000. There is also a high preponderance of Caucasians, Filipinos, Japanese, Chinese and other Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Africans. Cultural character: The native Hawaiian culture forms the cultural base of the society. However, that cultural base supports the expression of a diversity of cultures, reflecting the diversity of the ethnicity of the people. Religious character: The diversity of ethnicity and culture is also found in its religious practices. Like the constant intermixture of ethnicity and culture, there is a great tolerance and
intermixing of religious practices, customs and traditions in Hawaii. Christianity in its diverse forms appears most numerous. However, below the appearance lies the practice & attitudes of the Pacific islands and Asian beliefs that remain strong in the society, oftentimes influencing the character and conduct of professed Christians. 3. Economy: The Hawaiian society has shifted its focus from the measure of the Hawaiian economy based upon merely the monetary flow within the society to one of incorporating monetary and human development factors in the measure of the wealth of the society. As a result, much of the economic activities that were prominent during U.S. colonization has undergone structural as well as philosophic changes. Tourism, while still a major factor of the Hawaiian economy, has become integrated from executive to housekeeping activities with people from a variety of ethnic, social and economic backgrounds. Since independence, the Hawaiian nation has been able to exercise control over the numbers, quality, and timing of tourist entering Hawaii, which control has brought in additional funds in visa and airport usage income, lowered the overall numbers of tourists, and allowed controlled flow of tourist over the full year. Independence has also brought about greater ability of the Hawaiian nation to control its trade relationship with other nations. Previously, the United States dictated all trade policies with Hawaii, oftentimes permitting unlimited influx of produce and goods into Hawaii so that the local economy could not recover and support a self-sufficient system. The driving economic philosophy in Hawaii is one of self-sufficiency to the point of meeting the basic needs of the society such as food, clothing, shelter, education and health-care for all within a pristine environment, and permitting international trade and other financial activities to accommodate the desires and wants above basic needs. This balance has been achieved by maintaining a "green" philosophy at the community levels, yet attracting a very highly sophisticated technological/commerce community of information transfer and finance. Education has become a major international industry. The East-West Center sharing the grounds of the University of Hawaiì at Manoa, after shedding its strong U.S. government control, has now become truly a center of interchange and study between East and West as opposed to the previous approach of the West studying the East. The graduate departments at the University of Hawaiì now reflect over 80% foreign students from across the world, and the opening of a graduate program in international diplomacy. A vibrant undergraduate and graduate program of Oceanic Studies has also opened 5 years ago and is today one of the most popular program of its kind around the world, with its research facilities located at Puùloa Bay, the former United States Naval base Pearl Harbor. All military research is forbidden in Hawaiìs educational institution, part of the nations 4 point policy for world peace. 4. Political Arrangement: The political system in Hawaii at the national level is essentially two tier. In one tier (Kumu Hawaiì), there is strongly defined protection of the indigenous culture of Hawaii and
specific prerogatives of the indigenous peoples. In the other tier (General Body), the general incorporation of all citizens of Hawaii into the political life of the society is guaranteed. While this idea is not unique to Hawaii, (for example, refer to the ILO Convention 169, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as the experiences in Saami land cutting across the Scandinavian countries, the Kuna of Panama, and the Maori of Aotearoa), it seems to be the most clearly defined society which has balanced the rights and protection of indigenous peoples and the general regard for the overall social development of the Hawaiian society. Under this double tier configuration, the indigenous language is the national language along with English and can be used in all legal transactions. In fact, spoken Hawaiian is now the dominant social language. The national constitution requires the Education department to incorporate the teaching of the Hawaiian language co-extensive with the teaching of the English language. There is now a serious program of training every public employee to become sufficiently fluent in the native language as a working language. All new hires are required to have a working knowledge of the language. Specific rights of the indigenous peoples are protected, including the right to gather traditional items for cultural, spiritual or sustenance purposes. Areas of lands have been demarcated specifically for those indigenous peoples who have chosen to return to a more communal life style in which individual and property rights have been submerged to the collective good of the community. In the wider society, the native Hawaiians have exclusive voice over issues of immigration, foreign ownership or temporary possession of real property, and all laws, which are considered to impact upon the native customs and traditions. Those rights and powers of the indigenous peoples are contained within the Kumu Hawaiì, a separate department of the government representing the native Hawaiian voice. This body is governed by representatives of native Hawaiians elected by native Hawaiians members of the Kumu Hawaiì. Membership is determined strictly by ones genealogical relationship to the first people of Hawaiì. One need not be a citizen or resident of Hawaiì in order to vote or be represented by the Kumu Hawaiì. All powers and authority not specifically reserved to the Kumu Hawaiì are retained by the General Body (GB). That body include citizens of Hawaiì without regard to race classification. Members of the Kumu Hawaiì who are not citizens of the Hawaiian nation are not members of the GB. A President heads the Executive Department, a two house legislative body addresses public laws, and a Chief Justice oversees a judiciary which applies Hawaiian common law, English common law, as well as statutory and case law in its proceedings. International law adopted pursuant to the internal laws of the nation are part of the applicable laws applied in the judicial branch. All Hawaiian citizens who have attained the age of 16 are permitted the privilege of voting without regards to property, formal education or civil status.
Citizenship is given based upon birth in Hawaiì. Residence in Hawaiì for at least 1/3rd of ones life or 10 years, or marriage to a Hawaiian citizen, are grounds for citizenship provided the applicant passes a naturalization test as well as takes a national oath of allegiance. Native Hawaiians need not meet any of the above qualifications to become Hawaiian citizens. Dual national citizenship is not allowed to anyone. If someone would otherwise qualify for dual citizenship, that person, four years upon attaining the age of majority (16), but no later than exercising the right to vote in a public election in Hawaiì, an individual will have to make a choice of citizenship, either in Hawaiì or in a foreign State. 5. International Stature: Hawaii is a member of the United Nations and has joined numerous specialized agencies of that body. It is a member of several regional organizations in the Pacific, including the Pacific Forum (previously known as the South Pacific Forum). It is the headquarters of the East-West Center, the International Peace Institute, the International School of Oceanography, as well as the World Center for Cultural Diversity. These institutions have graduated many people from throughout the Pacific, Asia and the world. These institutions are seen as one of the principle reasons for the successful trade and political relationship this nation has had with other nations.
6. National Security: Hawaiì has a four point program to keep itself secure: a) Inner Strength; b) Outer Usefulness; c) Defensive Defense; and d) Non-Military Alliances.47 Its Inner Strength program goes to its proud sense of identity, its economic commitment to self-sufficiency, its strong civil-defense arrangement and training which incorporates everyone in the society with a role in civil-defense, and its commitment to protecting its environment which is expected, in turn to sustaining the society. Its Outer Usefulness program is contained in its broad service to the world, through its educational institutions, its communication hubs serving the world, and its advanced technological capabilities to transfer information and knowledge such as medical emergency care to the most remote places of the world via a video/telephone/satellite equipment. Hawaiì also produces for the world, an indigenous product, Poi made from the Taro plant, which has become recognized as one of the most nutritious food available. No longer seen merely as a curious native dish, or baby miracle food, this product has been used for rebuilding the Human physical condition the world over. Hawaiian Taro has become a popular export around the world. The strong ties the alumni from Hawaii's international educational institutions have with the local population gives further guarantee to the security of this nation. Hawaiì has been able to use its experience in the tourism industry to recreate its world image of a land of Aloha, home
47 Professor Emeritus of Peace Studies, Johan Galtung, has spoken on these four national security points numerous times in his lectures, class room presentations, and radio and television programs.
of good health, and a place of intellectuality and humanity untainted by political or religious prejudices dividing the world. Its Defensive Defense program revolves around a plan of non-aggression, strong defense, and openness to verification. Its territories are protected by a 1,000 mile maximum radius defensive umbrella within which the most advanced technology and weaponry protects Hawaiì from military aggression. This umbrella, however, is well within a distance as to be nonthreatening to any other country in the world. Previously, among the most fortified landmass in the world, Hawaii has internalized its defense capability, requiring all citizens to participate in one or another area of readiness and self-defense. Children are trained in physical fitness from a very early age. This training has proven to be effective not only for hand to hand combat, for improving concentration and skill in martial contests, but have also been credited with improving the overall health of the trainees, adding to their contribution to the overall health of the society. Women as well as men are equally trained in the martial arts. A small number of highly skilled, well-trained personnel manage the day-to-day national military readiness.
This Hawaiian system has been regarded as clearly the most defensive and least offensive military system in the world. The fact that Hawaiì is a self-sufficient society able to meet its basic needs takes away any excuse for aggression beyond its territory under the guise of protecting the "national interest." The high level of mass education and military preparedness also provides a large reserve of personnel in times of crisis, all of which adds to aspects of Hawaiì's national defense posture. Hawaiìs Constitution prohibits the possession of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons within its borders. Foreign vessels entering Hawaiian waters are subject to inspection, and are prohibited from having on board such weapons, at risk of vessel confiscation. Its Non-Military Alliance program keeps Hawaiì out of the variety of military alliances around the world. It has no standing military and will not participate in contributing forces or support to any military operation in conjunction with other national forces. It has a trained cadre of medically and socially trained personnel to assist in natural disasters or when invited by parties on all sides of a conflict to bring members of its World Peace Foundation to territories in conflict. Because of its non-military alliance program, Hawaiì has been selected as the headquarters for the United Nations peacekeeping program for the Pacific, Asia, and Latin America. This program uses the smallest number of military personnel in its staff of all regional programs. Over 50% of the peacekeeping staff are graduates of the EastWest Centers Hoòponopono program. Their training includes regional and world history, police (not military) work, cultural awareness, social development, economic (& alternative economic) theories & practices, country specific political awareness, human rights theory, law and practice, farming techniques, public health, and Hawaiian and regional mediation skills. 7. Property Ownership: Hawaiì follows a system of private and communal land ownership. Its citizens own their residence in their own name. Foreign ownership is coming to an end, foreigners having been warned that 10 years following independence, lands in foreign, non-resident ownership will be nationalized. This 10-year time frame is designed to give foreign non-residents ample time to divest themselves of real property. There has been a dramatic decrease in property costs in the wake of turnovers of foreign ownership to Hawaiian citizens. Residents who have retained a foreign citizenship are permitted to own their residence without a time limit. Beside the national lands, the largest communal ownership is the native Hawaiian lands, previously the Hawaiian Homestead lands and parts of the stolen government & crown lands taken by the United States as ceded lands. Those lands are dedicated primarily for residential, cultural, and forest preserve over which cultural rejuvenation uses are allowed.
8. Outstanding Claims Post Colonization: Certain claims against the United States remain unresolved. The claims are : 1) Claims for damage over a period of more than one hundred years upon the indigenous language, culture, tradition, use of lands and waters and for destruction of certain aspects of the environment including the radioactive and chemical waste left in Hawaii upon decolonization; 2) Claims against the U.S. social security, veterans benefits, and all other benefit programs for contributions by Hawaiian citizens who have not yet collected upon said benefits to its full extent up to the time of decolonization; 3) Individual claims for forced military services and for individual deprival of property rights. These individual claims are asserted only on behalf of those who have specifically filed against the U.S. government, many Hawaiian citizens choosing instead to make no such claim. The Hawaiian government is pursuing these claims via negotiations with the U.S. President as well as with the U.S. Congress. It is also pursuing claims within the international legal system.
V. CONCLUSION
The exploration of Federalism and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples can be accomplished through a broad range of optics from a colonial perspective, from an indigenous perspective within a colonial framework, to an indigenous perspective outside of the colonial box. The optics used may result in finding completely different conclusions. This paper has been an attempt to present some of the scenes as viewed through indigenous optics outside of the colonial box. This paper presents only the view from one group within a multiplicity of groups favoring independence in Hawaiì. Hawaiì is yet one of many other territories in which Indigenous Peoples have been Federalized or incorporated within a Federal system by colonial governments. Hopefully this paper will stand less for the writers preferred outcome on the Hawaiian question and more for its application to indigenous conditions and aspirations of Indigenous Peoples in their attempts at understanding the basis of their current conditions as well as their possible futures. The paper may also allow non-indigenous readers to more fully appreciate one of the perspectives of Indigenous Peoples of the world. Aloha
Pk Laenui, 86-226 Farrington Hwy. Waiànae, Hawaiì 96792 Via U.S.A.

Federalism and The Rights of Indigenous P-1

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Federalism and The Rights of Indigenous P-1

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Federalism and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

II. Hawai`is Story

B. The recycling of Hawai`i 1900 - 1959:

A. Phase One: REDISCOVERY AND RECOVERY

acquiescing to the overall theme of a grand illegality having occurred in

B. Phase Two: MOURNING

D. Phase Four: COMMITMENT

E. Phase Five: ACTION

A New Federalism Structure Respecting Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Pk Laenui, 86-226 Farrington Hwy. Wai`anae, Hawai`i 96792 Via U.S.A.

S-ar putea să vă placă și