Institute for the Advancement of Hawaiian Affairs
86-649 Puuhulu Rd.
Wai`anae, Hawaii 96792
via U.S.A.

Tel: (808)696-5157 Fax: (808)696-7774
plaenui@pixi.com
http://www.opihi.com/sovereignty

August 22, 1998

Presentation to the Hawaii Advisory Committee
to the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Keoni Auditorium
East-West Center 

`Ano `ai me ke aloha e na hulu manu like `ole: Welcome to a 2<sup>nd</sup> Glance where we take an in-depth look at issues in and around Hawai`i

It’s been almost five years ago, when on November 23, 1993, President William Clinton signed into law, the apology resolution in which the United States confessed to its invasion of Hawai`i and participating in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. But what has come of it since than?

I have chosen for this week’s program, an extended look at the apology resolution framed within the United State’s civil rights approach, testing to see the adequacy of that approach, and what other directions need to be taken to resolve injuries caused by this illegal act of invasion. I am having this program first play on August 23, 1998, the morning of the meeting of the Hawai`i Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Their public meeting will start at 9:00 o’clock this morning at the Imin Center across Kennedy Theater, at the East-West center on the University of Hawai`i Manoa campus. The meeting is chaired by Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell. The public is invited.

Like the generational development in international law over the concept of Human Rights, the first generation being the development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the second being the International Conventions on Civil and Political and on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, the third being the rights of women, children, etc., the concept of civil rights seem to have evolved, at least in my mind, into a similar generational approach beginning with the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, followed by the birthing of additional rights and protections as this North American nation matures or at least, gets older.

More recently, we find that the concept of civil rights has developed into legislation based upon an application of basic constitutional principles to historic or contemporary conditions of the societies over which the U.S.A. exercises authority. As a result of the focus of racial discrimination in the southern societies of North America, led largely by Dr. Martin Luther King, we saw new civil rights legislation attempting to address that situation. As a result of the general admission to a racist policy followed during the 2^nd World War against Americans of Japanese ancestry, new legislation also followed, attempting to address that historic injustice. But the historic field of national dishonor and shame has not yet been cleared.

The recounting of conditions still existing as a result of inadequate remedies to such dishonor and shame, I leave for another time. Instead, I will focus on one case, here in Hawai`i.

A hundred years ago, the United States undertook its imperial venture, under the pretense of defending the sovereign integrity of the Cuban people against Spanish abuse, and declared war against Spain. In a matter of a few months after that declaration in 1898, the U.S. acquired the territory of Guam, the Phillippines, Wake Island, Puerto Rico, portions of Cuban territory and control over Cuban government, and Hawai`i. Most of it in the Peace Treaty of Paris with Spain. But for Hawai`i, in a step transaction of puppetry, the establishing of a puppet government (the Provisional Government established for the sole purpose of ceding Hawai`i to the United States of America), having it change its clothes to look otherwise (the formation of the Republic of Hawai`i in a process by which the vast number of Hawaiian citizens were prohibited from participating), and finally engaging in a "treaty" of annexation, bringing into U.S. domination, the territory and citizens of an independent nation.

This American excursion into foreign waters, invading an independent nation militarily, giving not even the courtesy of advance warning or a declaration of war, (something they accused Japan of doing half a century later), wresting the constitutional democratic form of government from power and placing in its stead, an oligarchy of primarily white/American descendants (something they accused Iraq of doing a century later), and in 1898, five years later, annexing that national territory and citizens into its own - this was not merely a discriminatory practice of the government among its citizenry, it was not the mere extension of governmental authority upon the private rights of its citizens, such as the civil rights movement of the 60's or the concentration camps for the Japanese-Americans in the 40's. It was instead a multi-layered incursion of rights upon the sovereign integrity of an independent nation as well as a suppression of individual rights recognized to exist in both Hawai1`i and the United Sates.

To begin addressing the appropriate remedy for this historic and this on-going violation of rights, let us examine some of those injuries which resulted by what the U.S. Congress as well as 2 American Presidents called an "act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress" and by "such acts, the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown?"

First, lets review the folds of governments over this land of Hawai`i. Following the invasion and overthrow of the constitutional monarchy of Hawai`i, a provisional government was established on 17 January 1893 and continued its existence until July 4, 1894 at which time the "Republic of Hawai`i" was established and continued its existence until 1900 at which time the Territory of Hawai`i was established and continued its existence until 1959 at which time the State of Hawai`i was established and has continued its existence to the present time.

The explicit political injury imposed upon the Hawaiian nationals from than to now, covering a period of 105 years include the denial of our nationality, our government, our control over our national lands, our control over immigration, our control over taxation, our control over banking and finance, the right to print our own money, the right to control foreign trade and foreign relations, the right to protect our `aina from environmental pollution, the right to control our own education system, the right to exercise jurisdiction over all of Hawai`i and territories under Hawai`i’s jurisdiction in 1893, the right to control our air space, to exercise jurisdiction over print, radio, television and satellite communication, the control over the ocean to the full extent recognized under the Law of the Sea Treaty, and membership in international governmental organizations including the United Nations. (Is this enough for now?)

Attached to this political injury came associated injuries to our health and welfare, cultural identity, education, economy, cultural practices, language, self-esteem, etc.

Thus, a wrong was done by the United States of America to the Nation of Hawai`i and her individual nationals and residents. We have suffered a long list of injuries, political, personal, social, economic, cultural, environmental, etc. Such injuries were both collective, that is, as a nation, and individual.

What are the appropriate remedies adequate to address the initial wrong and the resulting injuries? Is the remedy of according appropriate civil rights protections adequate? Are American Civil Rights remedies limited to the internal/domestic arena of the United States while the actual controversy is really one of an international nature, thus requiring an international remedy? Is the right of divorce "on the table"? Is it part of the discussion - in view of the fact that the Hawaiian side never willingly engaged in the marital relationship in the first place? If it is not part of the discussion, then, is the U.S. government truly acting in good faith, really wanting to achieve a remedy appropriate to the injustice?

Is the United States and its special study commissions the appropriate bodies to determine the remedy? Should a thief sit in judgment of itself? Should the U.S. define the process by which we reach an amicable resolution or should the process toward justice one to be agreed upon by both the American and the Hawaiian side, or by a third, international voice?

And until proper remedies are put into place, what immediate actions should be taken to prevent the continuing injury from continuing? If we were to divide the injuries to those of the past and those of the present, should the U.S. begin to define those practices which they are engaged in today, which practices are the fruits of the illegal historic activities, and end such practices immediately?

One of the major failures of the U.S. is its twisting the issue of Hawaiian sovereignty from a national to a racial question. The Congress says, for example that the U.S. acknowledges and apologizes for the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai’i on January 17, 1893, which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Hawaiian people and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination. It continues by declaring its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of Hawai`i’s illegal overthrow, in order to provide a proper foundation for, and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and Native Hawaiian people. In those few words, the Congress has taken the act of overthrowing the government of an independent nation\state and suggests reconciliation only to the Native Hawaiian people. In those few words, the Congress has itself acted against principles of non-discrimination by race, by doing exactly that among Hawaiian nationals.

Prior to the American invasion in January 1893, Hawai`i was a multi-racial nation/state just as the U.S. was at that time, and is today, a multi-racial state. If a foreign country should injury the U.S. nationals, would it be permissible for that foreign country to choose among what race of these American nationals it should give a remedy? Should a foreign country which mistakenly shoots down an American passenger plane killing Americans of various races, religions or social status - should that foreign country have the right to say they will pay only for the injuries to the American Indian victim?

One of the reasons for this problem in American distinction is the strong indigenous rights movement occurring here and in America and in the rest of the world. This movement calls for the recognition of special rights of the indigenous people within their traditional homelands, such as the right to retain their culture, their traditional language and religion, to educate their own children based upon their own traditional beliefs and within their own social systems, to maintain their own economic practices, and so forth. In the Hawai`i case, that struggle for indigenous rights, starting about the 1970's, was also intertwined with the Hawaiian sovereignty movement which dealt with not only the practice of indigenous rights, but raised the whole question of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government. Many people, including Native Hawaiians, have not understood the distinction, and speak of both indigenous rights and Hawaiian sovereignty as if they are one and the same.

They are not the same. But they are not a matter of either/or, as well. Its not a question of choosing in favor of Native Hawaiian rights or Hawaiian sovereignty. Both rights should be available. But both must be clearly understood and distinguished. Native Hawaiian rights are the rights of indigenous peoples in their own homeland - to language, culture, traditional lands, right of access, reclamation of burial and other sacred sites, and so forth. Hawaiian sovereignty rights are rights accorded beyond the race line addressing questions of developing an independent government, reclaiming the international stature as before the U.S. invasion, and the debt owed the U.S. for its years of governance and occupation over Hawai`i.

Let’s take a look at how the U.S. has chosen to proceed in addressing its historical injustice. We have two current events to make an interesting comparison, between limiting the issue to an internal/domestic - national question or expanding it to an international relations question.

The U.S.’ Commission on Civil Rights, through its Hawai`i Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell, is now undertaking to ask questions about the progress taken so far in bringing about appropriate civil rights remedies for Native Hawaiians. But the competence of the Civil Rights Commission extends only to matters relating to discrimination or denials of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution of the United States because of race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. Therefore, the acts of the United States and the consequences called for in international law is seen as one beyond the competence of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

The second recent event was the filing of the U.N. expert’s report calling for the re-inscription of Hawai`i on the Special Committee on Decolonization. The U.S. response to this call was the remark that this report would be nothing more than a small footnote in history written by a small man. The substance of the expert’s conclusion is here given no regard. Instead, the government’s only response is to denigrate a U.N. expert.

Thus we see the U.S. pretense of "coming clean" with its Apology resolution, an admission of guilt to the invasion of Hawai`i, yet refusing to bare itself to the standards of the international community, insisting that a resolution of the case should be only within the confines of the United States system. Its like saying I’m sorry I did you wrong but I will decide the punishment for myself.

No wonder people are saying, its like a thief in judgment of itself.

In the face of this predicament, what are the ways in which people are attempting to resist this injustice?

One tactic is to find haven in the cultural continuity of Hawai`i and to embed the national life there. The oral and movement cultures found in language, chants, stories, genealogies, hula and lua are expanding in Hawai`i in fantastic proportions. Use of the changing technologies which has influenced the forms of cultural expressions have also found its way in preserving the national consciousness. We find more songs and poetry, records, tapes, compact discs, video and radio programs, a profusion of these technological uses aimed in this direction of cultural practice.

And those engaged in these practices are not limited to only the Hawaiian race.

Another form of resistence is the increase of people now refusing to voluntarily contribute income taxes to the U.S. or Hawai`i State government. One particular case is of a retired Honolulu Police Department officer who simply said, "I’m a Hawaiian, not an American. Why should I have to finance my own colonization by the U.S.?" For his refusal to pay, John Marsh was indicted for three counts of wilful failure to file income taxes. In 1995, a Federal Jury found John Marsh not guilty on all counts. He subsequently brought the matter before the U.S. Tax Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the U.S. taxing laws over Hawaiian citizens who gain income within Hawai`i. His case is now pending legal briefs and decision by the tax court. John Marsh is not the only one challenging U.S. jurisdiction. Many others, in many different forums are doing the same thing.

While John Marsh and others are taking individual action to express their national life, there is another, more wide spread attempt to formalize the creation or recreation of a Hawaiian government. This is the process begun by the Native Hawaiian Vote in 1996 in which Native Hawaiians voted to begin the process of forming the government, starting with an election of delegates from throughout Hawai`i in January 1999, to begin meetings and drafting of a basic document under which Native Hawaiians can pull together under common agreement and speak with one common voice. Presently, this process is limited to only native Hawaiians, but it is hoped that the process may be the wedge to expand the rights to those of other races as well.

What we are witnessing in Hawai`i is not only very interesting, but it is a very important phenomena in human development. We are watching the unfolding of a decolonization drama in which the people under colonization, since the original armed invasion over a hundred years ago, have and continue to rely upon peace, reason, a faith in justice, a strong trust in God and aloha to bring about their salvation. We in Hawai`i are blessed and burdened, as actors and as witnesses, to this great human experience. Savor these moments.

The opinions I have expressed in this program, like all of our 2^nd Glance programs, are of course my own and not necessarily those of the Hawaiian National Broadcast Corporation or the staff and management of this radio station. If you have a contrary opinion which you would like to share, or would like to challenge me on one or another point raised here, you may either call me at this radio station at 955-8821, or join me in my call in shows on Saturday evenings from 7-9 p.m., on Hawaiian Potpourri 1080AM or 1540 AM, or on Kua`aina - voices from the land on Sundays mornings from 11 to 12noon.

This is Poka Laenui. E onipaa e na pua o Hawai`i. Aloha `aina. Aloha a hui hou.