International Relations Committee
Written Report and Chairperson's Notes
Meeting held September 5, 1999

The first meeting of the International Relations Committee was convened at 11:10 a.m., at the Queen Lili`uokalani Children Center. Joining the committee were delegates Dante Carpenter, Liberta Hussey-Albao, Sesnita Moepono, Glen Oamilda, Ululani Beirne, Mahealani Shellaberger, James Woolsey, and Anthony Lenchenko. Sylvia Krewson-Reck volunteered to act as the committee=s kako`o. The discussions were divided into three major categories:

I: Administrative,
II: Coordination, and
III: Subject Matter

I: ADMINISTRATIVE:

The chair of the committee is Poka Laenui, appointed by the President of the Aha Hawai`i `Oiwi. His contacts are: email - plaenui@pixi.com, telephone - (808) 697-3045, fax - (808) 696-5516.

Membership to the committee remains open.

In view of the fact that most of the committee members are connected to the internet system, much of the committee=s deliberation and information distribution will be via that system. We hope to set up a discussion list of committee members. For those members who are not so connected, the mail or fax will continue to be used.

Communications from this committee will be attempted in a number of ways. A separate category for the Native Hawaiian Convention, International Relations Committee information will be created at http://www.opihi.com/sovereignty where documents and final products will be made available to the general public. That web site will also tie into the Native Hawaiian Convention web site so that all of the information may be coordinated.

Two radio shows will be available to the committee, the first is a 2 hour interactive discussion titled A SECOND GLANCE which plays on Hawai`i Public Radio at 89.3 fm and 1380 am, Saturday mornings from 8:30 to 9:00. The second show is titled HAWAIIAN POTPOURRI which plays on commercial radio KWAI, 1080 am on Saturday nights from 7-9. This is a two hour call in program.

The committee will meet again on October 4, 1999 at 7pm, 86-226 Farrington Hwy., Wai`anae, at Hale Na`au Pono, the Wai`anae Coast Community Mental Health Center. There will be a pot-luck dinner from 6 to 7 pm for those wanting and able to come earlier. New members wanting to attend the meeting should call in advance informing PÇk~ so that sufficient space will be available for all wanting to attend.

II: COORDINATION:

During the first pre-convention meeting in February at Kamehameha Schools, a decision was made to create four subject matter committees to address the four elements of Anationhood@ as seen by some judges and certain international law writers. Thus, the committees on government, distinct population, fixed territories, and international relations were formed. These committees have operated, by and large, independently, each one at times selecting the perimeters of their own jurisdiction while much of the issues selected by them extend into other committees= concerns.

Unless there is much coordination among these four committees, the situation may devolve into four distinct plans which are not integrated into a whole.

A system of coordination of the work carried out by each of the subject matter committees will have to be maintained. The IRC chair will begin discussions with the chairs of the other committees to assure some coordination until a more permanent systemic mechanism is established either at the initiative of the chair, the executive council or the general assembly.

III: SUBJECT MATTER:

There are numerous and detailed considerations to be given respecting international relations for a Hawaiian sovereign nation. To handle each item in a scattered fashion will lead only to greater confusion. However, if we are able to work with structures or paradigms for managing the various issues, especially if they can apply across the issues of the four subject matter committees, we would have a much easier time in managing the understanding the topics. Four such structures are suggested:

A. Self-Determination:

B. Time

C. Subjects across the choices of Adetermination@

D. Process for getting from here to Athere@

E. International Law Basics

A. Self-Determination: This presents the separation of two essential questions in the Hawaiian sovereignty discourse, i.e., who is the self and what is the determination choice. On the question of who constitutes the Aself@, the international relations implication include the following:

To what extent is the Aself@ defined by international standards such as the prohibitions against genocide and apartheid?

To what extent is the Aself@ supported by international developing standards of indigenous rights, historic rights, and international trusts obligations?

How are definitions supported by historical and cultural facts so they do not run afoul of principles of equality, non-discrimination, and fairness as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other such international declarations and conventions respecting the rights of individuals and groups?

On the question of the choices of determination, the most often repeated choices are of integration, free association and independence, - choices set forth in U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1541 (15 Dec. 1960). There have been some alternate approaches to these choices which can result in giving one or another sovereignty model advocate an Aupper hand@ in the discussion. For example, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs have posed the issue of Adetermination@ as one of independence, nation within a nation, and state within a state, thus excluding the choice of free association and splitting that of integration as if they were in fact two.

Others have suggested not three but four choices by separating restoration out of the independence choice. Those suggesting this approach of course support the restoration model.

There can, of course, be any number of inventiveness. But such changes to the basic three choices already defined in international law may simply add to the confusion, raise suspicion as to manipulation of these models for a particular desired outcome, and invite others to raise their own preferred outcome as a basic choice of determination.

Behind these three choices available for an act of self-determination, many questions arise:

What are the rights of the Hawaiian Aself@, however defined, to exercise these self-determination choices in view of the Statehood Act by the United States, the 1959 vote for Statehood, and the action of the United Nations General Assembly removing Hawai`i from among the list of non-self governing territories?

What is the history of other places which followed the same path as Hawai`i, first being listed as a non-self governing territory in 1946 by the General Assembly, subsequently being taken off the list by the action of the administering authority, and later demanding the right of true self-determination, i.e., the cases of Kanaky (New Caledonia) and Puerto Rico?

What is the history of other lands which match that of Hawai`i in which they were once recognized as independent nations, subsequently incorporated within colonial states and later reemerging as independent states again, i.e., Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, the former Yugoslavia republics, etc.?

Professor Jon Van Dyke has raised another hurdle to the application of the right to self determination, i.e., the Declaration on Friendly Relations Among States (Popular Name). His argument is that the right to choose independence is foreclosed to the people of Hawai`i because the inclusion of the Hawaiian people has resulted in the full integration of such people as part of the body politic of the United States, without discrimination. How is such an argument overcome?

What other issues and arguments will we need to address around the question of self-determination, i.e., the blue-water theory of decolonization, the principle of the right of a people to choose their own government, the illegality of the U.S. invasion in 1893 and the subsequent acts of annexation, etc.?

B. TIME:

International Law is not locked motionless inside a crystal, permanent and never changing. It changes with the changes in technology, new economic systems, developing political theories and practices, etc. The Laws of Nations which were recognized in 1820 were not the same as those recognized in 1893 and are not the same today. What were the international laws in existence over the significant periods of time in Hawaii=s case? To what extent are the laws applicable to our situation today? Treaties are part of the body of international law, in 1893 as in 1999. But are the treaties which pre-existed the Hawai`i invasion, Athe first sneak-attack in 1893,@ still valid and enforceable today? Who remain the parties to such treaties? If one party (Hawai`i) has, over the last 100 years, been unable to carry on the treaty, for whatever reason, is there basis to resurrect the treaty a hundred years later because there had been no official declaration of the termination of such treaty?

Is there a doctrine in international law similar to that of the Astatute of limitation@ in domestic law? Can a colonial state deny the right of decolonization to a people colonized over a hundred years under such a doctrine? To what extent can the doctrines of fraud, of estoppel, of human rights overcome such a statute of limitation?

C. SUBJECTS ACROSS THE CHOICES OF DETERMINATION:

Many people are not so much concerned about the form of government we model ourselves around, but the impact that form will have on their day to day life? Questions abound around their continued employment, retirement benefits, security from foreign invasion, improved health benefits, better fishing in our Hawaiian waters, protection of local cultures, etc. One convenient method of demonstrating the options of determination and their various impacts upon one or another question is the following matrix:

Using this matrix as a tool for managing the comprehension of the discussion, we could cast discussions covering the various topics, permitting the Hawai`i public an opportunity to follow along with their Ascore card@, identifying their preferences under one or another scenario.

Based upon the above matrix, the public discussions could address:

i) Economics (including money, banking, financing, developing new economic models, integrating the impact of new international relations, military use of Hawai`i, international trade, national policies of dependence and independence, etc.) Some of the questions addressed here as well as in the other subjects are: Under which form of governance would the po`e Hawai`i best prosper? Which form provides the maximum control over ones economic development? Which form allows us freer access to international markets? Which form allows us the best trade possibilities? How will the broader Hawai`i society fare economically under each of these models?

ii) Domestic Political Relations and Governmental Structure - How would we structure ourselves domestically under the three possible configurations of self-determination? Where would we place the protection of Native Hawaiians rights? Under which form of government would we be best off?

iii) National Security Program - How would we structure such a program? What would be the role of a military force? What would be the role of treaties, alliances, or a policy of non-alignment play in the development of a NS program? Would we adopt a policy of offensive-defense, defensive defense, or no military force? How would we build Aouter usefulness@ as part of the program of National Security? What would be the role of our economic policy on the NS program? How would we build Ainner strength@ besides a strong domestic economic program?

iv) International Relations - Under each of the possibilities for self-determination, what would be the range and opportunity for international relation? Would we undertake all of the human rights conventions? Would we be able to afford the reporting requirements? Would we undertake the environmental conventions? Can we afford it? How about trade conventions and monetary policies? Would we immediately join international organizations? Which ones? Or would we adopt a Swiss model of non-alignment?

v) Environmental Policies - To what extent should such policies interact with economic policies of the Hawaiian nation? To what extent would we integrate Native Hawaiian philosophies and traditional practices in these policies? To what degree would we invade the province of private property to protect the environmental treasures of Hawai`i?

vi) Protection of Native Hawaiian Rights - To what extent are the rights derived from American legislation to be carried over to a Hawaiian nation? How are the rights of Native Hawaiians to be inter-related to the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Hawaii=s citizens? What rights should be incorporated from the U.N.=s draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or ILO Convention 169? How will the `Ali`i Trusts be maintained in the future? What will become of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Hawaiian Homestead Commission Act? What will come of the Crown and Government lands labeled Aceded lands@?

vii) Taxation - What are the differing treatment of taxes according to the different outcome of self-determination? If an independent nation, how would Hawai`i structure it=s tax system? Would there be a need for such a system or could income for governmental operations be derived in royalties or concessions granted to industries for doing business in Hawai`i? What would be the cost of operating a government? If the U.S. continues to maintain a military presence in Hawai`i, to what extent would Hawai`i collect for the use of Crown and Hawaiian government lands? Would aliens living in Hawai`i be taxed? At what rates?

viii) Education - What would be the model upon which education would be fashioned? What would be the goal of an educational system - to serve as the production line for future laborers to serve an industrial economy, to maintain a quality of life in Hawai`i, to meet an international aspiration of Hawai`i=s role in the international community? Would we internationalize the education system to understand and appreciate the past and the future from the multiplicity of parts of the world from which the Hawai`i population derive?

ix) Land Relationship and Distribution - What will be the principle values reflected in the way we relate to land and water? Will the values be taken from Western tradition and experience resulting in a fee simple ownership, individualized, and exclusive rights concept, or would land relationship be more group, family, society oriented which values the collective interests and rights of many over the land and water resources of Hawai`i? Would there be opportunities for multiple fashions of land relationship? Would foreigners be permitted to own land in Hawai`i if they are not residents of Hawai`i? What about foreigners who are Hawai`i residents?

x) Population Control - Who would make up the Hawaiian political body? Will citizenship be limited according to racial ancestry? What would be the requirements for citizenship? Would American citizens be given special privileges of maintaining dual citizenship, both as Hawaiians and as Americans? Would such a policy violate the Amost favored nations@ doctrine and require that Hawai`i afford all people from such countries with such treaty ties, to be Hawaiian citizens as well? What controls would Hawai`i place upon immigration into Hawai`i? Would Hawai`i institute a Visa requirement for foreigners traveling to Hawai`i? Upon what countries would that requirement be applied? How would the income be used - to maintain a customs and immigration office?

xi) Governmental Form - How would Hawai`i=s government be structured? Would we adopt a legislative/congressional format or a parliamentary one? What would be the special place of Native Hawaiians in this governmental form? Would there be a recognition of the special rights of indigenous peoples, including certain prerogatives such as the selection of a person or family in the position of Hawaii=s leading Royalty for purposes of international and national protocol? Would the Native Hawaiians also have prerogatives in setting immigration quotas, rules relating to foreign land ownership, use of 20% of the government and crown lands (or all of the crown but none of the government lands)?

xii) Transition - As we transition from one to another form of governance, what are the stages, processes, and goals of such transition? What about Apay back@ for prior abuse by the U.S. government including use of Hawaiian lands, taxation of Hawaiian citizens, contamination of lands used, imprisonment for status or political offenses (such as trespass upon Agovernment@ lands, refusal to file or to pay income taxes, failure to register for the United States military draft system, refusal to serve (or to continue to serve) in the U.S. military, etc.)? To what extent would we look to international bodies to sort through the process of transition?

xiii) Fixed Territory: What will make up the territory over which the Hawaiian nation exercises its national jurisdiction? Will it extend to the full limits of the nation before the invasion of 1893? Will it be limited only to the government and crown lands of the Kingdom submitted to the U.S. in the 1898 purported annexation? Would it be limited to the lands set aside as Hawaiian Homestead lands under the U.S. homesteading act of 1920? To what extent would Hawai`i claim the exclusive economic zone under the Law of the Seas Convention?

xiv) Health: How would Hawai`i=s health programs change or be affected by the decision we make in our political status relative to the United States? Will we be able to access the advances in medicine and psychology as we are able to do today? Will our accessability to such information increase or decrease in each of the different political options? Will we have a freer hand in choices of medical practice? Do we need the protection of the U.S. agencies to determine what is and is not appropriate medical or health practices?

D. PROCESS FOR GETTING FROM HERE TO THERE:

An important part of the on-going discussion on Hawaiian sovereignty is how to achieve it? If the Ait@ is a Anation within a nation@ model, the appeal most naturally will have to be made with the entity within which Hawaiian sovereignty would fall, i.e., the State of Hawai`i or the United States of America. If the State, this would call, either for an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Hawai`i which has the opportunity to revisits the constitution every ten years. Another possibility is to have legislation setting up a Hawaiian Asovereign@ entity within the existing framework of the State and the Federal constitutions.

If instead, Hawaiian sovereignty is to be along the lines of the United States treatment to the American Indians, action by the United States Congress would very likely become a necessity.

Even if the model is one of free association, Congressional action would be required, because a compact of free association calls for agreement between two entities. There would be much details to work out in such a compact, but not necessarily any more than the transitional process toward independence.

The third scenario, is, of course, independence. The major Aplayer@ to be included in this scenario will be the international community, essentially and eventually the United Nations.

Each one of these alternatives will require much detailed work, planning and negotiations. The International Relations Committee could assist in providing the broad outline of the work.

I. INTERNATIONAL LAW BASICS:

The committee discussed briefly the need for some basic understanding of international law as consisting of more than just treaties, but including customary law as well as the writings of eminent scholars and jurists on the matter. Without conducting a whole course of study of international law, we would at least need to give some basic understandings on the subject.

ONGOING QUESTIONS:

The committee agreed that probably the most useful approach to accomplishing its educational work is by raising and attempting to provide possible answers to the multiplicity of questions in our communities. Each committee member is asked to provide the five most often asked questions from which we can conduct committee discussions and research and begin constructing a resource base to assist the Hawai`i public in comprehending Hawaiian sovereignty.

The next committee meeting will proceed along the subjects raised in this initial report and chairperson=s notes.

The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.