International Relations Committee

Report to the `Aha Hawai`i ` iwi

18 February 2000

and its Executive Council

plaenui@pixi.com

February 18, 2000

`Ano ai me ke aloha e na hulu manu like `ole

On behalf of the International Relations Committee, I submit the following report on our activities, discussions, research and conclusion to the Executive Council meeting at Queen Lili`uokalani Children’s Center on Halona Street in Pal ma, and to the `Aha Hawai`i ` iwi, meeting at Kap lama Heights in February, 2000,.

This report does not capture the full extent of our committee activities. To have prepared such a report would have been far too exhaustive to the fiscal, staffing and time constraints of this committee. We have no funds, no staff, and five days to prepare this report from our last meeting.

The committee has met on a regular basis once every two weeks, on Monday evenings at Hale Na`au Pono, the Wai`anae Coast Community Mental Health Center, in Wai`anae, Hawai`i. The meetings were open to all delegates and the public. We have been privileged to have both delegates and members of the public join us, as well as a number of guest speakers who have added to the valuable discussions we have enjoyed.

We believe that the Hawaiian nation must begin the process of reconstruction of its government form based upon a foundation of Pono. If not, the life of the land will not be perpetuated. We must all participate in the exploration of our deep-seated values, expectations, belief systems, and vision for the long future, and place our government form within those contexts. In that exploration among the committee members, it was the consensus that we prefer a deep culture of `Olu`olu, Lokahi, and Aloha (OLA) upon which our government and nation unfold into our future. We desire to minimize the culture built upon Domination, Individualism, and Exclusion (DIE) which we have experienced in large dosage over the past 100 years. (See attached paper on Deep Cultures)

The preparation and finalization of this committee report has not been reviewed by the committee itself, due to time constraints. Your chairperson have tried to remain as faithful as possible to the discussions and decisions made by the committee and accept full responsibility for inaccuracies or misstatements contained herein.

Finally, I wish to express my deepest mahalo to all the members of the committee and the two kako`o, Sylvia Krewson-Reck of Kaneohe, and Carl `Imiola Young of Wai`anae, who have provided continuing support, communication and attendance at our committee meetings and for the committee in general. I also wish to acknowledge and thank the Board of Directors of Hale Na`au Pono for the privilege of using their facilities on the beautiful coastline of Wai`anae, where the heart and soul of Hawai`i is experienced daily.

Aloha ` ina,

P k Laenui, Chairperson

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 5

DISCUSSION: Why Independence? 6

i) Economics 7

ii) Population/Immigration Control 7

iii) National Security Program 8

iv) Foreign Relations 9

v) Environmental Policies 10

vi) Native Hawaiian Rights 10

vii) Taxation 11

viii) Education 12

ix) Land Relationship and Distribution 12

x) People Defined 13

xi) Governmental Form 13

xii) Fixed Territory 13

xiv) Health 14

DISCUSSION: What would Hawaiian Independence look like? 14

A) Pono 14

B) Partnership 15

C) Mutual Respect and Cooperation 15

THE HAWAIIAN INDEPENDENCE MODEL 15

I: NAME: Hawai`i 15

II: TERRITORY 15

III: SUPREMACY 16

IV: HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS 16

V: CITIZENSHIP 16

VI: NON-CITIZEN RESIDENTS 17

VII: POLITICAL ARRANGEMENT 17

A: THE GENERAL BODY 18

B: THE KANAKA HAWAI`I MAOLI BODY 18

VIII: SPECIFICALLY SHARED JURISDICTIONS 20

National Security 20

IX: INTERACTION BETWEEN THE TWO PARTNERS 20

X: INTERNATIONAL STATURE 21

XI: LAND RELATIONSHIP 21

A: PRIVATE OWNERSHIP 21

B: COMMUNAL OWNERSHIP 21

XII: OUTSTANDING CLAIMS POST COLONIZATION 22

Exhibits: Self-Determination Working Matrix and On Deep Cultures in Hawai`i

INTRODUCTION

The committee on International Relations, meeting over the past six months on an average of every two weeks, having had the opportunity of:

-reviewing Hawaii’s history,

-hearing contemporary concerns expressed by members of the native Hawaiian and Hawai`i general public,

-reviewing fundamental principles of international law and their inter-connections with domestic laws,

-listening to speakers both at general assembly meetings as well as committee meetings,

-engaging in extensive discussions within the International Relations committee, within the joint substantive matter committees of the Native Hawaiian Convention, and within the general assemblies, and

-having considered the volumes of materials from delegates of the Native Hawaiian Convention, the Committee on Education, our native Hawaiian constituents, and support staff to the committee,

WISHES TO REPORT on the following actions:

I: The charge of the International Relations Committee is to advise this Native Hawaiian Convention on the best proposal of a native Hawaiian form of government from an International Relations perspective, which includes the consideration of Hawaii’s past, present and future within the context of international and domestic laws and relations,

II: Issues of primary concerns included:

a) The respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people within the Hawai`i society,

b) The explication and protection of the rights of the native Hawaiians as the indigenous people to this homeland,

c) The construction of a social order built upon righteousness,

d) A future which maximizes the opportunities of the general Hawai`i society and the native Hawaiian people,

e) A future which secures stability and ensures the general happiness, health and well being of all of the Hawai`i elements,

III: The work of the committee as it addressed the question of the three choices available in international law in the process of decolonization, i.e., integration, free association, and independence, was guided by a self-determination matrix attached hereto as exhibit 1. As it addressed the question of a specific model, it was assisted by individual proposals made, either through referrals to the committee, or through direct submissions from members of the committee or from the general public.

IV: The Conclusions of the committee is that independence from among the three available choices is preferred. The specific model of an independent nation is one founded upon principles of humanity as set forth below. All other matters assigned to the International Relations Committee for consideration and consultation is being held in the committee for the present time.

DISCUSSION: Why Independence?

There are many factors to consider in determining what would be the best choice for Hawai`i. The committee proceeded to first identify the primary areas of concern, such as economics, health promotion, national security, populations control, and taxation, viewed across the three possible choices of integration, free association, and independence.

As we considered these three choices, we generally agreed that under a system of integration, Hawai`i would be controlled exclusively by the United States of America in the areas of International Diplomatic and Trade Relations, Population Control, Military use of Hawai`i, War, and control over the production and supply of monies and stamps for correspondence. The U.S. would also maintain a shared control with the State of Hawai`i or some other government internal to the United States in areas of Economic Development, Health, Education, Taxation, Social Welfare, Environment, Banking, Employment, Police powers, Property Confiscation, maintenance/control over the native Hawaiian people, Communications and many other and ever widening fields.

Under the choice of Free Association, the United States of America and the freely associated entity would have to negotiate terms of association. Usually, however, such terms of association are not "freely" negotiated but become conditions upon which the United States would permit that degree of autonomy known as Free Association. Experience in the Pacific region reflect that the United States have demanded to remain within the territory of the new entity, maintaining a strong military position, placing their court systems within the entity, setting forth the conditions of international relations, and securing other advantages which fit into the USA’s national policy, generally directed and defined by economic and military interests. Little can be said in a free association arrangement between Hawai`i and the United States until negotiations have taken place or there is clear demarcations of the extent of such an association.

Under the choice of Independence, the United States would have no authority over activities occurring in Hawai`i unless said authority is granted by treaty or executive agreement between Hawai`i and the United States. That being the case, Hawai`i would have full authority over all of its activities occurring in Hawai`i, it would be able to extend its territorial claims to the 12 mile seaward limit and an exclusive economic zone in the ocean to 200 miles from its sea shores. Its territories would include the sky above it and the subsurface below its national territories. U.S. citizens residing in Hawai`i would be subject to both Hawai`i and U.S. laws.

The committee concluded that by and large, it was under independence that the native Hawaiian and the general Hawai`i public would fair most favorably. Our consideration included:

i) Economics

What are the possible economic activities in which a Hawaiian sovereign nation would engage?

Some of the activities considered include the printing/minting of money, local and international banking, finance, and stock exchange, tourism, health industry, high technology, agriculture and acqua-culture development, space study, geothermal and ocean thermal development, athletics training camps and athletic events, cultural and entertainment centers, prison administration and development of new models for rehabilitation, movie production, scientific research including both ocean and land research, ship registry, repair, porting and navigation training center, military, economic "free zones", water export, manufacturing of specialty food and clothes, international East/West consultancy and conferencing center, and tax safe havens.

Under every one of these activities, it was felt that an independent Hawaiian government would have the greatest promise of development. The committee was reminded that while freedom under independence increased the potential for economic development in the areas considered, and more, independence also brought certain dangers, such as the lack of training and qualifications in a small society to meet the expertise necessary. The committee recognizes that the broadened freedoms do not guarantee success in any field, but rather, it merely places the challenge and responsibility for success or failure more directly in the hands of our people.

ii) Population/Immigration Control

As a society integrated within the United States of America, Hawai`i would continue to have no voice in the decision over population or immigration control. We see the continual influx into Hawai`i of foreigners from many parts of the world. There is no State office which has the authority to affect that immigration flow. We have no control over the type of people arriving, or sufficient knowledge of their economic, health, or employment status. We can not even check on their citizenship! Thus, we can not control the number of people living on our welfare rolls, taking up employment which could otherwise have gone to our local population, or the background of individuals and their criminal records. The U.S. witness protection program, for example, have successfully changed identities of people involved in crimes, permitting them to move to Hawai`i, lie on application forms of their true identity, and prevent Hawai`i authority from obtaining disclosure of these matters.

As an independent nation, Hawai`i would be in total control over its policies regarding these matters.

Some of the questions we considered included: 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 from visa proceeds be used - to maintain a customs and immigration office? Would we want to limit our population? Would we want to limit the immigration aspect of population but have no limits to our internal population growth?

Some of the difficulties, however, involve the question of capacity. Is Hawai`i capable of protecting its borders? Are we able to set up an effective system of customs and immigration? Many other countries much smaller than Hawai`i are independent and have established their systems. We believe Hawai`i already has the capacity to exercise control over this area. However, we will never know these answers until we make the move for independence.

iii) National Security Program

This is a matter which has given many people pause in supporting the position of Independence over Integration. Essentially, there is a belief that under independence, Hawai`i would not be able to defend itself from military aggression without the assistance of the United States. Yet, we do have a well developed National Guard system equipped and trained in the most modern tactics and weaponry of war.

The committee has considered this matter, especially at the General Assembly gathering at Paukukalo, Maui. During the discussion, it was noted that being independent did not prevent Hawai`i from engaging in treaties or conventions with the United States or other states in agreements for mutual defense. That discussion also considered the question of who would be the most likely aggressors against Hawai`i, and it appeared that there were not very many candidates in the current scene of states, save the United States of America.

The committee also gave merit to a new system of national security, one which did not rely simply on war capability. National security was seen as being far more than a standing army. It was, instead, composed of four arenas -

1) Inner Strength including self-sufficiency to the extent of meeting a society’s basic needs in food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education. Inner strength also dealt with the development of a strong sense of identity and pride in being a Hawaiian citizen, a willingness to resist aggression, and sufficient training to carry such resistence out. Inner strength also required a strong and pristine environment to support the needs of the people.

2) Outer usefulness meant having a relationship with other countries of being useful to such countries. This could be accomplished by the development of a "Geneva of the Pacific" in which leaders of the nations of the Pacific and Asia, and from across the world, could gather in Hawai`i for conferences and conventions, where students from all parts of the world could obtain a good education in a safe environment, where new institutions of research in oceanography, astronomy, earth science, computer training and development, etc. Outer usefulness also included the development of multi-national institutions located in Hawai`i to address the world needs, similar to the practice followed by the canton of Geneva in which organizations such as the United Nations, the International Labor Organization, the World Council of Churches, the International Red Cross, and other governmental or non-governmental organizations have established themselves in service to the various needs of the world.

Yet another theme to the "outer usefulness" concept was Hawai`i’s exportation of poi for the Pacific/Asia baby market which in turn develops a sense of affiliation with Hawai`i merely in the fact that it produces the healthiest food product for the children of this part of the world. (Who would want to invade, pollute and destroy the very site of preparation of one’s baby’s food?)

3) Defensive defense in which our national military, should we decide to have one, would maintain a policy of inability to strike against any other nation, but capable of defending against any strike made against Hawai`i. This could be accomplished by refusing to possess any weapon which was capable of striking beyond a thousand miles from our territorial shores. The expectation is that upon verification of this lack of capability, (invitations could go out to any country to inspect our military weapons for verification) those places which now have missiles trained upon Hawai`i would be aimed at other targets simply because of this shift from an offensive defense to a defensive defense Hawaiian policy.

4) Non-alignment is a national security policy effectively used by Switzerland in which it welcomes many but is tied into none. Through a policy of non-alignment, even to the extent of not being a member of the United Nations which is headquartered in that nation, it has been able to avoid the attachment of siding with one or another and has been able to remain neutral. This perception of neutrality allows for its greater outer usefulness, and a desire by all to preserve its national integrity. An invasion against such a nation would carry a very high cost, not necessarily in terms of military reprisal, but in the disdain from other nations of the world.

Under a position of integration within the United States of America, Hawai`i would not be able to maintain a national security policy as proposed above. Instead, we would continue in the present frame of mind of defense through domination, resulting in the extraction of extremely high amounts of limited resources (a hundred times more than resources for education), and the allocation of valuable Hawaiian lands for military purpose. Independence would permit Hawai`i the opportunity to institute a new, more peaceful aloha practice of national security.

iv) Foreign Relations

As is the current situation, an integration model of Hawaiian "sovereignty" would essentially eliminate for Hawai`i any opportunity for engaging in foreign relations unless to the extent permitted by the United States. So far, this has meant nothing more than Hawaii’s direct participation in the South Pacific Arts Festival through the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Under independence, Hawai`i would be able to negotiate its own opportunities for international relations, beginning with the development of trade agreements, joining international regional and world organizations such as the South Pacific Conference and Forum as well as the United Nations, and reestablishing its diplomatic and consular posts around the world. It would be able to exercise its own decisions regarding undertaking all of the human rights, environmental, intellectual, trade, labor, and communications conventions open for ratification. Our flag cold fly among other nations’ as an equal member of the United Nations.

v) Environmental Policies

Under integration with the United States, it is safe to expect that the United States would continue to pre-empt control over the Hawai`i environment. Currently, Hawai`i has numerous "super-fund" sites for which the United States military continue to maintain hazardous activities which poison the environment. The Hawai`i public has no jurisdiction over such activities. Indeed, for many years, even the environmental protection laws of the United States had no jurisdiction over U.S. military activities.

Under independence, Hawai`i would be able to determine for itself its environmental policies. Given this control, Hawai`i could begin to integrate Native Hawaiian philosophies and traditional practices in its relationship to the environment. It could determine if, and when, the public good to protect certain aspects of the environment may overcome the private rights of property or of military/industrial activities.

vi) Native Hawaiian Rights

Under the U.S. Constitution, the rights of native Americans are generally based upon the historic relations between recognized Indian tribes and the United States government through treaties as well as provisions in the constitution setting forth the recognition of such tribes. It has been argued by significant interests in the United States that the native Hawaiian people do not fall within the privileges and benefits accorded to the members of the Indian tribes because the native Hawaiians do not have the same relationship as that of the American Indians relative to the United States. Whatever the continuing outcome of such debates, the fact remains that it is the United States central government, either through the judiciary, the legislature, or the executive departments, who determine for a span of time, the awards, rewards and benefits of the native Hawaiian people as a people integrated into the United States. Government programs and policies are unilaterally made at the whim or changing political winds of Washington D.C., out of the hands of the native Hawaiian people.

Under a model of independence the rights of native Hawaiians can be ingrained in the national constitution, giving greater permanence that is possible under integration. For example, the Hawai`i public could determine that it would endorse the protections set forth in the convention protecting the rights of indigenous peoples adopted by the International Labour Organization (ILO Convention 169) or proclaimed in the draft Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples which continues to be considered by the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations. The record of the United States, on the other hand, is a record which demonstrates no support for the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples beyond the whim of Congress, the Administration, and the Federal Courts.

vii) Taxation

If integrated within the United States, the Federal Government will continue to have full determination of what, when and how much to tax the people of Hawai`i. The State of Hawai`i as well as the county governments will also retain taxing authority.

As an independent nation, Hawai`i would no longer be subject to taxation by the United States. Hawai`i would be able to establish its own taxing system, the rate of taxation, the item to be taxed, and the timing of such taxes.

All other assessments against wages and properties would be treated likewise, including the present deductions for social security or FICA, telephone, gas, alcohol and tobacco, etc.

Closely associated with the subject of taxation is of course the subject of spending such taxes. Under integration, Hawai`i has four voices among hundreds in the U.S. Congress. How, where, and for what such taxes are used become dependent on the effectiveness of Hawaii’s congressional representatives. This is hardly participatory on the part of the Hawai`i society. Under independence, those crucial decisions of how our taxes now being paid to the U.S. government is to be spent will be determined by the people of Hawai`i.

On the other hand, Hawai`i would not be beneficiaries to the Federal spending as we are currently said to be. For example, Hawai`i currently receives contributions for the education in our public school systems for children who are military dependents, Hawai`i receives contributions for the construction or maintenance of our highways, for special education services to our children, and jobs to our local residents at Federal installations such as Hickam AFB, Pearl Harbor Naval Station, Lualualei Ammunition Depot and Naval Air Station, Schofield and Wheeler bases, etc.

It is probably not the case, however, that Hawai`i receives more in Federal spending than the value extracted from Hawai`i in the form of taxes, labor, services, and use of lands and waters, and damage to the environment. For example, the monies received for Federal jobs are actually exchanged for services provided by our laborers, the monies payed for education of military dependents are far less than the actual cost of such education, the use of government and crown lands upon which sits most of the military bases are not paid for adequately by the U.S. Government to Hawai`i, the monies paid for construction of the various highways are based upon military expediency and not for the sake of the local community. The long term cost to Hawai`i for the destruction of the Hawaiian land and ocean environment is not being addressed by any funds paid to Hawai`i for its eventual clean-up. Pollution, meanwhile, continues.

As an independent nation, Hawai`i would become an equal party to the discussion and would have the right to terminate this one-sided approach to expenditures by the U.S. government in these islands.

viii) Education

Under the current relationship of integration with the United States, Hawaii’s education system is set upon goals for success within the North American economic system and its version of the Hawaiian and world economy. It takes on what some may call the Red Barn approach. While the Red Barn may be a familiar sight or frame of reference to North American children, along with its snow, fields of wheat stretching for miles, the Big Apple, Plymouth Rock, and Cape Cod, it has very little relevance to the world of the vast majority of the children of Hawai`i and their particular environment. When measured against "national standards", the references used in tests normalized for the United States youths automatically place our Hawai`i youths at a disadvantage. Yet, such standardized tests do indeed aid in the predictability of our children’s success within that Americanized system. Thus, our children are forced into a reality forged out of consensus rather than one based upon the fact of our natural, cultural and social environment.

Under an independence system, Hawai`i would be able to reassess the role of education to the society. In this assessment, Hawaii’s vision of our role in the Pacific and the World would be recast in the framework of an independent nation. The economic, social, cultural, and political relationship between Hawai`i and other countries would change, and so would our view of the need of education to our children in this light.

Hawai`i, under independence, would also be able to give greater emphasis to the needs of our local society. For example, it may want to emphasize the need to become fluent in languages, cultures, religious tolerance, ocean sciences from both the native Hawaiian and western understandings, poetry, history and mythology also from the native and the western views of the world construct, etc.

ix) Land Relationship and Distribution

Under integration, the principle of land ownership follows a clear western value system, overlaid to some extent, by Hawaiian history in which certain property and cultural rights were retained to the hoa` ina. However, even these Hawaiian developed rights remain under constant and critical attacks, both by land owners and by legislators who would like to see a more "American" form of ownership.

Under independence, Hawai`i would have the opportunity to explore many other alternatives to land relationship and distribution. It would have the right to limit, for example, foreign non-resident ownership of land, question the very concept of multiple land ownership, of the appropriate use of land, or whether or not land should be permitted to go unused. In this consideration, Hawai`i would be able to apply its own cultural and social values to the relationship to land. It may determine that land could be owned communally, that there should be no such thing as "ownership" in the sense of fee simple title but instead "life estates" or "family estates". There may even be opportunities for multiple fashions of land relationship.

An independent Hawai`i would afford many opportunities to re--assess the current land situation to determine the appropriate system of relationship to meet the needs of the society.

x) People Defined

Under an integration system, the Hawai`i society has no opportunity to define its population, all such questions determined by the U.S. Congress as interpreted by the Judiciary and managed by the Executive. Thus, the U.S. government determines who may or may not immigrate or even visit Hawai`i. New residents today are brought by boat and plane without limitation. Hawai`i has no authority to check or limit the flow of population. Hawai`i has no control over who eventually vote in our political elections, who takes up our jobs, or who even teach our children.

Under independence, Hawai`i could take over all such decisions, determining who would make up the Hawaiian political body, citizenship requirements, transmigration policies, etc.

xi) Governmental Form

Under the current system of integration, the States are permitted license in the construction of its governmental form, to the extent, however, that the form does not run afoul of constitutional standards. A form of government which would set aside a special Office of Hawaiian Affairs to afford the indigenous peoples a sense of self-governance could be challenged as violating the constitutional protection of equal protection and voting rights of all of its citizens. If the native Hawaiian people are not qualified within the same category of the native American people, it is likely to fail to meet the constitutional tests of exemption from such challenges.

Another limitation under the U.S. constitution is that titles of nobility are prohibited. Thus, Hawai`i would not be able to create an office or position of Mo`i, King, Queen, Ali`i nui, etc.

Under a model of independence, the U.S. constitution would not apply. Hawai`i could structure its governmental form in whatever way it desires. It would be able to create whatever office, department, or branch of government to protect or accord rights to the native Hawaiian people. Such a native Hawaiian branch of government could adopt whatever form of government it preferred, including the prerogatives of selecting a monarch! Such a branch of government could even be given broader jurisdictions beyond just issues of governance over native Hawaiians. It could receive a set aside of lands, have taxing authority over its citizens, and even be given rights to determine immigration quotas, rules relating to foreign land ownership, and authority over protocol relations as Hawai`i interacts with foreign nations.

xii) Fixed Territory

Under the current integration framework, the State of Hawaii’s territory is fixed by the law creating the State. The territorial boundaries extend to three miles from the shoreline into the ocean. Hawai`i retains the air and subsurface rights of its territory. However, it can not dictate the use of the airways, for that is preempted by the Federal government. It can not determine the use of our airwaves for television or radio purposes for that too has been preempted by the Federal government. Because the ocean jurisdiction extends only up to the three mile limit, Hawai`i is now limited to the extent it can protect ocean resources surrounding these islands. The U.S. has instead, claimed the extended jurisdiction of 12 miles from Hawaii’s shoreline.

As an independent nation, Hawai`i would be able to claim all of the islands of the Hawaiian chain, as well as those islands and atolls previously part of the Hawaiian nation’s dominion, including areas as far off as the Stewart atolls among the Solomon islands group. Hawai`i would also be able to claim a territorial boundary up to twelve miles of ocean from beyond its shores, as well as the exclusive economic zone of 200 miles from its shores under the Law of the Seas convention.

xiv) Health

Under integration, the United States as well as the State of Hawai`i share in the governance of health practices. The U.S. continues to control the types of medication available: it establishes the laws on patents and copyright such that certain Hawaiian herbs can not be marketed in violation of copy rights of others. It can declare possession of certain medicinal plants illegal and prohibit other practices of medical care criminal should it decide such practices contrary to a Surgeon General’s idea of good health.

Under independence, Hawai`i would be able to define its own definition of health, and the appropriateness of medical practice and medicine. With this power, Hawai`i would be able to fashion its own medical system, accepting what it wants from other countries, and being as liberal as it decides, regarding indigenous or ethnic practices consistent with community values. Hawai`i would most likely gain a greater access into the international health community such as the World Health Organization.

DISCUSSION: What would Hawaiian Independence look like?

The model of Hawaiian independence is founded on a number of fundamental principles, including the following:

A) Pono

The International Relations Committee believes that the model of governance in an independent nation must be fashioned upon the principle of Pono. If it is not based upon righteousness, the very foundation of the nation will not be lasting, and the society itself will never be in balance or at peace. Thus, the Hawaiian nation must be built upon a deep culture that reflects that principle of Pono. In this regard, we have considered the issues of Deep Culture as presented in a paper on the subject, and concluded that we must incorporate a deep culture of OLA rather than DIE. (See Exhibit 2) We believe that not only is such a policy correct, but also consistent with the practice and values of our ancestors of Hawai`i.

B) Partnership

It is not enough to gain protection for the Native Hawaiian people, apart from the development of the general Hawaiian community. The development of the Hawaiian nation must be one fashioned by a partnership of all Hawaii’s people who have undergone colonization and are entitled to the liberation encased in world principles of self-determination. Yet, we recognize the special needs of the host people and culture of Hawai`i and the right of the native Hawaiian people to design the political and social framework to meet those needs.

C) Mutual Respect and Cooperation

A house divided can not stand. Only through mutual respect and cooperation, on the part of the general Hawaii public on one hand, and the native Hawaiian people on the other, will Hawai`i be able to assure its continued existence. A strong and well defined framework which clearly sets forth the place and powers of each part of the Hawaiian nation will aid in the mutual respect and cooperation.

This partnership calls for the construction of a constitutional framework with the active engagement of both sides. The Native Hawaiian Convention can set the general parameters as we attempt to do here, and extend the call for this partnership, inviting those among the Hawai`i public who would qualify for citizenship in the Hawaiian nation (see p. 15 below) to begin a parallel process of designing the Hawaiian nation, concentrating on that aspect dealing specifically with the design of the general public body.

Based upon the above principles, your International Relations committee shares what it foresees as the eventual design of the independent state of Hawai`i:

A separate five member drafting council with an independent staff shall be appointed to recommend constitutional amendments to address conflicts which are not otherwise resolved in the Constitution or agreed upon by the two partners. This council’s recommendations shall be subject to review and negotiations between the bodies. In the event a dispute arise which can not be resolved, such dispute will be set before the advisory conflict-resolution body described above for determination.

1) Claims for damage over a period of 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 Hawai'i 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 individuals deprived of property rights. Such claims in this category shall be made only on behalf of individuals or their descendants who register their individual claims with the panel.

 

 

A working matrix for self-determination

NATIVE HAWAIIAN CONVENTION

On a scale of 1 to 10 (1=bad 10=best), how would you rate the factors

within the three choices of self-determination?

(A brief discussion of each factor follows after the matrix.)

Matters to Consider

(P k Laenui, Chairperson, International Relations Committee)

i) Economics What are the possible economic activities in which a Hawaiian sovereign nation would engage? How would such activities fare under each one of the possible choices of integration, free association, or independence? Some of the activities mentioned include the printing/minting of money, local and international banking, finance, and stock exchange, tourism, health industry, high technology, agriculture and acquaculture development, space study, geothermal and ocean thermal development, athletics training camps and athletic events, cultural and entertainment centers, prison administration and development of new models for rehabilitation, movie production, scientific research including both ocean and land research, ship registry, repair, porting and navigation training center, military, economic "free zones", water export, manufacturing of specialty food and clothes, international East/West consultancy and conferencing center, and tax safe havens.

ii) Population/Immigration Control What are the possible population and immigration policies we would want to adopt? Should we undertake a policy of encouraging the expansion of the Hawaiian race similar to the encouragements brought about during the Kal kaua reign? 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 from visa proceeds be used - to maintain a customs and immigration office? Would we want to limit our population? Would we want to limit the immigration aspect of population but have no limits to our internal population growth? Under which governmental relationship with the U.S. would we be able to carry out our favored policies?

iii) National Security Program How would we structure such a program? What would be the components to such a program? How would we integrate our economic policies, our international relations policies, our military defense policies, and our trade policies to become part of our national security program? Under which choice will we be safer, better able to design our own program of national security?

iv) Foreign 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? Should we join the international community in the protection of the environment and the programs for small island communities?

vi) 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 Hawai`i’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 "ceded lands"? Will rights accorded Native Hawaiians pre Rice v. Cayetano continue in a Hawaiian nation?

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? Would the rates be any different from Hawaiian nationals?

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 Hawaii’s role in the international community? Would we internationalize the education system? Or would we be local focused? Would we look for a balance?

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) People Defined 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 "most favored nations" doctrine and require that Hawai`i afford all people from such countries with such treaty ties, to be Hawaiian citizens as well? Should we simply not follow the practice of "denizenship?" Should we simply have people make their choices of citizenship?

xi) Governmental Form How would Hawaii’s government be structured? Would we adopt a legislative/congressional format or a parliamentary one? Some other form? 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 monarch 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 "pay 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 "government" 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 will the Hawaiian nation address the health needs of its people? Will it be able to avail itself to all of the modern advances in medicine and medical care? Will it be more capable of incorporating an array of medical practices from a larger part of the world? Will it continue to work under the U.S. Food & Drug controls? Will it have a greater ability to engage in new types of medicine? Will it have greater control over various life activities which impact upon the long term health of the people, including military activities, industrial pollution, ocean protection and maintenance, etc.? 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? Will we gain greater access into the international health community such as the World Health Organization?

There is, of course, no right or wrong answer to any of these questions. We invite you to share your ideas on any subject mentioned or on other subjects you may have. It is very important that you contribute your concerns so that we may incorporate them into our work in order to produce the best thought-out framework for governance of our Hawaiian nation. You may mail your comments to the Aha Hawai`i `Oiwi (Native Hawaiian Convention), P.O. Box 37396, Honolulu, HI 96837.

of Hawaiian Affairs

86-649 Pu`uhulu Rd.

Wai`anae, Hawai`i 96792

Tel: (808)696-5157 Fax: (808)696-7774

http://www.opihi.com/sovereignty

February 14, 2000

On Deep Cultures in Hawai`i

There are cultural codes in the collective sub-conscious of all societies which defines within that society what is right and wrong, what is moral and natural, what forms of behavior is appropriate in given circumstances. These codes derive from the myths and legends, from the deep national memories, from the environmental conditions, from the internal conflicts and from a multitude of other processes which have taken place over long periods of time in a society. These codes are generally unwritten. They do not form a constitutive document or are in some explicit statement. They are generally unspoken. But they are so ingrained in a society that they become the driving force of the society. You can oftentimes see them in the routines and habits of people, in the fears and pleasures of a people, in their dreams and expectations and the systems of reasoning.

I call these codes the deep culture of a society.

The deep culture lies at the foundation of a society. Sitting immediately upon that deep culture is a wide social system including economic relations, health care, families, shelter and clothing practices, food and eating customs, education forms and environmental attitudes. A political system develops upon and protects the social system and a military system upon that, protecting, of course, the political system.

When Deep Cultures Clash

What happens when a people who have existed upon such a deep culture comes into contact with another people? Such contacts can result in very little change or it can result in a total upheaval of the society. Many factors play a role in the effects of such contacts. One of the factors is the place in which contact and change comes about.

Contacts can be made at any one or at a combination of places in that societal framework. There can be contact on the basis of religious proselytizing, on trade and cultural/intellectual exchange, or military conquest. These contacts may affect changes in that level of the framework for a period of time, but unless they make fundamental change in the people at the deep culture level, the society will find a continual pull toward those systems which express the existing deep-culture of the place.

In the Hawai`i experience, we find a society which had developed a strong deep culture

upon which a particular social, political and military structure formed. On-going contact with Europeans came about in 1778 by the visits of Captain James Cook of the British admiralty. Those initial contacts were largely based upon trade.

Hawai`i, meanwhile, was undergoing an upheaval in its political order, with chiefs fighting for territory and power over one another. Those internal political upheavals were by and large settled by 1819 through the unification of these islands under Kamehameha I, resulting in a consolidated political system governing Hawai`i.

Immediately thereafter, Hawai`i underwent a widespread, internal, even formalized upheaval of its religious underpinnings, instigated through edicts (`ai noa, the releasing of the kapu) from the government for the people to step away from their traditional religious practices. Christian missionaries from the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions arrived from Boston, Massachusetts, amid this religious turmoil. This timely arrival provided those conditions resulting in their direct influence in the religious order of the society. Both the `ai noa and the coming of the missionaries split the society in ways which are still being felt today by the combining and clashing of two major systems of religious practices. We find the emblems of the ancient religious practice still reflected in the wide practice of cultural dances and chants, styles of eating, reverence for nature, health practices, naming of children, etc. Yet, we also find constant outward appearances of Christian beliefs side by side with the ancient practices.

Products of Christian Missionaries

The missionaries played a significant role in the widespread formal education system as well as the political reformation of the society. From a society which had no writing system (aside from the traditional petroglyphs) in merely ten years after missionary arrival, a writing system had been introduced and the bulk of the Hawaiian population became literate, far in advance of other nations of the world.

Another decade later, a Hawaiian Magna Charta was instituted, observing the fundamental rights of all human beings and the equality of all, chiefs and commoners, before the law. This was followed immediately by a written constitution beginning a political system of human rights and a constitutional representative form of government with a monarch at the helm.

Hawai`i developed a pattern of international relations engaging in trade and intellectual commerce and exchanging formal political recognition and diplomats with nations throughout the world. Hawai`i soon became the most literate nation in the world. It had 99 diplomatic and consular posts around the world, and was a member of one of the first international governmental organizations, the Universal Postal Union. Its international status as an independent and sovereign state was recognized world-wide.

As all of this was happening, many more cultures came into Hawai`i, from both the East and West, having continuing impact upon the Hawaiian society.

American Invasion

On January 16, 1893 United States troops invaded Hawai`i and participated in establishing a puppet government for the explicit purpose of ceding Hawai`i to the United States of America. After four years of investigation and debate within Hawai`i and the United States, including an admission by the U.S. President that an invasion did occur which violated international law and the treaties between the two countries, the U.S. Congress (in the turmoil of the Spanish American War) voted to annex Hawai`i as an American territory in 1898. This act violated the U.S. Constitution requiring treaties to be approved by 2/3rd of the U.S. Senate. It refused to consult with the people of Hawai`i who, there is no debate, were overwhelmingly against the annexation.

In 1900, the U.S. government restructured the Hawai`i political system along the lines of a colonial/military outpost and governed Hawai`i in this manner. It held direct control over all military forces, over the political, including the judicial system, over immigration, and over all trade with foreign countries. In 1959, it placed the question of Statehood before the Americans in Hawai`i who voted in favor. The Congress switched Hawai`i political relationship from a Territory to a State of the U.S. union. (See separate article on Hawaiian Statehood.)

Results

Given this brief review of Hawai`i’s history of foreign contact, especially a colonial contact with the U.S.A., let us return to the analysis of the societal framework, in particular the deep culture of Hawai`i. We have seen Hawai`i’s deep culture established over generations of existence, by 1820, undergoing major impact through the religious edict of the government, the unification of the government structure, the formation of new economies, and the expansion of the awareness of the international community. All of this were occurring in a general environment of self-determination by which indigenous leadership, in the final analysis, determined the national policy.

U.S. military act resulted in a reversal of that indigenous led constitutional monarchy. It brought about an American controlled economy, political structures and relationships, heavy militarization, as well as unfettered immigration from the United States and other areas. The U.S. also dictated education, media, and finance.

DIE & OLA

Today, what we find is a jumbled flow of at least two distinct deep cultures within the Hawai`i society. One is prominent in the formal and the other in the informal systems of community life. The first contains strong elements of:

Domination - especially reflected in the formal economic, education, political, military and judicial systems. Ingrained within this element is the idea of expansion, an ever enlarging territory, market, or field of conquest as being a natural order of things.

Individualism - protected in the legal system, elevated in the expression of history and dominant Western philosophies. Ingrained within this element is the idea of singularity, a continual parceling apart, fragmenting of things, concepts, persons from people.

Exclusion - often accomplished by the depersonalization of the "other," the stranger. One favorite technique is by referring to others as non-human entities, "gooks" and "commies" for example instead of men, women and children, the "evil empire" instead of the people of another nation.

The acronym DIE is an easy reminder of the elements of that deep culture stream. It is prevalent in the formal economic, education, judicial and political systems of the Hawai`i society today.

The second stream contains elements of:

`Olu`olu - compatible, agreeable, creating relationships of comfort, of inter-relating with a high degree of respect and trust, even alongside one's competitor, of finding contentment with what one has, of staying within one’s kuleana, territory or property;

Lokahi - collective effort, many working together for a common goal which gives a foundation for looking at the wide implications of small things,

Aloha - a propensity toward inclusion of other people and different philosophies, a searching out for the humanity within others and trying to urge that humanity to the surface of inter-relationships.

This "OLA." is generally attributed to the underlying Hawaiian culture and the multiplicity of added cultures to Hawai`i. It is entrenched in the informal economy of sharing and caring, of non-formal education, of traditional healing, of alternate dispute resolution systems and community organizing. In the Hawaiian (and other Polynesian) language, it means both health and life.

Of course, one would have to look long and hard to find a pure DIE or OLA in the general community. These deep cultures continually mix, clash, and cooperate within individuals, families, situations, and systems. They add to the schizophrenia and to the compatibility of the society which makes Hawai`i so incomprehensible for some and so delightful to others. These deep cultures are more than interesting anthropological points of inquiry. They have very serious implications to our society. They form the foundation upon which we build our relationships with one another, how we interact with our environment, our attitudes to time, justice, sharing and caring, family, medicine, . . . They are guiding forces to our individual and collective futures.

Here’s a simplified example of the practice of DIE and OLA deep cultures. Two young men come into a large source of cash and decide to buy a car for each of them. One goes out and buys a two seat, two door, convertible sports car to "go cruising" with a friend on date nights. The other buys a van so he can take the whole family around the island, to the "games" or just to "go holo holo" (visiting without a specific destination). Those choices are expressions of deep culture.

Consider the implications. Hawai`i's environmental policy can be used as a study. If those who make decisions over such a policy follow a DIE cultural concept, the environment will be treated from a "domination, fragmentation" approach - man has the right, (some argue, even the responsibility) - to conquer, dominate, and subdue the environment. The value of the forests are to be measured only in terms of its utility to the human population. Likewise, the ocean, the streams, the sky, the plants and animals, the winds, etc. Alterations to the natural elements are accomplished without any second thought: the first and only one being the "good" of man.

An OLA concept would approach the environment from a kinship and a unification approach. The ` ina and the kai, the land and the ocean, would be treated as ohana, family. The cutting down of plants or the fishing in the ocean may or may not incorporate ceremony, but in the doing, there is certainly a sense of reverence, of operating within and of performing a special, sacred task.

The operator of a machine uses it and applies it to the environment by creating within him/her self a relationship. He feels the mood and the spirit of the tractor, he can tell when he is pushing it too hard, or not enough. He feels the contours of the earth and the spirit within those contours. He may not be able to explain it, but those feelings are there deep inside.

Hawai`i has a unique food dish called "plate lunch." It is filled with a mixed variety of food. One could find rice, mashed potato, sweet/sour spare ribs, hamburger, chicken or pork adobo, hot dog, chili, laulau, spaghetti and meat balls, kim chee, daikon, macaroni and/or potato salad, toss green salad, and a whole assortment of other dishes. Malihini or newcomers to Hawai`i are generally puzzled by this customary food practice and why it is so popular throughout Hawai`i and among the local population. Their choice of lunch is at McDonald or Burger King. It is another reflection of deep culture.

Visit any public high school in Hawai`i and you can find expressions of DIE and OLA in practice. The morning bell rings and students are in their classes knowing, without naming it, that they are under the DIE culture. There is a clear pecking order and a DIE code to follow. The teacher is the boss, there is a clear division of intellectual structure, and the rules of system are well understood - grades are spread along a curve, no sharing of answers on tests, gain recognition, put yourself forward, and respond in a loud, clear and confident tone your answer or ideas, gaining points or merits for correct responses.

Ring the bell again and students immediately switch to an OLA culture. Sharing and caring become major means of transaction, as food, stories, problems, and joys are circulated among the group. Differences are celebrated. Help is always available. As students return home, sharing continues to be a code. One should not be too proud, know-it all, and act better than others.

The Hawai`i case is not materially different from many other peoples’ experience with the mixing of deep cultures from different parts of the world. Generally, we like to limit such mixtures to the will of the host people who are receiving the incoming peoples and cultures. The problem with colonization, however, by its very definition, is that the host people are merely overrun by a foreign, uninvited government.

If we are truly to control our own future, if we are to have real self-determination, if we are fully to appreciate our public policies and private behavior patterns, we must be aware of these streams of deep cultures within our society and where they come from. We need to teach ourselves to be more observant, to recognize within our own selves that we are playing out our deep culture patterns accumulated over the years, and are passing them to others we influence, especially the children. In this way we become clear of why we think and live the ways we do, of our options, and we are able to be more deliberate in directing our paths to be taken as we unfold into our futures.

This paper was originally printed in the Institute for Zen Studies, May 1997 and subsequently expanded for further publication. Contributors to the ideas come from many sources including Archbishop Tanouye Tenshin, Puanani Burgess, Pilahi Paki, `Imiola Young, Pualani Hopkins, Professor Johan Galtung, Sylvia Krewson-Reck, and of course, the general Hawai`i society. Poka Laenui