🚀 go-pugleaf

The following 4 part series on Hawaiian Sovereignty was broadcast by the
Voice of America in November, 1996.

____________________________________________________________________________

____

      date 11/12/96
    number 4-09448
     title hawaii sovereignty #1: the apology law
    byline joan beecher
  dateline washington
    editor phil haynes

part 1 - the apology law

Intro:   the movement for national sovereignty in the soviet
         union helped lead to its demise, and continues to be
         seen as a threat to the integrity of such successor
         states as russia and georgia.  sovereignty for
         indigenous peoples is also a pressing issue elsewhere,
         including the united states. in a recent vote funded by
         the state of hawaii, native hawaiians, who now compose
         only about 20 percent of the state's population, asked
         for a convention to set up their own native hawaiian
         government.  with this report, voa analyst joan beecher
         begins a series that examines the hawaiian sovereignty
         movement.

Written by Joan Beecher
Edited by Phil Haynes
Washington
November 11, 1996


text:    hawaii is a group of eight major islands and numerous
         islets in the middle of the pacific ocean, some
         two-thousand miles [over three thousand kilometers] away
         from the american mainland.  known as the "paradise of
         the pacific" because of its spectacular natural beauty,
         hawaii is a major tourist attraction. it is also an
         important transportation hub, and home to pearl harbor
         and other u-s naval bases.

         when discovered by captain james cook in 1778, hawaii
         was inhabited exclusively by native hawaiians, a
         polynesian people.  its ethnic composition gradually
         changed, with the arrival of american and european
         traders, planters, and missionaries, and with the mass
         importation of asian laborers to work the sugar
         plantations.

         by the late 19th century, hawaii had developed a
         constitutional monarchy, and was recognized as an
         independent country by all the major powers of the time.
         but in 1893, the independent kingdom of hawaii was
         overthrown by a group of local americans and europeans,
         with the help of the u-s minister in the islands and a
         detachment of american marines.  five years later hawaii
         was annexed to the united states and remained a u-s
         territory for 61 years, becoming a state only in 1959.

         in 1993, another remarkable event occurred.  in that
         year, the united states congress passed a joint
         resolution, signed into law by president clinton,
         officially apologizing to the native hawaiians for the
         illegal overthrow of their kingdom 100 years earlier.

         the adoption of this resolution followed two decades
         of agitation and lobbying by local hawaiian sovereignty
         advocates.

         that agitation caused u-s president ronald reagan,
         back in 1980, to set up a native hawaiian study
         commission, made up of six members of his administration
         and three hawaiians.  the chairperson was kina'u
         kamali'i, who now heads the land and sovereignty
         commission of the state's office of hawaiian affairs.

tape:    act 1  kina'u kamali'i

         "we had meetings in washington d-c and also throughout
         the state of hawaii.  we finally, in 1983, submitted a
         report to congress.  unfortunately, the majority members
         of the commission of course did not see that they had
         any obligation to the native hawaiians, which led me to
         filing a minority report to congress, disagreeing with
         president reagan's majority members of the commission.
         in that minority report, we recommended that, number
         one: congress apologize for their misdoings; they have
         not fulfilled their obligations to us after stealing our
         nation in 1893.  and that led to this resolution, almost
         word for word, from the minority report by our
         delegation."

text:    usually referred to as the "apology law," the
         resolution acknowledges that the "indigenous hawaiian
         people never directly relinquished their claims to their
         inherent sovereignty as a people, or over their national
         lands."

         when the resolution was being debated in the senate,
         senator slade gorton of the state of washington argued
         vigorously against it. its logical consequence, he said,
         would be independence for hawaii, and it could set a
         dangerous legal precedent for other indigenous american
         groups.  as the senator pointed out: "every square
         inch of the united states of america was acquired in a
         manner which bears certain similarities to the
         acquisition by the united states of what is now the
         state of hawaii."

         shortly after the resolution was signed into law, the
         hawaiian sovereignty advisory commission, a 20-member
         body appointed by the governor of hawaii, retained
         professor francis boyle of the university of illinois'
         law school to advise it on whether the "apology law"
         indeed provided a legal basis for the restoration of
         hawaiian independence.  testifying before the commission
         in december, 1993, professor boyle said that it did.
         this continues to be his considered position today.

tape:    act 2  francis boyle

         "in the apology resolution, the united states
         congress, the united states government, admitted that it
         stole hawaii from the native hawaiian people in
         violation of treaties in existence at that time.  it
         acknowledged that it has inflicted conditions on the
         native hawaiian people that are tantamount to genocide.
         it has acknowledged publicly and officially that the
         native hawaiian people have the right of
         self-determination and they have never validly exercised
         that right so far."

text:    by inference, the "apology law" concedes that the
         statehood vote of 1959 was invalid, according to
         professor boyle.  up until 1959 hawaii was on the list
         of "non-self-governing territories" -- that is, colonies
          -- submitted by the united states to the united nations,
         in accordance with article 73 of the u-n charter.
         according to article 73, powers administering "non-self
         governing territories" are obliged to offer them the
         opportunity to choose one of three models of
         self-governance.  in 1959, professor boyle points out,
         hawaiians were given only one option -- statehood.

tape:    act 3  francis boyle

         "we are obliged, under the terms of the u-n charter,
         to give the hawaiian people their right to
         self-determination, to decide what they wish to do with
         their future.  now, there are three alternatives that
         should be presented to them by the u-n.  first, do they
         want amalgamation with the u-s?  or second, do they want
         complete independence, as an independent nation state?
         or, third, do they want some type of relationship of
         free association, along the lines of the compact between
         the u-s and the commonwealth of puerto rico?  those are
         generally the three options that are available, and
         that's the normal way that decolonization has been
         supervised by the united nations in the past."

text:    all three of these options, and several others as
         well, have their supporters in the native hawaiian
         community. hawaiians have yet to reach a consensus in
         their debate over sovereignty.  but most would agree
         that by passing the "apology law," the u-s government
         has recognized the legitimacy of the debate itself.
         (signed)  neb/jb/pch

12-nov-96 2:29 pm est (1929 utc)  nnnn  report 4-09448

source: voice of america



      date 11/13/96
    number 4-09453
     title hawaii sovereignty #2: the people and the land
    byline joan beecher
  dateline washington
    editor phil haynes

intro:   three years ago, u-s president bill clinton signed the
         so-called "apology law," a joint congressional
         resolution formally apologizing to native hawaiians for
         the illegal overthrow of their kingdom in 1893.  and
         this year, the state of hawaii helped fund the so-called
         "native hawaiian vote," in which native hawaiians were
         asked whether they wanted to elect delegates to set up a
         government of their own.  who are the native hawaiians?
         voa analyst joan beecher examines the question, in this
         second in a series of reports on the hawaiian
         sovereignty movement,

text:    hawaii is the most multi-racial of the 50 american
         states.  [opt]  its population includes newcomers from
         the u-s mainland, along with the descendants of white
         settlers; of chinese, japanese, korean, filipino,
         samoan, and portuguese indentured laborers brought in to
         work the sugar and pineapple plantations, and of the
         indigenous polynesian people, the native hawaiians.
         [end opt]

         estimates of the number of native hawaiians in the
         state's population of just over one-million vary from
         just 12 percent to 20 percent of the total. [opt] in the
         united states, one's nationality or ethnic origin is not
         indicated on one's passport. [end opt]  of the number of
         people who choose to identify themselves as native
         hawaiian, only six-thousand or so are pure-blooded.  one
         scientist has even projected that the hawaiians as a
         distinct people will disappear by the year 2040.

         there are several reasons for this, says dr. kekuni
         blaisdell, a prominent hawaiian physician who heads a
         pro-independence group.  first of all, ethnic hawaiians
         outmarry at a greater rate than any other ethnic group
         in the islands.

tape:    act #1     kekuni blaisdell

         "we also have the shortest life expectancy, and the
         highest mortality rate from all the major causes of
         death, compared to any other ethnic group in our
         homeland.  and it's because we are colonized.  our land
         has been taken, and therefore we have no natural
         resources of our own."

text:    the land dr. blaisdell refers to includes almost
         five-million hectares of crown land that in the words of
         the "apology law," was ceded to the united states on
         annexation, "without the consent of or compensation to
         the native hawaiian people or their sovereign
         government."

         in 1921, after hawaii's territorial delegate proposed
         that the u-s congress open the "ceded lands" to native
         homesteaders, congress responded by setting aside a
         mere 500-thousand hectares of the total as hawaiian home
         lands for settlement by the natives.  as dr. blaisdell
         points out, only those who could prove they were at
         least half native hawaiian by blood were eligible.

tape:    act #2      kekuni blaisdell

         "lands were set aside to be awarded to those who were
         eligible.  but no funds were provided to support the
         program.   so the [hawaiian homes] commission decided to
         lease out the land to foreign interests in order to
         support the program.  less than five-thousand families
         have been awarded land.  there are over 25 thousand
         eligible persons on the list waiting for their land."

text:    much of the rest of the "ceded" lands is also leased out
         to foreign commercial interests, although 20 percent is
         under direct federal control, mostly for the pacific
         command's complex of bases.

         in the 1970's, as the state's population exploded and
         more and more land came under development, more and more
         native hawaiians found themselves facing eviction and
         total displacement. they began to protest.  in response,
         the state set up a semi-autonomous agency, the office of
         hawaiian affairs -- or oha.  oha receives 20 percent of
         the revenues from the "ceded lands" to use for programs
         to benefit native hawaiians.

         this is not enough, according to sovereignty advocates,
         for whom land remains the central issue.  some believe
         that the only way for native hawaiians to gain real
         control over their rightful heritage is for native
         hawaiians to obtain federal recognition as a "nation" --
         that is, status similar to the one most american indian
         tribes enjoy.  this is the position of ka lahui hawaii,
         which claims to be the state's largest pro-sovereignty
         organization.  as ka lahui press secretary huanani-kay
         trask puts it:

tape:    act #3     huanani-kay trask

         "we would have a definable territorial boundary around
         our land base.  we would elect the representatives that
         would govern that land base.  we would have complete
         control of the resources, and we would be in a position
         to enter into binding agreements with the surrounding
         states and with the federal government."

text:    ms. trask stresses that this does not mean the native
         hawaiian "nation" would completely take over existing
         public institutions on native hawaiian land, such as her
         own employer, the university of hawaii.

tape:    act #4   huanani-kay trask

         "what we're willing to work out is the back rent that
         the university owes, and services.  we would like, for
         example, free tuition, free parking, free housing for
         our students.  we would also like to see that part of
         the tuition that is paid by non-natives, both in-state
         and out-of-state, go to hawaiian students, because that
         would be an arrangement for the reparations part of the
         agreement."

text:    but sovereignty advocates generally acknowledge that the
         problem is defining who is a native hawaiian. the old
         50-percent "blood quantum" standard for defining who is
         native hawaiian is rejected as reactionary.  the
         preferred definition -- which is used in the "apology
         law" -- includes anyone who is a descendant of the
         aboriginal people living in the islands previous to 1778
         (when they were first discovered by europeans).  but
         would this mean, for example, that a mixed-race student
         who is one-sixteenth hawaiian would be entitled to free
         tuition at the state university, whereas another
         mixed-race student would not be?  [opt]  ka lahui
         hawaii, in an apparent attempt to address such
         questions,  admits non-hawaiian members, which it calls
         "honorary citizens."   but this solution has its
         problems, too.  [end opt]

         similar questions arise when the question of hawaiian
         independence is discussed.  who has the right to
         declare independence?  and who would be entitled to
         automatic citizenship in independent hawaii?  these are
         very much the same kind of questions that are familiar
         to citizens of the former soviet union.  and as in the
         former soviet union, there has been no one single answer
         to them.   we will explore some possible answers in our
         next report.  [signed]  neb/jb/pch

13-nov-96 12:35 pm est (1735 utc)  nnnn  source: voice of america


      date 11/14/96
    number 4-09455
     title hawaii sovereignty #3: what model?
    byline joan beecher
  dateline washington
    editor phil haynes

intro:   several weeks ago, native hawaiians -- those of
         polynesian heritage -- said in a state-sponsored poll
         that they favored "electing delegates to propose a native
         hawaiian government?"  if such an election were held,
         the task of the delegates to the constitutional
         convention would be to choose a form of sovereignty for
         native hawaiians.  in the third installment of a series
         on the hawaiian sovereignty movement, voa analyst joan
         beecher looks at the types of sovereignty being
         discussed.

text:    before the vote, the state's office of hawaiian affairs
         prepared a summary of the three sovereignty options the
         convention would be looking at.  first would be the
         "state within the state" option, under which the native
         hawaiian government would be something like a county,
         within the state of hawaii.

         the second would be a "nation within a nation"
         arrangement, whereby the native hawaiian community, like
         most american indian tribes, would be recognized as a
         sovereign entity. such a nation would have its own land
         base, within the united states, but not subordinate to
         the state of hawaii.  american indian tribes deal
         directly with the federal government on the basis of
         treaties concluded in the 19th century, and hawaiians
         who seek "nation-within-a-nation" status demand
         treaty-making rights in the present.

         the third sovereignty option theoretically open to
         hawaiians would be full political independence from the
         united states.

         the "state within a state" option appears to have few
         supporters at this point. but the "nation within a
         nation" concept has many.  they include ka lahui hawaii,
         which claims to be hawaii's largest pro-sovereignty
         organization.   huanani-kay trask, ka lahui's press
         officer, says her organization agrees with independence
         advocates that the u-s annexation of hawaii was illegal.

tape:    act #1     huanani-kay trask

         "what we disagree on is whether the united states, being
         the most powerful military country in the world, is
         realistically going to let hawaii quietly sort of
         negotiate a secession.  i don't think that the realities
         of leaving at the end of the 20th century and the
         departure point of the 21st century would warrant that
         kind of assumption.  i don't think it's useful.  i don't
         think the hawaiians will gain any land or reparations in
         terms of monies and programs if they move toward that
         position.  i don't think it's an achievable end."

text:    but dennis kanahele, head of hawaii's self-proclaimed
         independent government, "nation of hawaii," believes
         that the so-called "apology law" passed by the congress
         in 1993 imposed a moral obligation on the united states.
         the law, signed by president clinton, formally
         apologized for the illegal overthrow of hawaii's
         independent kingdom 100 years earlier.

tape:    act #2   dennis kanahele

         "wait a minute -- you know, to have the most powerful
         country in the world actually put in their laws, saying
         that we admit to the crime -- it's unbelievable!  and
         take a look at the u-s constitution, in article one,
         sections 8 and 10:  congress has the power to define and
         punish offenses against the law of nations.  o-k,
         congress, you guys are the ones who passed the apology
         bill; we're going back to you, saying that a whole bunch
         of offenses were committed against the hawaiian people,
         according to the law of nations.  we're going to use
         everything we can to really put them in a corner."

text:    independence advocates also rely on a series of united
         nations conventions and declarations on colonialism and
         the rights of indigenous peoples, as well as article 73
         of the u-n charter,  which deals with "non-self-governing
         territories," that is, with colonies.

         [opt] the united nations' so-called "blue water
         doctrine" specifies that to be considered a colony, a
         territory must be separated from the colonizing country
         by an ocean. for this reason, the u-n could not
         recognize russia's chechnya region as a colony, but it
         did recognize hawaii as a u-s colony until 1959, when
         hawaii voted to become a state.  if the 1959 statehood
         vote can be declared invalid, on the grounds that the
         option of independence was not offered to voters as
         article 73 requires, then hawaii could conceivably hold
         a second vote. [end opt]

         but in discussions of hawaiian sovereignty, two issues
         are often confused, says poka laenui, an attorney and
         independence advocate who serves on the hawaiian
         sovereignty elections council.  they are, first, the
         issue of indigenous peoples rights, and second, the
         issue of decolonization.

tape:    act #3   poka laenui

         "let's take a look at just the indigenous people issue.
         the indigenous people should have some very specific
         rights --  the right to educate our children, for
         example, in our own languages;  the right to control our
         own resources;  the right to develop our own economic
         system, our judicial system, our social system... we
         have the right to hang on to these things, simply
         because we are the first people on these lands, and we
         are under threat of extinction... and yet, on the other
         hand, what about the right of independence?  and if we
         do have the right to independence, who are the "we" to
         exercise independence?  is that restricted only to the
         people of the indigenous race, or does it extend beyond
         racial categories?"

text:    as mr. laenui points out, u-n documents on
         decolonization refer to "peoples" or "countries," not
         ethnic groups.  when the kingdom of hawaii was illegally
         overthrown, the population was already multi-national.
         thus, any decision on restoring independence should not
         be up to native hawaiians alone, mr. laenui says.

         what about citizenship in a newly independent hawaii?
         some independence advocates would extend automatic
         citizenship to any descendant of a resident of the
         kingdom of hawaii, whether native hawaiian or not.
         everyone else would have to be naturalized. [opt] this
         is essentially the same principle employed in the
         citizenship laws of estonia and latvia -- and is likely
         to encounter the same objections. [end opt] other
         independence activists would extend citizenship to
         anyone who wants it -- as long as they agree to renounce
         u-s citizenship, while still others are open to the idea
         of dual citizenship.

         these discussions may be academic, if one agrees that an
         independent hawaii is an unlikely prospect.  but they
         serve to show that sovereignty advocates in hawaii, as
         elsewhere, are wrestling with the vexed problem of how
         to protect the rights of the indigenous people without
         violating the rights of everyone else.  [signed]  neb/jb/pch

14-nov-96 12:29 pm est (1729 utc)  nnnn  source: voice of america


      date 11/15/96
    number 4-09460
     title hawaii sovereignty #4: what next?
    byline joan beecher
  dateline washington
    editor phil haynes

intro:   three years ago the u-s congress formally apologized to
         native hawaiians for the overthrow of their kingdom in
         1893.  this year, the state of hawaii helped fund the
         so-called "native hawaiian vote," in which native
         hawaiians -- who comprise from 12 to 20 percent of the
         state's population -- were asked if they wanted to elect
         delegates to set up a  government of their own.  the
         majority of the respondents voted "yes." in this final
         report in a series on the hawaiian sovereignty movement,
         voa analyst joan beecher looks at the vote and what
         might come next.

text:    in july, 80-thousand ballots were sent out to native
         hawaiians who registered for the vote.  according to the
         final results, about 30-thousand valid ballots were
         returned, and of those, more than 22-thousand were in
         favor of calling a constitutional convention.

         members of the hawaiian sovereignty election council,
         pro-sovereignty activists appointed by the governor,
         hailed the vote as a mandate to move on to the next step
         -- electing a constitutional convention. but an
         anti-vote coalition -- also composed of pro-sovereignty
         activists -- interpreted it very differently.
         huanani-kay trask, for example, insists that most native
         hawaiians boycotted the vote, as her organization, ka
         lahui hawaii, had urged them to do.

tape:    act #1   huanani-kay trask

         "only one-quarter -- 26-point-seven percent -- of the
         eligible voters voted 'yes.' how can they say that's a
         mandate?  i don't know how they can say that, because
         it's not true. the numbers don't bear out their
         position."

text:    what divided the pro-vote and anti-vote groups was not
         ideology -- different points of view on sovereignty were
         represented on both sides -- but their position on the
         state's role in the vote.  the process, which cost
         almost two-million dollars, was funded half and half by
         the state legislature and the semi-autonomous office of
         hawaiian affairs.  for some sovereignty advocates, the
         fact that the state was financing the vote called its
         legitimacy into question.  in their view, the state was
         trying to co-opt the movement, and defuse it.
         huanani-kay trask explains her group's position:

tape:    act #2   huanani-kay trask

         "we just see this as a kind of "demonstration election,"
         as i call it, to give people the false impression that
         things here are being taken care of, because 'let's
         vote.'  it's a very american thing -- 'let's vote.' but
         the hawaiians refused.  we don't want a convention that
         is run and funded by the state, and we don't want
         something that is nothing."

text:    but members of the hawaiian sovereignty election
         council -- h-s-e-c for short -- insist that state
         funding is not the same as state control.  they point
         out that under international law, governments are not
         debarred from providing assistance to indigenous or
         subject peoples in realizing their right to
         self-determination.  on the contrary: they are obliged
         to provide assistance.

         but this debate may soon be academic, since at this
         point it does not look as if the state is going to
         provide financing for the next step. this means that the
         native hawaiians themselves may have to raise the money
         to elect and organize the constitutional convention.

         observers from outside the state think it remarkable
         that the state provided any financing at all for a vote
         that could conceivably lead to hawaiian independence.
         poka laenui, a member of h-s-e-c, notes that the general
         public in hawaii is for the most part favorably disposed
         to the idea of hawaiian sovereignty.

tape:    act #3   poka laenui

         "if that was not the case, the legislature would not
         have been able to get away with supporting the funding
         of the native hawaiian vote... the thing is that many
         people support it [hawaiian sovereignty] in principle,
         but they themselves don't know what exactly they
         support, because the hawaiians themselves have not
         clearly defined what they mean by hawaiian sovereignty.
         in general, the vast majority of the [non-hawaiian]
         people admit that a wrong has been done, and must be
         corrected.  but how do you bring about a correction?
         that's still undetermined."

text:    the big question is whether non-hawaiian citizens of
         hawaii would support independence, if that is what the
         native hawaiians should decide they want.  a few
         sovereignty advocates take the position that "outsiders"
         -- or "colonizers," as some would put it -- have no
         right to decide whether hawaii should be independent or
         not.  others admit that if independence is to become a
         reality, the state and federal governments will insist
         on a referendum in which the entire population will take
         part.

         skeptics doubt non-hawaiians would vote for independence
         - or that even a majority of native hawaiians would.
         others are optimistic about the chances of persuading
         non-hawaiians of the advantages of independence.  they
         include dennis kanahele, head of the "nation of hawaii,"
         hawaii's self-proclaimed independent government.

         once an advocate of confrontation with the authorities,
         and presently facing trial on what many observers say
         are trumped-up charges, mr. kanahele says he now
         believes in the power of persuasion and education.  in
         fact, he says, this is what distinguishes the hawaiian
         sovereignty movement as a whole.

tape:    act #4   dennis kanahele

         "this is the first peaceful movement [of its kind]
         probably the world has ever seen...we were the rowdiest
         group, so if anybody would make trouble, it would have
         been us... we've learned that you don't have to fight
         these guys.  we just have to have patience, and we have
         to educate each other, and we have to be concerned about
         the non-hawaiians as well as our own people as we
         develop this process."

text:    for their part, the state and federal governments have
         also committed themselves to a policy of reconciliation,
         rather than confrontation, with native hawaiians.  and
         this gives hope that the question of native hawaiian
         sovereignty can ultimately be resolved in a fashion that
         everyone involved can accept.   [signed]  neb/jb/pch

15-nov-96 11:56 am est (1656 utc)  nnnn  source: voice of america
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HO`OKELE HAWAI`I - H A W A I I A N A V I G A T I O N
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
               *            Scott Crawford
              *WWW*        scott@hookele.com
               *          http://hookele.com
                *      voice mail: 808-573-3122
                *          fax: 808-573-0691
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- 


With regards from sunny Spain


Dr.Michael Unger
Attach� for Trade & Commerce for the
Independent & Sovereign Nation State of Hawai'i

FUTUROCOM - PROSACA Telecommunication WORLDWIDE AGENT OPERATOR 
Look out for; SPECIAL MOVIE-SCREENSAVER PROGRAMME for FUTUROQUEST
http://www.come-on.com/atlasta/
Infosites:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5229/
Looking for your free homepage? Look at
http://tool-box.com/rc/owa/freeweb.page?id=1042744
or Free FUTURO DOWNLINE BUILDER
http://www.alliedsystems.com/compounder/MU29004.html
Independent & Sovereign Nation State of Hawai'i
http://www.hawaii-nation.org
Our Offices:
Tel&Fax Spain 	HQ:+34-5-217 06 12 Internet:	futurocom@geocities.com
						mgf00004@teleline.es
Tel&Fax U.K.HQ-EU+44-1772-623-526Internet:	futurocom@aol.com
			seeking new friends world-wide. 
	Don't miss the boat because you do not believe in it.
		TOUGH TIMES NEVER LAST TOUGH PEOPLE DO.