Hawaii status raised at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

This news release from the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has this interesting tidbit on Hawaii:

Mr. FYFE, Kaoni Foundation, who spoke on behalf of the Hawaii Caucus, said that Hawaii rightfully belonged on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Indeed, a public law had been signed by United States President Clinton in 1993 -- the so-called “apology bill” –- that seemed to signify an acknowledgement that the indigenous peoples of Hawaii had never relinquished their sovereignty, and that the statehood plebiscite of 1959 had been fraudulent. He noted that, in 2008, the Supreme Court of Hawaii had barred the State from obtaining lands from the public land trust until the question had been resolved. Also, in 2008, the representative of the Russian Federation had asked the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination why Alaska and Hawaii had been excluded from the decolonization list. The representative of Romania had asked what steps were being taken to facilitate the self-determination of the Hawaiian people.

It is very interesting that other countries, Russian Federation and Romania, are inquiring into Hawaii's status.

However, I have to say that in my view Hawaii does not belong on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, and does not need to go through the decolonization process. It was bogus how it was removed from the list with the so-called plebiscite for statehood in 1959, but the larger point is that it should never have been on the list in the first place. It was the only territory originally placed on the list that was an independent country, not a colonial territory. And today, going through the UN decolonization process is not the appropriate venue for what is instead a de-occupation. Hawaii is much more akin to the Baltic states which are "restored states" than it is to colonized territories or indigenous populations that have never been "self-governing" (as defined by the UN—of course indigenous peoples were self-governing, but they were not recognized states like Hawaii).

In the extended entry I'll share more about a personal experience my wife had in this regard...

I can't even remember what year it was now, but mid or late 90s, my wife Kekula attended a conferences of the Committee of 24 held in Antiqua-Barbuda. The C24 is the UN committee that oversees the decolonization process under Article 73 and the list non-self-governing territories.

She attended the conference with now state senator J. Kalani English, who has long been pro-independence. From 1993-1996 he was an adviser to the Permanent Mission of the Federated States of Micronesia to the UN, and from this time probably has more actual international/UN experience on the state level (as opposed to indigenous subcommittees or forums) than just about any other Hawaiian. (He now chairs the "Transportation and International Affairs" committee in the Senate).

Officially they were part of the International Indian Treaty Council delegation. That was how they got accredited. But they were also there personally as Hawaiians, not representing any group, but as unofficial representatives of the country of Hawaii, and that is how they presented themselves.

Because of the way that they presented themselves, including their use of Hawaii's treaties, and the familiarity of some of the state delegates with Hawaii's situation, they were accorded a protocol that was totally different from all of the indigenous, non-state, non-self-governing territory delegates there. Outside of the formal sessions, there was no mixing of the non-state delegations and the state delegations. Except for Hawaii. Kekula and Kalani were in essence given de facto recognition and treated as representatives of a state, not as representatives of a non-self-governing territory. They were invited to the dinners with all of the state delegates.

During this time, various state delegates entered into very serious discussions about how they could support Hawaii. And two main points were made.

1) It was emphasized by the chair of the committee (PNG at the time) and other members that this was not the proper venue for Hawaii. They were basically saying, if your people really want to try to bring Hawaii's case before the C24, they could, but: first that it is a very long process, and second that it was not the place for Hawaii given its history and legal foundation in the first place.

2) States were willing to support Hawaii in other venues. There was discussion about a state sponsoring Hawaii to speak before the General Assembly, and bringing its case directly there, and strategy discussions among the states for how that could take place. They were very willing to consider it, but the question they asked was: Are your people ready for the impact that would bring?

Kekula came home and reported back to a meeting at the AFSC house in Manoa, which was very well attended including by many sovereignty leaders, and while there seemed to be some interest, she felt that she had taken it as far as she could at the time, and that the people really weren't ready for the impact at that time.

One message she got from the states was that there is a need for a unified front on the international side. As long as there are multiple voices all trying to claim to represent the kingdom/nation internationally, they won't be taken seriously diplomatically. But regardless of all the disagreement internally over the process, if a unified front can be projected internationally, then states can support and deal with that.

The other thing that she learned clearly was the power of the treaties. This is what sets Hawaii apart. This is why Hawaii is occupied and not colonized. As soon one argues that Hawaii is colonized and approaches it from a strictly indigenous perspective, it is saying that Hawaii actually lost its sovereignty (or never had it) and throwing the treaties out the window. But internationally, for recognition and support as a country, the treaties are the key.

So I'm obviously biased because this is my wife, but to me it is pretty clear when the committee that Hawaii would have to take its case to said in essence "Don't come to us, this is not the proper venue for Hawaii," and members give de facto recognition and offer support for other venues, I don't see why anyone would want to follow that path. And it is because of this very direct experience of hers that I cannot support the call for Hawaii to be re-listed and seek resolution under the UN decolonization process. I think this approach is misguided. I think that is the wrong venue for Hawaii, and I actually think it would be the equivalent internationally of what the Akaka bill is domestically—a long bureaucratic process that ties up the issue for a decade or two without any real resolution at the end, diverting resources from the real issue, restoration of the country.

So aside from the legal/historical arguments about colony vs. occupied country, this is my take on it from a practical standpoint in terms of real options for Hawaii to move forward.

This was several years ago, but if anything I would think that after 7 years of Bushit the willingness of states to support Hawaii in other venues is even greater than before. And I think the inquiries from the Russian Federation and Romania are indicators of this, it just isn't the proper venue.

Posted: Tue - April 29, 2008 at 07:22 PM

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C1126750129"); >

Hawaii status raised at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

> >