OHA conference reflections - need accurate education

Attended the OHA visioning conference in Hana this weekend, part of the day on Saturday and all day Sunday. A few thoughts...

There were a lot of different topics covered (education, health, water, land, governance, etc.) so not too much depth or conclusions about anything, but still valuable education and discussion. I definitely learned some things about various topics, and I think that folks in Hana were overall pleased to have the opportunity for the education and discussion.

I was very happy to see Keanu Sai brought in to give a presentation on definitions of terms from a political science perspective. As usual, in a relatively brief time he provided a clear framework for people to sort of understand the rules of the game, so to speak. For example, the definition of sovereignty and the difference between sovereignty and government. Sovereignty is the supreme authority of an independent state, exclusive of other independent states but gained through the recognition by other independent states, while government is the agent or organ that exercises sovereignty. A government can be changed or overthrown without affecting the sovereignty of the state (e.g. Iraq). Recognition of a government is diplomatic, and can be removed, while recognition of the sovereignty of a state is legal and can only be affected through merger or dismemberment. Merger can only take effect through a treaty. Barring merger or dismemberment, neither of which happened in Hawaii, the presumption is for the continuity of the state. Pretty basic stuff, but very important to provide a context and common language, and to clarify what is confusing for a lot of people who haven't really had the basics.

In that context, Keanu talked about the Akaka bill, and basically said it is no more or less illegal than the rest of the state and the occupation. As a domestic law of a foreign country, it doesn't affect Hawaii's sovereignty any more than the joint resolution of annexation or the statehood act did. The Akaka bill and federal recognition processes have nothing to do with Hawaii's sovereignty, and are purely internal processes of the United States. Its purpose, at least on one level, is to protect Native Hawaiian "entitlements," but those entitlements are purely creations of the United States and exist only within that context, and have nothing to do with sovereignty or the kingdom. Anyone who chooses to be involved with the Akaka bill process is doing so as a Native Hawaiian (as defined by the United States) and not a Hawaiian national, purely within the context of U.S. law. And that's not a judgment. We all have to choose the ways we work with the occupier system out of necessity, and there's nothing wrong with that. (For example, as Kipahulu Ohana, a bunch of independence supporters formed a U.S. nonprofit corporation to be able to have a cooperative agreement with the Department of Interior via the National Park Service out of tactical necessity, due to their de facto presence in our community, and we have a very good relationship with the superintendent of the park, while he is quite aware of our larger views about the occupation and the illegality of the entire federal presence in Hawaii.) I believe the vast majority of folks who support the Akaka bill do so out of benevolent motivations, regardless of whether I may disagree with them over the strategy or the potential benefits or dangers of the bill. From a legal standpoint, it doesn't compromise Hawaii's sovereignty, it is just very important to see it for what it is, and understand the proper context. (I also should note, however, that from the perspective of those who are pushing the bill from the top, like Inouye, the same folks who are pushing the huge military expansion in Hawaii, I believe the purpose of the Akaka bill is to satisfy the desire for Hawaiian "rights" and "entitlements" in a way that removes any threat to Hawaii's further militarization. For them, the most important thing is to get Hawaiians out of the way of their military agenda, and the Akaka bill is the tool to do that. Hawaii's central strategic role in U.S. global military hegemony is the one and only value of the islands to the powers that be in Washington. Oh, but speaking of Inouye, Keanu also reminded me of a kind of funny thing, which is that because of Hawaii's situation, under the laws of occupation, Inouye isn't even technically a U.S. citizen. Heh.)

Overall, it was pretty clear from the reactions, questions and discussion at the conference that the folks in attendance were very suspicious and kanalua about the Akaka bill, and were in general overwhelmingly in favor of independence, even if coming from different perspectives in terms of strategy. It was also evident that Keanu's presentation was very much appreciated and well received, and provided a much needed context for the rest of the discussion, whether about the Akaka bill or about other important issues.

As an aside, there were also some folks there evidently from the "Reinstated Hawaiian Government" including some from outside of Hana who were very vocal and aggressive about certain issues, taking up a lot of time pushing their point of view. The first thing is, there is a protocol in a place like Hana that was totally disrespected, and I know some of the East Maui old timers, who have been involved with these issues for years and decades, were very huhu to have outsiders coming in, taking up the time that was supposed to be for Hana people to learn and share their mana'o, and telling them what to do. And second, especially when contrasted with the clarity of Keanu's presentation (as someone who was invited in to share), it was evident that their information is not consistent or fully accurate and they're mostly just spreading their own confusion. I generally say I support anyone who is trying to move independence forward, even if I don't think they are totally on the right track or fully agree with them, and I don't mean this as a judgment against the Reinstated folks in general who may be doing good work, but it was pretty clear to me that both by their manner and information, all they really accomplished was exposing their own confusion and creating adversaries for themselves in Hana, and I don't even think they realized that. Keanu shared this 'olelo no'eau at the end of his presentation, and I'm not sure if they realized how it applied to them, either... I 'ola'olá no ka huewai i ka piha 'ole. The water gourd gurgles when not filled full. A person not very well informed talks more than one who is. Heh.

But anyway, back to OHA. As anyone who has been reading here for very long knows, I have been quite critical of OHA's one-sided propaganda in support of the Akaka bill/federal recognition, and this weekend confirmed my attitude that, first, OHA should not have taken the position and should not be in the position of advocating a certain path or solution, and second, OHA should be funding and fully supporting factually accurate education about Hawaii's history, current status and independence, just as much as they are educating about federal recognition. How much money did they spend on their campaign pushing federal recognition? I give them credit for their little small efforts at supporting independence voices, like bringing Keanu to this conference, but it is a such a ridiculously tiny drop in the bucket.

I would like to see OHA fund the development of a comprehensive curriculum based on factual information on Hawaii's history, political science, and Hawaiian and international law, not advocating a certain position or course of action, but just providing an accurate foundation and context for the discussion, so we can all be more speaking the same language, or knowing the rules of the game, so to speak. And I'd like to see OHA fund the training of a cadre of trainers and teachers to take this curriculum out into our communities and our schools. To me, this would be perfectly consistent with their mission and strategic goals, would not be in conflict with their role as a quasi-state agency, and I think would be widely supported by and beneficial to their beneficiaries. I think it is something OHA can realistically do, and they are in perhaps the best position to have the resources, ability and the mission to do it.

I know there some folks from OHA who read this blog, and others who might communicate with OHA, so I think we should seriously urge OHA to move in this direction.

And it isn't just about Keanu. Personally, I believe he has done more than anyone on the level of researching and clarifying the accurate information, and raising it to a level of verifiable scholarship, and he will be a tremendous asset in helping to put together the curriculum and train the teachers. But there are lots of other people who have much to contribute on different levels, at UH and elsewhere, and it is about the factual, verifiable information, not any particular person or group or agenda.

So anyway, there were a lot of other interesting parts of the conference, but coming out of it, that is the message I would like to convey. Let's encourage OHA to look seriously at supporting the development of a curriculum and teacher training program of factual information in Hawaiian and international political science, history and law, as an accurate foundation and context for the larger discussion that we need to be having in our communities of Hawaii.

Oh, and one other little sub-project, as part of this. I think to understand how these things apply to Hawaii, it is very important to look at other examples and precedents in the world to help provide context as well. And, like I have also mentioned here recently, Keanu briefly mentioned the Baltic states—Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania—as examples that Hawaii can learn from, that are closest to Hawaii's legal and historical situation. We were talking about it a bit more afterwards, and I think there is real need and value to dig into these examples a lot more deeply. I would love to see someone, perhaps someone at UH doing a thesis or even just a research paper to start with, focus on these three countries to examine all the various issues they had to deal with as "restored states," in terms of citizenship, naturalization, diplomatic recognition, transition, etc. and what we can learn from their successes and their mistakes. So, anyone who happens to be reading this who is looking for a good research project or knows someone who is, keep this in mind! I think it would be really valuable.

Posted: Mon - May 23, 2005 at 04:48 AM

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C608676235"); >

OHA conference reflections - need accurate education

> >