Kyl: Akaka bill could lead to independence

Yesterday, Sen. Kyl (R-AZ), as Chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, released a report titled "Why Congress must reject race-based government for Native Hawaiians." Kyl has been the most outspoken critic of and obstacle to the passage of the Akaka bill.

Today, the Advertiser has an article on the report (and Bruce Fein's critique of the Akaka bill which Kyl earlier placed into the Congressional Record), and fellow Republican Gov. Lingle's response to Kyl. She says, "it leaves you with a false conclusion based on facts that simply aren't true."

The article also reports that Sen. Akaka took to the Senate floor Tuesday to respond to the Fein articles placed in the Congressional Record.

"It greatly saddens me that the opponents to my bill feel the need to rewrite Hawai'i's history, as painful as it is for those of us who have lived it, in order to advocate their position. It is one thing to oppose my bill. It is quite another, however, to trivialize the history of Hawai'i."

Based on my cursory review of Fein's critique, I have to agree with Sen. Akaka on the rewriting history part, although one of the valid points of Fein's critique is that Akaka himself rewrote history in the apology bill in focusing exclusively on Native Hawaiians rather than all Hawaiian subjects.

And according to the article in the Star-Bulletin:

Kyl insists, there never was a "race-based Hawaiian government, so there is no native Hawaiian government to be restored."

The government of Hawaii in 1893, Kyl says, included Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Samoans, Portuguese, Scandinavians, Scots, Germans, Russians, Puerto Ricans and Greeks.

"To speak of restoring the 'native Hawaiian' government of 1893 is to ignore the fact that no such racially exclusive government or nation existed," Kyl said.

He is absolutely right about that. It seems to me both the proponents and opponents of the Akaka bill (at least the right-wing opponents) present versions of Hawaii's history that are factually inaccurate and distorted to meet their predetermined agendas—opponents by trying to justify the intervention (aka overthrow), and proponents by trying to limit it to Native Hawaiians.

Meanwhile, the twist that I find particularly interesting is that Kyl quotes the OHA website FAQ on the Akaka bill as saying that, through the process set up by the bill:

The Native Hawaiian people may exercise their right to self-determination by selecting another form of government including free association or total independence.

And Kyl responds to this by saying (in what reminds of me of Sen. Gorton's comments in the apology bill debate that "...the logical consequences of this resolution would be independence"):

It is difficult to see how a bill touted in Hawaii as a potential path to “total independence” is going to help reconcile whatever racial divisions exist there. It goes without saying that Congress does not serve the nation’s long-term interests by providing vehicles for its citizens to secede from the Union.

Meanwhile, according to the Advertiser article:

Native Hawaiian groups that support a separate, independent Hawaiian nation will gather tomorrow to see if they can come up with a united front against the Akaka bill, said Skippy Ioane, a leader of the Hilo-based Malama Ka 'Aina Hana Ka 'Aina and King's Landing Village.

Native Hawaiians would be worse off under the Akaka bill than they are now, Ioane said. "By participating with the Department of Interior, we would be participating in our own identity theft by creating an Indian out of a Hawaiian," he said.

Okay, so this is really kind of funny, and I'm sure confusing to those who haven't followed it closely. But essentially, the conservatives oppose the Akaka bill in part because they think it might lead to Hawaii's independence, while those who support Hawaii's independence also oppose the Akaka bill in part because they think it will interfere with restoring Hawaii's independence. Yeah, that clears things up.

For the record, the statements of both OHA and Kyl are technically inaccurate, based on the premise of the continuity of Hawaii's independence under prolonged occupation. An act of "self-determination" by Native Hawaiians to "select another form of government" is irrelevant to the fact that the country of Hawaii still exists and the government can be restored, but by all Hawaiian nationals, not just Native Hawaiians. And to do so is not to "secede" from the union because no valid cession of sovereignty or territory ever took place in the first place.

Anyway, it is interesting that, thanks to Kyl, the possibility of Hawaii's independence has now been introduced into the record of the Senate. And it strikes me that, in pointing out the fact that the Hawaiian government wasn't limited to Native Hawaiians and that the Akaka bill could lead to independence, Kyl, like Gorton before him, is inadvertently making an argument that supports independence...

So after all this, what's the status of the bill? According to Akaka, the bill is expected to come before the Senate next month, and OHA administrator Clyde Namu'o says he believes the Akaka bill "now has the necessary 51 votes needed to pass the Senate." What the articles don't mention is Kyl's earlier request to have 45 hours of debate on the bill, and how that may impact its passage.

UPDATE: Doug at Poinography has his take on these articles, asking the obvious question: “how much influence does Kyl and his edicts from the Republican Policy Committee have over the Senate Republicans?” His answer: probably more than Governor Lingle. He also notes political implications of this bill having "the potential to derail Hawaii GOP efforts to reach out to Native Hawaiians." And he provides a bit of background on the origin of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and the Hawaii Reporter, and their ties to right-wing think tanks.

Posted: Fri - June 24, 2005 at 08:46 AM

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

Kyl: Akaka bill could lead to independence

> >