Posted today by Keanu Sai and reposted on multiple lists re the difference between occupation and colonization and why we should make the distinctinon between the two in discussing Hawaii’s history
Aloha e na hoaaloha,
At the La Ho`iho`i events at Thomas Square last month, I had a good conversation with Candace Fujikane co-editor of “Asian Settler Colonialism.” She told me that she had read my law journal article “A Slippery Path Towards Hawaiian Indigeneity,” and wished she had read the article before her book came out. The article and the book both came out in Fall ‘08. What she told me was that she didn’t realize how profound the difference was between occupation and colonization.
I explained to her that Hawai`i was treated as a colony by the U.S. in order to hide the occupation, and that because it was treated as a colony doesn’t mean Hawai`i was colonized. She really liked that perspective because you don’t censor colonization, but rather contextualize it within the larger framework of occupation, rather than colonization/de-colonization being the framework itself.
I’ve also heard from other people that it’s just a matter of semantics and I’m too confined to the letter of the law. I have to disagree because individuals who use the term colonization also use the accompanying law and legal principles associated to colonization and de-colonization such as self-determination, list of non-self-governing territories pursuant to Article 73(e) U.N. Charter, U.N. Resolution 1514 on De-colonization, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and UN Special Committee on 24 on Decolonization. These are all terms used when speaking to colonization and the prospect of de-colonization, and are not part of the political and legal dialogue regarding occupations, e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead the terminology used regarding the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan include the principle of continuity of State sovereignty, 1907 Hague Convention, IV, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, Duty of Non-intervention by other States, U.N. Security Council. In these situations you wouldn’t conflate the terminology, because to conflate or combine the determinate terminology would add confusion to the situation.
Here’s an example of why conflating the terms leads to not only confusion but contradictions. If Iraq were to use the principle of self-determination under and by virtue of U.N. Resolution 1514 it would say to the international community that Iraq is not a sovereign State and is a U.S. colony, but has the aspiration of becoming a sovereign State. As a colony of the United States, Iraq would claim that it has a right to self-determination under UN Resolution 1515 to become its own country and demand to be listed as a non-self-governing territory pursuant to Article 73(e) of the U.N. Charter, and that to be de-colonized means that Iraq would have to negotiate with the U.S. government through the Department of Interior, which controls matters of internal relations. This is a complete contradiction for Iraq to pursue such a course, because Iraq already exercised self-determination as a Mandate Territory since the end of World War I and achieved the recognition of its State sovereignty in 1932 by the League of Nations. Iraq used to be a colony of the Ottoman Empire before the end of World War I. As a sovereign State, Iraq possessed two qualities–external sovereignty and internal sovereignty. External sovereignty is independence of other sovereign States (including the U.S.), and internal sovereignty that includes territorial supremacy and personal supremacy. Territorial supremacy is territorial authority over all persons within its territory, including U.S. citizens, and personal supremacy is over its own citizenry who travel abroad.
This is why one State cannot colonize another State, because it would violate these qualities of a sovereign State universally recognized by all States including the U.S.
A territory that is not recognized as a sovereign State could be the subject of colonization whereby the laws of the colonizer extend over the territory; and when a colony desires to exercise self-determination it is pursuing the status of a sovereign State and if it succeeds in this process, whether by negotiation or revolution, it has been decolonized and from that point on is considered a sovereign State. If it is later invaded, like Iraq in 2003, it is a matter of occupation and not colonization. This is where the terms associated with the Hague and Geneva Conventions are used to apply to the U.S. troops in the territory of Iraq, and the U.N. Security Council for enforcement of Iraq’s State’s rights. This is why colonization was not used to explain the situation of Iraq after the U.S. invasion and occupation, and should also be the same reason why we should not continue to use colonization regarding Hawai`i because it is a contradiction of Hawai`i’s history and status as a sovereign State, and only feeds the illusion created by the U.S. administration since 1898 in order to conceal and hide an illegal and prolonged occupation of a co-equal sovereign State. This is a matter for the U.N. Security Council and not the Forums on Indigenous Rights or the Special Committee of 24 on De-colonization.
Keanu