March 31, 2011
“The Akaka Bill is self-contradictory and fosters the WASP racist Manifest Destiny doctrines…an attempt to continue to steal jurisdiction, natural resources, lands and assets from the Kingdom of Hawaii and its citizens.”
Photo: L. Cruz
Tane [David M.K. Inciong, II] writes:
Dear Mr. Van Dyke and Senator Akaka:
We once again voice our strong opposition of your seditious Akaka Bill as Hawaii nationals of the Kingdom of Hawaii, including native Hawaiians for which this Bill is being created. The Akaka Bill is self-contradictory and fosters the WASP racist Manifest Destiny doctrines. The Bill spreads misinformation and is not a road to reconciliation to right the wrongs committed by the United States of America against the citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom. It’s a sophism.
Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2011 (S.675) and the introduced identical companion bill (H.R. 1250) in the U.S. House of Representatives are repugnant and railroading native Hawaiians into a nefarious U.S. hostage box.
Contrary to Senator Akaka’s statement, we do not desire to be on equal footing with American Indians under the Department of the Interior nor subjected to its paternalistic practices. We have already been recognized by the United States of America as an independent sovereign nation-state which we have never relinquished. We reject this legislation providing parity in federal policy towards indigenous people, especially because we are not indigenous to the United States but bona fide subjects of the still existent Kingdom of Hawaii albeit under the U.S. belligerent occupation of which the United States is in continuous violation of the international law of occupation.
Again, Senator Inouye plays with semantics when stating the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act is the right to self-determination and self-governance. ultra vires process to re-form a Native Hawaiian government that could negotiate with the state and federal government on behalf of Hawaii’s indigenous people is plainly synesthesia. This is an attempt to usurp the jurisdiction, territory, and the governance of the still-existing Kingdom of Hawaii. This measure begins a process of establishing a government to government relationship between the federal government and the native people of Hawaii is misleading and disingenuous. An
We, Hawaii nationals and opponents to the bill, have been barred and suppressed from testimony in U.S. Congress and the pertinent committees that need to hear our objections. This sweeping cover-up is done to give the proponents free-rein to control the outcome for elite pecuniary benefits and not for the true benefit for the native Hawaiians.
As Congresswoman Mazie K. Hirono puts it: Senator Akaka as Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee is able to set the Committee’s agenda and will be able to push the bill forward in the Senate and work with the new House Majority.
Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa erroneously said, “This bill will allow them to continue on the path towards reconciliation with the United States.” We know this to be not the case. Justice for Hawaii will be for the United States of America to de-occupy Hawaii and re-instate the Kingdom of Hawaii, respect our human rights, and honor the ratified treaties we have with it as the Supreme Law of the land as stated in its Constitution.
Governor Neil Abercrombie said: “This measure is long overdue as enabling legislation allowing Native Hawaiians and the State of Hawaii to resolve outstanding issues fairly and comprehensively.” This can only be done by returning Hawaii to its multi-ethnic nationals of the Kingdom of Hawaii and observing the international laws and the constitutional laws of the Kingdom of Hawaii and that of the United States.
We are cognizant that the treaty of annexation twice submitted were rejected by President Cleveland and then by the U.S. Congress for a lack of 2/3rds majority vote as spelled out by the U.S. Constitution. The Newlands Resolution was unlawful and had no jurisdiction in Hawaii or any other foreign country because it is a domestic, internal instrument, only valid within its own territory and not beyond it.
President Barack Obama adheres to his party line and being born and raised in U.S. occupied Hawaii. The U.S Department of Justice’s support of the bill is dubious since legal issues raised by proposed Presidential Proclamation to extend the territorial sea, which came from the opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, vol. 12, p. 238-263, October 4, 1988, which the excerpts commenting on the annexation of Hawaii are found on pp. 250-252.
The snollygosters have enlisted the support of the National Congress of American Indians, the Alaska Federation of Natives, and groups throughout the Native Hawaiian community including the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, the Native Hawaiian Bar Association, the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, and two state agencies which represent the interests of the Native Hawaiian people, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to push its agenda regardless of what the native Hawaiians want. Many could be suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome or will benefit greatly from this Bill at the expense of the native Hawaiians and certainly from all the Hawaii nationals of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Referring to the Apology Bill, Senator Slade Gorton remarked, “…the only logical consequence is total independence.” We whole-heartedly agree.
The Honolulu Advertiser’s Poll regarding the Akaka Bill dated 23 February 2010 had 4,500 respondents that participated. It read that 10 percent needed more time; 30 percent said Yes, they were for it; and 60 percent said No, they were against it. It seems highly questionable that a poll published by the Honolulu Advertiser in May of last year reported that 66 percent Hawaii resident support federal recognition for Native Hawaiians, and 82 percent of Native Hawaiians polled support federal recognition. Note that the number of respondents was not listed.
It’s laughable to believe this is a parity government-to-government relationship with the United States to address issues such as criminal and civil jurisdiction, historical grievances, and jurisdiction and control of natural resources, lands, and assets. It’s an attempt to continue to steal jurisdiction, natural resources, lands and assets from the Kingdom of Hawaii and its citizens. We understand quite well how decisions will be made; piracy on the high seas at its best! We will continue to oppose your criminal actions.
He Hawaii au,
Tane
AKA: David M.K. Inciong, II
Pearl City, U.S.
occupied Hawaii
96782-2581
An audio file is available by following this LINK
Click on this link: akaka-bill-s6751 to download the bill: Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2011 (S.675)
March 30, 2011
“…does not allow Hawaii to secede from the United States, does not allow for private lands to be taken, does not authorize gaming and does not create a reservation on the islands…”
“…’bill would ensure parity in federal policy as it relates to the Native Hawaiian people…on equal footing with American Indians and Alaska natives’…[and] interfere with the potential restoration of an independent kingdom.”
March 29, 2011
“The fundamental question for the Court to determine is whether or not sovereignty of a country can be withdrawn arbitrarily by the U.S. President after it was previously afforded by his predecessor in office…”
Video still: Lynette Cruz / Olelo Community Media
Keanu Sai writes:
On March 28, 2011, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia filed Federal Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider [PDF] The Court will determine whether to rescind and/or revise the Order or deny Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. Either way it will be appealed by either party to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, known informally as the D.C. Circuit. The U.S. Attorney in its Opposition made no mention of the misapplication by the Court of a 2009 federal lawsuit out of the D.C. Circuit, Lin v. United States, justifying the Court’s assertion of the political question doctrine as expounded in Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. As stated in Plaintiff’s Motion, in Lin v. United States, the D.C. Circuit, stated, “Once the Executive determines Taiwan’s sovereign, we can decide Appellants’ resulting status and concomitant rights expeditiously. (‘[T]he judiciary ordinarily follows the executive as to which nation has sovereignty over disputed territory, once sovereignty over an area is politically determined and declared, courts may examine the resulting status and decide independently whether a statute applies to that area.’)” The difference between Taiwan and the Hawaiian Kingdom is that recognition of Hawaiian sovereignty was afforded by the U.S. President [Executive] on July 6, 1844. Therefore, Plaintiff argues Lin v. United States cannot be used to invoke the political question doctrine in this case and therefore the Court “can decide [Plaintiff's] resulting status and concomitant rights expeditiously.”
The fundamental question for the Court to determine is whether or not sovereignty of a country [state] can be withdrawn arbitrarily by the U.S. President [Executive] after it was previously afforded by his predecessor in office, namely President John Tyler. In the Motion to Reconsider, Plaintiff argues “Once recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State was granted by the Executive, see Amend. Compl. para. 11, Professor Oppenheim asserts that it ‘is incapable of withdrawal’ by the recognizing State. See Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, vol. I (3d. 1920), at 137. Professor Schwarzenberger also asserts, that ‘recognition estops the State which has recognized the title from contesting its validity at any future time.’ See Georg Schwarzenberger, Title to Territory: Response to a Challenge, Am. J. Int’l L., 51, no. 2 (1957): 308-324, at 316. Professor Craven opines, that Hawaiian sovereignty ‘may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States.’ See Matthew Craven, Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 1 Hawn. J.L. & Politics 508-544, 512 (Summer 2004).” Website for the lawsuit is at www.hawaiiankingdom.org
March 28, 2011
Update on activities regarding the restoration of Ke Aupuni o Hawaii, the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Photo: Lynette Cruz
Leon K. Siu writes: Aloha mai Kakou, Geneva Report, March 2011…
On Monday, March 7, I headed again for Geneva, Switzerland for two weeks to attend the 16th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council to follow up on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the United States conducted last November.
Back in November our Hawaii team (Poka Laenui, Kaiopua Fyfe, Josh Cooper and I), teamed up with three people from Alaska, to make significant inroads for Hawaii and Alaska independence (that’s “self-determination” in UN-speak). About a hundred UN member states and Non Governing Organizations (NGOs) commented and made recommendations pertaining to the US’ human rights policy and practices. A few mentioned the need to improve on “self-determination.” The reason for this trip was to expand on that “self-determination” foothold with the Council as well as with several UN member states.
At the March 18 session specifically for the follow-up on the US UPR, the Cuba delegation was the first to speak and they blasted the US for rejecting several important recommendations that were made last November, including the right to “self-determination!’ The very next speaker was Iraq and they too mentioned prominently America’s neglect of the issue of ‘self-determination.’ As did Venezuela and Bolivia, right after that. It is because Alaska and Hawaii lobbied member states over the past few years and made “self-determination” (independence) for Alaska and Hawaii an issue (especially at the US UPR last November) that countries are beginning to apply pressure to the US.
The other area of support is coming from the Non Governing Organizations (NGOs) I am pleased to report that, supported directly by registered NGOs from South America and Switzerland, and indirectly by a half-dozen other NGOs, Alaska and Hawaii (Ambassador Ronald Barnes and I), were able to present from the floor about 10 interventions (commentaries/appeals/ recommendations), for the UN HRC record, repeatedly pointing to the US’ illegal occupation of both Hawaii and Alaska.
Most of the HRC sessions dealt with various topics of concern, but one 4-hour session was dedicated to directly address the US UPR from the floor. Because so many wanted to comment directly to the US, the number of speakers from member states and NGOs was severely limited by the council. But due to a tremendous physical effort by Ambassador Barnes from Alaska, he was able to grab the #2 spot of the 10 spots available to NGOs. Thus, he delivered a bold and direct challenge to the US concerning their denying Alaska and Hawaii our right to self-determination, including the option for independence. It was the first time Alaska and Hawaii got to confront the US directly from the floor of the UN. (Josh Cooper got the #3 spot for his NGO). I had the #11 spot, so just missed the cut-off for the orals, but got our written statement into the record.
We also held two ‘side-event’ panel discussions with international experts about the situations of Alaska and Hawaii. The side events were very effective with the experts and other international participants agreeing that Alaska and Hawaii’s right to self determination were violated by the US when they made us domestic states of the USA. From the perspective of international law and UN mandates, we are in the right. The problem is how do we translate that to independence? This is where we need the assistance of other nations.
Constantly beating our independence drum every day at the HRC sessions had a very telling effect. From watching the reaction of the US embassy, we have moved past the annoyance stage into the nervous and worried stage. This makes other nations more curious about our story and causes them to think about how they can help us. Our presence and demands for independence has the US taking some defensive counter-measures which I will be at more liberty to discuss at another time.
Even with the UN in an uproar about the about earth-shaking events (the spontaneous revolutionary movement in North Africa and the Middle East; the Japan earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis; and the military actions regarding Libya…), even amongst all of that, they have become interested in our situation too.
The main factor in restoring our international status is credibility. The more we succeed in looking informed, presentable and credible, the more the international community will take us seriously. This is the critical moment we are at right now. Thanks to the nearly 40 years’ work of Kawaipuna Prejean, Bumpy Kanahele, Poka Laenui, Mililani Trask, Kaiopua Fyfe, Ron Barnes (from Alaska), Sharon Venne (Human Rights lawyer from Canada), Alfred de Zayas (Cuban/American, top Human Rights lawyer at UN) and many others…, we have established credibility among international bodies such as the UN. We are now at the point where the nations are interested in us. We have their attention.
The UN, though extremely ponderous when there is no immediate, violent crisis, is the best platform to speak from to get the attention of the nations. What we have experienced at the UN in the past year is that the world is beginning to listen seriously to our story. It is the breakthrough we have been working toward. Now, our job is to continue telling our compelling story to a wider audience…and to show our nation definitely exists and is alive and kicking…
NEXT UPDATE: Will cover some non-UN international developments.
Ho’omaika’i,
I am,
Leon K. Siu
(808) 488-4669
——-
Mahalo nui loa to those who sent funds to kokua with expenses for this trip!
But, auwe! Still short. Any kokua you can provide will be greatly appreciated!
You can get funds to me in the following ways:
Check/mail – Make check or money order payable to:
Leon Siu and mail it to:
PO Box 22, Aiea, Hawaii 96701
OR …
PayPal – Deposit into PayPal account: leon@hits.net (please notify me by email)
Mahalo!
Older Posts »
© 2009 Hawaiian Independence Alliance