PLUNDERING UPON INNOCENTS: LIBYA

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/looking-out-for-western-business-and-investor-rights-why-the-west-approves-military-interventions-to-topple-one-arab-government-and-prop-up-another/

what's left

Looking Out for Western Business and Investor Rights: Why the West Approves Military Interventions to Topple One Arab Government and Prop Up Another

Posted in Bahrain, Imperialism, Libya, Neo-colonialism by gowans on March 28, 2011

By Stephen Gowans

In a previous article I pointed to three factors to explain the West’s decision to intervene militarily in Libya to prevent the government there from putting down an armed rebellion while it tacitly approves the Gulf Cooperation Council’s military intervention in Bahrain to put down a peaceful rebellion there. The double-standard, I argued, reflects dramatic differences between Libya and Bahrain in their relationship with the United States and its dominant investor and corporate class.

Bahrain is the home of the US Fifth Fleet, has long-standing warm relations with Washington, and strongly caters to Western corporate and investor interests. Since the Khalifa regime supports US corporate profit-making and military interests, and a new regime might not do the same to the same degree, Washington is prepared to allow Saudi and other GCC troops and tanks to assist Bahraini authorities in violently quelling a peaceful rebellion.

Libya, I pointed out, doesn’t provide bases for the US or other Western militaries, hasn’t had long-standing warm relations with Washington, and isn’t particularly accommodating of Western corporate and investor interests. From a neo-colonialist standpoint, Western powers could do better in Libya.

Some readers objected, arguing that in recent years Libya has sought to open itself to Western corporations and investors and has struck a number of deals with Western oil companies. It cannot be concluded, they continued, that the West’s decision to intervene military in Libya was motivated by Western profit-making considerations, for Libya is already catering to Western business interests.

To be sure, Libya has opened itself to the West, but doing deals with Western corporations is not the same as engineering a wholesale subordination of domestic interests to those of foreign bankers and corporations — typically, what corporate-and investor-oriented Western governments look for in Third World “partners”. For the wealthy scouring the globe for investment opportunities and corporations seeking export markets, an opening door in Libya doesn’t necessarily mean that Libya’s business climate is fully conducive to maximizing profits. That Libya allows some Western corporations to operate in the country doesn’t guarantee that investments are safe from expropriation, that performance requirements aren’t imposed on foreign investments, that repatriation of profits isn’t controlled, that taxes aren’t high, or that there is a commitment to labor market “flexibility.” In short, the Kaddafi government may, in recent years, have sought to expand Western access to investment opportunities in Libya, but that alone doesn’t mean that the conditions of access were regarded by corporations and investors as being as desirable as they could be, or as desirable, for example, as those provided by the government of Bahrain, or a desirable as those a future government might provide.

The Heritage Foundation provides a guide to how accommodating countries are to the profit-making interests of US corporations and investors. Every year the foundation publishes an Index of Economic Freedom, which ranks countries on how open they are to exports and foreign investment, how low their taxes are, how committed they are to protecting property rights, and so on; in short, how strongly a country favors foreign businesses and investors over its own people. Significantly, governments that are perennially targets of US government regime change efforts rank at or near the bottom of the index. This year’s list identifies the following 10 countries as the least economically free (i.e., least accommodating to foreign businesses), in order, from worst to slightly better:

• North Korea
• Zimbabwe
• Cuba
• Eritrea
• Venezuela
• Myanmar
• Libya
• Democratic Republic of Congo
• Iran
• Timor-Leste

Seven of the bottom 10 (North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela, Myanmar, Libya and Iran) are the targets of open regime change operations by the United States and its allies, carried out ostensibly because the targeted countries are not protecting human rights, threaten regional stability, or in the case of Libya, because the government is said to be attacking its own people. That these countries happen to be considered the least accommodating of foreign business profit-making points to an ulterior motive on the part of Western governments to bring about regime change, and to use human rights and humanitarian rhetoric as a cover for pursuing the economic interests of Western corporate and investor elites.

Significantly, not one country in the top 10 is a target of Western regime change efforts. If regime change were linked to human rights concerns and not unfavorable investment and export conditions, we might expect to find regime change targets scattered throughout the rankings, rather than bunched up at the bottom. One counter-explanation is that economically free countries tend to respect human rights, which is why the worst offenders on both counts are found at the bottom of the list. However, this couldn’t possibly be true, for the United States, which has an atrocious human rights record (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, torture and rendition of prisoners, arrest and detention without charge, extrajudicial assassination, weakening of Miranda rights, spying on its own citizens, restrictions on travel to Cuba, and so on) ranks as the 9th freest country in the world in economic terms, and Saudi Arabia, the least free country in terms of political and civil liberties and perhaps the most contemptuous of human rights, ranks in the top half.

Bahrain, as it turns out, is ranked number 10 of 179 countries on the Heritage Foundation list, next to the United States. Regionally, Bahrain is top ranked in North Africa and West Asia, while Libya, ranked 173 over all countries, falls dead last in regional rankings. Bahrain’s higher ranking is based on an array of government policies aimed to please foreign businesses. Property ownership is secure and expropriation is unlikely, whereas in Libya foreign companies are vulnerable to expropriation. Bahrain welcomes foreign investment and allows new businesses to be 100 percent foreign owned and controlled, while Libya screens foreign investment, imposes performance requirements on foreign investors that domestic investors are not required to meet, and demands that Libyans have a 35 percent stake in foreign companies that operate in the country. And while Bahrain imposes no restrictions on repatriation of profits, Libya does.

On trade, Bahrain imposes few restrictions on imports, while Libya maintains a variety of tariff and non-tariff barriers to help local firms develop. With the exception of oil companies, businesses that operate in Bahrain pay no corporate tax, while businesses in Libya are subject to a tax rate as high as 40 percent. Personal income tax is extremely low in Bahrain, but can reach as high as 90 percent in Libya. And while Bahrain provides businesses maximum flexibility in dealing with employees, even allowing them to pay desperation-level wages, Libya demands that businesses meet minimum standards on pay and working conditions.

In short, the Bahraini monarchy runs a foreign-investment- and import-friendly regime, while Libya’s economic policies favor local investors and businesses and provide a minimal standard of protection for labor. A government that was more like Bahrain’s, and less like Kaddafi’s, would unquestionably be congenial to foreign business interests.

Some readers contend that Western military intervention in Libya is aimed at preventing the slaughter of Libyan civilians. But a stronger case can be made that Western military intervention is aimed at regime change, and that far from protecting civilians, NATO bombing is only setting the stage for a prolonged civil war by weakening loyalist forces and thereby allowing the rebels to contest for power.

There are a number of reasons why the NATO operation in Libya can be seen as a regime change effort, apart from the motivation of replacing the current government with one more congenial to Western profit-making interests, as discussed above.

First, the decision of the French government to recognize the rebel opposition as the legitimate government was a declaration that France, at least, is manoeuvring to install a new government in Libya. (1) Indeed, both France and Britain have acknowledged that they are seeking the ouster of Kaddafi. (2)

Second, US secretary of state Hilary Clinton said “Kaddafi’s ouster was the ultimate goal of the UN resolution” (3) and while US president Barack Obama denied this, he did say that the military “campaign will likely continue as long as Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is in power.” (4) If the intervention’s goal is to protect civilians and not install a new government, how can the aims of France and Britain and the comments of Clinton and Obama be reconciled?

Third, Washington hopes that sanctions “combined with NATO air power, will be enough to turn the tide militarily.” While the UN Security Council resolution authorizes the use of military means to protect civilians, it doesn’t authorize the use of military means to aid rebel forces. Yet newspapers on March 23, 2011 were full of stories on how fresh airstrikes were allowing rebel forces to recover lost ground. For example, The Wall Street Journal commented that,

“The hope for the West is that a continuation of military pressure on Col. Gadhafi’s forces, even at somewhat lower levels in coming days, combined with continued forward movement by the rebels, will be enough to make the Libyan army either buckle or turn on the Libyan leader. That would produce the outcome the West hopes for – the removal of Col. Gadhafi.” (5)

Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that “the airstrikes have lifted the rebels back from the brink of defeat in the eastern city of Benghazi and enabled them to rush west along the coast past their farthest gains of the previous peak weeks ago.” (6)

It is clear that the intention of the military intervention, which was authorized when the rebels’ defeat by loyalist forces was imminent, was to weaken the government side to allow the rebels to rally and seize the momentum. This hardly favors a quick resolution of the conflict. The conflict could go on for some time, perhaps taking more lives than would have been lost had the UN sent a fact-finding mission in return for a cease-fire, or had loyalist forces successfully put down the uprising weeks ago. The potential for the conflict to drag on, fuelled by the aid NATO provides the rebels through its airstrikes, was acknowledged by US secretary of defense Robert Gates. The Pentagon boss said “he couldn’t be sure NATO would have finished its mission by year-end.” (7)

The idea, then, that the UN Security Council authorized military intervention to protect civilians has no substance. Furthermore, the idea that the intervention is protecting civilians, whether that is the real intention of the intervention or not, seems unlikely, since the outcome so far has been to create the conditions for a protracted civil war – one moreover, that will be worsened by civilian deaths caused by NATO bombing on behalf of rebel forces.

If the rebel forces prevail and extend their control to all of Libya, or eventually settle for partition of the country, we can expect the economic policies of the future government to be closer to those of Bahrain, and therefore closer to the profit-making interests of Western corporations and investors. In this sense, the UN Security Council, and the military operation it authorizes, can be seen as investments in making Libya a more attractive place to do business in.

Finally, it might be pointed out, as Johnstone has (8), that the Gaddafi government has invested a considerable part of its oil revenues in sub-Saharan Africa, contrary to the usual practice among Arab oil states of shipping the proceeds of their oil sales to New York investment banks, the London Stock Exchange, and US arms manufacturers. These practices are more conducive to Western business interests than Gaddafi’s investments in Africa, and might be expected to become the standard practice in Libya if the rebel movement succeeds in ousting Gaddafi.

1. Diana Johnstone, “Why are they making war on Libya?” Counterpunch, March 24, 2011.
2. Jay Solomon and Carol E. Lee, “Obama bets on limited engagement”, The Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2011.
3. Keith Johnson, Yaroslav Trofimov and Sam Dagher, “Allies rally against Gadhafi”, The Wall Street Journal, March 19, 2011.
4. Nathan Hodge, Sam Dagher, Stephen Fidler and Stacy Meichtry, “Allies strain to mend split”, The Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2011.
5. Sam Dagher and Stephen Fiddler, “Fresh airstrikes aid rebels” The Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2011.
6. David D. Kirkpatrick and Kareem Fahim, “Libyan rebels march toward Qaddafi stronghold”, The New York Times, March 27, 2011.
7. Sam Dagher and Stephen Fiddler, “Fresh airstrikes aid rebels” The Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2011.
8. Diana Johnstone, “Why are they making war on Libya?” Counterpunch, March 24, 2011.

You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • There is a new post on the Malu 'Aina blog: 'No April Fools Day Joke '

    IMPEACH
    OBAMA
    By attacking Libya, without Congressional approval, Obama violated his
    constitutional power and thereby committed an impeachable offense.

    Libya does not pose an actual or imminent threat to the U.S.

    No More Bombing People to Save Them!

    Bring the Endless War Dollars Home!
    Jobs & Income Now!

    Take Back the Nobel Peace Prize!
    1. Mourn all victims of violence. 2. Reject war [...]

    See the entire post here:
    http://malu-aina.org/?p=630

    You received this e-mail because you are on our e-mail list for the latest
    updates from Malu 'Aina.
    If you have friends, family and colleagues who would like to receive these
    updates, send us their e-mail addresses.
    If you do not wish to receive these e-mail notifications, please e-mail us and
    ask to be removed.

    Best regards,
    Jim Albertini
    President, Malu 'Aina center for nonviolent education and action
    ja@interpac.net
    http://malu-aina.org

  • Oil wars

    Pentagon's policy since 1999
    By Ritt Goldstein
    May 20 2003

    URL: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/19/1053196528488.html

     


    Oil wars Pentagon's policy since 1999

    By Ritt Goldstein
    May 20 2003


    A top-level United States policy document has emerged that explicitly confirms the Defence Department's readiness to fight an oil war.

    According to the report, Strategic Assessment 1999, prepared for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defence, "energy and resource issues will continue to shape international security".

    Oil conflicts over production facilities and transport routes, particularly in the Persian Gulf and Caspian regions, are specifically envisaged.

    Although the policy does not forecast imminent US military conflict, it vividly highlights how the highest levels of the US Defence community accepted the waging of an oil war as a legitimate military option.

    Strategic Assessment also forecasts that if an oil "problem" arises, "US forces might be used to ensure adequate supplies".

     

    Although Strategic Assessment 1999 predicts adequate US energy supplies, it also finds that supply shortages could "exacerbate regional political tensions, potentially causing regional conflicts".

    The Bush Administration has stated that providing for US energy needs is a priority.

    Strategic Assessment was prepared by the Institute for National Strategic Studies, part of the US Department of Defence's National Defence University. The institute lists its primary mission as policy research and analysis for the Joint Chiefs, the Defence Secretary, and a variety of government security and defence bodies.

    According to the report, national security depends on successful engagement in the global economy, so national defence no longer means protecting the nation from military threats alone, but economic challenges, too.

    The fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s brought an end to the US's ideological basis for potential conflict. In 1992 Bill Clinton urged that "our economic strength must become a central defining element of our national security policy".

    Since then, members of the Bush Administration have promoted the need for the consolidation of the Cold War victory.

    In what many may see as an apparent parallel to present events, Strategic Assessment 1999 drew attention to pre-World War II Britain's pursuit of an approach where control over territory was seen as essential to ensuring resource supplies.

    However, the Defence Department policymakers behind Strategic Assessment also appear to recognise the potential consequences of such policies.

    The authors warn that if the great powers return to the 19th century approach of securing resources, of conquering resource suppliers, the world economy will suffer and world politics will become more tense.

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6oAFlPLGA8

    Thumbnail

    A Land Down Under - Men at Work

    This is a vid. that i made to Men at Work, I come from a land down under...the video is mostly about Australia and how bad i always wanted to ...

    by gogetakid08 3 years ago 1,691,532 views


        
      
    • kangaroo.jpgaus4.gifAUS-koala.jpgkoala.gif

       

      http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?page=1&sy=...

      What they're saying ...

      Date: 15/06/2008
      Words: 655
      Source: SAG
                Publication: The Sunday Age
      Section: Extra
      Page: 20
      In Hawaii

      THE MAUI NEWS

      Kamehameha Day honours a man who united the islands by force and freed commoners from the whims of unjust rulers. Kamehameha the Great died May 8, 1819. His last words were "E oni wale no'oukou i ku'u pono'a'ole e pau". Endless is the good that I leave for you to enjoy. Kamehameha is remembered most fondly as the monarch who promulgated a law that protected commoners from ill treatment and outlawed ritual human sacrifice.

      He forged the Kingdom of Hawaii, a sovereign nation recognised by world powers. Before Kamehameha, warfare was common in the islands, with one chief battling another for land and power, and commoners were at the mercy of their rulers. That all ended when Kamehameha took over.

      Kamehameha had a vision for the islands that lasted beyond his death and could be resurrected today. The first step is to achieve unity within the Hawaiian community. It's a tall order, and one that cannot be achieved without a common goal that acknowledges modern reality.

      In RUSSIA

      THE MOSCOW TIMES

      IT'S AMAZING how difficult it is to remember the name of the holiday on June 12. First it was called Independence Day in 1991, then, in 1994, it was renamed the Day of the Declaration of the Sovereignty of the Russian Federation, and finally, in 2002, Putin again renamed it Russia Day.

      What do we celebrate on that day?

      Who remembers that on this date in 1990, the Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Russian Republic adopted a declaration of independence from the Soviet Union?

      During Boris Yeltsin's presidency, we tried to celebrate June 12 as the day of Russia's independence. Independence from what or whom? Can you imagine if Britain were to celebrate its independence from India?

      Therefore, we now have a clearly less-divisive Russia Day. But why June 12? We continue to use a date that has significance only for those who remember 1990. But the people who remember this date the most are those who condemn the declaration the loudest. -- BORIS KAGARLITSKY

      In Europe

      INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE

      ON ITS website last week, the Chinese Olympic organising committee listed a set of restrictions for the 500,000 overseas visitors expected in August.

      Olympic spectators are being told not to bring in "anything detrimental" to China, including printed materials, photos, records or movies.

      Religious or political banners or slogans are banned. So are rallies, demonstrations and marches - unless approved by authorities in advance. It also says that visitors with mental illnesses and sexually transmitted diseases will be barred from the country.

      We shudder at how those judgements will be made.

      The International Olympic Committee has long prohibited political activities at Olympic venues, and we respect the goal of trying to put aside divisions while celebrating a common humanity. But Beijing is using those restrictions for its own authoritarian ends. To win the right to host the Games, China promised to improve its human-rights record. It keeps moving mostly in the opposite direction.

      In India

      THE TIMES OF INDIA

      The Indian Premier League has been the final nail in the coffin of a long obsolescent, evolutionarily disfavoured human habit: reading. SMS, soaps and Sudoku helped to give birth to a post-literate generation for whom reading was as retro an activity as that of Stone Age hunters pursuing woolly mammoths by following the smelly spoor of their droppings. Gross.

      IPL administered the final coup de grace to reading, helped by YouTube.

      Didn't they say a TV picture was worth 64,000 written (or read) words? Or was it 64 million? Whatever. Anyway reading was done with once and for all, RIP. Goodbye, Gutenberg. Whoever the heck you were, man.

      Newspapers, who had foreseen the death of reading, had retailored themselves into fashion accessories. But what about books, which often were even fatter than most newspapers?

      There was already a generation who thought that books were things placed on coffee tables to prevent them from flying away when the fan was turned on. -- JUG SURAIYA

       

      ********************************************

      http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?page=1&sy=...

       

      Sun-Herald

      Hawaii in a heartbeat

      Author: Amy Cooper
      Date: 09/05/2010
      Words: 2024
      Source: SHD
                Publication: Sun Herald
      Section: Travel
      Page: 22
      Oahu is peeling away layers to reveal its history - and a more authentic mai tai, writes Amy Cooper.

      I'M BACK on Oahu and the island greets me by unfurling a long, low rainbow across the late afternoon sky. I remember this reliable magic. Hawaii delivers photo opportunities with the timing of a seasoned pro, right on cue with a sunset, a song, a show-stopping view.

      It has been five years since I left but the gentle air, generous blossoms and regal palms flagging the way to Waikiki are soothingly familiar. The enduring rhythms of these islands, evoked so easily when far away by a melody or the curl of surf, dance immediately to life when you return - which is why so many people do. Hawaii lives up to its nostalgia.

      This time, though, I'm expecting change on Oahu. While I've been gone the island has been enjoying something of a cultural renaissance; renovations deeper than bricks and mortar, which say local friends, will give me "chicken skin" moments - the Hawaiian term for amazement-related goosebumps.

      It begins at the Outrigger Reef on the Beach, at the western end of the Waikiki strip. I've always liked Outrigger hotels. The company began here and honours its origins with a commitment to Hawaii's cultural heritage. Hawaiian customs permeate your stay and even the largest properties convey the genuine warmth - aloha - native to these islands. While some resorts deliver theme park Hawaiiana, Outriggers nail that tricky mix of luxury and authenticity. To this end, the flagship Reef on the Beach has just had a massive renovation. The results are immediately apparent. The hotel's entrance is now a majestic timber Polynesian canoe house with a koa wood outrigger canoe suspended from the ceiling. Hotel staff (Outriggers call their staff "ohana" - family) tell me they helped restore the century-old vessel.

      You check-in sitting down in a sumptuous library, amid glass cases filled with curator-selected artefacts. My room has a lovely old wooden canoe paddle on the wall and the bed is a hand-carved replica of one belonging to Liliuokalani, Hawaii's last queen. The hotel's five suites have been named by the Polynesian Voyaging Society after star constellations, to commemorate Hawaii's navigator ancestors. Little bedtime stories about Hawaiian people, crafts and customs are left on your pillow at night. While all the modern five-star toys are here, the past gently enfolds you.

      The hotel's new heart is Kani Ka Pila ("let's play music" in Hawaiian) Grille, an outdoor venue for local live music. Here, the Hawaiian tradition of the spontaneous backyard gathering with friends, food and tunes is revived nightly - often with Grammy Award-winning performers. Jam sessions, spontaneous hula and parties flourish around the poolside stage. At the bar I find myself chatting to friends of Cyril Pahinui, the legendary slack key guitarist. While he plays, family members join in. The venue is the first in a big Waikiki hotel to bring locals and visitors together in this way and is a delightful surprise on a strip famed for big-glitz showbiz.

      By day, I stroll along Waikiki beach and find further transformation. The famous old Royal Hawaiian Hotel or "pink palace" has also had a makeover. The signature shade has been tastefully toned down and now punctuates an elegant interior palette of greens and browns. She's still pink-skinned but the grand dame has shed the excess camp of recent years and wears her past with dignity again.

      The towering Sheraton Waikiki Resort is renovating too and has added a new farm-to-table eatery called Kai Market, featuring fresh, locally grown products inspired by the ethnic mix of cuisines at Hawaii's old plantation tables more than 100 years ago.

      Like Kani Ka Pila, Kai Market brings a welcome touch of earthiness to the glossy tourist hub.

      My friends are most keen to show off Chinatown - a place where earthiness has never been in short supply. The 140-year-old area is just a few kilometres away from Waikiki beach but until recently might as well have been in another galaxy. Crime, sleaze and disrepair kept anyone with a sense of self-preservation away from its grimy streets. Chinatown was the shady scowl to Waikiki's sunny smile.

      No one seemed to remember or care that these old, low-rise shops, dwellings and warehouses close to the port redounded with fascinating history, dating back to 19th-century merchants and markets established by Chinese ex-plantation workers.

      The area became overrun with drugs and strip joints and seemed destined to remain so until its disused Hawaii Theatre, a beautiful 1920s silent picture house, was saved from the wrecking ball by campaigners and reopened as a 1400-seat state-of-the art performance venue.

      In the past five years, Chinatown's other neglected buildings have been steadily reincarnated as cool bars, critically acclaimed restaurants, hip vintage shops and art galleries.

      Every month, the whole fabulous mosaic comes together in a celebration called First Friday, when the galleries stay open into the early hours, bars throw parties and the streets and footpaths fill with music and stalls. The centre of the action is Chinatown's spine, Hotel Street and as if as proof, there's a bar opening the night I'm visiting.

      Manifest is a typical Chinatown building; brick-lined, ramshackle and now transformed into a bustling, chic, boho melting pot of artists, live music and cocktails.

      Like its refurbished neighbours, the place has the air of an old tramp suddenly draped in designer threads and thrust before the paparazzi. It looks surprised.

      The name is inspired by the TV series Lost, which films on the island. Owner Brandon Reid, 27, had a cameo role but tonight he's centre stage, welcoming a throng of Honolulu hipsters, artists, DJs and lion dancers. Reid tells me he dreamed of transforming this space into a laid-back haven for artists. "It spoke to me," he says, before being swallowed by the crowd.

      His enthusiasm is echoed opposite at Bar 35, where manager George Sebolt harbours 208 beers from around the world in another very pre-loved warehouse space. Few countries are omitted from the menu and many brews are rare.

      Sebolt tells me proudly that Bar 35 is the first in the US to serve the Belgian Chimay on tap.

      Alongside is Thirtyninehotel, which transforms into a Prohibition speakeasy on Thursdays with jazz and '20s costumes.

      Award-winning bartender Christian Self mixes a pared-back, purist's mai tai, which he says is the closest possible to the Hawaiian legend Trader Vic's 1944 original.

      We visit Mercury, a hot live music venue next door, a tiny dive bar so cool you need a microscope to find it and Indigo, said to be a favourite of President Obama, Oahu's favourite modern son. If so, he's a man of taste.

      Indigo is a beguiling, sultry-lit maze of giant lanterns, old brick outhouses, murals and bookshelves, with live music and renowned

      mod-Med/Asian dining.

      Next morning it's time to witness another Oahu butterfly emerging from its cocoon. Honolulu's Bishop Museum has just reopened its Hawaiian Hall after three years and $US16 million of renovations. The great 120-year-old hall is the museum's centrepiece and was always absorbing - I've lost hours exploring its three storeys.

      Now, with the addition of special climate control and lighting and the input of US museum design guru Ralph Applebaum, thousands of the museum's delicate 1.3 million artefacts can emerge into the public gaze for the first time. The hall is being described in movie superlatives: "moving", "powerful", "magical".

      And it is. Hawaii's past no longer poses politely behind glass. It prowls and whispers, struts and sings and even rages across the floors now transformed into three realms - of the sea and legends, man and the land, and the gods. Artefacts already resonating with ancient power are reinforced by layers of storytelling; video and live performance.

      I come across a resident actor-storyteller reaching the climax of his tale. He's clutching the old Hawaiian flag, in tears as he recounts the 1893 overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani by Americans and the subsequent annexing of the Hawaiian islands. The audience is utterly transfixed.

      This is sensitive territory. Sorrow and anger about the occupation remain today and there is still a strong independence movement in Hawaii. Although the US formally apologised for "the overthrow of the kingdom of Hawaii" in 1993, many will never forget - or forgive.

      Previously, this grievous aspect of history was presented drily, its human implications avoided. The new Hawaiian Hall confronts these head-on, giving eloquent voice to the pain of a people still mourning.

      This unflinching accuracy underpins the new hall's mission: to celebrate a vibrant, living culture.

      Extensive collaboration took place with the native Hawaiian people to ensure that history was told in their words. And those words are deeply affecting. They rouse you to anger, move you to sadness but, most of all, inspire joy. The overwhelming impression of a journey through the three "realms" is one of a proud, happy and wise culture with beliefs and traditions so connected to nature that nothing can shake their permanence. It's comforting, like that first touch of breeze when you land here.

      The spirit of the new Hawaiian Hall is the spirit of the new Oahu; a place reconciling with its history, shedding layers to reveal a truer version of itself.

      While glitz and kitsch will always be a fun part of the mix, Oahu's past lies closer to the surface now and it makes for a richer visit.

      Before I leave Bishop Museum, the storyteller hands me a yellow ribbon bearing the Hawaiian phrase: "Mai poina oe ia'u." Not to be forgotten. The motto is more than a century old but has never seemed truer.

      Trip notes

      Getting there

      Hawaiian Airlines flies direct to Honolulu three times a week (Wednesday, Friday, Sunday) and offers regular discount deals for as little as $1050 return; hawaiianair.com.au.

      Staying there

      The Outrigger Reef on the Beach has rooms from $US169 ($185) a night (city view) to $US909 for a very swish, one-bedroom oceanfront suite.

      Sister hotel Outrigger Waikiki on the Beach (just along the Waikiki strip) has rooms from $US159 to $US899. See outrigger.com for deals including packages for golfers, couples and water sports enthusiasts.

      See + do

      First Friday bursts into life in Honolulu's Chinatown on the first Friday of every month; firstfridayhawaii.com.

      Kani Ka Pila (at the Outrigger Reef on the Beach) is open daily for breakfast, lunch and dinner with live music every night and a new happy hour from 3-6pm.

      Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, is open Wednesday to Monday (closed Tuesdays) from 9am-5pm. Adults $US17.95, kids aged

      four-12 $US14.95, kids under three free. Bishopmuseum.org.

      With the kids

      Oahu is a perfect family destination, with a wealth of attractions for children. Nearly all hotels offer kids' programs. Many restaurants feature "kids eat for free" times. Look out for the Hawaiian word "keiki" (children) and you'll find it everywhere, from the "keiki clubs" at hotels to discount or free entry at main attractions. Highlights include Honolulu Zoo's much-loved kids' day camp, Waikiki Aquarium's sleepovers for littlies and at Sea Life Park Hawaii, kids can be an animal trainer for the day and play up close with dolphins. The Hawaii Children's Discovery Centre is a must-see for those curious kids.

      Moreinformation discoverycenterhawaii.org; visit-oahu.com.

      LOCAL SECRET

      WHILE you're on Oahu, treat yourself to a Kini Beach bag made from recycled materials from Waikiki Beach.

      They're made by David Watt (pictured), from straw mats, polyurethane floaties and boogie boards discarded by tourists each day. Increasingly concerned by the volume of abandoned items, Watt started a recycling scheme last year in the resort's 53 hotels, starting with the Outrigger.

      "Waikiki generates about 30 swimming pools' worth of these abandoned materials each year and they don't decompose in the ocean," Watt says. "They just float. I was always sad to see them bobbing all around while I was surfing."

      He transforms the rescued items into funky beach bags and paddle covers. You can find them in boutiques and online at kinibeach.com. "Our motto is: from the beach, for the beach," Watt says. "Each new object is made with aloha and helps us care for our beautiful island."

       

      ******************************************

      http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?page=1&sy=...

      The Sydney Morning Herald

      Slavery now a sorry issue for Congress

      Author: By GAY ALCORN, Herald Correspondent in Washington
      Date: 21/06/2000
      Words: 451
                Publication: Sydney Morning Herald
      Section: News And Features
      Page: 13
      A group of law-makers introduced a Congressional resolution on Monday to apologise formally for slavery, which ended with the Civil War in 1865.

      The resolution also sets up a commission to examine slavery's legacy in America, and a national slavery museum, but it deliberately avoids mentioning the explosive issue of reparations.

      ``The government has never really apologised for slavery," said Ohio Democrat Tony Hall, who introduced the measure.

      ``With the Civil War, with all that President Abraham Lincoln achieved, and with the civil rights movement's successes, I found that hard to believe."

      Mr Hall, who is white, tried a similar resolution three years ago, but it failed partly because he lacked the backing of African-American leaders.

      This time blacks have joined with him, although the debate is as fractious as the Australian stalemate over an apology to Aborigines for the removal of children from their parents.

      Three years ago, President Bill Clinton urged a national discussion on race and considered, then rejected, a formal apology to the estimated 43 million descendants of slaves who were captured and taken to America from the early 1600s.

      He acknowledged that slavery was ``wrong", but baulked at an apology for fear of huge reparation claims.

      African Americans remember with bitterness the ``40 acres and a mule" offered to freed slave families in 1865, which was later withdrawn.

      The push for an apology arouses bitter argument in the US. Some African-American groups say it is tokenistic without reparations, and some white groups argue they should not have to apologise for something that happened so long ago.

      Conservative Republican Henry Hyde has said: ``I never owned a slave. I never oppressed anybody. I don't know that I should have to pay for someone who did, generations before I was born."

      But Mr Hall said: ``These three words `I am sorry' are a foundation for beginning again, a small price to pay for restoring lost trust, and a necessary first step in moving forward constructively".

      ``Apologising is humbling," Mr Hall added. ``To admit to a wrong you expose your wounds and warts for all the world to see. But the United States is a great country, and it should be big enough to admit its mistakes."

      The push for an apology gathered momentum in 1988 after Congress formally apologised and paid modest reparations to Japanese-Americans imprisoned during World War II.

      In 1993 Congress apologised to native Hawaiians for the role the US played in overthrowing the Kingdom of Hawaii a century before.

       

      **********************************************

      http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?page=1&sy=...

      The Age

      US wrestles with apology for slavery

      Author: GAY ALCORN, UNITED STATES CORRESPONDENT
      Date: 21/06/2000
      Words: 464
                Publication: The Age
      Section: News
      Page: 12
      WASHINGTON

      Australia's debate about what is owed to minority groups victimised by past government actions is an international one, with the United States increasingly aware that its history of slavery is gone but not forgotten. On Monday, a group of lawmakers introduced a congressional resolution that would formally apologise for slavery, which ended with the Civil War in 1865.

      The resolution would also set up a commission to examine slavery's legacy in America, and a national slavery museum, but purposely avoided mentioning the explosive reparations issue.

      ``The government has never really apologised for slavery," said Ohio Democrat Tony Hall, who introduced the measure.

      ``With the Civil War, with all that President Abraham Lincoln achieved, and with the civil rights movement's successes, I found that hard to believe."

      Mr Hall, who is white, tried a similar resolution three years ago, but it failed partly because he lacked the backing of African-American leaders.

      This time, blacks have joined with him, although the debate is as fractious as the Australian stalemate over an apology to Aborigines for the removal of children from their parents.

      Three years ago, President Bill Clinton urged a national discussion on race and considered, then rejected, a formal apology to the estimated 43 million descendants of slaves brought to America from the early 1600s. He acknowledged that slavery was wrong, but baulked at an apology for fear of huge reparation claims. African Americans remember with bitterness the ``40 acres and a mule" offered to freed slave families in 1865, which was later withdrawn.

      The push for an apology arouses bitter argument in America, with some African-American groups saying it is tokenistic without reparations, and some white groups arguing they should not have to apologise for something that happened so long ago.

      Conservative Republican Henry Hyde has said that, ``I never owned a slave. I never oppressed anybody. I don't know that I should have to pay for someone who did generations before I was born."

      But Mr Hall said that, ``these three words - I am sorry - are a foundation for beginning again, a small price to pay for restoring lost trust, and a necessary first step in moving forward constructively".

      The push for an apology gathered momentum in 1988 after Congress formally apologised and paid modest reparations to Japanese-Americans imprisoned during World War II. In 1993, Congress apologised to native Hawaiians for the role the US played in overthrowing the kingdom of Hawaii a century before.

      The date chosen to renew the apology quest coincided with the 135th anniversary of ``Juneteenth Day", the day that word reached the last slaves that they were free.

       

      *****************************************************************

      Yes, lots of interesting info from Australia:

       

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZpo7VMg8X0&feature=related

       
  • I agree
This reply was deleted.