Note: This is an article that my students take apart for analysis--it's an old article that dates back to 1993--so don't get crazy on me!
"Amendment would break impasse on ceded lands"
If the Star-Bulletin has its way, Hawaiians will be waiting another hundred years for action on their rightful claims to ceded lands. That’s the bottom line in the Star-bulletin editorial opposing my amendment to break the impasse on ceded lands under military control.
There is one simple truth that underlies any discussion of these lands: They do not belong to the military. They were taken at gunpoint from the Hawaiian people in 1893 and turned over to the U.S. government without compensation to the Hawaiians.
When Hawaii became a state in 1959, Congress recognized those facts by stipulating that ceded lands no longer needed for military purposes must be returned to state control, and that a portion of ceded land revenues be set aside for native Hawaiians.
My amendment to the 1994 defense Authorization Act requires the concurrence of the governor of Hawaii for military construction projects ceded lands. The measure was adopted by the House Armed Services Committee unanimously and it is expected to pass the House of Representatives. In so doing, the House will be acknowledging the legitimacy of Hawaiian claims and attempting to give Hawaiians a place at the table.
It doesn’t take a political genius to understand that Hawaiians have more clout in Washington Place than the Pentagon. Political reality will require any governor to take into account the interests of the Hawaiian community when negotiating with the military.
The star-Bulletin projects some pretty apocalyptic scenarios flowing from the Abercrombie amendment. One envisions the military leaving in a huff because it’s too much trouble to deal with a governor committed to protecting the interests of the state and the Hawaiian community. No one can guarantee that any given unit or installation will remain untouched by the general drawdown of the U.S. defense establishment. It is absurd, however, to envision a mass exodus of the military from Hawaii.
In this case, geography is destiny, and anyone capable of reading a map can see that Hawaii’s mid-Pacific location means our islands will remain a vital way station n the Pacific defense equation for the foreseeable future.
The editorial raises the specific fear that the Marines will leave Kaneohe if Bellows Air Force Station is closed. The commandant of the Marine Corps put that notion to rest when he told a March 31, 1993, hearing of the House Armed Services Committee that closure of Bellows will not be the signal for a pullout of the Kaneohe Marines.
In any event, my proposals for Bellows have always envisioned continued shared use of the base to accommodate marine amphibious exercises. There is plenty of room on Bellows’ 1,500 acres for civilian uses.
As for the editorial pronouncement that the Pacific commander in chief “has considerable more credibility (than Abercrombie) on such matters” as the military “need” for bellows, give us a break! My credibility rests on 18 years experience as a legislator sniffing out bureaucratic shibai at the city, state and federal levels of government. Maybe the Star-Bulletin buys the argument that bellows’ beach cabins, tennis courts, and golf driving range are vital to national security, but I don’t. An idea of the installation’s military necessity can be found in plans for Bellows’ future construction projects which include a miniature golf course. I don’t believe improvement of golf handicaps falls within the definition of American’s vital security interests.
Even more difficult to fathom is the Star-bulletin’s contention that the Abercrombie amendment “could chili sympathy in Washington for Hawaiian sovereignty.” In winning bipartisan support for the measure, I made it abundantly clear to the Armed Services Committee that it was premised on the legitimacy of Hawaiian claims. The committee members are under no illusion that Hawaii governors will roll over and sign off on every project the military wants without extracting concessions. They and every other member of the House understand full well that the potential for a gubernatorial veto is implicit in the concurrence requirement.
Far from being a setback for Hawaiian sovereignty, adoption of the Abercrombie amendment affirms congressional recognition of the special status of ceded lands and, by extension, the native Hawaiians who are its statutory beneficiaries.
Finally, the Star-Bulletin’s suggestion that the purpose of my amendment is “to get rid of the military” is contradicted by my work in securing $194 million worth of Hawaii military construction projects contained in the same bill. If I were determined to drive the military out of Hawaii, I wouldn’t be bending every effort to accommodate them on every single construction project for which they seek congressional authorization.
I acknowledge the military as a valuable economic asset to Hawaii. I just want recognition that native Hawaiians are equally important.
U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, representing the first District of Hawaii, is a member of the House Committee on Armed Services.
Replies
For interested readers,
My students read this article as part of their editorial analysis.
I care enough about my students to give them a point of view on reality--this article is difficult for them to take apart and address their main points that they can personally relate too. Of course most of my students put up a fuss over this article. I don't care--they have to try and read it and have a point of view too!
In classrooms- much of a research paper is about credibility--now that he is the governor of the fake state of Hawaii -- go and try that one out in a classroom full of Na Kanaka students. It get's to be a fun day! The assimilation and diffusion of cultures are both stimulating for local kids. It get's them out of the writers block once they are given an opportunity to see text and their point of view connection.
The 'put down' syndrom are ever presence in local kids so there is a great misunderstanding at first. I fly in and out of classes, so I don't have that routine control that regular teachers have during the day. But, at night with 4140's I reign and push and pull the process of their view point as oppose to put downs. It's a bit trying sometimes. But we just got to get past the ugly two sentence talk somehow.
The gang mentality is so ever present in Na Kanaka classrooms. They are innocent to these dynamics, but it get's a bit hairy in the upper grades. Most staff memebers of the DOE have very little experience to this phenomenon because their focus is on meeting the graduation requirements which is super far out there. All schools will be producing 4140's not just the Na Kanaka communities, as to why? I have no idea why?