Forum

Difference Between Occupation and Colonization

Posted by Tane on September 5, 2009 at 6:04pm in Politics
I took the liberty of forwarding this since it's what I have been saying from the beginning. We shouldn't intermix the words to define our situation. Stick to the point of belligerent occupation which is factual. Tane ----- Original Message ----- From: Keanu Sai, Ph.D To: Hawaiian Society of Law and Politics Subject: Difference Between Occupation and Colonization 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 read my law journal article "A Slippery Path Towards Hawaiian Indigeneity," and wished she read the article before the 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 extends 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. -- ******************************************************* Keanu Sai, Ph.D. P.O. Box 2194 Honolulu, HI 96805-2194 Website ************************************************ mahalo, keanu. maybe we can change the way we talk about this issue by being mindful of the terms we use. students coming out of my classes at HPU know the difference already. but i see conflict happening when they move on to UH grad school. everybody's using different vocabulary to describe what they think happened. and to add to the confusion, there's a huge group of people who use both occupation and colonization interchangeably. but if they both mean the same thing, then why do we need two different words? years ago, when afsc's 'sovereignty education subcommittee' sponsored a panel discussion at the quaker house featuring kanalu young, thurston twigg-smith, and keanu (it was videotaped, but have no idea where that tape is now), kanohowailuku koko mentioned to me outside the building that he was quite aware that to say hawaii was colonized was the same as saying hawaii was a colony of the u.s., and of course that was not true. the effects of u.s. occupation may have been similar, but historically, colonization never happened. even before the academic research had been done, the dialogue among activists made clear that some folks had reasoned out the power behind using words, correctly or incorrectly, and struggled to find the proper words to use (within a legal framework) to describe hawaii's history. i think we're still struggling. are we aiming for de-occupation or de-colonization? are we using a legal framework to describe history, or a social one? lc

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

Email me when people reply –
Follow

Replies

  • Pomaikaiokalani September 10, 2009 at 6:46am

    ALOHA Kakou, e Hawaii, Since January 16, 1893 the Hawaiian Kingdom have been an "Occupied Nation" by the military forces of the United States. It's as clear as Black and White. After the invasion of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the military forces of the United States all actions that followed, the Provisional Government of Hawaii, the Republic Of Hawaii, the Territory of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii are Illegal Actions. The Kingdom of Hawaii could not have been annexed to the United States in any form with it's military forces occupying the national lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Since no country can annex another foreign country with its military forces occupying that foreign country. Since January 16, 1893 the Unitted States have never removed its military forces from occupying the national lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Hawaiian Kingdom today continues to be an Occupied Nation. Long Live The Hawaiian Kingdom, o Pomaikaiokalani, SOVEREIGN, HPACH
    • Ululani > Pomaikaiokalani September 10, 2009 at 7:35am
      Aloha kaua e Pomai and with all due respect but I hardly read or see discussion about the use of tools to our advantage. I will be vague since some people lurk and watch us 24/7.

      It's understandable that some people direct their posts to some reps of the United States because they *know* that they are watching.

      However the F-22 is an interceptor. IMHO some people are focusing way too much on the United States instead of on the survival of the iwi.

      Straight up: Perhaps they do not understand that other nations' weaponry pose a viable threat to the lives of our ohana. I do not want stupid people who don't know about weaponry deciding about the *LONG-TERM* effects of other nations' weaponry have and/or will have on us .

      The HK will not exist without the iwi thus oiwi. It will be irresponsible and unwise *not* to consider the use of tools that help us to adapt in order to survive.

      Malama Pono, Lana
    • Pomaikaiokalani > Pomaikaiokalani September 10, 2009 at 6:49am

      ALOHA OE, U.S.A.
  • Pomaikaiokalani September 8, 2009 at 5:10am
    ALOHA Kakou, e Hawaii, Since January 16, 1893 we have been an "Occupied Nation" by the military forces of the United States. United States have never left our nation since it invasion of the Hawaiian Kingdom. An invasion that violated it's own Treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom.
    ALOHA OE, U.S.A. , o Pomaikaiokalani, SOVEREIGN, HPACH
  • I k a i k a September 6, 2009 at 12:17pm
    The funny thing is, is that the United States have been doing this for some time now. Look at the Native Americans. What a shame. And simple minded Americans are blinded by this image that the United States is doing us all a favor. E ku to'u mau kanaka! He Hawai'i katou mau a mau.
  • Pomaikaiokalani September 5, 2009 at 9:55pm
    KU I KA PONO, o Pomai
  • Kaohi September 5, 2009 at 6:54pm
    Caught between the two, I can remember the day that the de-colonizers conceeded to de-occupation. We were at the Iolani Palace, I was sitting next to Poka and John Areas (sp). I might be wrong on this and stand corrected, referring to concession to de-occcupation over decolonization. A complex issue but can be understood by most Na Kanaka.

    "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."

    As you know, my own niece Shelley confronted me with our family "Kanei" needing to understand and incorporate into our psyche 'de-occupation' I believe as oppose to de-colonization that she was alluding to. Brave soul, and with high spirits and asparations for our future.

    A good meeting of the minds in a forum, or maybe it's been done already should resurface or done again for the younger generation to hear and choose to not only understand but to strengthen their spirit for acitve understanding in their stance.

    This also sounds like Steve Tatai'i's arguments for his Kurdish people over Suddam Hussein, do we want to go there? Kaohi
This reply was deleted.