This was my contribution to the Forum on the Advertiser regarding the "Ceded" Lands Settlement (3-18-08):
U.S. Public Law 103-150 (the so-called Apology Resolutions) stated:
"Whereas, the Republic of Hawaii also ceded 1,800,000 acres of crown, government and public lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii, without the consent of or compensation to the Native Hawaiian people of Hawaii or their sovereign government (the Hawaiian Kingdom);"
Well folks, these are lands belonging to the Hawaiian Kingdom AND its constituents. Nope, the Kingdom hasn't died, and stolen lands are stolen lands, no matter whose hands and how many they may filter through.
By the way, How did the Republic of Hawaii get good title to the lands that it illegally tried to annex to the U.S.? It didn't have good title.
And they (the lands) continue to belong to its rightful owners - strictly distinguished from the blooded or racial Hawaiians who are beneficiaries of OHA, but by those Hawaiian patriots (Hawaiian Nationals) who are descendants and heirs of subjects of the Kingdom.
And this is partly why the lands are currently held "in trust" - the state does NOT have real ownership. It's holding it for its real owner - the Kingdom.
While Hawaiian Nationals may be OHA beneficiaries, it is because they are Hawaiian Nationals that they would be heirs to the lands.
Its (the Kingdom's) "government" is not in operation, true, but it is still around in its vacated form and there are those who support its reappearance and operation.
If not - Senator Akaka, OHA, DHHL and many other entities - who support the so-called "Akaka Bill" would not be trying to re-organize the "Kingdom" to be a "Native Hawaiian Governing Entity."
Well, folks, the "stolen" lands have illegally gone to the Provisional Government, the Republic of Hawaii, the U.S. fed, the so-called "State of Hawaii" and now the "State" wants to pay off a debt to OHA by transferring some of these "stolen" lands.
OHA (as a state agency and NOT as a representative of the Hawaiian Nationals who have the "real" claim to the lands) is just another "third party" that the Hawai'i Supreme Court says cannot be given or sold the "ceded" lands.
Not only should the Hawaiian Nationals [as heirs of the Kingdom - that continues to exist (specifically in international law and in a moral world)], but they are also owed restitution for back rents for all the years of forced usage and illegal financial gain.
You folks - who think the National Hawaiians shouldn't be owed a thing - that the income from the lands belong to the state or general public - would steal your neighbor's bicycle and call it your own.
The problem is that OHA does NOT represent National Hawaiians. So it would join all the other illegals - the Provisionals, the Republic, the U.S. and the State of Hawaii - in eating off of somebody else's flesh.
Restitution is the only "righteous" way folks. Then, if you continue to not liking it - you can recall your military, end your "occupation" of our place - and go home - as the so-called "Annexation" of Hawaii by Resolution and not by treaty - never really took place.
Yes folks, resolutions are domestic instruments and can, if at all, only be effective within the sponsoring nations.
Hawai'i was a foreign nation at the time and a "legal" annexation could not have taken place. On the other hand - the Apology Bill adds:
"Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum;"
If not, the u.s. could do a Resolution to annex Switzerland today. Think it would fly?
Oh, by the way - Dr. Matthew Craven, Reader in International Law, SAOS University of London, in "Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom," wrote:
"The implications of continuity in case of Hawai’i are several:
a) That authority exercised by US over Hawai’i is not one of sovereignty i.e. that the US has no legally protected ‘right’ to exercise that control and that it has no original claim to the territory of Hawai’i or right to obedience on
the part of the Hawaiian population. Furthermore, the extension of US
laws to Hawai’i, apart from those that may be justified by reference to the law of (belligerent) occupation would be contrary to the terms of
international law.
b) That the Hawaiian people retain a right to self-determination in a manner prescribed by general international law. Such a right would entail, at the first instance, the removal of all attributes of foreign occupation, and a restoration of the sovereign rights of the dispossessed government.
c) That the treaties of the Hawaiian Kingdom remain in force as regards
other States in the name of the Kingdom (as opposed to the US as a
successor State) except as may be affected by the principles rebus sic
stantibus or impossibility of performance.
d) That the Hawaiian Kingdom retains a right to all State property including that held in the territory of third states, and is liable for the debts of the Hawaiian kingdom incurred prior to its occupation."
Well, folks, you may not be living in the good ole U.S.A.
ku ching
You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!
I am thrilled to get your reply. You've made my day. We are very restricted in getting the true story out - especially when OHA has so much money to spend in PR for the so-called "akaka bill" and Kau Inoa - and have tainted the entire Hawaiian universe.
As for me, I'll be at the legislature in a couple of hours to support its latest proposal - which is to do a financial and management audit of OHA (that the OHA trustees are opposing). I wonder what they think they need to hide.
Good post Uncle. This is an excellent way to spread that word that our Kingdom is still alive in the hearts of many people. Mahalo, I agree with you....
Replies
~Nalani~
As for me, I'll be at the legislature in a couple of hours to support its latest proposal - which is to do a financial and management audit of OHA (that the OHA trustees are opposing). I wonder what they think they need to hide.
Thanks.
ku