Ke Aloha Aina

How will we move towards independence?

ikaikahussey — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:09:24 +0000

A proposed strategy for action.

plan-january-2007.doc

We will impede the use of Hawaii as a launch pad for US wars on the world. The US sees Hawaii as a key part of a strategy for global hegemony. Hawaii plays a role both in the organizing and execution of warfare, as the headquarters for the Pacific Command, and as the ‘host’ to several key bases, including Pearl Harbor. In the US imaginary, Hawaii’s location within the United States is assumed and unquestioned: Pearl Harbor and Hawaii are “as American as apple pie.” By directly confronting the use of Hawaii in this imperialist logic, we start to problematize and throw into relief the very relationship of Hawaii to the United States, as well as slow the ability for the United States to conduct its wars.

We will end the exploitation of our lands and resources for corporate agendas. Since the 1830s, Hawaiian lands have been targeted by foreign capitalists for their economic benefit, leading directly to the conflict of 1893 and the subsequent occupation. In the 21st century, the leading industry to exploit our land and culture is the tourist industry. Tourism represents the most advanced form of colonization, because it turns the purpose and raison d’etre of the occupied land away from the needs and desires of the native population, and re-purposes it for the pleasure and benefit of the mass-market tourist. The brilliance of the tourist industry is that can also provide a space for native to ‘share their culture’ with the tourist, placing both the native and her/his culture in the service of the consumer. Through a campaign of disruptions and noncooperation, we will diminish Hawaii’s attractiveness as a safe, domesticated tourist locale, which will erode profitability and also increase repression of our movement, which will in turn make Hawaii less attractive as a destination. Ultimately, our goal should be to use the disruptions of the tourist industry to force the state to negotiate with us for key demands – land, sovereignty, a process for phased withdrawal, native ownership of economy, etc.

We will stop the attempts to foreclose on our native and national rights through “federal recognition.” The Akaka Bill is a clear and present danger to the possibilities of self-determination and independence. Through a combination of people-power, community education, protest, and fostering of international solidarity, we will prevent the Akaka Bill from becoming law. As an alternative, we will propose a bill that creates a “reconciliation process,” flowing from Public Law 103-150 (the Apology Bill).

We will nourish and expand international relationships, through bilateral and multilateral solidarity and agreements. International recognition is the crowning goal of an independence movement. We will engage with peoples movements throughout the world, encouraging Hawaiian independence to be part of a global strategy for peace, justice, and equality. When appropriate, we will also enter into creative partnerships for economic and political solidarity, such as the pan-Latin American ALBA alternative trade pact.

We will increase the capacity of our community to comprehend and take action on issues affecting us. The purpose of political organizing is to raise the political consciousness of the oppressed, and to increase the peoples’ capacity to act on that consciousness. We will use classic community organizing techniques – tested throughout the world in factories, barrios, rural and urban settings, and in our own historic political movement – to build political power for social change and independence. This must include a process for national debate, dialogue, and collective decisionmaking, to examine the effects of 150-years of racial and national oppression, and to decide on a way forward.

We will develop clear alternatives for economic opportunity, de-linked from the exploitative military-tourism economy. To supplement the Ku’e work, we will develop community-oriented enterprises and institutions to provide an alternative lifeway for our community.

Hale Pa’ahao o Mississippi

ikaikahussey — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 21:20:09 +0000

New podcast on Zapatista coffee cooperatives

ikaikahussey — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:10:04 +0000

Click here for an excellent podcast about the work being done in Chiapas for collective economic advancement.

New Save La’au Point video available

ikaikahussey — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:15:58 +0000

Walter Ritte: “This tells the true story of our battle to save La’au and to save Molokai. Please pass it on.”

Public Access to La`au Best Left As-Is

ikaikahussey — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:11:40 +0000

The following editorial was published in The Molokai Dispatch on September 24, 2007.

http://www.themolokaidispatch.com/node/1155

John Sabas recently outlined the Molokai Property Limited’s (MPL) shoreline access plan for La’au, where MPL hopes to develop a 200-lot luxury subdivision. MPL is seeking “an exception to the mandated 1500′ beach access rule,” arguing that it will protect subsistence fishing. With only 2 public-access points, Sabas says, fishermen will be “forced to take home only what they can carry [on] the trail.”

Having only 2 public accesses points goes against existing law which “requires rights-of-way to be created where land fronting the shoreline is subdivided.” According to this law, MPL would be required to create 16 public access rights-of-way along the La`au Point development. The County “may” grant exceptions to this rule; however the law states that any exception “shall not differ substantially from that which would be required [for] standard rights-of-way.”

While it is conceivable that the required 16 access points could be whittled down to as little as 10, having only 2 would “differ substantially” from the normal requirement. There is also nothing preventing future litigation that could force additional accesses.

It is important to understand that this requirement for rights-of-way takes effect ONLY if MPL develops.

Without development, La`au’s shoreline access would simply remain as it is. The development wouldn’t CREATE access, because State law (HRS 115-1) already GUARANTEES public access to the sea and shorelines of La`au.

One of the reasons this law was created was to prevent “mounting acts of hostility against private shoreline properties,” by people who can’t easily access the beach. By allowing millionaire newcomers preferential access to the shoreline and making locals walk, MPL is indeed re-creating the very situation that the law was enacted to avoid.

Furthermore, MPL’s plan admits it is “probable that subsistence practitioners will be confronted by insensitive newcomers.”

Imagine a La`au homeowner having a picnic on the beach with 10 guests. They have a cooler of beer and a BBQ grilling store-bought steaks. The people simply walked down to the beach from the homeowner’s property in a matter of minutes.

Now imagine a subsistence fisherman walking 3 miles into La`au to gather food for his family. He encounters the homeowner and his friends who challenge his right to be there: “Hey Buddy! You can’t fish here…This is OUR beach!”

MPL believes situations like this can be avoided by requiring homeowners to “take a class with a kupuna,” in order to be informed about the culture and taught to “malama ‘aina.”

Even locals will have to take “appropriate education classes” in order to access the La`au area and be “comfortable with the new development.”

Can people really be taught to respect subsistence rights, let go of their prejudices, and “malama ‘aina” that easily? And would the community - which is opposed to the development - ever truly be “comfortable” with it?

The main reason La’au is the “unspoiled coastal environment it is today,” according to MPL itself, is because “La’au Point is currently vacant, undeveloped land.” That is a very telling statement. La’au is unspoiled and pristine primarily because it has been left alone.

The simple fact that it is an undeveloped, unoccupied land has provided the greatest protection all these years – much greater than a “controlled development” or an “expanded conservation zone” or any number of plans, rules, or restrictions could ever provide.

Let us continue to leave La’au alone so that it may remain pristine for the generations that will follow.

A conversation with UH Student Regent Michael Dahilig on ARL vote

ikaikahussey — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:58:10 +0000

Ke Aloha Aina received this from a UH alumna who has been following the UARC controversy.

In a conversation today (September 28, 2007), the student member to the BOR, Mike Dahilig, attempted to defend his decision to support the Navy UARC at UH despite the overwhelming student opposition to the proposal, including multiple votes against the program from the Association of Students at UH and the Hilo Student Caucus.

He said personally for him it came down to a question of academic freedom. He said the three-year moratorium on classified research was “a fair compromise.” Ultimately, he said, “the pros outweighed the cons,” so he voted for the military research program. And that he felt comfortable with the tiers of restrictions in the contract; that while classified research would be unacceptable, publication restrictions on the naval research were acceptable. He said that while he is “not 100% proud” of the vote, that he felt he “tipped his hat” to the overwhelming student opposition by voting yes with reservations.

He defended his decision by saying that he spoke with many of his professors, many of them from SOEST, and failed to find strong opposition from scientific professors.

He explained that he saw his role as “a decisionmaker and not an advocate.” He said that the student member to the Board of Regents is obligated to make decisions on behalf of the university as a whole, not just for students. He said that while he has an increase sensitivity to students’ needs, he is “a regent before a student, not a representative of the students.”

When asked why he chose not to abstain in light of the contradiction between his personal perspective and that of his fellow students, Mr. Dahilig said “I don’t like to do that.”

University of Hawaii regents vote for military research contract

ikaikahussey — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:04:21 +0000

The Regents of the University of Hawaii voted to approve the Applied Research Laboratory contract, formerly known as UARC (”University Affiliated Research Center”). There was one vote in opposition, registered by Regent Haynes of Maui.

In a surprising move, the student regent on the board voted for the contract as well, in spite of numerous resolutions to the contrary from student organizations throughout the university system.