Continuing our Statehood Hawaiiʻs “Statehood Countdown,” weʻre looking at the correspondence between Benjamin Gerig, the Director of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs, and D. Protitch, the Under-Secretary for Trusteeship and Information from the United Nation’s office of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
These documents trace the movement of information from the Territory of Hawaii’s Governor’s Office to the Department of the Interior, to the Department of State’s Office of Dependent Areas, to the United Nations, and back again.
This correspondence has to do with the information that the Secretary-General requests for the publishing of document A/4088, a condition required by the United Nations on the Cessation of Transmission of Information as required under Chapter XI, Article 73 (e). As seen in the previous documents, Congress had been trying to remove Hawaii from the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories without going through the required UN process. The State Department had been repeatedly telling Congress, that the only way to do that was to change Hawaii’s territorial status. As seen previously (in Countdown #20), This meant to allow Hawaii to choose its form of government as that of either state, independence, or other association. As we now understand all too well, the option of Hawaii becoming a state or remaining a territory was hardly the kind of option prescribed by the United Nations or the State Department.
Also of note in this exchange, are the discrepancies between what Governor Quinn’s office reports, and the information held by the State Department and the United Nations.
Go to original
April 16, 1959
Dear Mr. Protitich:
Reference is made to Secretary General’s Summary and Analysis of Information Transmitted Under Article 73 (e) of the Charter relating to Hawaii, Document No. A/4088/Add.5, March 6, 1959.This document has been read with interest in the United States Department of State and the Interior, and the following comments and suggestions are offered for consideration in the preparation of the final edition to be published:
1. Public Finance, page 14. The outstanding bonded indebtedness of Hawaii on June 30, 1947, was $10.9 million. The Territory has @2.9 million in sinking fund assents, thus making a net outstanding debt of $8 million.
The parenthetical phrase “$103 million in mid-1957” should follow immediately after the words “the legal debt ceiling”. Otherwise, it appears to apply to assessed value of the property of the Territory.
The word “revenue” appears twice in the table at the top of page 15. We suggest the substitution of the word “receipts” since the figures listed include both revenue and non-revenue receipts of the Territory.
2. Banking and Credit, page 15. The first sentence under this heading is incorrect. In 1957 the Territory had five banks with 54 branches, In the beginning of 1947 there were four banks with 38 branches.
3. Public Health, page 22. In the table at that top of the page the expenditures for 1947 do not agree with those contained in the annual report of the Governor to the Secretary of the Interior for that year. That report lists the following expenditures.
- Health and Sanitation General Funds $1,450,122.34
Special funds $674,866.47
Revolving Funds $28.28
Consolidated Total $2,125,012,04
- Hospitals and Institutions for Handicapped General Funds $4,924,871.62
Special Funds $43,623.26
Consolidated Total $4,988,493.894. Educational Conditions, page 22. The statement made in the last paragraph on this page is inaccurate and misleading. Although there may in the past have been language problems in education, this has certainly not been the case in recent years. English is without question the predominant language in Hawaii
Sincerely yours,
Benjamin Gerig
Director, Office of Dependent Area Affairs
May 6, 1959
Dear Mr. Protitch:
With reference of my letter of April 16, 1959, there is attached a copy of comments from the Governor of Hawaii, William F. Quinn, on the Secretary General’s Summary and Analysis of Information Transmitted Under Article 73 (e) of the Charter. Relating to Hawaii, Document No. A/4088/Add.5, March 6, 1959.
When I addressed my letter of April 16 to you I was not aware that the Governor of Hawaii would be asked for comments by the Department of the Interior, and I trust his comments will reach you in time to be included in the revised UN document on Hawaii.
Sincerely yours,
Benjamin Gerig
Director, Office of Dependent Area Affairs
Department of State(attached)
COMMENTS ON UNITED NATIONS DRAFT REPORT ON HAWAII
(A/4088/ADD.5, 6 MARCH 1959)1. Page 3. Paragraph 4. The 1952 intercensus estimates of ethnic composition of the population of the Territory are no considered reliable and are not used in official publications. We request the substitution of the 1950 U.S. Census Bureau estimates on ethnic composition as follows:
Ancestry Per Cent
- Japanese 36.9
- Hawaiian (part-Hawaiian) 17.2
- Filipino 12.2
- Caucasian 23.0
- Chinese 6.5
- Other 4.2
You will observe considerable discrepancy between the 1950 and 1952 estimates, particularly in the Caucasian and Japanese percentages.
In the population figures given below Paragraph 4 the number 584 is the 1956 estimate; the 1 July estimate for 1957 should be 613.
2. Page 4. Paragraph 3. It would be desirable to point out that reapportionment act provided for 51 Representative and 25 Senators.
3. Page 5. Paragraph 1. Should read: “For purposes of local government, the Territory is divided into three counties and one city and county whose various executive and legislative officers are elected. A fifth unit, Kalawao County, consists of the Hansen’s disease settlement at Kalaupapa, Molokai, and is administered by the territorial board of health.
4. Page 11. Under Fisheries, paragraph 1. Correct date is 1956. Or “fruit fish” substitute “food fish”
5. Page 12, Line 1. Correct name of the federal agency is Fish and Wildlige Service, Line 7. Only one tuna cannery is in operation.
6. Page 13. Under Transport and Communications, paragraph 4. In 1957 there were fifteen commercial radio stations and four commercial television stations
7. Page 15. Under Banking and Credit, paragraph 2. The first sentence is misleading in the that it incorrectly relates the small loan problem to ethnic background. The Hawaii Central Federal Credit Union, with which we have checked, is not aware of complications caused by ethnicity. The first sentence might be amended by deleting the words “and ethnic backgrounds” of could be deleted entirely since what would remain a truism applicable to any area. The second sentence couls the begin, “The small loan problem…”
8. Page 22. Under Educational Conditions, paragraph 3. The Office of Territories has already commented on the inaccuracy of this paragraph and we agree that in needs correction to show that English is the predominant language in Hawaii
9. Page 23. Paragraph 1. Delete reference to Schofield Junior College which does not exist. In addition to the University of Hawaii, there are five colleges offering varying amounts of academic training and several business colleges.
————–
12 May 1959
Dear Mr. Gerig,
I should like to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of May 6, 1959, to which were attached the comments made by the Governor of Hawaii in respect of document No. 4/4088/Add.5 of 6 March 1959, relating to Hawaii.
I am grateful for these comments, which the Secretariat will incorporate in the final printed form of the document to be published at a later date.
Yours sincerely,
D. Protitch
Under-Secretary for Trusteeship and InformationFrom Non-Self-Governing Territories
go to #16 of the countdown
“As seen in the previous documents, Congress had been trying to remove Hawaii from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories as required by the UN Charter.”
Yes.
“The State Department had been repeatedly telling Congress, that the only way to do that was to change Hawaii’s governing status.”
Yes.
“A seen previously (in Countdown #20), This meant to allow Hawaii to choose its form of government as that of either state, independence, or other association.”
Which is not the same thing as having all three options on a ballot. Less than 1.5% of the people of Hawaii voted against Statehood. Not only that, but in “Countdown #20″, the word “independence” isn’t even there!! You’re making a citation to something that doesn’t exist, and certainly doesn’t support your point of view.
Seriously though, if you really believe all of this, can you do us the favor and identify who you would acknowledge as a final arbiter of your dispute (presumably the UN), and would you please petition them, and report either their response or lack of response? And if they respond in the negative, or don’t respond at all, would you finally then accept their judgement as stated from 1959?
Or is this conspiracy theory fun for you to think about because it distracts you from other more serious issues of Democrat mismanagement of government in both Hawaii and the White House?
All in due time.
And there is no conspiracy here. That is one reason why I have posted these original documents. These give reference to the language, as well as the change in language as from self-governance to self-determination, which occurred in resolution 742 in 1953.
If you would like to challenge the authority of the Charter, I recommend that you look at the Bricker amendments. I think you would’ve historically led Senator Bricker’s charge of amending the U.S. Constitution at that time. Here are two links:
http://www.antiwar.com/essays/bricker.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment
I don’t challenge the authority of the Charter, nor do I challenge the international law interpretation of that Charter as expressed through the UN resolution which removed Hawaii and Alaska from the list of non-self-governing territories in full accordance with the charter.
What you seem to be doing is insisting that your interpretation of the Charter is the proper one, and that the rest of the international community has been living a lie for the past 50 years that only you can see through. I encourage you to take your case to the UN, challenge their interpretation of the Charter, and abide by their negative answer or lack of a response as a final, definitive decision on the matter.
My guess, however, is that any decision that did not align with your preconceived notions would be rejected by you -> or do you accept the authority of the UN to interpret its own Charter and pass legal and binding resolutions without your direct consent?
Here you will find a paper from William Serfaty, spokesperson from the Self-Determination for Gibraltar Group. They have been applying for their case to be heard by the UN Decolonization committee for some time now. Though there have been rejections, they will continue to apply. Does it make them wrong?
http://www.self-determination.gi/un_representation.htm
Let’s not forget that Greenland had been decolonized after many many years, and after much controversy within the Decolonization committee over Denmark withdrawing Greenland from NSGT.
And finally a document by Carlyle Corbin, one of the international lawyers who is familiar with the legal process for Hawaiian decolonization.
http://www.statehoodhawaii.org/hist/Carlyle_Corbin.html
Looking at these three things together, we can see that the process is alive and well and somewhat functioning.
Now, I’m not advocating that we jump into the decolonization process, I’m suggesting that we learn what decolonization means, just as we learn what de-occupation means.
Since this website is dedicated to commemorating Hawaii’s Statehood, the de-occupation process is a moot point, because from the de-occupation perspective, Hawaii is not a state and we are simply under occupation. The de-occupation process is grounded in 1893 with the advent of the overthrow.
As a statehood-themed website, we have been mostly discussing the colonization process. Approaching Hawaii through the history of colonization, we see that Hawaii has a lot in common with the other territories listed in 1946 on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, and our option for independence, having been lost in 1959, might be restored through decolonization.
Hawaii was colonized by Marquesans and Tahitians. The Kingdom of Hawaii embraced immigration, and expanded its body politic without “colonization”. The Japanese laborers who were imported did not “colonize” Hawaii. Neither did the Connecticut missionaries who only stayed at Kaahumanu’s request. Nor did the Portuguese from the Azores “colonize” Hawaii. Using terms like “colonization” and “de-occupation” in the case of Hawaii is simply ignoring history and reality.
No option was “lost” in 1959 -> an option was affirmatively taken, with less than 1.5% of the people of Hawaii voting against statehood. Again, imagining that “decolonization” could be a useful tool for undoing the legitimate democratic process of self-determination taken by the people of Hawaii in 1959 is a perversion of even the most generous point of view.
Statehood should be celebrated, it should be something to be proud of, it should be something we all recognize as the highest form of representation our people could aspire to -> self governance as a sovereign state amongst an equal 49 sovereign states.
Gibraltar may in fact have good reason to continue the application process. It very well may be that they have not be heard, or not been given a choice. But this is simply not the case in Hawaii. Every citizen of the state of Hawaii has an equal right to vote, participate in the electoral process, and participate in the government of the people, by the people and for the people. How could any process which destroys that self-government, separates people by race or ancestry, and puts the levers of power into the hands of a few radical activists possibly forward the human condition?
Unless the total citizenry of the State of Hawaii votes for secession and independence, there is no moral basis for any sort of “decolonization” which would destroy their sovereign self-governance. And as a proud native born son of Hawaii, I would be willing to fight and die to protect the self-governance of my friends, family, neighbors, colleagues, peers, and future generations.
Out of curiosity what is it about the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom that you are afraid of?
When you read the Declaration of rights from the 1852 Constitution, you will find that it was more racially harmonious than our own U.S. Constitution at that time– even predating the emancipation proclamation.
Even in terms of trade, as a Hawaiian Kingdom we wouldn’t be locked under US trade negotiations, and be able to negotiate directly with other nations.
In terms of currency, if, as many international finance people suggest, there might be a new international currency based on the international reserve assets in the IMF, a depegged dollar will deflate the US economy down to its proper place within the global currency, then at what point will Hawaii benefit?
Of course in terms of finance, nothing is certain, but nothing is certain either way, anyway.
We certainly wouldn’t have to worry about being occupied by another country as we might have done, before 1946.
In what way does the Hawaiian Kingdom scare you? It’s culturally pono, it’s spirit is truly aloha, and there is an imbued concept of malama aina that protects our environment.
Well, although I enjoy the 1840 constitution which declared all people “of one blood”, I must say that the 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii, which disenfranchised Asians, was terrible.
In terms of currency, the official currency of the Kingdom of Hawaii was US dollars.
If we hadn’t gotten annexation, it is most likely that Japan would have invaded. As Britain’s sea power waned, they would have been less of a threat, although Paulet, if you recall, was the only person ever to take over the Kingdom, and he was British.
Any monarchy, which presupposes a hereditary line of succession, scares me. I would expect any moral individual would agree that the ruling class should not be simply based on bloodline. The Hawaiian Kingdom also included some of the biggest rapes of the environment, with the denuding of the sandalwood forests being one in particular. Kalakaua’s spendthrift ways drove the Kingdom into deep debt – a debt, by the way, that was paid for by the United States upon annexation (not a bad deal).
Let’s put it this way – any replacement of the State of Hawaii needs to offer an improvement to the constitution of the United States, and the various sovereignty groups which have proposed and fake-voted for constitutions, or even the original constitutions of the Hawaiian Kingdom, simply don’t offer anything.
Now, if you were to take the US constitution, enshrine the right to gay marriage, eliminate the income tax, eliminate all racially disparate treatment of “Indian tribes”, enshrine the right to abortion, privacy, and the carrying of concealed weapons, put up an explicit wall between church and state, and insist that government stay the hell out of science issues (the global warming swindle and the evil low-fat diet experiment of the past 30 years being prime examples of a failure to remain skeptical as all scientists must), eliminate all laws with any racial classification, eliminate racial classification from the census, legalize drugs and end the ponzi scheme which is Social Security and Medicare, perhaps I could be tempted. But as it stands, the people advocating for a return to the Hawaiian Kingdom seem to focus on the following:
1) radical environmentalism
2) anti-military activism
3) race-based privileges
4) an autocratic government with no accountability to the vast majority of the people of Hawaii.
Culturally, the State of Hawaii is pono -> it was voted for by 94% of the population, and hell, annexation was even considered as far back as 1854 by Kamehameha III. Hawaii is not only a state of the union, it is the most American state of the union.
Aloha, malama aina, and respect for the ancient culture of Hawaii has nothing to do with government. The idea that simply by reinstating a long abandoned monarchy that any of these things would be improved is naive at best.
Let me turn it around though -> what is it about the State of Hawaii that scares you? What is it that you cannot do as a citizen of the United States that your pretend Kingdom would somehow allow?