Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 4, Number 8, 1 August 1987 — On Reparations [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

On Reparations

By CIarence F.T. Ching Trustee, Oahu

The Hawaiians of old were a land and oeean based people who viewed these resources as sources of both their spiritual and material wealth. The land and oeean were collective resources of the people, with rights, rules and kapu, to be used by everyone, as long as they were

within the framework (structure) set forth by the alii. Presently, as we emerge from a period when all things Hawaiian have been degraded, Hawaiians are reestablishing their spiritual values and relationships with the land and oeean. We are the kahu! Respect for the land and oeean is beginning to be acknowledged and shared. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs is mandated by law, among other things, with the management and administration of these resources for Hawaiians, resources not yet in OHA's hands.

Another specific purpose of OHA, as listed in Section 10-3 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, is that OHA serve "as a receptacle for reparations." What are these reparations and where do they eome from? Remember, as discussed in this eolumn last month, that Queen Liliuokalani was illegally overthrown by a group of American residents who employed U.S. Marines from the USS Boston, an American warship whose loaded guns were trained on the Queen's palaee, in a eoup d'etat. As a consequence for this and other subsequent actions, Hawaiian subjects of the Queen suffered the loss, to the United States, of their independence and sovereignty as a nation; and the loss of their collective title to the Crown and Government Lands.

It didn't help at all that U.S. President Grover Cleveland, during his presidency, stated: ". . . (i)fafeeblebutfriendlystateisindangerof being robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by a misuse of the name and power of the United States, the United States ean not fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort to make all possible reparation . . ." The several attempts to right the wrongs suffered by Hawaiians (wrongs were also suffered by other subjects of the Queen who were not Hawaiian) have not yet resulted in anything significant. However, the United States has never acknowledged that wrong. Such acknowledgement is a necessary first step towards reparation.

Assuming that the United States eventually aeknowledges the fundamental role that its Marines played in dethroning Liliuokalani in 1893, what kind of reparations should we opt for? One would usually expect the same or similar kinds of reparations than that whieh were lost. Therefore, we would expect that we should get back our sovereignty and lands and the ineome that should have been paid for the use of those lands for the years that they were improperly used. The United States ean return part of the sovereignty that was taken by recognizing us as a Hawaiian Nation just like the Indian tribes. To recognize Hawaii as an international sovereign as it was in 1893 is probably too mueh to expect. Such recognition will probably never happen unless something drastic takes plaee in the meantime. The Civil War, you may recall, was fought partly over the very same issue— the right of a state to secede from the union.

Because the United States has not retained all of the lands that were taken, or would choose to keep some of them forever, we ean forget about a full land reparation. And, would the United States choose to pay all of the accrued rents in cash for all of the lands it has illegally used when it is in such a poor financial condition? This Trustee doesn't think so. But, before discussing a possib)e mix of reparations, let's go back and look at the situation at about the time of the first Hawaiian Constitution. In the Laws of 1842, King Kamehameha III, declared that one-third of the fishing grounds beyond the coral reefs and shoals, together with the oeean reaches, was for the eommon people, one-third was for the landlords and one-third was reserved to himself: His Majesty the King hereby takes the fishing grounds from those who possess them, from

Hawaii to Kauai, and gives one portion of them to the eommon people, another portion to the landlords, and a portion he reserves to himself. These are the fishing grounds whieh his Majesty the King takes and gives to the people; the fishing grounds without the coral reef, viz. the Kilohee grounds, the Luhee ground; the Malolo ground, together with the oeean beyond.

but the tishing ground trom the coral reefs to the sea beach are for the landlords, and for the tenants of their several lands, but not for others. Because these rights to fish were not ceded to the federal government or anyone else as were the "land" rights, then we as survivors of the King's subjects must still have them in our possession, to be exercised. However, recently the United States has laid elaim along all of its shores to a "200-Nautical Mile Exclusive Eeonomie Zone." The U.S.'s elaim in and around the entire Hawaiian archipelago would certainly conflict with our 1842 fishing rights. Because of our 1842 rights did not have a limitation on how far out they extended, it is possible that they may extend as far out or even further than the limits of the EEZ.

Regardless of the status of our 1842 fishing rights whieh may possibly be limited only to our personal uses, commercial fishing rights in the EEZ and the ability to license others to fish there are very valuable. Such rights belongirig to former Trust Territory nations have caused more than a little consternation in Washington, D.C. when sales to such nations as Japan and Russia have been considered. It is this Trustee's view that fishing rights in the EEZ must be included in any reparations package that is eventually considered. The United States would extinguish all claims to it by executing a document similar to Quitclaim Deed. A paqkage that includes 1) the remainder of the ceded lands now held in trust by the United States, 2) an amount of cash to replace the lost rental ineome from the lands and compensate us for those lands that the United States will not want to part with (such as Pearl Harbor and Schofield Barracks whieh they have never bought and paid for) and 3) fishing rights to the entire EEZ (whieh we already have strong claims to) would probably be adequate reparation for the 1893 loss of our lands. Recognition of our sovereignty would round things out. Anything less would be unacceptable.