This blog is about Hawaii's status as an independent country under prolonged illegal occupation by the United States, and the history, culture, law & politics of the islands.

By Scott Crawford, Hana, Maui

Archive

Old Archives (Aug03-Oct09)

Blogs.com Top 10
Hawaii Blogs

Chinese to Sec. Clinton: “We could claim Hawaii”

Secretary of State Clinton after her remarks at the Foreign Policy Group’s “Transformational Trends 2013” Forum in Washington, D.C. on Nov. 29, made this statement in response to a question about China, in the context of China’s claim to certain territorial seas:

At one point in one of my long discussions about this, one of my Chinese interlocutors said, “Well, we could claim Hawaii.” I said, “Well, go ahead, and we’ll go to arbitration and prove we own it. That’s what we want you to do.”

Interesting… both that the Chinese are raising the issue of Hawaii’s status with the United States’ top diplomat, even rhetorically; and that the U.S. thinks they can prove they own it. So far, no proof we’ve ever seen…

12 comments to Chinese to Sec. Clinton: “We could claim Hawaii”

  • Very interesting propositions here when you think that (1) the Acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s complaint against the United States of America concerning the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom was filed and accepted by the UN Security Council in 2001 when China held the lead position in the UN Security Council, and (2) Dr. Sai’s article on the status of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent state has been published in the Chinese Journal of International Law.

    Does China want a “fight” with the U.S. over lil ole Hawaii, or is the Clinton-China confrontation an opportunity to lift the U.S. embargo of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s actual status?

    And what are we to say about the fake State of Hawaii’s recent heavy courting of Chinese tourism?

  • Scott, where did you get this story about Clinton’s comment? Please provide a source citation with internet URL or name of the original source. Otherwise, this is just another example of wishful history-twisting, similar to the nonsense about President Cleveland proclaiming a U.S. national day of repentance and mourning for the U.S. role in the revolution of 1893.

  • I just did some searching and found a reliable source confirming that the quote is accurate, but taken out of context. The context is a discussion about a conflict now underway between several nations who all claim ownership to a small group of islands in the Pacific. China is one of those nations. The Chinese representative was explaining to Clinton that the other nations’ claims to ownership of the islands were absurd, so the Chinese representative used the rhetorical device of putting forward an analogous proposition which both the Chinese representative and Clinton would recognize as being absurd; namely, that China might claim ownership of Hawaii. The context makes clear that the Chinese representative has no doubt whatsoever that China does not own Hawaii; and that the Chinese representative is not raising any doubt or making any assertion about U.S. sovereignty in Hawaii. The Chinese representative is saying, basically this: You and I both know that Hawaii belongs to the U.S., and the claims of Viet Nam or the Philippines to own this group of islands is as absurd as it would be for me to make the claim that China owns Hawaii.

    For the full context of Clinton’s remarks, see
    http://still4hill.blogspot.com/2012/11/video-hillary-clinton-at-foreign-policy.html

  • Ken, you know the link to the source is right there in the post, yeah? Pay attention much? The link was there when I first posted the story. So the context is there for anyone to read and make up their own minds, and I noted in my intro that it came up in a conversation about other claims, and was used rhetorically.

    But I do find it amusing that you react so defensively having to justify what you think the Chinese actually meant lol.

    You know diplomats are very careful with their language and they don’t choose to say things like this by accident. And you can be quite sure they are aware of the disputed nature of the U.S. claims to Hawaii.

  • Scott, you say: “And you can be quite sure they [China] are aware of the disputed nature of the U.S. claims to Hawaii.” Apparently you are sure of that. Do you have evidence of that?

  • kekoa

    Aloha Keahi, Hawaii’s Protest and Demand is all peaceful. Check out what recently happened with the U.N. General assembly giving Palestine it’s non-member observer state status. The few that opposed it all was concerned that Palestine could now use U.N. entities to report and prosecute for war crimes. You had one leader saying he would support the vote only if Palestine would consent not to report Israel for war crimes. Now Israel’s leader is isolated with his pity party of saying he’s gonna keep doing this and that. The U.S. and other countries which opposed the vote is telling him to chill out. It took a whole lot of time and politics to get the U.N. to vote and grant that status. Hawaii got the same thing and more without a vote and all the drama. Once the U.N. General Assembly accepted Hawaii’s protest they did so on the premise that Hawaii was already a non-member state under 35(2) of their charter. What I find very interesting is the U.S. is not saying a thing about it and did not reprimand the U.N.Gen.Assembly President. The protest definetly questioned U.S. sovereignty over Hawaii. They don’t want to draw attention to it until they really have to answer the assembly once it gets put on the agenda. It’s called buy time and damage control.

  • Yes, Ken, I’m sure. I will just say that I have heard more than one firsthand report of Hawaiian representatives at international gatherings having communications with Chinese diplomats who had knowledge of the situation here. They are well aware.

  • Win808

    Aloha,

    To me, the statement from Secretary Clintion is nothing more than an inside joke!
    A cat and mouse game where China (the cat) knows the U.S. has nothing over the
    Hawaiian Kingdom by way of a treaty and the mouse (Secretary Clinton) Roars like
    the mighty lion to defend itself only it comes out as a squeek from a mouse!
    I’m sure Secretary Clinton probably had a good laugh about it too! (She was porbably
    thinking, Huh! I get paid to say this sort of crap, on a global stage no less!
    A Double huh, huh!!)
    If she had anything, she wouldn’t have wasted any time defending the U.S. presence in the Hawaiian Islands. The subject would’ve been boring! China had a good laugh ruffling Secretary Clinton’s feathers! And she had a good laugh blurting out nonsense!
    After all it was her husband Bill who signed the Apology Bill 103-150, she must have had an inkling of an idea of what he was apologizing for in that U.S. Public Law. But then again, she didn’t know about Monica. . . Hmmm!

    Now something to think about! We already know about our Kingdom’s history, lets take a look
    at the foundation of the united states of america.

    How would one consider the founding fathers of america?
    Were they Honorable or Treasonous men?
    Is there Honor in Treason?
    “…one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
    This statement can only be true if justice was blind, and liberty to be in the
    mind of the beholder for a nation to be indivisible under God’s closed eyes!

    America’s foundation is built upon treason or as we know it HEWA!
    Their history is HEWA! Ask them, they know their history better than anyone else!
    Every thing America did or continues to do involves HEWA because that is what they are built upon. It was hard for America to look at the pono Hawaiian Kingdom, it made them look
    dirty or HEWA! Like a rotten kid, they attempted to stump out the Hawaiian Kingdom, but
    now the little nation state is coming back and will no doubt bight them in the a$$!

    The IRS is HEWA! The U.S. currency has not been backed by gold since 1933, but backed by the good faith and credit of its citizens, that is HEWA! That is involuntary servitude, HEWA! Was the independence of the U.S. on July 2, 1776 or July 4, 1776? Perhaps the founding fathers survived two days after the declaration was originally signed and decided to celebrate the fact that they were still alive!
    We can go on and on with american history, but it all comes down to honor or treason. A house divided cannot stand. Maybe a nation under God could not be indivisible, but a nation under HEWA can be divided. That is perhaps why we see so many people unhappy with the U.S. government today, HEWA!

    There is some good things about america, but the HEWA out weigh the good!

    How can one really be proud of america when its past is built upon treason!

    You can take that to the BANK! Oh, wait! The U.S. Banks are riddled with HEWA too!!

    It has been said that if you have nothing good to say don’t say anything at all!

    I have spoken and its all good!!!

    A hui hou

  • kekoa

    Hey Ken, China held the presidency of the Security Council in 2001 when they accepted the complaint from the Hawaiian Kingdom. At that level I’m pretty sure they know what’s going on don’t you think.

  • Win808

    I think China knows the difference between the State of Hawaii and the Hawaiian Kingdom!
    From 2001 to date the Chinese knows exactly what’s going on. The U.S. haven’t broke the news to its people yet concerning their crimes! On August 10, 2012 the world was made aware of what happened to the Kanaka and the Hawaiian nationals!

    October 11, 2010:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/world/asia/12beijing.html?pagewanted=all

    “Why do you sell arms to Taiwan? We don’t sell arms to Hawaii,” said Col. Liu Mingfu, a China National Defense University professor and author of “The China Dream,” a nationalistic call to succeed the United States as the world’s leading power.

    Col. Liu Mingfu is just an email or call away, go ask him about Hawaii!

  • Win808

    Indians; Huh!!!

  • Noa Napoleon

    Aloha~
    Who cares what China, The US government, the UN or Conklin think about Hawaii! It matterʻs only what we Kanaka Maoli think about all this history no one else. The fight over Federal recognition has been going on for well over a decade, which indicates that jurisdiction issues were not settled with Statehood. The 1993 Apology reso makes this clear but what does it matter to us if no one recognized our plight? It is impossible to view Kanaka Maoli as the indigenous people of the US even if you think statehood was a legit constitutional process. The Un cannot and will not deal with Justice as we think of the term because it is a political institution devised for other ends. If it were not true we would have vindicated Hawaii a long time ago.

    If we Kanaka Maoli believe we are a nation we should not need validation or mediation from anyone, including the UN. The Declaration of Independence and the 1787 Con Con (IMHO), erased Americaʻs “genuine or moral founding” and replaced it with a legalistic one that now stands in stark contrast to the original charters that governed the colonies. I compare this to the time when Israel rejected the Lord by demanding a “King to rule over them like the other nations.” Samuel predicted how this sort of pier pressure would undermine the nations resources since it was the Lord who they were rejecting as their founder and lawgiver. Our recourse as Kanaka Maoli must be to get back to what our constitution subscribes for national solidarity. The first question we need to ask towards any national reform effort must be to ask “on what foundation of law” are we Kanaka Maoli obligated to affirm for ourselves? In other words whoʻs “morality” do we subscribe to if at all? The Hawaii Kingdom Constitutions tell us whoʻs morality we are obligated to affirm. Our efforts therefore should be towards understanding how to apply this. Fail to do this and we will subvert ourselves without any help from anyone. “This is not a political message.”

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>