Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Pelosi ridicules others for acting on their beliefs

Plastic surgery victim and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi decided to weigh in on Mitt Romney's chances at the White House if he should receive the GOP's presidential nomination. It wasn't pretty and anything they say back, she has coming. I'm at a loss to think of someone in a similar position feeling the need to attack someone in those terms before they've even won a nomination. As usual, she thought she was being entertaining. She was being bitchy. And she deserves what gets thrown back at her.

Seung Min Kim (POLITICO) quotes Nance stating:

"This is a Congress that has done such a disservice to our country. Bless their hearts. They do what they believe, these Republicans. They do what they believe. And they do not believe in a government that has any role in clean air, clean water, food safety, public safety, public health, public education, Medicare, Medicaid."

I'm not a fan of the Republican Congress, nor did I ever expect to be. But it's interesting that when Nancy unleashes the bitchery, this is what she runs to: "They do what they believe, these Republicans."

Implying -- confessing -- that there's no greater crime to her than to "do what" you "believe."

Remember 2006? Democrats controlled which house of Congress? Neither. Nancy said if voters gave them one house, the Democrats would end the Iraq War. The sales pitch was so good, the desire to end the war so strong, that, in the 2006 mid-terms, voters put Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress -- the House and the Senate. January 2007 saw the new Congress sworn in.

And what happened next? Voting to continue the illegal war. Not a year later, not six months later. From March 25, 2007, Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Pelosi Buys The War."


And Pelosi continued to support the war funding throughout the year. As Isaiah noted December 16, 2007 in "A Bully Boy and Pelosi Christmas."


She became Speaker of the House on her promise that she'd end the war.

She didn't.

And she wants to criticize Republican lawmakers for because "they do what they believe"?

In her mind, that's a crime because Nance never dances for the voters, she always dances for the donors.

Polls demonstrated in 2006, that Democrats (voters) favored impeachment of Bully Boy Bush. The Constitution argued for it. But Nance took it off the table.


As Isaiah documented in February 3, 2008's "State of Misunion," instead of standing with her party, she elected to stand with Bully Boy Bush and Dick Cheney and their illegal acts. In the process, she shamed and humiliated a Congressional lion, John Conyers. She really humilitated him. She misled him. He thought he would be able to bring impeachment charges in some form or manner, she changed the agreement after the election (they had their own agreement that went beyond her 2006 mid-term public vow of impeachment being off the table). And since we're weighing in there, let's point the other obvious humiliation Nancy's responsible for: Jim Clyburn? He's got no job. Creating a position for him in order to give the position he deserves to Steny Hoyer didn't fool anyone. It was humiliating to and for Clyburn. Nancy's proven she can stand with Republicans, she's also demonstrated that she has no problem humiliating Democrats -- whether its office holders like Conyers, Clyburn or Cynthia McKinney (she refused to give Cynthia her seniority when Cynthia was re-elected to the House -- even though that's a standard courtesy when members return to the House) or whether it was the Democratic voters.

She thought she'd go to town on Mitt Romney and that it would be real funny and, in letting her guard down, showed just what she felt was the worst crime Republicans in Congress were making: "They do what they believe, these Republicans. They do what they believe." To her that was the ultimate insult.

How very telling to everyone who ever mistakenly put their trust in Nancy, to anyone who believed her remarks against the Iraq War were genuine and not just an effort to attack to Bully Boy Bush. As she demonstrated once she became Speaker in 2007, she was more than okay with continuing the illegal war. And she wants to attack others for having principles?

The following community sites -- plus On The Wilder Side, Cindy Sheehan and -- updated last night and this morning:

Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert. We'll close with his thoughts on Hawaii and the Baltic States.

Prolonged Occupations: Hawaii and the Baltic States

Lead Investigator: Khigeler

Francis Boyle

What I am going to do is go on speaker phone, I have it next to the recorder. There is a consent form, I will send as a PDF form. Here are the basic background questions.



A. Whats your name? Francis Boyle.

B. Where do you live (what city)? Champaign, Illinois

C. When were you born? Chicago, IL

D. Where were you born? 1950.

E. Of what nationality are your parents? US.

F. Where do you work? How long have you worked there? What do you do there? I am a professor of Law at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

G. Where have you attended school? What is the highest academic degree? And what was the area of study, if any. I have a bachelors degree from the University of Chicago, Doctor of Law from Harvard Law School, and a Ph.D. in political Science specializing in international relations from Harvard.

H. Have you ever served in the military? If so, for which country? No.

I. What languages do you speak? My French is kind of rusty and my Latin is rusty. English.

J. Of what ethnicity, if any, do you consider yourself a member? Irish-American.

KV: I have read a few of the things that you have written over the years. One of them, I am trying to get a copy of, from 1994.

FB: The speech I gave at Mabel Smith Hall advising the Kanaka Maoli they had a right to establish their own independent state. You can find on the website on the Nation of Hawaii. That was later published with footnotes at the St. Thomas Law Review.

KV: That was what I was looking for. Thank you. The version with the footnotes. Volume 7, I am writing that down.

FB: The actual text you can find on the Nation of Hawaii.

KV: I just wanted to get the version with the footnotes because it will be so handy. As far as the. those were the introductory questions as far as the background but these are the questions as far as the dissertation goes. In school what were you taught about the United States relationship to Hawaii?

FB: Actually, I had already studied this as part of my dissertation at Harvard and had studied the theft of the Kingdom of Hawaii by the United States. I was familiar in a general sense with what had happened, the US government illegally overthrew the Kingdom and then stole Hawaii. I was familiar before I got involve in the issue itself.

KV: So that was part of your doctorate degree or as part of getting.

FB: Actually, back in high school I had done a detailed study of. I head written a paper on the history of US imperialism from the Spanish American war into, I guess, the 1920s. I studied what was done to Hawaiian. I was familiar with the situation. I did not study it in great detail but I knew enough to figure out it was stolen.

KV: That paper is online, yes?

FB: The high school paper? No. It later became my book, if you read it. Foundations of World Order which was part of doctoral dissertation at Harvard. There is a section on the overthrow of Hawaii. The genesis of that book went back to the high school paper. In the forward, I thank my high school teacher for having me study this imperial era of American Foreign Policy. I thank my high school. I think it was in 1967.

KV: Growing up, what did the media tell you about the relationship between the United States and Hawaii? (for example, newspapers, T.V., magazines, radio, etc.)

FB: What the media still tells you today, that Hawaii is still a part of the United States, that it is the 50th state and all that propaganda.

KV: Growing up, do you have any memories of your family discussing the relationship between the United States and Hawaii?

FB: No, I really dont.

KV: These are the same exact questions I asked in the Baltic States so that is why they are phrased the way they are. Growing up, did you learn about the relationship between the United States and Hawaii from any other sources?

FB: No I had, in the preparation of thethis was an advanced placement history course and the paper was a year long paper. I made a very detailed study of the history of American imperialism starting in the Spanish American War in 1898. The overthrow of the Kingdom was in 1893 but the US used the Spanish American War as a pretext to annex Hawaii in 1898. I was familiar with what had happened. I studied more since that time but certainly not familiar with all the details as I became when I was retained by the Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission 1993 to give an opinion on the right of the Kanaka Maoli to set up their own independent state.

KV: Who was that history professor that got you going on this?

FB: His name is in my book. John Mohan. I think he is now retired in my book because that book sparked my interest in the history of American Imperialism. That paper, I guess, the impetus for that was President Johnsons illegal invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1964. That sparked my interest in studying the history of American imperialism going back to the Spanish American War and in the course of that looked into what had happened to the Kingdom of Hawaii.

KV: Great. You were doing this so long ago. Did you ever visit places outside of US control? And did these visits, did they lend any insight into the relationship between Hawaii and the US?

FB: The first time I was in Hawaii was in 1991 but that was on an antiwar court martial at Kaneohe Bay for a marine corporal who was the first resister to go 401. what really did force me to spend a lot more detail was when in 1991, the American Indian movement set up an international tribunal to prosecute the US government for genocide, for inflicting crimes against indigenous peoples in North America. And they asked me to serve as the prosecutor in light of the 500th anniversary of Columbus.

As a result of that, the American Indian Movement invited the Kanaka Maoli to send a delegation to the tribunal and it was under the chairmanship of my friend, Dr. Kekuni Blaisdell, and so I did argue before the tribunal that the united states government had inflicted genocide upon the Kanaka Maoli and the tribunal agreed with me unanimously on that. That was the start of my personal as opposed to my academic involvement in Hawaii.

In 1993 that was October of 1992 and then a year later the Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission, one of the commissioners, Bumpy Kanahele, contacted me and asked if would be willing to come out and give an opinion on the right of the Kanaka Maoli to establish an independent state. I agreed to do that so the next time I went to Hawaii, specifically to deal with the Native Hawaiian situation. I set aside a week because I asked Mr. Kanahele that I wanted to go out to the different islands and meet his people all around. To see how they lived, to talk with them and evaluate their situation. I really had no direct personal experience prior to that trip. You can see the Nation of Hawaii website or just Google under my name you can see the Affidavit that I submitted on Kanaheles case detailing these events and my first visit to Hawaii and that nature.

KV: Thank you. I have come across some of the things Googling you but I have notI did not scroll down enough to find that one.

FB: It was the Affidavit in the Kanahele case. It is comprehensive as of 1994 or so, the beginning of my involvement but it does not cover my work with Dr. Blaisdell and his people.

KV: thank you.

FB: By the way, you are asking the question on the Baltics, I grew up on the south side of Chicago and was fully aware of the tragic plight of the Lithuanians since so many people living on the South side was Lithuanian. In fact, my aunt was Lithuanian. In 1991, when President Landsbergis declared independence and President Gorbachev had paints (?) on the Parliament, I did volunteer my services to Landsbergis free of charge. I had never been to Lithuania but the south side of Chicago was like a little Lithuania and I had known what had been done to them as well as Latvia and Estonia.

KV: Did you go out there?

FB: No, not at that time. I worked with through their ambassador in the United states, starting though January 1991 through their independence. And then what happened, Landsbergis decided not to run again. Ambassador Stasys Lozaraitis ran, I guess this was in 1992. he lost and the people voted into power the communist. I have not had any contact with the Lithuanian Government since then. I did do a great deal of legal work for them pro bono during that time.

KV: Did you know Bill Hough?

FB: Who?

KV: Bill Huff was another international law scholar that was helping him out.

FB: No, I was working with Lozoraitis and then he conveyed my work directly to Landsbergis.

KV: At one time, did you believe that the Hawaiian islands were part of the US?

FB: Well, certainly, as a kid growing up I believed that it was the 50th state of the union as of 1959. But once I had started to study the situation in high school, I realized that the united states had stolen the Kingdom of Hawaii, destroyed the kingdom, stole its land, inflicted near genocidal conditions on its people.

KV: That was in high school.

FB: It was part of the study I did on US imperialism.

KV: At that time, did you think that the US would remain in Hawaii throughout your lifetime.

FB: I cannot say I really thought of it one way or the other because I was not actively involved in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. I just chalked it up to another example of US imperialism like the invasion of the Dominican Republic or the Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba that I had seen. I did not know how long it would last. Or the theft of Puerto Rico. I also got work down in Puerto Rico with the Puerto Ricans to help them. So how long it lasted, I had not thought about one way or another. But it was clearly stolen.

KV: Sure, sure. When did learn that Hawaii was occupied or do you believe that Hawaii is occupied right now?

FB: Sure its occupied. Since 1893, it has been under the illegal, colonial, belligerent occupation of the United States since then. I did not study the laws of war until I went to Harvard Law School. My teacher, Richard R. Baxter, was an expert on the laws of war so began to study in 1974 and studied the laws of war, belligerent occupation and things of that nature.

KV: Was it then that you realized that Hawaii was occupied or when did you realize this?

FB: I really organized my thoughts on Hawaii when the Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission invited me to come out there and give them this public lecture. I am a lawyer, I work on problems as they come to me. It was only then when I was invited to give the public lecture and to spend morning privately answering the questions of the commissioner that I began to formally turn my area of expertise, international law, laws of war and things of that nature, to the situation in Hawaii.

KV: So, what was your first reaction when you started doing your research and you were ready to come out to Hawaii and you realized that heh, Hawaii is occupied, this is a belligerent occupation, violating the laws of war?

FB: You can read all that in the lecture in the Mabel Smith Hall. There it is, spelling out the consequences for the Native Hawaiians, where they stood?

KV: What was your reaction? Did your views of the world change, or of the US or understanding of yourself, did any of that change?

FB: One reason Mr. Kanahele retained me, or the Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission, is that I had worked with the Palestinians in setting up the Palestinian state. Because of that experience, they wanted my position on the what, if any right, did the Hawaiians have to do the same thing. I had been through this type of situation with the Palestinian, it was nothing new. Nothing surprised me about the US government. I had been studying the American Foreign Policy back to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Having lived through that and threatened with extermination I had concentrated my attention.

The Cuban Missile Crisis, there was already the Bay of Pigs, the Vietnam War, the US invasion of the Dominican Republicnothing surprised me.

KV: As far as you know, did the number of people who understood that Hawaii is occupied increase, remain the same, or decrease?

FB: Well, certainly after my lecture the people in the audience, and the audience was pretty packedthe people in Hawaii began to understand these issues. I presented a formal legal opinion as to their situation. To the best of my knowledge, it was the first time an international lawyer had gone out and done that. As I said, I was retained formally by the Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission which was set up by the State of Hawaii. They paid my expenses and a modest honorarium. And the check was signed by Governor Waihee, a Native Hawaiian himself. I made a Xerox of that check. I thought it was pretty cosmic to be invited by the State of Hawaii to find out why Native Hawaiians had the right to take Hawaii back and set up their own state.

KV: Did some people believe that Hawaii was no different than the other states in the US?

FB: Sure. When I got out there, Mr. Kanaheles and his group, Ohana..his organization. You had the Trask sisters and their organization and Dr. Blaisdell. Already Native Hawaiians did not believe that Hawaii should be part of the United States. But they did not have the legal training that I had to articulate those arguments. Again that is why I was retained by the Native Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission of the State of Hawaii to come out there and give that opinion which was in the lecture. It is online, they have a transcript. If you hit Mr. Kanaheles web site, it is on there.

KV: I went to the web site, I must have missed it. Just so I have this clearly, your contention is that Hawaii Sovereignty is still intact.

FB: Yes, and if you are interested you can try the website Kingdom of Hawaii, Keanu Sai and the papers we filed with the US Supreme Court in 1998 on the 100th anniversary of the illegal annexation asking for the restoration of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The legal arguments are on there.

KV: That is the Writ of Mandamus.

FB: No, he did a Writ of Mandamus that was his. What else can we do here. I changed that a formal complaint submitted under the original jurisdiction clause of the United States Constitution permitting the foreign sovereign here, the Kingdom of Hawaii, to sue the US. I was not involved in his separate issue. But we did do the other one together. You will see the bill of complaint that I drafted with the US Supreme Court that I filed with the US Supreme Court. The arguments in favor of the continuing existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

KV: That is great, thanks. Those people who think that Hawaii is the 50th state, did you have conversations with those types of folks?

FB: Yes, every time I am out in Hawaii. It is the same type of people in the former Soviet Union who believe that Lithuania was part of the Soviet Union. Lithuanians never saw it that way. In the work I did for President Landsbergis, I went back and read all the treaties with the Republic of Lithuania with the Soviet Union. If you read these treaties, it is clear that Lithuania never signed any treaty giving up its independent existence as a state and was always careful to preserve its existence as the Republic of Lithuania even under the most brutal occupation possibly imagined under Stalin and Molotov. The Soviet Union shipped 200,000 Lithuanians off to Siberia and never to emerge again. Outright genocide.

They are roughly analogous. So sure, the Soviet Union insisted for years that Lithuania was part of the Soviet Union. No-one accepted that. Everyone knew Lithuania was independent starting with 1919 and was illegally annexed, conquered by Stalin in 1939. The haoles out in Hawaii was like the Stalinists. I was over in the Soviet Union in 1989 and arguing Lithuania as well. I got some Soviet lawyers to agree with me, finally, when Gorbachev admitted that there was a secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact carving up Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Poland between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. I argue that point in the Soviet union in 1989 when I was invited over there once.

KV: You cant see me right now but there is a big smile on my face because you are the first person who has, in doing these interviews, participated in both in the capacity of international law and you understand the context and that is refreshing.

The next question here: what political groups have been actively trying to end the occupation?

FB: You have Kanaheles group, you the Nation of Hawaii, Kekuni Blaisdell, Mililani Trask. Those are the groups that I worked with primarily over the years, and there are differences of opinion. There are other groups as well. I have been back to Hawaii twice, since then, and travelled around and met many of the organizations, groups, individuals, and kupunas. They are all over Hawaii. You have to go out there and find them and talk to them. The ones that I worked with closed with are Kanahele, the Trask sisters and Kekuni.

KV: And you mentioned the argument with the Supreme Court with Keanu Sai and those folks.

FB: Yes, I worked with Keanu Sai and he is going back to school, I guess. I worked with him as well. He still gets involved but is not as actively involved as he used to be. He still speaks out.

KV: He is finishing up his dissertation.

FB: He started to get a Ph.D, and has somewhat retreated from activist work. But before he decided to get his degree, he was in the vanguard. I have great respect for him as well.

KV: Do you believe these groups; any of these groups have been effective?

FB: Sure they have been effective. They have all been effective. They have turned around the debate in Hawaii. You talk with any Hawaiian and they say they are entitled to sovereignty and they are all entitled to their land back. For fifteen years I have been involved with this movement myself. You have to understand that this tragedy was inflicted by the US in 1893, 115 years ago, and it is not going to be solved tomorrow. Look at Lithuania. In 1939 the Molotov pact and the illegal invasion and annexation of Lithuania and it was not until 1991 that Landsbergis proclaimed independence and in 1992 the Soviet Union collapsed and Lithuania was free. We are talking about 50 plus years for Lithuania. It is a long process.

If you look at it historically, it took that many years from 1939 -1992 for Lithuania. It took 1893 until I do not know when for Hawaii. Eventually it will happen. For the same reason. The point is this, under international law, in the absence of sovereignty, it is a people living on their own land and asserting their own rights and that is what the native Hawaiians are doing as we speak. This is what happened in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and it happened in Palestine and I believe it will happen in Hawaii.

KV: As far as you can remember, did pressure from other countries cause changes within Hawaii?

FB: Before the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, there were large numbers of other countries that had diplomatic relations with Hawaii, nations with the Kingdom of Hawaii. I know Sai and several people are trying to reestablish diplomatic relations or at least relations with some of those things. I am not personally involved with that. I have contacted a few of them one way or another. It is obviously political because they do not want to irritate the US.

KV: Sure, sure. A very good point. I have talked with a few folks who have mentioned work that has been done outside of Hawaii. It is difficult. Was there a moment when you understood that the US occupation of Hawaii will end, that the US government and military will leave?

FB: Just based on my experience with Lithuania, I think it is mostly analogous. I know after Gorbachev sent the tanks to storm the parliament, it was a desperate situation. We were not sure what was going to happen. And working on the worst case possible scenarios that you can think of. Out of nowhere, the Soviet Union collapsed and Lithuania was free. I told this story repeatedly in Hawaii, if Lithuania can resume its independence, Hawaii can too. It is the way historical forces are working. We will have to see what happens.

I cant predict the future but I have worked with the Palestinians on the creation of their state. Today they are recognized, the state of Palestine, 127 other states, they have a de-facto relations from most of Europe. They have all the rights of UN member states except the right to vote. The only thing keeping Palestine out of the UN is the threat of the US veto to get in. they were actually, Palestine as a state, was invited to attend, by the International Court of Justice, in their proceedings on the advisory committee to serving Israel Apartheid war. They proclaimed their state, in November 15, 1998. I was the legal advisor, and did all the legal work on that project. All the same processes are at work here.

KV: So there has not been a moment where you realized that the US has definitely going to leave but you are saying it is analogous to what took place in the Baltic States and what took place in Palestine. But there wasnt

FB: Just last week President Omer said that we are going to have to leave the West Bank in Jerusalem. It is inevitable and everyone knows that. It will take time because the overthrow was 1893 and it is now 2008 and I cant say how long it will take. The Native Hawaiians are not going anywhere and they are not giving up.

KV: Very good. As far as you know, what factors changed so that the US government could no longer control Hawaii?

FB: it is the non consent and the non position of the native Hawaiians themselves. That will make it clear. It is really for them to do it for themselves. I am only an advisor and gave them representation. They have to do these themselves and there are leaders there. We have gone through them, and I dont mean to exclude others that I met and have a lot of respect for. I am not in charge of the timetable, they are. It will be up to them to decide and to let the US know that it is time for them to go home. One thing I have pointed out and if you read my Mabel Smith lecture is that they really needed to study Gandhi in India and his technique, true force, which I argued in 1993, was similar to Aloha in Hawaii. Applying aloha, I felt the native Hawaiians I felt the Hawaiians could throw the US out of Hawaii, similar to how Gandhi threw the British Empire out of the Indian subcontinent.

Again, they have to decide this for themselves. I give advice and what they do is up to them.

KV: That is so interesting because my masters were in religious studies, studying Gandhi. So to make sure I have this clear as to what factors would have to change once Hawaiians decide should leave, that is the primary force, or is it education or anything else.

FB: It is all these factors together. Are you in Hawaii now?

KV: Yes.

FB: You have to take a tour of Mr. Kaneheles village in Waimanalo and see what he and his people are doing in terms of building their state from the ground up. That is what they are doing. They are educating their people, reviving language and culture. And they are making their state that is all parts and parcel of the same phenomena.

KV: This question is unique because you can answer it in two ways. You helped out in the Baltic States as well. As the occupation ended, did you participate in the reestablishment of the independent Baltic or Hawaii government?

FB: As I said I did large numbers of position papers for the Republic of Lithuania on these types of issues. From shortly after Landsbergis proclaimed independence until the collapse of the Soviet Union. I have a file here the attorney-client thing. I have many files dealing with the many problems that would confront them. As I said, the people voted the former communists back in power afterwards, I never heard back from the Republic of Lithuania. I have had no further contact since then.

KV: Like I said, I met with Landsbergis and he is working with the EU now. But he is busy, very busy. He does not seem to have slowed down at all.

FB: Is he in the European Parliament now?

KV: Yes, he is Lithuania representative, or if he is at-large. But he is working with the European parliament now.

FB: I worked closely with the Lithuanian Ambassador to the US and he had Landsbergis ear since then he has died but have not had contact since then.

KV: I have a few more questions here. You are so unique because you helped out with both.

Did the ending of the occupation affect issues relating to language, culture or ethnicity? You can answer that whether...

FB: Yes, those are serious issues. I did do a memorandum for the Republic of Lithuania. Clearly, they did a better job in protecting the basic human rights of the ethnic Russian population and the Lithuanians as opposed to the Latvians or Estonians. Of course they are the population; Russians populations were higher because of the genocide and the colonialism. But it is a serious problem. You have to respect the basic human rights of the ethnic Russian population of Lithuania and they have tried. There have been diplomatic communications back and forth but I do not think there have been Lithuania and Russia today. Second you do not want to irritate Russia to give them a pretext. I did do work on these matters.

If you look at the Nation of Hawaii website, Mr Kanahele did ask me to do a draft of the constitution for Hawaii. And trying to figure out the deal with the white people who might remain in a restored Kingdom. You might want to look at that. I have had to deal with these kinds of issues of the Palestinians; I was the advisor for the Palestinians to the Middle East negotiations from 1991-1993 and had to deal with those types of issues including Jewish settlers remaining in the Palestinian state. I have dealt with these issues and elsewhere.

KV: Coming back from the Baltic States, especially Latvia, there are five dissertations there are five dissertations just dealing the fact of citizenship. It is so complex.

FB: It is a difficult issue but my issue Lithuania has been more progressive and it has not been such a big issue like in Latvia and Estonia.

KV: Estonia has its troubles too.

FB: Lithuania has not to the same extent.

KV: When I went over there they said for us not to do what they did. For instance, in Latvia, they said do not do what we did for citizenship. And this goes into the next question. As far as you remember, how did the ending of the occupation affect real estate?

FB: I have not worked on that issue in Lithuania. I did not a memorandum for them on suing Russia and the Soviet Union at the world court on their compensation claims for the occupation. Lithuania has not done it. I have dealt with that issue with Mr. Kanahele. It is a draft constitution, how we decided to handle that. You can look at it there. I do not know what to say. Once the former communists were elected into power, I was dropped like a hot potato. I was not getting paid for Landsbergis so it did not bother me.

KV: As far as you remember, how did the ending of the occupation affect the economy?

FB: In Lithuania?

KV: Yes.

FB: I think they are doing okay today, arent they?

KV: Yes, I was surprised when I went over there that when you go and do the calculations and the exchange rate and looked at bananas and when you work out all the differences, they cost about 89 cents a pound over there, which is what it would cost over. I mean if you do the conversion I was surprised.

FB: (muffled basically did not have any contact after the communist election in 1992)

KV: Was there a moment that led you to believe that Hawaii or the Baltic States was free again?

FB: It was clear with the collapse of the Soviet Union; it was a miracle from heaven. Here we were fighting to keep Lithuania alive and all of a sudden the Soviet Union collapsed. They were free, it was clear.

KV: How did you feel?

FB: It was great, wonderful. It was remarkable to see I actually have a little photograph here in my office. We had a rally here on nations day for Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania in 1991. I was speaking at the rally there, with the flags. It was a wonderful experience, I was aware of what happened at a young age, had studied their history. Having growing up on the south side of Chicago fully aware.

KV: In Hawaii, have you experienced anything like that?

FB: after coming, after my Mabel Smith lecture, if you see the affidavit I submitted for Mr. Kanahele, you can see that he and his people, the Ohana Council, proclaimed independence. And they are moving in that direction. Keanu Sai is moving that direction. Dr. Blaisdell is moving in that direction. The Trask sisters, they have another approach, but still are moving to establish sovereignty as they see it. I am encouraged but I cant predict the future. You can see the Baltics, the Palestinians. They re moving in the same direction. When I first started working with the Palestinians, no-one believed they were going to have their state. But now everyone believes they will have their state, eventually.

KV: Are there any questions that you would like to ask me? Or is there something that you would like to tell me that was not covered in this interview?

FB: No, not really. I would be interested in reading your dissertation when it is done.

KV: Thank you. The information you provided and the fact that you worked in the Baltic States and in Hawaii is just great. It is a real person who has worked in both issues dealing with international law.

FB: And this dissertation is going to be submitted where?

KV: It is at the University of Hawaiian and I should be done at the end of this year. I finished two chapters and have three more to right. The first chapter is going to be last. I am just compiling the interviews I did in the Baltic States and the interviews I did here and checkinggoing back with what you are saying. I am going back to check the circumstances to see how they lined up. Other people have brought up the similarities with the Baltic States before.

FB: Hawaiian independence, this is not a case of cessation. The Soviet Union never had title to Lithuania in the first place. It is not like the American south like in the civil war. Hawaii is not seceding from the United States. The United States has to pick up and go home as did the SU picked up and left Lithuania.

KV: I am interviewing all kinds of folks; I have interviewed Jon van dyke, and William Burgess. Even through I am making this comparison, there are some differences. Back then there were two super powers, now there is just one.

FB: It looks like the United States might be collapsing as well.

KV: And the USSR is not the same as the US. Even though I am making this comparison, I am trying to hold back any judgments that way until I am able to take all this information in and understand fully. So far these interviews have gone great and in the Baltic States. What I have seen so far, there is a great deal of information they shared that might be applicable to Hawaii.

FB: That is for sure. Who is your dissertation chair?

KV: Dr. Chadwick.

FB: I am not familiar with him.

KV: It is an odd thing going on in Hawaii. You actually have some Hawaiians that are not favorable to looking at Hawaii in terms of international law.

FB: What can you do? Most of them do. I have been all over the islands and have watched repeatedly, the kupuna, on all the islands. Most pretty much agree with the analysis that I bring to bear.

KV: They view Hawaii as being colonized, these topics of international law, and some Hawaiian academics they feel this discussion of international law goes contrary to Hawaiian values.

FB: I do not know why. The Kingdom of Hawaii and participated in the system of international law as it existed from the creation of the Kingdom to the overthrow. They had diplomatic relations all over the world, and treaties. I do not see how this was inconsistent with what they were doing before 1893.

KV: Absolutely. But as I said, these interviews are going well. I should be finishing up the dissertation at the end of the year. I am looking forward to the end, to see how everything lines up.

FB: Well send me a copy and I will read it. I would be very interested to see what you had to say.

KV: Thank you so much. And so, I will go double-check the nation of Hawaii to get your talk and will follow up with the footnotes.

FB: One other point, the Supreme Court in Hawaii just rendered a decision on the Native Hawaiian Apology Resolution and they agreed, and it came down this year, with what I had to say in 1993.

KV: I will take a look at that.

FB: Of course, the State of Hawaii has now appealed hoping that the US. Supreme Court will overturn the Hawaii State Supreme Court. Well okay. But the significant point is that they pretty much agreed with what I was saying in 1993 about the meaning and significance of the resolution.

KV: I will go and do that. That is what I am doing, is going back to the interviews and as people mentioned particular articles or particular events, I do the research and follow up so I can make sure I understand the context here.

FB: Okay. I do think you would want to talk to Kanahele, The Trask Sisters, Kekuni and Mr. Kanehele.

KV: I have called Mililani and I have sent the questions to Mr. Kekuni Blaisdell and am supposed to follow up with him today or tomorrow. I talked with Poka Laenui already. It is all going great. If there is anything you can think of or any articleyou have my email address.

FB: And tell me when it is done, I would like to read it.

KV: Thank you so much.

The e-mail address for this site is