February 10, 2015

Oh My

China is expressing an interest in supporting the Hawaiian independence movement. Given that Oahu and Midway are arguably the most strategic points in the Pacific, I bet they are. Of course, there is also this...

 Michael Pillsbury, a Pentagon consultant and author of the recent book 100 Year Marathon, said Chinese military hawks, known as "ying pai,” told him they are ready to provide arms to Hawaiian independence activists in retaliation for U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

Regards the particular little bit of cheer in that quote, I'm a little skeptical of this sentiment being a real thing, at least with regard to the politburo members who would have to approve such a risky move. However, given the outright seizure of Philippine atolls, and moving the border with India unilaterally, it bears scrutiny. In any event, it certainly continues China's policy of trolling us. Far less asinine brinkmanship can easily lead to epic miscalculations

Posted by: The Brickmuppet at 08:49 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I suspect that the local independence movement (which doesn't have, as near as I can tell, the least bit of violent tendency... at least so long as haoles don't try to surf from their bit of beach!) has too much experience with the Chinese to be enticed by such an offer.

Seriously, these guys are about on the same level as the guy who says that the gold fringe on the flag in the courtroom means it isn't a legitimate court and thus he isn't obliged to pay his income tax. ;p

I don't mind admitting that the kingdom of Hawaii got a bit of a raw deal, but at the same time... in Texas, Santa Ana was legitimately elected and we didn't just secede, we actually -shot him- in the bargain. And looted his peg leg. So I don't have a whole ton of time for people complaining about the legitimacy of a monarchy...

Posted by: Avatar_exADV at Wed Feb 11 03:48:02 2015 (ZeBdf)

2 The question of the legality of secession was settled definitively in 1865.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Wed Feb 11 14:26:14 2015 (+rSRq)

3 I don't really understand claims about the "legality" of secession. I've seen it stated several times, usually without qualification. It seems like a content-less statement to me: You could as easily say that 'revolution is illegal', or 'war is illegal'. It would take a very unusual government to be okay with secession (since the de-facto constitution of most governments is that a political class owns tax-slaves and territory by force of arms - they're not going to let their livestock just leave.)

I'm not apologizing for the South in the US Civil War. I'm also not signalling approval of this particularly harebrained secession movement. On the other hand, I could easily envision circumstances where some sort of secession/and the resulting civil war would be preferable to the alternatives, and just as "illegal". (Say, some sort of genocidal communist state is ruling the country with an iron fist from some geographically well defined portion of our territory, etc.)

Posted by: eccentricorbit at Wed Feb 11 16:43:07 2015 (GtPd7)

4 I suppose you could say that if you lived under a government that allowed free secession of member territory, you wouldn't have much to worry about from them. They would possibly be the only government in the history of mankind that took the derivation of their power from the consent of their citizens seriously!

On the other end of the continuum, you have the Berlin Wall!

Posted by: eccentricorbit at Wed Feb 11 16:48:16 2015 (GtPd7)

5 The basic point of the Hawaiian independence movement isn't that they want to secede - it's that the accession was invalid in the first place, because the government that agreed to it wasn't the legitimate government of Hawaii. You could argue that the whole thing was a coup engineered by the US... except that when it happened the US didn't particularly want to take Hawaii and didn't change their mind until three years later, at which point the coup government was still in power. So yeah... not likely that it went Exactly As Planned, no?

That also runs straight into Texas as an example, and the US in general for that matter - but when someone who is pushing for Hawaiian independence says "the legitimate government was overthrown!" and you respond with "I have no problem with that," you can -hear- the little pop as their mind blows...

Posted by: Avatar_exADV at Wed Feb 11 19:05:59 2015 (zJsIy)

6 Hawaiian succession would be an insult to The One!  He once spoke of "57 states" in the US, and succession would be a step away from His ordained path...

Posted by: Siergen at Wed Feb 11 19:52:17 2015 (/CwtH)


EccentricOrbit: the EU treaty contains language which seems to permit individual nations to change their minds and to leave the union. The process as described is rather arcane, but it's there.

And that isn't a dead letter, either. There's a good chance at this point that the UK is going to use it and leave. Greece is another which may decide to dump it.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Wed Feb 11 20:41:59 2015 (+rSRq)

8 Hawaiian succession is inevitable. As the new island to the southeast of the Big Island rises the others are eroding away until they become atolls like Midway or ultimately guyots. This has been going on for millions of years. 
Secession however, is not so clear cut. being a product of politics as opposed to geology. 

Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Wed Feb 11 20:50:48 2015 (ohzj1)

9 Technically, the EU is still more of an economic league of nations than a country. It might get there eventually, but nobody would have signed on without a way of backing out.

The original states in the US were pretty clear on "we can't break apart or the rest of the world will come and take us over." One of the unacknowledged causes of the Civil War was that Americans were no longer quite as sure that Europe could come take them over. (Seeing as, in the 1850's, it sure seemed like individual states had to be able to do better than those European clowns.)

Hawaii, OTOH, would seem to be pretty clear on the fact that they kinda need something comparable to the US Navy to avoid getting picked off by the Russians or the Chinese.

Posted by: Suburbanbanshee at Thu Feb 12 10:23:12 2015 (ZJVQ5)

10 The delusion that Hawaii could gain independence but retain some kind of security relationship with the US is usually in operation there. (Some even envision charging the US rent for the bases! It's almost cute.)

The sad thing is that the native Hawaiian community (which is a lot smaller than you'd think - maybe 10% of the population, though with a good amount of "mixed" also in there) is actually missing out on stuff because of this stupidity. Currently they're not recognized as an indigenous tribe at all. The federal government has noted that they'd be happy to sign them up so that Hawaiians would be available for the same kind of benefits that native indigenous folks can get, but the community's split between "let's go for it and get some recognition" and "no, because that would be admitting that the US's rule of Hawaii is legitimate" (i.e. can't be independent if you're a dependent...)

There are enough part-Hawaiians here that if the independence movement had any traction among them, it would be something serious instead of a joke. But enthusiasm among them is essentially zero, partly because they're also members of a larger culture, partly because the US is pretty darned good, and partly because there's a lot of suspicion that if the native Hawaiians were in charge, they'd define "native Hawaiian" pretty darned narrowly. There's some flat-out racism involved too, of course...

Posted by: Avatar_exADV at Thu Feb 12 17:41:03 2015 (zJsIy)

11 Haole Mackerel, I had no idea Hawaiian politics were that messed up Av.

Posted by: Mauser at Thu Feb 12 23:03:40 2015 (TJ7ih)

12 Well, don't get me wrong. Texas has its own crazy militia types, but if you talk about them it's not really "Texan government". Hawaii's actual government is full of Democrats, but kind of on the conservative side for that; they're not so much San Francisco as "virtually all of our grandparents were screwed by plantation owners", so it's kinda understandable. Also funny sitting around and watching them say "we shouldn't build anything new, damned greedy developers" and then wondering why the rent is so high and everyone's poor. Heh.

Posted by: Avatar_exADV at Fri Feb 13 04:47:18 2015 (ZeBdf)

13 Also, the Kill Haole Day.

As far Steven's theory the seccession is somehow magically shut because some bunch of random people killed a whole bunch of other people in the 19th Century is really precious. It's not like Soviet Constitution contained a way for Kazakhstan to seccede, but one day it just did. The trick here is to catch a moment when Washington D.C. is powerless to do anything about it, then declare seccession and occupy all of federal property in Texas. Voila. What are they going to do, nuke Dallas?

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at Fri Feb 13 22:50:42 2015 (RqRa5)


Pete, the state of Arkansas tried something a bit like that in 1957, and Eisenhower sent in the 101st division. No, they wouldn't nuke Dallas, but there are a lot of things less extreme than that which could be done.

The trick here is to catch a moment when Washington D.C. is powerless to do anything about it,...

You're going to be waiting a good long time, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Sat Feb 14 01:51:49 2015 (+rSRq)

15 I've been informed that Kill Haole Day is grossly exaggerated. Certainly nobody's ever tried to kill me except through lousy driving, which is not unique to Hawaii though it certainly is widespread. (Generally if I'm driving I'm in no hurry, so I let people in, and I get a lot of "shaka" (think a Hawaiian thumbs-up) thrown my way in return...)

There's no mechanism for secession in the constitution. So you'd have to amend the constitution (possible though pretty darned unlikely; everyone would need to be happy to see you go), or manage it through force alone... or attack the legitimacy of the government's control of your territory, which is something that was easier to do to the Soviet Union than it is to the US (even in Hawaii...)

Texas secede? Hell, we like the place. Suits us just fine. Same taste in flags even. Maybe if we could trim the sideburns a little we'd like it even more...

Posted by: Avatar_exADV at Sat Feb 14 05:50:09 2015 (zJsIy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What colour is a green orange?

38kb generated in CPU 0.03, elapsed 0.0294 seconds.
68 queries taking 0.0131 seconds, 280 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.