Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Tuesday, June 13, 2000Ruling on Hawaiian
homestead claimsA Circuit Court ruling could spur the state to stop stalling on Hawaiian homestead claims rather than face the claimants in court. The state may appeal the ruling by Judge Victoria Marks, but if it is upheld the claimants' position will be substantially strengthened.The issue: A Circuit Court judge has ruled that beneficiaries of the Hawaiian homestead program have a right to sue the state for breach of trust.
Marks ruled that three beneficiaries of the Hawaiian homestead program and a proposed group of 2,721 Hawaiian beneficiaries have a right to sue the state for breach of trust. Because the state abolished a panel that reviewed claims of breaches of the Hawaiian Home Lands Trust, Marks ruled, the plaintiffs were entitled to seek compensation through the courts.
Thomas Grande, an attorney representing the beneficiaries, said it was the first time in 80 years that beneficiaries of the trust will have the right to have their day in court. The decision, he said, shows that the state is not above the law.
A state panel established to determine what compensation was owed to beneficiaries received more than 4,000 claims by an August 1995 deadline. By 1999, the panel had issued advisory opinions on 47 percent of the claims, totaling about $60 million in damages. However, the Legislature acted on only two of those claims, leaving more than 2,700 claimants uncompensated.
The 1999 Legislature passed a bill that would have extended the deadline for the panel to continue reviewing claims and presenting them to the Legislature for action, but the bill was vetoed by Governor Cayetano.
The claimants contend -- reasonably enough -- that the state created a "sham" process designed to prevent them from receiving compensation. What other conclusion could be drawn from the state setting up a panel to consider claims, then refusing to honor the awards?
There are at last report about 19,000 names on the waiting list for homestead or agricultural lots under the homestead program. Only 6,000 beneficiaries have been awarded lots in the 80 years since Congress passed the Hawaiian homelands act.
The failure of the state and before it the territory to implement the homestead program adequately is one of the scandals of Hawaii history.
Although some of the contentions of Hawaiian activists are questionable, there is no doubt that promises made in the homelands act have not been kept. If the state does not wish to answer the beneficiaries in court, it had better get busy on those claims.
Assad’s death leaves
Syria’s future clouded
THE death of Hafez Assad of Syria can in no way compare with the passing of King Hussein of Jordan last year or the assassination of Egypt's President Anwar Sadat. While Hussein and Sadat made peace with Israel, Assad continued to seek the destruction of the Jewish state until last year.
Then, after agreeing to negotiations, he held out for terms -- concerning the Golan Heights -- that even Ehud Barak, an Israeli leader firmly committed to a peaceful settlement, could not meet. After the talks collapsed, Assad humiliated President Clinton three months ago by spurning his attempt to salvage the peace process at a meeting in Geneva.
Assad was an implacable enemy of Israel. When Yasser Arafat abandoned terrorism against Israel to win respectability at the United Nations, Assad expelled Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization from Syria and allowed Damascus to become the headquarters of the Palestinians' "Rejection Front."
Although it was achieved at a fearful price, Assad brought Syria a measure of stability during a 30-year reign, a stability that is now in doubt with him gone. After overthrowing President Salah Jadid in 1970, Assad launched a bloody purge. Thousands more died after he survived an assassination attempt in 1980. And 10,000 were killed in 1982 when he crushed an uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood in the city of Hama.
With the death of such an enemy of Israel, the outlook for peace might be expected to improve. But the succession of Assad's 34-year-old son is clouded with uncertainty. There is no reason to assume that the ruthless hold on power of the father can be easily transferred to the son.
The Western-educated Bashar may personally be inclined to be less hostile to Israel, more flexible in negotiating peace, and more liberal in domestic affairs than his dictator father.
But, lacking a following of his own and with his leadership untested, Bashar will be under pressure from his father's supporters to maintain the elder Assad's harsh policies -- particularly to reject any concessions to Israel. If he fails to do so he may be vulnerable to a coup.
Already there is a potential challenge from his uncle, Rifaat, who was exiled after he tried to overthrow his brother in 1983. Rifaat is reportedly considering returning to Syria from Spain, although he may be arrested if he does.
What all this means for peace in the Middle East will take much sorting out. If there is no reason to mourn Assad's death, there is also no reason to celebrate.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
