Jlung of S'fjelejl: NO'fjes on 'Fhle Mjljljl'
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
24 SOCIAL PROCESS IN HAWAII, VOL. 31,1984 JlUNG OF S'fJElEJL: NO'fJES ON 'fHlE MJlJLJl'fAJlUZA'fJlON OF HAWAH Department ofPlanning and Economic Development 1982a Hawaii's Income and Expenditure Accounts: 1958-1980 Honolulu: State of Hawaii Ian Y. Lind 1982b The State of Hawaii Data Book, 1982: A Statistical Abstract Honolulu: State of Hawaii Oahu is to be encircled with a ring of steel, with mortar batteries at Diamond Head, big guns at Waikiki and Pearl Harbor, and a 1983a Unpublished economic figures supplied to the author series of redoubts from Koko Head around the island to Waianae. 1983b The State of Hawaii Data Book, 1983: A Statistical Abstract Honolulu: State of Hawaii General Macomb, U.S. Army I Commander, District of Hawaii ,i 1911 (quoted in Addelman, 1946:9) I Heller, H. Robert & Emily E. Heller 1973 The Economic and Social Impact of Foreign Investment in Hawaii I Every day is national defense day in Hawaii. I Honolulu: Economic Research Center, University ofHawaii Governor Wallace Rider Farrington Kent, Noel 1924 1983 Hawaii: Islands Under the Influence New York: Monthly Review Press Over the last century, Hawaii has experienced a dramatic process of Schmitt, Robert C. militarization. Beginning as a remote island outpost serving as a coaling 1977 Historical Statistics ofHawaii Honolulu: University Press ofHawaii station for naval vessels in transit to the Pacific Coast, Hawaii has been transformed into a modern garrison community serving dozens of mili- I Stanford Research Institute tary installations, including the headquarters of the Commander in 1982 Prqject Survey and Initial Screening For Hawaii High Technology Park Chief, Pacific, the world's largest military command. From a contemporary perspective, the military presence seems Stauffer, Robert H. pervasive. Defense is the state's second largest industry, and the naval 1982 "The State of the State's Economy" unpublished manuscript 1 base at Pearl Harbor remains the state's single largest employer. In I Tax Foundation of Hawaii 1980, there were 120,417 active duty military personnel and their I 1983 Legislative Review 31 (2) May 27 dependents living in the islands, fully 12.5°;(l of the total population. On I the island of Oahu, where most of the military personnel are based, I United States Bureau ofCensus they are nearly 16% of the population (Department of Planning and 1981 Statistical Abstract qj'the United States: 1981 Washington D.C.: U.S. Economic Development, 1983). Government Printing Office The military services also control over 259,000 acres ofland, includ- ing public lands "set aside" by executive order for defense purposes, Villamil, Jose J. (Ed.) lands leased from the state and from private landowners, and lands 1979 Transnational Capitalism and National Development: New Perspectives owned in fee. Although two major land use reviews were conducted by on Dependence New Jersey: Humanities Press the Defense Department during the 1970s (Naval Facilities Engineer- ing Command, 1973, 1979), they resulted in no significant reduction in the total area under military control. The military's total holdings make up 6.3% of the total land area of the islands, a larger percentage than in any other state in the nation. There also appears to be a close and cooperative relationship between the military and the centers of political power in the civilian community. For example, the Army established a "Citizens Advisory Group" in 1956 to strengthen the Army's presence in Hawaii. When a membership roster was published in 1980 (U.S. Army Western #. ac. i4 tti.Ail 26 SOCIAL PROCESS IN HAWAII, VOL. 31,1984 Ring ofSteel: Notes on the Militarization ofHawaii 27 Command, 1980), it read like a "Who's Who" ofisland society, includ- developed, in part, because of common interests between the military ing more than eighty top corporate officers, union officials, the publish- and certain segments ofthe civilian community. ers of both daily newspapers, the Chief of Police, Superintendent of Further, this analysis suggests that despite surface appearances, Education, University president, and many more. militarism is inherently unstable. A review of the militarization of This overwhelming military presence has prompted some analysts Hawaii reveals numerous structural sources of tension between the (Albertini et aI, 1980:i) to describe Hawaii as, "the most densely milita- military and civilian sectors which have persisted over time and which rized state in the nation." Given the prominent role that the military do not appear capable ofultimate resolution. While the military seems has come to play in Hawaii, this characterization would appear to be to have achieved a position of hegemony in island affairs, the reality is accurate. Hawaii would certainly fit the definitions of militarism and quite different. Beneath surface appearances, the process of militariza- militarization developed by contemporary analysts (Eide and Thee, tion is less than complete, more of a show - an ostentatious display, 1980), which stress both the prominent role of military institutions and than a fundamental reality. Civil-military alliances have changed over the weight ofmilitary values and outlooks in society. time, reflecting transitory conflicts, as well as changes in economic rela- A traditional analysis of the militarization of Hawaii would place pri- tions within the islands. The presence of such conflicts suggests, in mary emphasis on the context provided by national and international turn, potential sources of social change which might ultimately lead to events, explaining the dynamics of island history as simply an epiphe- reductions in the power and influence ofthe military. nomenon of global forces. Such an approach has obvious intellectual Unfortunately, despite the fact that the military has had a major merit and should not be ignored. However, such global perspectives impact on the development of Hawaii during the twentieth century, its are also inherently anti-political. Persons living, working, and attempt- effects have remained largely unseen. There is little attention paid to ing to sustain political activity in Hawaii, or in any other specific the military or to civil-military relations in popular accounts ofHawaii's location, will search in vain through discourses on international politics history. While both Fuchs (1961) and Daws (1968) include passing or military strategy for elements capable of informing actual political references to the role of the military, neither rate such matters impor- behavior. By their very terms of analysis, such approaches overempha- tant enough to deserve a chapter, and neither the Army nor the Navy size our role as victims of complex global forces and underestimate our even appear in Daws' index. Recent events, such as the post-1976 potential as political actors (see Lind, 1977; 1981). opposition to continued military training on the island of Kahoolawe, This brief essay examines the militarization of Hawaii from a have begun to develop a literature of their own, both official and different, perhaps more intimate, perspective. Moving closer to the popular, but earlier events, those which account for the roots ofmilitar- actual dynamics of militarism, it concentrates on civil-military relations ism in Hawaii, remain obscure. Accordingly, in the pages which follow, in Hawaii, and begins to suggest the outline ofa political theory - that events occurring prior to World War II are treated in somewhat more is, one capable of sustaining politics in action. The local focus does not detail than those of more recent vintage. Neither treatment manages to imply a willingness to simply dismiss the import of events external to be more than suggestive, however, and a full account of Hawaii's mili- the islands, but rather to dramatically emphasize the view that all such tary history remains to be written. events are necessarily mediated by the reactions and feelings of the people involved. In this view, for example, the obvious fact that Ameri- can strategy in the Pacific led to an expanded military presence in THE ROOTS OF MILiTARISM Hawaii is simply not as important as whether this was welcomed or resented, accepted or resisted; for it is in these reactions that one can The early development of military institutions in Hawaii was prompt- identify the seeds ofpolitical change. ed by the desire to protect and extend American trade in the Pacific. Al- This essay is an initial attempt to demonstrate the value of such an though a certain amount of interest in Hawaii's potential as a military approach, and suggests two major conclusions. First, militarization outpost had been expressed by Navy officers in the mid-nineteenth cannot be adequately understood simply as a matter of military policy. century, the small size and limited capabilities of the American Navy Instead, as Regehr (1980: 132) suggests, "the origins of militarism may prior to the Civil War prevented serious plans from emerging (Albion, lie instead in the civilian population, the economy and the 1980). The active pressure for an increased military presence appears governments." In his view, military institutions may be used - even to have emerged from the civilian sector. Stevens (1945) observes that misused and exploited - by civilians. This would appear to have been U.S. diplomats in Hawaii began to view the islands as a vital outpost for the case in Hawaii, where the military was a factor - sometimes a wild- the defense of trade routes to Asia in the late 1860s. American sugar card - in the struggle for economic and political power. Militariam planters in Hawaii quickly attempted to take advantage of this renewed interest by linking it to the stalled talks over sugar tariffs. The Chamber _ 28 SOCIAL PROCESS fN HAWAII, VOL. 31,1984 Ring o/Stee!: Notes on the Militarization q/Hawaii 29 of Commerce, in an 1873 letter signed by Charles Bishop, formally pro- the building of wharves of length more than 200 or 300 feet be posed that Pearl Harbor be ceded to the United States in partial ex·· restricted to the shores of the three lochs, and that in the chan- nel and narrows no wharf be permitted to extend beyond the change for dropping of tariffs on Hawaiian sugar entering the U.S.