Páginas vistas

jueves, 11 de diciembre de 2008

Le habla al PPD esta semana el americano

Image and video hosting by TinyPic Juan M. García Passalacqua 11 de diciembre de 2008 El pasado lunes 8 de diciembre fue convocado por última vez el 110mo. Congreso de Estados Unidos. Acá, mientras tanto, el Partido Popular se hiende. Ha creado una Secretaría de Asuntos Federales presidida por José Alfredo Hernández Mayoral. Pero un grupo de otros seis líderes dirigido por William Miranda Marín, convocó enseguida un Diálogo Soberanista en Caguas. La Secretaria y el Diálogo, los dos, deben ver lo que ya concluyó el 110mo. Congreso sobre nuestro status. Yo lo hago público en esta columna hoy. Lean lo que les dice El Americano. Los Estados Unidos han ido aprendiendo sobre nuestra condición colonial. Cuando llegue el 2009, su entendimiento será mejor, gracias el unánime “Informe Sobre un Puerto Rican Democracy Act”, emitido por el Comité de Recursos Naturales de la Cámara de Representantes desde el 22 de abril de 2008, que nadie aquí ha leído, y que firma su Presidente —Nick Rahall. El Presidente del Comité para el 111mo. Congreso, plantea que Puerto Rico debe votar antes del 31 de diciembre de 2008 entre dos opciones de status. Una, continuar en su presente condición de status territorial. O dos, procurar un status constitucionalmente viable y permanente no-territorial. Es la mejor política. Si Puerto Rico decide procurar otro status que no sea el territorial que tiene, puede convocar una Asamblea Constitucional de Status, o puede convocar un plebiscito, y presentar sus resultados al Congreso. Ante el colapso del Partido Popular en las elecciones, ahora con su Secretaría y su Diálogo ¿queda vivo un plebiscito? La clave del Informe es dar jurisdicción exclusiva a tribunales estadounidenses, para evitar que se repita la aberración de “ninguna de las anteriores” que ocurrió en 1998 por mandato de nuestro Tribunal Supremo. El Informe señala que hay cuatro formas de status político definidas en la Constitución estadounidense: estados, el Distrito de Columbia, las tribus indias, y los territorios. En el caso de la invasión de Puerto Rico señala que no cabía dentro de esas cuatro, y su Tribunal Supremo se inventó en el caso de Downes v. Bidwell de 1901 la condición de territorio no-incorporado. Sin embargo, toma nota que se desarrolló contra esa condición un sentimiento nacionalista en Puerto Rico. Incluye en ese sentimiento nacionalista las ideas de Luis Muñoz Marín junto a las de Pedro Albizu Campos y el Partido Independentista desde 1946. Concluye que la actual condición territorial “nunca ha sido satisfactoria para los líderes del pueblo de Puerto Rico”. Rahall sabe. El Informe Rahall relata los eventos entre 1950-1952 significando que los mismos “no derogaron la autoridad plenaria del Congreso de los Estados Unidos sobre Puerto Rico”. Y concluye que tampoco hicieron a Puerto Rico una nación en libre asociación con los Estados Unidos. El Informe llama los eventos de 1950-1952 “confusos”, y esa confusión como la causa de que los puertorriqueños no hayan determinado su preferencia de status futuro. Para sustanciar ese hecho, Rahall cita el caso de Harris v. Rosario decidido por su Tribunal Supremo en 1980 que decidió que la Cláusula Territorial de su Constitución sigue siendo aplicable a Puerto Rico. Cita también el caso de Rodríguez v. Partido Popular de 1982 en que el Tribunal Supremo de ellos decidió otra vez que las leyes federales implementan la Constitución de ellos y por tanto son la ley suprema en el territorio de Puerto Rico. Sobre ello, nos llama “distraídos”. Con razón. El Informe dedica páginas a destruir la teoría de un “pacto” entre los dos pueblos, e insiste en que la Cláusula Territorial sigue siendo aplicable a Puerto Rico en todo su vigor. Entra entonces Rahall a narrar la reciente historia del Congreso de los Estados Unidos sobre el status de Puerto Rico. Comienza con las acciones del Comité de Recursos Naturales del Senado a partir de 1989 y del mismo Comité en su Cámara de Representantes que no resultaron en nada. Recuerda que en 1996 el Comité del Senado de ellos aprobó legislación que no fue considerada en la Cámara, y que en 1998 la Cámara de ellos aprobó legislación que no fue considerada en el Senado. Significa que en diciembre de 1998 una mayoría del pueblo de Puerto Rico votó en contra de todas las alternativas ofrecidas por los Estados Unidos y a favor de “ninguna de las anteriores”. Pero cita con aprobación el bi-partita “Informe Sobre Resultados del Plebiscito en Puerto Rico en 1998 del 106to. Congreso”, que tampoco se ha leído aquí por nadie. Ante la inacción de su Congreso y la indecisión del territorio, Rahall significó la iniciativa del Presidente William Jefferson Clinton llamando a una Cumbre de Status a los líderes políticos locales de aquel momento, la creación del Presidential Task Force on the Status of Puerto Rico, y la comparecencia de la Casa Blanca a las audiencias congresionales celebradas en el 2000. Finalmente, cita con aprobación el “Informe del Task Force de Casa Blanca de diciembre de 2005”, recomendando que el Congreso provea a Puerto Rico sólo dos opciones: o continuar como territorio u optar un status no-territorial permanente. Esa es la política ahora. El Informe entra entonces a relatar las propuestas de status recientes ante su Congreso. En el Congreso 105to., el HR 856 que pasó en la Cámara por un voto pero falleció en el Senado. En el Congreso 106to. se presentó el HR 4751 de John Doolite ridiculizando un “pacto bilateral no-territorial de unión permanente con ciudadanía garantizada”. En el Congreso 109no. se presentó el HR 4867 de Luis Fortuño implementando el informe de Casa Blanca y el HR 4963 de John Duncan proponiendo en vez una Asamblea Constitucional de Status. Y finalmente, en este 110mo. Congreso, el HR 900 de José Serrano con la enmienda de un solo plebiscito en que Puerto Rico vote —sí o no— a continuar siendo un territorio no-incorporado. ¿Qué dirá el PPD? La clave del Informe Rahall es que hay “tres opciones de status: independencia, una nación en libre asociación con Estados Unidos unilateralmente terminable, o la estadidad; todas las opciones no-territoriales posibles viables bajo la Constitución y el derecho internacional”. La Secretaría de Asuntos Federales y el Diálogo Soberanista, los dos, deben oír a El Americano.

Los puertorriqueños y EE UU como país multiétnico

Image and video hosting by TinyPic Maurice A. Ferré 09 de diciembre de 2008 Me extrañó la observación de mi amigo Juan Manuel García Passalacqua en su artículo en El Vocero de Puerto Rico del 13 de noviembre, de que yo presagié que el presidente electo Barack Obama ha prometido resolver el status de Puerto Rico antes del 2012 en un Estados Unidos posétnico. En mi artículo del 8 de noviembre, El Vocero cambió una pregunta y la convirtió en exclamación, y así cambió mi sentido completamente. El mismo artículo se publicó correctamente en El Nuevo Herald (Miami), y dice “Al ganar la presidencia de EE UU Obama pasó nuestro país de ser país posracial a uno encaminado a ser un país posétnico. ¿Qué importa un país multicultural en este nuevo esquema global?” Con todo y eso (el error de redacción del Vocero), el amigo Juanma hace su comentario crítico a sabiendas de mi firme convicción por más de 30 años sobre EE UU como futuro país multicultural y multiétnico. Y si no, que lea el resto del artículo mío que recalcó mi parecer claramente. Lo repito hoy a los lectores por su importancia al tema de la posible futura estadidad de Puerto Rico, en la que sigo fervientemente creyendo. Estados Unidos es un país en continua transformación y constante mejoramiento, la perfección de la Unión, como dice Obama. Entre las mejoras está la definición de quien, es de facto, aceptable como americano. En el pasado de EE UU hubieron momentos en los que existían esclavos, luego separación en las escuelas por raza, y negación al voto por falta de educación, por ser mujer o negro. Todo esto se ha superado. No digo que está justificado el trato pasado a los indígenas en sus tierras origínales o en las reservaciones o que fue correcto el territorio mejicano que en varias ocasiones terminó como territorio estadounidense, o el confinamiento de los japoneses en California durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Ni se justifica la tortura de terroristas musulmanes en Guantánamo. Pero ya vemos el rechazo total de tortura como solución en la nueva administración de Obama. ¡Cambio! El tema ahora de la definición de quién y qué es un estadounidense nuevamente viene a la palestra. Concierne la posible estadidad de Puerto Rico. Yo creo que la iniciativa es de Puerto Rico. El consentimiento de los gobernados es esencial y luego el Presidente Obama y el Congreso 111º o el 112º tendrán que elaborar el tema dentro de este marco. Mi amigo García Passalacqua, repite semanalmente que EE UU llegó unilateralmente a Puerto Rico en el 1898 y que saldrá unilateralmente de Puerto Rico. Tampoco cree Juanma en la importancia de la voluntad del pueblo de Puerto Rico, que Washington ha ignorado por 110 años. Nuestra diferencia es que yo creo que el día más importante para Puerto Rico, en esta relación asimétrica con EE UU, fue el 2 de marzo del 1917, cuando Woodrow Wilson firmó el acta congregacional que le dio a los entonces más de un millón de puertorriqueños la ciudadanía americana. Ahora somos 8 millones. Los de acá (Florida) tarde o temprano, en tres o cuatro generaciones nos asimilaremos. Ya la gran mayoría de los de la cuarta generación en Nueva York no hablan español ni tienen patrones culturales puertorriqueños. Serán hispanos o latinos, pero sus nietos simplemente serán norteamericanos de herencia latina. Cada diez años el 10% se casan con personas no puertorriqueñas. Teóricamente en cien años todos se habrán casado con personas de diferentes ascendencias. Los puertorriqueños de Puerto Rico siempre serán puertorriqueños, no importe el pasaporte que tengan o el estatus político de la Isla. Y eso incluye la estadidad federada. De la misma forma que los catalanes tendrán pasaporte español y representación en las Cortes de Madrid, pero hablan catalán en Barcelona, tienen su propia cultura e identidad. Hasta los andaluces que viven en Cataluña, y son más del 30% de esa población, hablan catalán y muchos son independentistas. No creo que mucho de los puertorriqueños de la Isla hayan aceptado esta realidad de la identidad puertorriqueña. De su parte, los del Congreso tienen que aceptar que no es justo que a casi 4 millones de ciudadanos americanos, que viven en un territorio estadounidense de 110 años, no tengan el derecho de seleccionar su status político, especialmente si la gran mayoría, según las encuestas y los recientes resultados electorales, indican ahora que seleccionarían la estadidad en un plebiscito. Lo del anexionismo es relativo. Ya EE UU anexionó el territorio en 1898 y anexiono al pueblo en el 1917. El problema es que esos ciudadanos son de segunda clase pues no tienen representación votante en el Congreso ni seleccionan su presidente. Puerto Rico es pertenecía de pero no parte de EE UU. Si los votantes estadounidenses de Puerto Rico seleccionaran la estadidad en el 2010, ¿cómo en buena fe le negaría el 112º Congreso ese derecho a la estadidad a esos 4 millones de ciudadanos, aunque sea en español? García Passalacqua cree que el Congreso nunca aceptaría un estado hispano. Pero García decía que Estados Unidos nunca aceptaría un negro de presidente. También se equivocó, y lo reconoce, cuando dijo que los 8 millones de puertorriqueños somos “un pueblo”. Mis nietos y los nietos de Juanma, que viven acá, nos hablan en ingles y no saben lo que es una plena o porque la mancha de plátano nos sale. Ya los nuevos gobernantes de Puerto Rico: Luis Fortuño, Pedro Pierluissi y Kenneth McClintock han dicho que las elecciones del 4 de noviembre no fueron un referéndum sobre el estatus. Lo demás es pataleo. Sea como sea, el Congreso de EE UU no va a unilateralmente decidir el futuro de Puerto Rico sin que Puerto Rico hable primero. Lo que el momento requiere es la perseverancia y la insistencia del nuevo gobierno de la Isla de que se resuelva el estatus de Puerto Rico en este cuatrienio. En Barack Obama, Puerto Rico tendrá un amigo que intelectualmente y emocionalmente entiende que EE UU está entrando en una nueva etapa en donde el país se proclamara multicultural y multiétnico sin abandonar la Constitución de EE UU y mucho menos la base estructural de la tradición norteamericana. Es la clara evolución de EE UU a su próximo nivel del Credo Americano y del Sueño Americano. Obama lo entiende. García Passalacqua lo entiende, aunque no lo acepta. Requiere un reajuste del Sueño Puertorriqueño, aunque no del Credo Puertorriqueño. Ese es el cambio que viene.

lunes, 1 de diciembre de 2008

Algun parecido con..... o solo coincidencia?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic Diplomatic, Military and Economic Threats to Hawaii Security Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. Hawaii sits in the middle of the Pacific, where foreign enemies of the U.S. are becoming increasingly active. The Hawaiian sovereignty movement has a strong anti-U.S., anti-military attitude, which has been increasingly active in undermining U.S. military strength in Hawaii. These two trends interact in ways both obvious and ominous. Hawaiian sovereignty activists have always viewed the U.S. as an enemy oppressor who staged an armed invasion in 1893, overthrew the Queen, set up a puppet regime, stole the land, suppressed the language and culture, and now continue a 116-year belligerent military occupation. Those activists point to the apology resolution of 1993 as a confession by the U.S. of its crime against Hawaii under international law. The activists also point to treaties between the Hawaiian Kingdom and foreign nations which, they say, legally remain in force due to the illegal overthrow of the monarchy, illegal annexation to the U.S., and illegal statehood vote of 1959. Some of the activists have been attending meetings at the United Nations and in various Pacific island forums, hoping to (re)establish diplomatic relations or get help from America's enemies in ripping the 50th star off the flag. The U.S. is suffering a major economic downturn. Some sovereignty activists cheer what they see as the imminent collapse of the American empire. They point out that when a far-flung empire collapses, its peripheral territories farthest from the center of power are the first to be cut loose. "Last star on, first star off." The Akaka bill, almost certain to pass Congress in 2009, will send land, money, and political power to all those who believe in the anti-American twisted history in the apology bill, thereby empowering the Hawaiian secessionists (they will profit greatly from the Akaka bill even though many of them actually disapprove of it). I have written before in Hawaii Reporter about many of the things mentioned above. The topic that readers might find most surprising is the growing Pacific island influence of nations hostile to the U.S. In addition, it's worth briefly reviewing recent events showing the success of Hawaiian sovereignty activists in undermining U.S. military presence in Hawaii. Once those topics become clear, readers can easily connect the dots for themselves. Recent initiatives will increase the military's consultation with Hawaiian activists, including unprecedented levels of access to military lands and training programs. Such access is supposedly for environmental protection and cultural activities, but will make it easy to engage in espionage or even sabotage if Hawaiian activists choose such methods to get help for Hawaii's secession by foreign nations hostile to the U.S. whose involvement in the Pacific islands has been increasing. FOREIGN ENEMIES OF THE U.S. ARE ACTIVE IN THE PACIFIC ISLANDS That website is sponsored by the federally-funded East-West Center, headquartered at the University of Hawaii, together with the University of Hawaii Center for Pacific Islands Studies. I have been reading those reports for several years, and have noticed a trend that is worrisome. Major nations who are enemies of the U.S., or whose strategic economic and political interests seem likely to place them in conflict with the U.S., have been increasing their involvement in the affairs of independent Pacific island nations, and in islands which belong to our allies, and even islands which belong to the U.S. To verify my impression I used the website's internal archives search engine and found 288 articles from January 1 through November 16, 2008 reporting news about China's influence in the Pacific. I had read them before, but seeing them all gathered together was quite a shock. Of course we know that for more than 50 years mainland China and Taiwan have been using diplomacy, and sometimes military force, in a struggle to establish legitimacy as the "real" China. In the Pacific that struggle takes the form of red China or Taiwan providing foreign aid to a particular island in exchange for that island's granting exclusive diplomatic recognition to one or the other China along with influence in the islands' internal affairs and foreign policy. Communist China has been giving huge grants and loans for housing, schools, hospitals, roads, indoor sports stadiums, and economic development in dozens of Pacific islands. Papua New Guinea now has red China as its second-largest trading partner. In Tonga, following the anti-monarchy rioting of November 2006, red China has stepped in to provide massive funding for rebuilding. On November 13, 2008, Matangi Tonga reported "The construction of facilities for a modern Nuku'alofa Central Business District is largely funded by a 120 million pa'anga [US$58.8 million] loan from China and other loans to the Tonga government for civic works and the rebuilding of businesses." Fiji is receiving megabucks from red China. On May 17, 2008 Fijilive reported, "Just as Australia and other Western donors are trying to squeeze the rebel Fiji government, China has dramatically stepped up its aid. ... In 2005 China pledged FJ$1 million [US$669,000] in aid to Fiji. In 2007 grant and loan pledges totalled $167 million [US$111.7 million]" Fiji then announced its support for China's policy on Tibet. The Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas is a U.S. territory with many American business interests, similar to Puerto Rico and Guam. On Feb 1 it was reported that Chinese investors were visiting Saipan for the purpose of planning to build a shopping mall. They were also building a hotel and casino on Tinian. On February 27, 2008 the Saipan Tribune reported that tourist arrivals from Russia have grown by leaps and bounds the past couple years, with an 87% spike in the current fiscal year alone. The Republic of the Marshall Islands has a Compact of Free Association with the U.S. under which all RMI military and diplomatic affairs are under U.S. control. However, there have been problems at Kwajalein regarding missile testing, because the U.S. doesn't want to pay the local landowner chiefs more money for leasing their lands, and because the U.S. economic downturn has prompted U.S. states to seek to host the missile testing operations. A report in July said "Indeed, a new RMI leadership aligned with the landowner chiefs and their lawyers recently took office. The new president and foreign minister have publicly repudiated the RMI base-rights agreement already ratified by Congress and the RMI parliament. In addition, they are supporting demands from the chiefs for increased payments, backed by open threats that the strategic facility could be turned over to China if it is the highest bidder." The competition between red China and Taiwan was very strong for many years. But recent hard-fought elections in Taiwan produced a President who is seeking closer, more friendly relations with the mainland. As a result, the influence of red China will increase in the Pacific due to reduced competition from Taiwan. On October 9, 2008 Radio Australia reported that "Taiwan has cancelled a summit with six Pacific island allies [Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu] originally scheduled to be held in its southern city of Kaohsiung next month. The decision appears to be an attempt by the new administration of President Ma Ying-jeou to keep the island's diplomatic activities low-profile and avoid offending China." The Solomon Islands have a particularly worrisome relationship with Cuba and Iran. On November 12, 2008, the Solomon Star reported that a total of 50 Solomons medical students will be going to Cuba for medical school. The government of Cuba will pay all Solomon islanders' college and living expenses in Cuba, while Iran will provide airfare. The Solomons were a client of Taiwan for many years, receiving aid worth hundreds of millions. But lately red China has been knocking on the door. In September 2008 China held $585 Billion of U.S. government bonds. China and Japan together owned nearly 20% of the entire U.S. national debt (foreign and domestic combined). Although foreign holders of U.S. debt generally have lost money because of the previously falling value of the U.S. dollar; it is also true that the recent worldwide credit crisis has caused the dollar to rise in value, even as the economies of other nations, including China, have been plunged into recession. Thus China might consider this a good time to sell its holdings, both because the dollar has recently risen in value and because China needs the money at home. Regardless whether China would gain or lose at any particular time by selling its holdings of U.S. government bonds, China certainly has the leverage of being able to threaten the U.S. that it might do so unless the U.S. changes its foreign policy and its behavior in the Pacific. Nobody should doubt that China would use its ability to create economic chaos in the U.S. as a weapon if war actually begins or is seriously threatened; and Hawaii's isolation in the Pacific would cause us to be hit harder by such economic warfare than anyplace on the continent. HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY ACTIVISTS HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL RECENTLY IN UNDERMINING THE U.S. MILITARY AND GAINING ACCESS TO MILITARY LANDS AND OPERATIONS Several years ago Hawaiian sovereignty activists protested the use of Makua Valley for live-fire training. They claimed that such training caused damage to the environment, was a desecration of a "sacred place," and prevented Hawaiians from having access for cultural and religious observances. The activists were successful in forcing a temporary halt to such training, followed by an agreement to allow limited training under restricted conditions including allowing access for Hawaiian "cultural practitioners" both to practice the culture and to monitor military activities. During the same time period there were protests and lawsuits which temporarily stopped the Navy from testing new sonar technology for detection of enemy submarines on the grounds that it caused damage to some whales. There were also protests against the Stryker brigade, which temporarily halted its being based in Hawaii. Sovereignty activists hope that such harassment against the military might cause the U.S. to slow or stop basing troops, ships, and planes in Hawaii. The anti-military film "Noho Hewa" [illegal occupation], under development for several years, was finally released at the 2008 Hawaii International Film Festival where it won a prize (best "documentary"), got big publicity, and is now spewing its anti-American propaganda at the University and various community colleges, and on the mainland. Sovereignty activists see pushing the military out of Hawaii as the first step toward pushing the U.S. itself out of Hawaii. Just now, in mid-November, Hawaii newspapers reported two different stories that should raise all sorts of worries about security; but instead the stories were given a spin celebrating compromise and good will. On November 18, The Honolulu Advertiser reported "The Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Army have settled OHA's 2006 federal lawsuit claiming the Army failed to protect Native Hawaiian cultural resources when it brought the Stryker brigade to the state. OHA representatives, along with an archaeologist, will be able to survey certain Stryker training areas at Schofield Barracks, Kahuku and Pohakuloa as a result of the agreement ... Col. Matthew T. Margotta, commander of U.S. Army Garrison, Hawai'i, said the Army values the 'spirit of cooperation and communication with OHA.'" Meanwhile, newspapers announced a series of public meetings on several islands to begin implementing a broader permanent program whereby the military will respectfully consult with "Native Hawaiian organizations." The Kona and Hilo daily newspapers said on November 18: "Native Hawaiians are being asked to comment on a U.S. Department of Defense proposal aimed at increasing the military's sensitivity toward cultural practices, sacred sites and natural resources." While the military will be very respectful in its consultations, we can be sure that the "native Hawaiians" being consulted will not be so respectful toward the military. These are the same "usual suspects" who have staged protests at public events, including disrupting the community forums for the Environmental Impact Statements which the activists were successful in demanding. Some environmental and cultural groups will certainly use the consultations for the intended purpose. But anti-military and sovereignty groups will use their access to military sites to identify additional targets for protest, and to gather "intelligence" about military operations. We've all seen movies about the French resistance to the Nazi occupation during World War II. Heroic French patriots infiltrated German military installations to collect information to identify what targets the Allies should bomb, the location and timing of German troop movements, etc. Heroic French women used their sexual attractiveness to seduce German officers and get valuable information through "pillow talk." The way the Hawaiian sovereignty activists see Hawaii today, their homeland is under a prolonged military occupation by the U.S. They feel a partiotic duty to undermine, disrupt, and paralyze the U.S. military, hoping eventually to push the military out of Hawaii. Shouldn't we expect Hawaiian ethnic nationalists to form alliances and spy for nations hostile to the U.S., just as French patriots spied for their American and British allies against their Nazi occupiers? Wouldn't it be logical for Hawaiian ethnic nationalists to collaborate with China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc. to give them information about military operations, anti ballistic missile research; and perhaps even to engage in sabotage; in return for diplomatic and financial support for Hawaiian sovereignty? Hawaiian nationalists have already compared the U.S. invasion and occupation of Hawaii with the Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet. Next time the U.S. makes a protest about China's suppression of Tibetan culture or China's threats toward Taiwan, perhaps China (encouraged by Hawaiian sovereignty activists) will make a protest at the United Nations about U.S. occupation of Hawaii. Hawaiian nationalists historically have used foreign allies to work toward their nationalistic goals both diplomatically and militarily. Activists who celebrate Queen Liliuokalani at every opportunity can look to some examples she set. In January, 1895 the Wilcox attempted counter-revolution against the Republic of Hawaii included the use of weapons resulting in deaths. A reserve cache was found in ex-Queen Liliuokalani's flower bed at her private home. Gavan Daws, "Shoal of Time", pp. 282-283, says "The grounds of her home at Washington Place were searched, and in the garden the searchers found what they were looking for -- a regular ammunition dump; twenty-one bombs, some of them made with coconut shells; more than thirty rifles; thirty-eight cartridge belts and about a thousand rounds of ammunition; and some pistols and swords." Some historians believe the guns and ammunition were smuggled into Hawaii from San Francisco with the assistance of the U.S. Navy with the knowledge of Liliuokalani's friend President Grover Cleveland, who had been working to destabilize the Provisional Government and restore the Queen. Regarding the revolution of 1893: In January 1893 a large group of Japanese plantation workers carrying machetes were stopped in Waialae on their way to Honolulu, and were turned back by the forces of the Provisional Government. There was some testimony under oath in the Morgan Report about a conspiracy between Liliuokalani and the Japanese consul whereby several hundred Japanese plantation workers with prior military experience in Japan's army would help Liliuokalani regain the throne in return for her pledge to give voting rights to Japanese residents of Hawaii (a major concession since Japanese were the largest ethnic group in Hawaii at the time).