BY DR. KEANU SAI PHD – This letter is in response to Dr. Ken Conklin’s article printed in the Hawaii Reporter online on September 1, 2011, as well as the July 17, 2011 article by Andrew Walden in another publication. I have always refrained from responding to these types of articles, but I have since changed my mind in order to qualify and clarify a lot of misinformation being presented. As for Walden’s article, I think Br. Christopher Fishkin did a fine job in his response, which can be read at the bottom of the article. But as for Dr. Conklin this response is all him, since he’s been writing diatribes concerning my research and myself. He also tries to portray himself as an expert, which he definitely is not. In other words, he never warranted a response from me until now because there are some people who actually think Dr. Conklin has valid points. He doesn’t.
First, here’s a little background of myself. After I graduated from Kamehameha Schools in 1982, I attended New Mexico Military Institute, a military college, where I graduated in 1984 with a A.A. degree in pre-business and a commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve’s early commissioning program. I then attended the University of Hawai`i at Manoa and graduated in 1987 with a B.A. in Sociology. While attending the university, I joined the 1/487 Field Artillery Battalion in 1984 to begin fulfilling my six-year obligation as a commissioned officer. I completed my obligation after serving ten years and retired as a Captain in 1994, where I served on both active and reserve status. My commands included Fire Direction Officer, Company Fire Support Officer, Battalion Fire Support Officer, and lastly as Battery Commander.
When I was promoted to Captain in 1990, I began to do research in the Hawai`i archives on my family’s genealogy, and through this research I began to realize, through the actual records, a history of Hawai`i that I was not aware of or taught at either Kamehameha Schools or at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa. From a military perspective it was intelligence or “intel,” as we would call it, which is historical information I never knew. This resulted in delving deeper into the records and processing this information as if I was the Intel Officer for a battalion. In the military, a battle plan is never developed before the intel is processed. It is through this assessment of intel that battle plans arise. As officers, we were trained to view history as if it’s a film of the past, run through the projector of today, on to the screen of tomorrow. The “film” is the intel, the processing of information is the “projector,” and the battle plan presents itself onto the of “screen of tomorrow.”
It became crystal clear that the Hawaiian Kingdom, being a recognized independent and sovereign state since 1843, continued to exist despite the overthrow of its government in 1893. This was a similar case in 1990 when the U.S. military overthrew the Iraqi government. By overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s government, the overthrow did not equate to an overthrow of Iraq as a sovereign state. Governments and Sovereign States are separate and distinct. Governments exercise the sovereignty of the State, it does not constitute the State itself. In the Army, Field Manual 27-10 regulates occupations of foreign states, which succeeded the 1863 Lieber Code. Section 353 of FM 27-10 provides:
“Belligerent occupation in a foreign war, being based upon the possession of enemy territory, necessarily implies that the sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the occupying power. Occupation is essentially provisional.
On the other hand, subjugation or conquest implies a transfer of sovereignty, which generally takes the form of annexation and is normally effected by a treaty of peace. When sovereignty passes, belligerent occupation, as such, of course ceases, although the territory may and usually does, for a period at least, continue to be governed through military agencies.”
There were two occupations of the Hawaiian Islands by the U.S. military, the first between January 16, 1893 and April 1, 1893, and the second from August 12, 1898 to the present. President Cleveland determined the first landing and occupation as “an act of war” and the second occupation was during the Spanish-American war. There is no treaty transferring Hawai`i’s sovereignty to the United States, only congressional legislation (1898 joint resolution of annexation), which has no effect beyond U.S. territory. In other words, the U.S. Congress could no more pass a joint resolution annexing Canada today, than it could annex Hawai`i by joint resolution in 1898.
What has happened over the past 113 years is clear propaganda coupled with a revisionist history. In 1994, I decided to retire from the Army as a Captain and with this irrefutable evidence; I wanted to test the theory that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. My driving force was that a great wrong was done to my country and it had to be addressed and remedied. To do this would entail being respectful, responsible and accountable, but in doing this I knew full well that I would also be dealing with people who were disrespectful and irresponsible.
From the intel or historical information gathered came the plan to be executed, and this plan was to expose the prolonged occupation of my country by concentrating on real estate. What we were going to expose was that land titles could not be transferred since January 17, 1893, because in order to convey property in the Hawaiian Kingdom a person granting title was required to go before a notary public of the kingdom and thereafter record the deed in the Bureau of Conveyances. As a result of the illegal overthrow of the government, this act prevented land titles from being transferred because there were no lawful notaries and a lawful registrar for the Bureau of Conveyances after January 17, 1893. There was no lawful government since January 17, 1893. A very logical analysis.
On December 10, 1995, myself and Donald Lewis, a retired real estate broker and founder of Locations, Inc. (now Prudential Locations), established Perfect Title Company and the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company, both being companies established under the 1880 statute regulating co-partnership firms. Perfect Title exposed that all titles in the islands were defective since January 17, 1893. The effect that this information had was on the local escrow companies, title insurance and the real estate industry. The reason for the profound impact is that before a bank loans money to a borrower, they require the borrower to go to an escrow company to purchase title insurance, called a loan policy, to protect the bank in case there is a defect in the title, which would render the mortgage invalid. The purchase of title insurance is a condition of the loan and if the borrower isn’t able to purchase the title insurance to protect the bank he doesn’t get the loan. The lender’s policy pays off the loan if there is a defect in title.
The escrow companies did not disclose the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government and the limitation of United States law to within United States territory. Absent a treaty, U.S. law has no effect in the Islands. However, title insurance was issued when there were clear defects. Perfect Title Company created havoc in the real estate industry because the title companies could not refute Perfect Title Company’s reports. Somehow the title industry got the State of Hawai`i government involved, which led to a raid on the company by the Honolulu Police Department’s white collar crime unit. Donald, the company’s secretary, and myself were arrested outlandish allegations of racketeering, tax evasion and theft. After a couple months, these outrageous charges were dropped and Donald, one of our clients, and myself were indicted on first-degree attempted theft, a so-called class B felony. The fundamental problem with this indictment is that real property, which is immovable, is not the subject of theft—only personal property, which is movable, is the subject of theft. In fact, the general rule of larceny states:
“Common law larceny is the trespassory taking (caption) and carrying away (asportation) of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the possessor of the property. Larceny is a specific-intent crime. Real property is not the subject of larceny law. Moreover, only tangible forms of personal property are encompassed in the offense.”
If there were to be any charges filed it should have been conspiracy and fraud, but Perfect Title Reports could not be refuted. This led to my conviction of a manufactured crime, which is the basis of my federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C. against Secretary of State Clinton, former Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Willard of the U.S. Pacific Command for not faithfully executing two executive agreements entered into between President Cleveland and Queen Lili`uokalani. The manufactured conviction also smeared my name and reputation, which is also the basis of the tort injury in the federal lawsuit.
After returning from the Netherlands where I served as lead agent in arbitration proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in December of 2000, I entered the Political Science department at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa and graduated with a M.A degree specializing in international relations in 2004, and in 2008 I graduated with the Ph.D. degree specializing in international relations and public law. While I was a Ph.D. student in the program, I wrote a law journal article published in the Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics (University of Hawai`i at Manoa) in 2004, and I was invited by the editor of the Journal of Law and Social Challenges (University of San Francisco School of Law) to write another law journal article on the executive agreement, which was published in 2008. Both law journal articles were law reviewed, which means they were critiqued for accuracy and appropriate application of law, and Heinonline, being a publisher of law materials, published both journals online.
My doctoral dissertation centered on the legal history of the Hawaiian Islands that stemmed from Kamehameha I to the present. There were six professors on my committee that ranged from political scientists, law professors and a Hawaiian historian. Having successfully defended my doctoral dissertation, the committee’s critique was not only welcomed but also greatly assisted me in refining the narrative and legal arguments I made. I also have two pending books that will be published by the University of Hawai`i Press, which includes my dissertation and a book on land titles.
I am assuming that Ken Conklin, has a Ph.D., only because he says so. I can’t qualify my assumption though. At least for myself, anyone can check the authenticity of my Ph.D. in Political Science and my published articles and doctoral dissertation. I’ve also participated in a multitude of academic conferences throughout the world where I presented my research that can also be authenticated (curriculum vitae). On the other hand, I found no literature that has been “law reviewed” or even a doctoral dissertation that was successfully defended that Dr. Conklin could reference as to qualifying his opinion regarding the legal history of the Hawaiian Islands. From what I’ve heard, Dr. Conklin’s Ph.D. was in Philosophy. Philosophy is not Political Science, and there is no specialty in Philosophy that covers international relations or public law as Political Science does. To say Philosophy is equal to Political Science would be to say Chemistry is equal to Business Administration
While I served as an Army officer, it was required to be qualified as you were being promoted from 2nd Lieutenant, to 1st Lieutenant, to Captain. The military schools under my belt included Field Artillery Officer Basic Course for Lieutenants, U.S. Air Force Air Ground Operation School for combined arms tactics, and Field Artillery Officer Advanced Course for Captains. In civilian life, my M.A. degree, and Ph.D. degree qualifies my expertise in international relations and public law, with particular emphasis on the legal and political history of my country—the Hawaiian Kingdom. I am also able to qualify and explain the actions taken at Perfect Title Company, the arbitration case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, and the complaint filed with the United Nations Security Council.
Independent authors also published articles on the arbitration and complaint filed with the U.N. Security Council in the American Journal of International Law and the Chinese Journal of International Law. These authors are law professors in the United States and Canada. I also have a new history book titled “Ua Mau Ke Ea (Sovereignty Endures): A Political and Legal Overview of the History of the Hawaiian Islands,” which is currently being used in classrooms in High Schools, the Community Colleges, the University of Maui College, and the University of Hawai`i at Manoa.
What can Dr. Conklin claim as qualifying his opinion, a self-published book that was not peer or law reviewed or his thirty commentaries published online? If I self-published a book and wrote thirty commentaries online, that wouldn’t make me an expert. It merely attests to the fact that I paid for the publication of my own book, and I wrote thirty commentaries giving my opinion. If I were the one to peer review his book, I would rip it to shreds because it is full of assumptions, opinions, misinformation, and misinterpretations. He has no qualified opinion, which is why I never responded to his diatribe in the past.
I was raised in an extended Hawaiian family where my parents, grandparents, uncles and aunties, instilled in me to be respectful and responsible—to be “pono.” Since I chose to walk this path after retiring from the Army, I have seen the ugliness, the disrespect and the irresponsibility of people, but it has not swayed me in my firm conviction and belief in “pono.”
My country, the Hawaiian Kingdom, was and is multi-cultural and multi-ethnic, especially since I am not only aboriginal Hawaiian, but also Caucasian—my great grandfather, being Charles Reeves, is from Tennessee. The Hawaiian Kingdom is also a not so distant past, where my aboriginal Hawaiian great-grandparents were born in the 1880s, which is only two generations ago when Hawai`i was a vibrant country that had a U.S. Legation (embassy) in Honolulu and a Hawaiian Legation (embassy) in Washington, D.C. I also firmly believe in responsible education and that’s why I teach at Windward Community College and also sit as a committee member for Ph.D. candidates at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa. Dr. Conklin seems to believe that if you keep repeating yourself over and over, people will eventually believe you and think you have valid points, especially if you have the letters Ph.D. at the end of your name. This is no scholar, but a self-indulging man who believes in conspiracy theories that center on race politics.
Dr. Conklin, if he really does have a Ph.D., is an angry, bitter and self-centered man, whose diatribe that he spews is neither respectful nor responsible. His opinions are unqualified, and whether he knows it or not he has provided an abundance of evidence that can be used in a lawsuit for libel and slander. If I were Dr. Conklin, I would be very careful what I write, but then again, I’m responding to an angry and bitter man and someone who is angry and bitter usually doesn’t think straight. When I was in the Army, officer’s who don’t think straight would be relieved of their command. The basis for relieving the officer would be because it would place their men, which they lead, in harm’s way. I am assuming Dr. Conklin never served as a commissioned officer in the military, nor would I assume he ever served in the military, so he wouldn’t understand the level of responsibility an officer holds.
Tom Coffman, who was a United Press International Reporter, Government Reporter for the Honolulu Advertiser, and Political Reporter & Bureau Chief for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, published a revised edition in 2009 of his seminal book “Nation Within: The History of the American Occupation of Hawai`i.” His original publication in 1998 was titled “Nation Within: The Story of America’s Annexation of Hawai`i.” In his revised edition, he explains why he dropped “annexation” and replaced it with “occupation.” Coffman states:
“I am compelled to add that the continued relevance of this book reflects a far-reaching political moral and intellectual failure of the United States to recognize and deal with its takeover of Hawai’i. In the book’s subtitle, the word Annexation has been replaced by the word Occupation, referring to America’s occupation of Hawai’i. Where annexation connotes legality by mutual agreement, the act was not mutual and therefore not legal. Since by definition of international law there was no annexation, we are left then with the word occupation. In making this change, I have embraced the logical conclusion of my research into the events of 1893 to 1898 in Honolulu and Washington, D.C. I am prompted to take this step by a growing body of historical work by a new generation of Native Hawaiian scholars. Dr. Keanu Sai writes, ‘The challenge for…the fields of political science, history, and law is to distinguish between the rule of law and the politics of power.’ In the history of Hawai’i, the might of the United States does not make it right.”
Tom Coffman restated a sentence of my conclusion in my law journal article published in the Journal of Law and Social Challenges, titled “A Slippery Path Towards Hawaiian Indigeneity,” where I advocate responsible study and research into the ramifications of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government. I would like to close with rest of the conclusion of my article that followed the stated sentence made by Coffman that sums up why responsible education is needed.
“Rigorous and diligent study into the Hawaiian-American situation is not only warranted by the current legal and political challenges facing Native Hawaiians that the Akaka Bill seeks to quell, it is a matter of what is right and just. The ramifications of this study cannot be underestimated, and its consequences are, no doubt, far-reaching. They span from the political and legal to the social and economic venues situated in both the national and international levels. Therefore, in light of the severity of this needed research, analytical rigor is at the core and must not fall victim to political affiliations, partisanship or just plain bias.”
What appears to drive Dr. Conklin to do what he does is neither responsible nor respectful, but seems to be driven by anger and hate. I don’t even know who he is except for what he writes, so I don’t know why he’s so angry. If there were anyone who should be angry that would be me after what transpired since 1994 as a result of exposing the truth that I can now qualify as a political scientist. But I’m not angry. I have a “kuleana,” a responsibility to continue where my Queen and former countrymen and women left off. I live by my kingdom’s national motto uttered by King Kamehameha III on July 31, 1843 after the government was restored by British Admiral Thomas.
“Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka `Aina I Ka Pono”
(The Life of the Land is Perpetuated in what is Right and Just).
For more information on my research and expertise please visit: https://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/index.html
Dr.Keanu Sai.
You May Very Well Be that Light! of just in an unjust system that a lot of Hawaiians,kanaka Maoli, are trapped in, due to false propaganda and teachings to the generations brought on by the very evils of the United States of America. If you really look at the nature of the United states they had no cultural beliefs but, industrialization, war, trickery ,deceit.
, Disease and Filth. If they ever had any cultural practices it was stolen or copied from other indigenous races other than where they( U.S.) originated from. There was nothing Hawaii needed from the U.S.A or any other country, they needed Hawaii for replenishment of fresh water and food for their journey across the seas.
This is my opinion.
Thank you so much for the work your doing bringing light to a dark cover up by the U.S.A.
Hawaiian by Blood and Ancestry.
i posted a comment here an hour ago and now it has been removed.
i think it is ironic that Dr. Sai who is very proud that he has served in the military and as a commissined officer in the US Army,the same US Army that occupied hawaii under the direction of the federal gov't. back in 1883.the same Us Army and the other branches of the armed forces that committed genocide in viet-nam,where over a million people were killed,brutally occupied and destroyed the sovereign nation of Iraq and still doing the same in Afghanistan.it all makes the occupation of hawaii 113 years ago look like a wedding reception.
I too find it outstanding that Dr. Sai served in the US Army, and that it was the US Army that occupied Hawaii. But I suspect he is playing the part Kevin Costner in "Dances with Wolves".
He mentioned his work in the U.S. Army helped him to better understand what was going on in Hawai`i and the fact that there is no Treaty of Annexation making it an illegal occupation.
That was before he realized that he was in the wrong army. Many Hawaiians were conditioned to the myth and didn't know the truth and facts save a minority. He went into the military in good conscious. What would you do after learning the facts?
Dr. Sai seems to be hypocritical in his criticism.and hawaiireporter is censoring my comments.
You "teach?"
Good grief! You and Coffman couldn't carry Conklin's slippers. Your both as phony as the International court in the Hague.
If you had anything called a brain, you would be begging to scoop up their "poop" not that you are intelligent, I'm just surprised you are able to read and write.
Before anyone should decide to post a negative comment toward Keanu's claims or his qualifications, they should find experts who can dispute his work with regard to the history of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Any negative comment before doing your deligence regarding this matter should be considered ingnorant and a reflection of the person making the comment.
Wonder what Barack's comment/opinion would be? Did Keanu send this to his home boy?
My bet is B.O. would negate this to the "86" file.
google Sai vs Obama. try negating dat. lol
I agree. His dissertation that gave him his PHD was on the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom from occupied to restored so it looks like it is coming to fruition and it makes people upset that Hawaiians preserved their sovereignty even throughout an illegal occupation. Whether there was violence or not, it is still illegal. Furthermore in response to "Real Deal 36", the Japanese have a Treaty with Hawai`i which is why they only bombed their target (Pearl harbor). They made sure they did not strike anywhere else after they were provoked. All casualties in the civilian communities were from so called "friendly fire." In other words, American bombs that were packed wrong.
Unless I overlooked it, there is no mention in Keanu Sai's piece of some very cataclysmic events since 1893 and 1898. Namely, the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor, and Statehood in 1959.
It's the totallity of the situation that we should all comprehend, instead of isolating a single incident to forward an agenda, which is based on ommision.
How Much Tax collected in the Mainland United States has been pumped into Hawaii by Sen. Dan Inouye during his 50 years in office?
How much tax stolen from Hawaiʻi by the United States since 1893 belongs to the Hawaiian Kingdom? All of it.
Kamehameha conquered and stole Maui Molokai and Oahu. The Chief on Kauai threw in the towel before Kamehameha got there. As soon as a means of expanding his empire became available, Kamehameha conquered. He used the Haole's weapon technology to do it. Expanding is in the blood of every Human being who has ever lived.
Not all Hawaiians were happy to bow down to a warlord like Kamehameha.
If you're going to go back that far in time, then the same could be said about human societies in general, which all started out with kings and empires. That's not the issue here. The Hawaiian Kingdom evolved into a constitutional democracy, as did the rest of the so-called "free world."
If annexation by joint resolution of the U.S. Congress was legitimate, they would have gone that route in the first place. Instead, they failed multiple times to annex Hawai'i by treaty, the same way that the U.S. acquired territories from Great Britain, Mexico, and Spain. Colonialism may have formally ended in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but not yet for Oceania. No matter how you try to justify it, the lawful Hawaiian Kingdom remains an occupied state.
Since I presume that you accept the purported annexation of Hawai'i by joint resolution of U.S. Congress in 1898–"Newlands Resolution" (Public Law 55-51)–they you should also accept the joint resolution of U.S. Congress in 1993–"Apology Resolution" (Public Law 103-150)–which is an admission of guilt for the illegal 1893 overthrow, followed by the annexation that never was:
“The indigenous Hawaiian people [among subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom in general] never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum.”
So we should only go back in time to where you want it. I understand. It's fun to program the virtual time machine and land in any time you want.
The context of the article and this discussion begins with the 1893 overthrow. You are the one trying to take the conversation outside of this context by referring back to the Kamehameha dynasty. This is a good thing because it demonstrates that you are unable to find justification—ethical, historical, legal, and moral—for the ongoing U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, from anything that has taken place during and since the 1893 overthrow.
Why can't the time machine you fly around in take you back further?
You're the one who keeps flying the time machine back to the Kamehameha dynasty. I'm sticking to the context of the article, which is 1893 and after. Otherwise, we get too far off topic.
Why does Dr. Sai's time machine only go back to 1893?
Why do you keep dodging the annexation bullet? You've turned into an Internet troll now, so I'm done responding to your nonsense.
Legally, you would have to go back to the factual history and beginning of the crime. Otherwise, you are just making things up.
There is also little doubt, that had the United States not have based it's Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, the Japanese would have took over Hawaii like it did Singapore in the Early Years of the war. And it was because of Hawaii's location, and it being a US territory, that enabled the US to destory the Japanese Island by Island all the way back to Japan.
I wonder if Dr. Keanu Sai has studied the US Navy's prosecution of WWII, and how Hawaii played an integral part for refuel and resuply. Without Hawaii and the US Pacific Fleet based there, I don't think WWII would have ended in the 3 and a half years that it did. It could have taken 10, with the Pacific Map totally different from what it looks like today Who knows, Hawaii may have been negotiated away to Japan in a peace treaty. Historians critical of US history regarding Hawaii don't ever venture into that area. The Japanese occupation of Hawaii would have resembled what they did in Manchuria.
Speculating about hypothetical alternatives to historical events demonstrates that people cannot come up with any other justification for the U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom today, other than "might makes right." Even if an occupation is justified, it is only supposed to last for the duration of the conflict, and not be permanent.
Speculation is healthy. Informed speculation is even better. Hawaii would be owned by a larger nation no matter what. Hawaii didn't have an Army or Navy to repel any form of conquest. It's very hard to believe that the most geologically perfect island midway across the pacific would be untouched for very long, with the advent of Steam powered ships and advancing Naval Weaponry. Read the book "Pacific Gibraltar". Japan had designs on Hawaii. Plus, the Hawaiian Kingdom was very corrupt in many ways. Always selling out the Hawaiian Land to Haole's for dirt cheap. Such is the hallmark of a Monarchy, unelected royalty who answer to no one.
You have conceded my point by not being able to provide justification for the ongoing U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by anything other than speculation about hypothetical takeover scenarios by other nations.
The Hawaiian Kingdom became a constitutional monarchy in 1840. Lunalilo was elected by popular vote in 1873, as was Kalākaua in 1874. There was nothing more corrupt and anti-democratic than the "Bayonet Constitution" of 1887, which disenfranchised the electorate of their voting rights.
I'm not sure I am able to present to you the larger picture of how history evolves. In your time machine, if you'd like to stay pre-1893, I suppose that's fine. But that is a long time ago, 120 years ago. So much has happened since then.
I love reading about Hawaiian history and culture. Even back than, the conquering nature of mankind was alive and prevalent. Kamehameha had dreams of conquest, made possible by guns and ammunition sold to him by British and American trade. In your opinion, did Kamehameha illegally take over Maui Molokai and Oahu?
I had to go back to pre-1893 to respond to your statement about corruption in the Hawaiian Kingdom, and your misleading suggestion that it was always an absolute monarchy. The context of the article above, and this discussion thread, begins with the 1893 overthrow.
You could plug some other dates into your time machine, and look at all the turmoil that was going on in the Hawaiian Kingdom before 1893. If your time machine has enough fuel to do it, it could land in a time leading up to the events of the 1887 bayonet constitution, when a crony named Walter M. Gibson, Prime minister of Hawaii, was advising Kalakaua to make a lot of brazen political moves, that turned out to be Kalakaua's undoing.
You have nothing positive to say about Hawaiian society. You continue cherry-picking anything slant you can find against the Hawaiian Kingdom before 1893. It all pales in comparison to the introduced diseases that killed most of the aboriginal population, the 1848 māhele, 1887 bayonet constitution, 1893 illegal overthrow, 1898 fraudulent annexation without a treaty, 1993 apology resolution, and the ongoing illegal U.S. occupation. Apparently, you're in denial.
Well speculate all you like, the Japanese have a Treaty with Hawai`i that is still in effect. The fact of the matter is, the U.S. is the occupier. Don't try to pit us against our friends.
Yes, this occupation is temporary, so the US should leave.
Then Hawaiian government will have to manage infrastructure, & international rights cause CHINA, Russia, & N. Korea will be pounding on the chief's door with threats.
Nationalists are so deluded.
The laws of occupation require the occupier to assist in restoring the government of the occupied nation-state. Your suggestion that there would be no transition period is a false dilemma. Speculating about hypothetical takeover scenarios is a red herring that uses the "might makes right" doctrine, which is not an instrument of cession. After de-occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the last thing the United States would do would allow another country to occupy the Hawaiian Kingdom. The United States has enough aircraft carriers to prevent that from ever happening. Furthermore, the U.N. Security Council would not allow it to happen either. The Allies de-occupied Japan after World War II, but that didn't result in a subsequent takeover by China, North Korea, or Russia. Your allusion to perceived takeover threats from the East is irrational, unrealistic, and without historical precedent following WWII.
United States Public Law 103-150 formally acknowledges that there has never been a bilateral treaty of cession, plebiscite, referendum, acquisitive prescription, or acquiescence, to legally annex Hawai'i to the United States. What was overthrown in 1893 was the Hawaiian Kingdom government, not its sovereignty as a country, nor its independence as a nation-state. Therefore, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a subject of international law, albeit under a prolonged, illegal and belligerent military occupation by the United States since August 12, 1898. Consequently, descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom citizens today are nationals, not nationalists. A nationalist is someone who is trying to achieve independence for a country that lost it or does not currently have it. Since the independence of the Hawaiian Kingdom has never been relinquished or extinguished, its descendants today are nationals.
The U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom is the longest military occupation in modern history. Therefore, there is no historical precedent that you can point to which suggests that this occupation does not have an expiration date. The British Empire lasted for 89 years in India, which is on the same order of magnitude as the U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. So, there is nothing delusional about seeking U.S. compliance with the laws of occupation, to eventually end its ongoing occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom is well-known in the Hawaiian Islands. Outside of the Hawaiian Islands, however, all of the major news media continues to prevent this information from begin disseminated, to reverse the revisionist history of Hawai'i that has been taught to Americans for the past 121 years and counting. If Americans were fully informed of the true history, a national conversation would begin regarding the occupation, which would eventually lead to Americans placing pressure on their elected representatives in Washington D.C. to de-occupy the Hawaiian Kingdom. So, the question is, how much longer can the United States keep a lid on this?
The Hawaiian Kingdom had over 25 treaties with other nations and over 90 legations and consuls throughout the world. The only country to disregard our treaties was the United States. Your argument is vacuous because of our treaties and neutrality status recognized internationally. It was in 1826 when U.S. President John Quincy Adams coined that argument you use. He was afraid countries like Great Britain and Canada and other major countries would gain more influence than the U.S> and that the Hawaiian Kingdom would opt to annex to one of those countries. This would affect U.S.A.'s plans to gain naval dominance in the Pacific in its pursuit of expansionism and imperialism agenda.
I am not an educated Hawaiian, although i lived all my life in the Hawaiian community knowing that some thing was very wrong with our Hawaiian history and present life conditions. After traveling the world i realized how unique Hawaii politics really was. Thank you Doctor Keanu Sai for exposing that light of truth. and thank you for your information posted on April 4, 2013 about the Japanese war ships protecting the queen in the time of the over throw in 1893. I hope that people of USA and japan ethnicity will read that article about USA and British ships telling the japan naval fleet to leave Hawaii in 1893 that day that the over throw of Hawaii was happening. Thank god some one stood on the side of the Hawaiians. I did not see any other nation defending the Kingdom of Hawaii at that time. They also led every one to believe that if it was not USA who would over take Hawaii than it would be the Japanese which was and still remains false! American tourist from Hawaii still use that statement to put down the Hawaiians till today.
The Japanese have always loved the people of Hawaii. I lost an uncle and other family friends in pearl harbor as civilian workers. Shame on the USA for concealing this vital information of the ousting of the japan navy in 1893 , that lead to the bombing of pearl harbors USA fleet. My wife is from japan and she lost her great grandfather in the bombing, when i showed her your article on April 4, she broke down and started crying. All the American movies about how pearl harbor got bombed by the Japanese and how they made it out to be the Japanese fault is sickening to many! America and their arrogance also let off the first nuclear bomb in another Japan in view to the world, how arrogant can you get, no value for the lost of life for imperialism, power, and control of the Hawaii people and their lands. Good for the Americans! like many say, if America military is in Hawaii, we will always be a target to the world! We are better off as a neutral country under the United Nations protection, rather than some thieves (usa) who have been covering up a lie for over 113 years. It is about time that the bully gets recognized in the play ground called the world! Good job, keep the facts coming! Mahalo!
In case you don't know, about 40 years after 1893, Japan would become the most violent blood thirsty empire on Earth. They ripped up China and slaughtered 30 million Chinese during the war. They're brutality in the Philippines is legendary. There is a bigger picture to see out side the tunnel vision you display. Please read up on WWII.
Thank you!
You are very uneducated. Japan Allied with Nazi Germany. You really need to be educated so you don't make so many errors of judgement. Japan tried to enslave all of Asia. But your'e crying and weeping for the Japan of 1941! How can you be so daft! Ousting of Japan navy in 1893 lead to the bombing of Pearl Harbor! That has got to be the most outrageous miscarriage of historical understanding ever found on the internet!!
Thank You!
So you want to secede & ask for UN neutrality…..WAKE UP!
How are we gonna do it? What's the plan, man!
Or is this all talk & no walk?
It's all a Broadway sympathy show.
read (online) chapter 5 of Dr Keanu Sai's dissertation. no need to secede because Hawai'i was never legally ceded: NO TREATY OF ANNEXATION exists! get educated, then take a walk…
A few nations did support the Queen, including Great Britain and Japan. It was the Turpie Resolution of 31 May 1894 where the U.S. threatened any nation from interfering in the Hawaii situation as it would be an unfriendly act against the United States. Europe was still war-torn from the effects of the Crimean War and wasn't open to another war. Smaller, more feeble countries just went along with it rather than put their necks out.
Im Hawaiian and also served in the USA army for 6 years. Alot of the Hawaiian youth joined the military because we had no choice living under USA rules and the fact that jobs in Hawaii does not pay for education or the horendious taxes that we have to pay to the united states government. After daily taxes, excise state taxes, irs, and every other tax that usa has pushed on the people of Hawaii, I had no choice living in poverty in the Hawaiian communities to join the Army and go off and fight a war that was not even mine. I had 2 choices at that time, to be a slave back home, or be a slave in the army. I don't regret been in the Army it taught me alot. I also served in the 25 division, national guard of Hawaii when I returned home, that is when I found a lot of local boys confused about been in the american military and it made me realize the trueth. Im 43, I wonder if we crossed path in the national guard back then? hmmm?
Lets make the wrong done to the independent nation of Hawaii right!
Mahalo for your vision!
If Hawaii has been made so bad by the USA, how come so many migrants from the Philippines, Samoa, Micronesia, Japan, China, Vietnam, etc keep arriving to Hawaii to stay? Note: all these nationalities are not ethnically white.
They are let in by the United States and not by the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The Hawaii national guard has its beginning in the Hawaiian Kingdom as many of the other departments active today.
Comments are closed.