Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Hawaiian Independence?

Hawaiian Independence? How many states are there in the American Union? It is 50 of course. But some will try to claim there are only 49!

How? They misread history by claiming Hawaii is not really an American state. The root of this confusion has to do with how Hawaii was legally acquired by the USA. In 1898, the Republic of Hawaii gave sovereignty of the islands to the United States. As the internationally recognized government of the islands, it was entitled to do this. At that moment, Hawaii became an American possession under international law.

Was this legal? The Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 overthrew the monarchy of Hawaii. Was this legal under prior Hawaiian Law? Of course not. All revolts are illegal under the laws of the nations who have to deal with them. The Cuban Revolution was illegal according to Fulgencio Batista. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was illegal according to the Czar of Russia as well. However, do we recognize the legal rights of the current Cuban government? Do we acknowledge that the Russian revolutionaries had the right to vote away the sovereignty of the Russian state and give it to the Soviet Union? We all do. This is the same as the legal status of Hawaii. The rebels of 1893 in Hawaii won and their actions as a government are just as legal under international law as the actions of those of the current Cuban regime.

Deny this fact and your denying any current legal internationally recognized state that has it origins in any revolution or coup! This includes the USA, France, the United Kingdom, etc. The fact that a single American gunboat assisted in the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 does not change this. The Soviets aided Castro and the French helped the Americans at Yorktown in the American Revolution as well. The resulting governments are still internationally recognized.

Further, Hawaiian citizens voted to join the USA as a state. And the United Nations recognized the vote! The vote was overwhelming as it was 8-1 in favor of statehood.

Hawaiian separatists deny this vote based on two points. One, the vote allowed American military personnel stationed in Hawaii to vote. If the vote had been close, this would be a valid point. However, if you take away the votes of the military, the result would have been the same. Hawaiians voted overwhelmingly in favor of statehood. The military vote does not change the final result.

The second point is that the vote is illegal under UN rules as there was no choice for independence on the ballot. However, the UN certified this vote by removing Hawaii from the list of non self-governing territories. As this was a requirement of the UN, the UN had the legal right to interpret the vote. Hawaii was deemed to be a part of the USA by the international community by this action of the UN.

You might think a referee is wrong in a football game, but despite a bad call, the results of the game are still upheld later. This is the case of Hawaii and the UN. Maybe it was the wrong decision (and the size of the Hawaiian vote indicates it was not), but the results are still binding. Hawaii = USA and the world agreed.

All the rest of the stuff that comes from these Hawaiian Independence sites is based on the flawed logic that Hawaii is currently undergoing occupation by the USA and that the Kingdom of Hawaii still legally exists! This logic then leads these sites to argue that Hawaii should be allowed to secede from the USA (or in their words restored) without a vote of the people of Hawaii. Further, if there ever was a vote, any one without the correct magic DNA (the majority of Hawaiians!) would be denied a vote as only Hawaiians with ancestors who were citizens under the Hawaiian Kingdom would be allowed to vote in the new government. That is a cause that is assured to go nowhere. Can you really see world opinion swinging in favor of the disenfranchisement of the majority of Hawaiian citizens? Grandfather clauses are so post-Civil War American South...

The US Congress apologized for any past injustice in Hawaii in 1993. This was a political move to shore up support amongst Democratic voters. It may have helped in Hawaii but the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress in the 1994 election anyway. This resolution has no legal force of law and is merely a PR act equivalent to the state of New Jersey declaring April 4th State Cherry Pie Day. Yet, the separatists always point to it as some great proof that Hawaii is not American...

The final argument is this. If the USA does not legally own Hawaii, why haven't the majority of people heard of this before? If the Hawaiian vote of 1959 was interpreted illegally by the UN, why didn't the Soviet Union veto it? They were pretty good at doing their best at making the USA look bad. Why haven't current American antagonists made an issue of this? China hasn't even when they are critiqued about Tibet. Cuba, Iran, and North Korea are silent on this point. If Hawaii is not American and there was any legal case internationally to be made of this, don't you think the UN, the World Court, and the international media would be all over this? The deafening silence you hear tells you exactly what the world community believes about Hawaii and the USA.

This issue will probably go away in another century or so. Nature being what it is most Hawaiians will eventually have DNA from both the original Hawaiians and the "occupiers" by then. (You don't hear claims now from Saxons complaining about the injustice inflected on them by the Normans in 1066 do you?) It would be pretty dead now if it were not for the Internet and the ability of every fringe group to have their message heard on the Web. As it is, it will probably provide another generation or two of radicals the opportunity to confuse the public and be paid speakers on the university anti-American circuit.


Miland said...

For a more detailed analysis of this issue, see the document "Hawaii Divided Against itself Can Not Stand" located at http://www.hawaiireporter.com/file.aspx?Guid=aefef5f6-a533-486a-9459-691138355dd1. It was written by constitutional law expert Bruce Fein. It does a good job of refuting the the mistaken Congressional apology of 1993. It also shows why the Akaka Bill being proposed is a bad idea. Pay attention to part 9 on page 2. The international community recognized the Republic of Hawaii. As such, that government had the legal right to hand sovreignty to the USA. The whole core idea of the Hawaiian Independence dies with the one point.

dearieme said...

"You don't hear claims now from Saxons complaining about the injustice inflected on them by the Normans in 1066 do you?" Actually, you do. It is pressed into service as part of the class war agenda of parts of the left. Quite a giggle, really.

KNL said...

"Was this legal? The Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 overthrew the monarchy of Hawaii. Was this legal under prior Hawaiian Law? Of course not. All revolts are illegal under the laws of the nations who have to deal with them. The Cuban Revolution was illegal according to Fulgencio Batista. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was illegal according to the Czar of Russia as well. However, do we recognize the legal rights of the current Cuban government? Do we acknowledge that the Russian revolutionaries had the right to vote away the sovereignty of the Russian state and give it to the Soviet Union? We all do. This is the same as the legal status of Hawaii. The rebels of 1893 in Hawaii won and their actions as a government are just as legal under international law as the actions of those of the current Cuban regime."

Those coups were committed by citizens of their respective countries. The coup in Hawaii was commited by American citizens, not Hawaiians. The putchers were AMerican businessmen. They were not Hawaiians. The leaders of the Hawaii Republic were all American citizens. It's not as if a bunch of HAwaiians decided to over throw their government, nonHawaiians did it for them! There is a fundamental difference in the Hawaiian overthrow and the ones that you discussed. The people who ran the Republic of HAwaii were not even citizens of the Republic of Hawaii.

Miland said...

"There is a fundamental difference in the Hawaiian overthrow and the ones that you discussed. The people who ran the Republic of HAwaii were not even citizens of the Republic of Hawaii."

Not true. Almost all of the Hawaiian rebels were Hawaiian citizens. The Kingdom of Hawaii was a multi-racial society that gave citizenship to people of many races. Most of the rebels (including Sanford Dole) were Hawaiian citizens of European descent.

The revolution was real which is why every nation which recognized the Kingdom of Hawaii also recognized the Republic of Hawaii.

And it is worth noting, not a single shot was fired in the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893. Had the monarchy had popular support, some bloodshed almost certainly would have happened.

KNL said...

They were not citizens. They were residents. There is a difference. And the coup leaders overthrew the monarchy with American support and backing (the ambassador and marine corps) so of coarse other Western nations would recognize it. John L. Thurston who organized the coup was even an American citizen.

Miland said...

Thanks for posting here. However, it is clear that you do not understand the legal system of the Kingdom of Hawaii. It gave citizenship to any one who was born in Hawaii. It also was liberal in naturalizing new citizens.

As such, most of the rebels were indeed citizens. Sanford Dole (President of the Republic of Hawaii) was born in Hawaii (making him a Hawaiian citizen) and he served as a Justice in the Hawaiian Supreme Court under the monarchy.

If you do some research, you will find that most of the other rebels were also Hawaiian citizens. They were not just residents. Many of them served in the Queen's government as judges, members of the legislature, or in the Royal Cabinet.

American participation does not make the Hawaiian Revolution invalid any more than French participation on behalf of the American colonies makes the American Revolution invalid. In fact, most revolutions have foreign intervention. But in the case of Hawaii, not a shot was fired by American marines or anyone else.

Thanks again for you comments and best wishes.

Hokulani said...

I was reading through the blog and its very clear that the last person has no idea on immigration laws and citizenship work in most countries outside of the US. The use operates on the juris solis meaning those who were born in the territorial borders can claim a citizenship. The US is one of the few countries that allows this to happen. Most European and Asian countries operates under juris sangre. This means citizenship can only be acquired either through direct bloodlines through an oath. Hawaii operated under this form of citizenship. You had to acquire citizenship through an OATH. The only exception were the Kanaka Maoli or native Hawaiians who were automatically citizens by virtue of being native. Please read the Hawaiian constitutions of 1852, 1864 and 1887 and the Hawaiian Civil Code. They all say the same thing. Hawaiian citizenship is ALWAYS ACQUIRED through an oath not simply because you were born in Hawaii. Next time you make an ascertation, PLEASE bother to READ THE REVELENT LAWS and not simply assume that every country constructs its laws like the US.

Hokulani said...

I almost forgot, while it is true many of those who would later run the so-called Republic of Hawaii were at one times members of the Queen's Court, its not true that they were all Hawaiian citizens. Most of them were DENIZENS, meaning permanent residents of the Hawaiian Kingdom, kinda like green card holders. The ones that were citizens retained their American citizenship--Hawaiian civil law after 1864 allowed this. They were dual citizens. What occured essentially what the US had been doing in most of Latin America and East Asia--overthrowing popular goverments and putting up dictatorships. Yes, by the way, the Queen was immensely popular. Just look at even today, the Governor of Hawaii (who isn't Hawaiian) puts flowers at the Queen's grave and her statue. But the Queen told her supporters to wait for the US to undo its actions. But failing that, you may remember the REVOLUTION of 1895 where royalists attempted to restore the Queen but what happened? Over 500 people were arrested including the Queen and her nephews. The royalists were valiant but compared to the military gear the US loaned the Republic of Hawaii back in 1894, they were unable to overthrow the hated Republic. The US canons and guns were used to suppress the rebellion and the American marines were used to secure government and commercial centers. Funny how the most democratic country in the world is always behind the most undemocratic regimes in the world. As Sukarno once said "Behind every good dictator lies a good American marine."

Miland said...

Thanks for the note but I am afraid you don't understand the issue of citizenship of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I've done my research, have you?

Here is a link for you from the Pro-Independence Movement:


* "These include those foreigners who were naturalized as Hawaiian subjects and those born in the Kingdom of foreign parentage who acquired Hawaiian nationality by birth."

Here is what Scott Crawford at the Hawaiian Independence Blog (http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/C1126750129/E20050820050521/) has to say on this, "It is very important to keep in mind that the Hawaiian kingdom was a multiracial country, with naturalized citizens from all over the world, and children born in Hawaii were automatically citizens."

I obviously disagree with Scott and others on a lot and don't expect to find common ground. However, I wish people would stop trying to confuse the citizenship issue. The Hawaiian Kingdom was a multiracial society. If you were born in the Kingdom of Hawaii, you were a citizen of Hawaii.

Sanford Dole and many of the other rebels were Hawaiian citizens. Feel free to post about how unfair and immoral the overthrow was but don't try to strip these men of the citizenship they possessed.

pine said...

An investigation established by President Cleveland was conducted by former Congressman James Henderson Blount, and concluded, "United States diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government."

Minister Stevens was recalled, and the military commander of forces in Hawaiʻi was forced to resign his commission. President Cleveland stated "Substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair the monarchy." Cleveland further stated in his 1893 State of the Union Address that, "Upon the facts developed it seemed to me the only honorable course for our Government to pursue was to undo the wrong that had been done by those representing us and to restore as far as practicable the status existing at the time of our forcible intervention."
not the best source, but you get the point. Whether the Americans were Hawaiian citizens or residents is merely circumstantial. They didn't care about the people of hawaii; they only wanted power for themselves. It was all about greed, as was the annexation of Hawaii into the US. Yes, all overthrows are illegal, but this one was also clearly immoral. And look what the consequences have been to the Hawaiian people. To equate these American citizen/resident/whatever with Native Hawaiians is so erroneous it is an insult. One group flourished at expense of the other and now the few Hawaiians that survive, according the the 2000 US census, have economic, health, and general living standards that are comparable to those in a third world country.

Miland said...

"An investigation established by President Cleveland was conducted by former Congressman James Henderson Blount"

Unfortunately, the Blount Report was politically motivated and can not be trusted.

Eager to discredit the foreign policy of President Harrison, President Cleveland sent James Blount to Hawaii to investigate. The Blount Report was the result. Unfortunately, Blount failed to interview many of the participants in the revolt and he failed to swear in any of the witnesses. As expected, the report then blamed the prior Presidential administration for the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

The Morgan Report (issued in 1894 by the Senate) refutes much of what is in the Blount Report.

You are unlikely to see many references to the Morgan Report though. Activists in the native Hawaiian community only cite the government report they like and they ignore everything else.

Anonymous said...

Hawaii was a beautiful country that should have not been touch by the U.S. or any other country. Even though SOME of the culture has been restored, it's not the SAME. the u.s. should've just left the u.s. alone. but the u.s. was to greedy. they wanted as much land as they could get. this is ONE of the things i HATE about the u.s. they did the same thing with the indians and Texas(remember the alamo).

Miland said...

Thanks for your comment anonymous. It is interesting that you invoke Texas in your comment. Many of the arguments used by the Hawaiian separatists are also used by Texas separtists. (And Alaskan separtists as well.) Loosely claiming violations of international law and yelling the magic word of occupation seem common. See my post on Wacky American Separtists (http://world-history-blog.blogspot.com/2005/10/wacky-american-separatists.html) for more details.

earthwatch said...

I think it is impossible to speak of the "illegal overthrow" of the Hawai`ian monarchy, without talking about 80 years prior, when the monarchy got its start. Ripping through the island chain, in violent warfare, the family of rulers set itself up as the "legitimate" government of the newly unified kingdom, slaughtering enemies, stealing land and torturing dissenters to death.

I'm always shocked to see the amount of commentary that says that the U.S. assistance to people who were living there was "illegal" or "immoral", because it involved a "foreign government" (boo, hiss!), and because many of the revolutionaries were white. Well, these white folks had heard of democracy, and crazy as it sounds, monarchic dictatorship probably did not quite seem right by them. The probably didn't fancy this concept of people being "born a little better", etc. (After all, isn't "monarchy" somewhat of a sycophantic term for "dictator"?)

But then something funny happens to all logic, within the "anti-USA" rabble:

Trace back to the roots of the very short lived dictatorship under Kamehameha's family (a flash in the pan, historically speaking), and suddenly violent acquisition of territory is the very best way to establish a legitimate government.

I could never subscribe to such thinking, because I am sure my head would explode.

It seems everyone wants to rewind the clock of history to a *precise* moment when they think they "had it made". In fact, these periods of jubilation are often nonexistant. "The good old days that never were".

At best, in this case, it was an 80 year period (a mighty small target on the timeline of history), when dictators set themselves up using extreme violence, and handed down their ill-gotten gain for about 8 generations, until someone put an end to it.

Patrick Townson said...

The Hawaiian people of the 19th and early 20th century were very peaceful and trusting. The revolt came about when Christian ministers (specifically [what we now call] United Church of Christ [and then we called] Congregational Church missionaries convinced Queen Lilukilani that the sugar plantation growers were planning a revolution.)

Not only has the US Congress issued an apology to the people of Hawaii, but the United Church of Christ also apologized for the actions of its missionaries. Their formal apology came in the middle 1990's also.

Interesting the mention of Sanford Dole as one of the 'good guys'; in fact he was one of the sugar plantation owners (you have heard of Dole Pineapple and Dole Sugar I suppose) who bribed the missionaries to tell the queen the only way she would survive at all was by relinguishing control to a country which could save her, namely the USA. And what did the queen know about anything? Very little, she was such a trusting and kind soul, as the original Hawaiians were. So she accepted their word, that the revolution was near. She was placed under house arrest by the US Navy, and unlike a more recent USA aquistition (Iraq) not a single shot was fired in the entire 'war'.

If you are going to talk legalities and how their constiution is written and all about the UN approval, etc. then you should also include discussion of how extremely naive the Hawaiian people were at that time. The people there at that time said 'aloha' to everyone, and were at peace with the world. The whole deal stunk to high heaven; it was like taking candy from a baby.

Since that time, the Hawaiian crime rate has skyrocketed out of control. The US benifitted of course since they 'inherited' a stop over place for ships and troops (Pearl Harbor). Taking over Hawaii as we did certainly was a good deal for the USA, although the sugar plantation owners were not all that thrilled about it.

Now I think, you can watch history repeat itself sometime in the next 50 or 75 years with Iraq. Unlike Hawaii, whose people were always very peaceful and naive, the people in Iraq are much different, but at some future time, there will be a little 'election' in Iraq and they will become a USA territory, then eventually a 'state' and the revisionists will do a number on our grandchildren here on internet and tell them how, all along, the Iraqi people had wanted to part of the USA.


CP6UH said...

I totally agree with you Patrick on almost everything except the Iraq part. Iraq is not a chain of islands or some banana republic south of the Rio Grande. Iraq is one of the oldest societies in the world. They have survived a lot more than the US can dish out to them. They can battle for the next 10 15 even 20 years and not be spiritually overtaken. Do we have the money to do that? Because lets face it the success of our society here is based on money and materialistic goods. Once that is gone our will to fight for oil, that we cannot afford, will be gone as well. We will leave with our tail between our legs.
As for the natives of Hawaii, I hate to say it but their culture will probably not outlive this period of world domination on the part of the United States. Until the US is still strong and able to hold them as the 50th state they will not be able to proliferate their culture. If they were to breakaway now, take over the tourist industry, allow only people of clear Hawaiian or Pacific Islander/Polynesian decent to return and remain, they might be able to revive their culture; a wonderful culture indeed; a culture that is not built on greed like the Anglos and Asians.

mysecretQ2 said...

Interesting reading above...I suppose that the same logic that allows for the Hawaiian Independence movement should apply to Maui. After all, under the evil guise of unification, the last Maui King had his kingdom violently taken from him and his people:
"In 1778, as American colonials battled British soldiers on the East Coast, Captain James Cook of England, on his third major voyage, sailed into Hawaiian waters and “discovered” the islands for the Western world. He saw Maui, but never set foot on it. In 1787, Captain Jean Francois de Galaup de La Perouse became the first foreigner to step foot on Maui, at what is now called La Perouse Bay along Maui’s southern coastline. Captain La Perouse defied orders from his king and chose not to claim Maui for France.
Three years later, in 1790, Kamehameha the Great (also called Kamehameha I, pronounced kah-MEH-hah-MEH-hah) invaded Maui and, with the help of Western armaments, defeated Maui’s last king, Kahekili, in historic I`ao Valley (EE-ah-oh). The Battle of I`ao was an important milestone in Kamehameha the Great’s campaign to unite the Hawaiian islands under a single ruler."
So give Maui back after Hawaiian Independence, if you use certain historical logic.
And historically speaking, there are no native Hawaiians since everyone there came from a variety of other places. I was just in Maui and depending on who you listen to the early "Hawaiians" came from three or more places (one "historian" listed six different places).
The fact is that it would be difficult to varify a true single decendent to the throne of a new Hawaii. There are too many people who claim that right and most are in the fractured Hawaiian Independence movement for anything serious to come from it.
it may sound terribly mean to some of the radicals, but for crying out loud: no one forced the Hawaiians to covet the white man's goods and roll over at the corrupted whims of their "native leaders" who were the truly greedy ones. They sold their souls and sold out their own history and legacy, and now it is too politacally incorrect to say so.
I applaud the cultural revitalization of the islands. But to souly blame the Americans is very very short sighted.

John D. said...

The world is full of separatists and independence movements all using tiresome variations of the same old song and dance. Most are exclusive racial or cultural groups seeking self aggrandizement at the expense of everybody else.

For example, descendants of Hawaiians living on the islands before Capt.Cook arrived would like to lord it over everybody else. It is a pipe dream shared by many others.

Controlling geographical boundaries and maintaining uniform laws and governments is, and probably always will be, an ongoing labor of states everywhere. It is kind of like fighting communicable diseases; it can't ever be totally successful, but, you have to keep fighting.

Anonymous said...

The people of Hawaii should be in charge of their own destiny. As long as they want to remain part of the USA they should be allowed to do so. There is no need for a vote on independence until if or when there is clear support for such a move. Currently and overwhelmingly Hawaii wishes to remain American. So be it.

Keliiaumoana said...

The plain and simple fact, Hawai'i was a recognized independent peaceful, neutral Nation whose life was cut short by greedy imperialist americans who clearly had no respect for anything moral and just. americans broke several treaties, that according to the us constitution, were the "supreme laws of the land", violated international law and your own constitution just to have a military post in the middle of the pacific. the actions of the americans were considered treason and they should have been put to death. Put yourself in our shoes. If russia came to the usa and said you have to be a russian citizen, speak our language, love the russian flag, live and act like us and pledge your allegiance to russia, you would have a problem too. as much as you love your country, Hawiian love their country too, but had it taken away against their will and without their consent. And as for the statehood vote, ha! if you think that was legitimate, that would be like letting u.s. soldiers in Iraq vote in Iraqi elections! clearly ridiculous.

M said...


Thanks for your comments. However, your analogies are flawed. If true, the Hawaiian Kingdom never legally existed. If Kamehameha's conquest by non-democratic means was legitimate, why was not the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom? I guess throwing hundreds of warriors over a cliff is a better way to steal another kingdom?

Your Iraq analogy is the ridiculous one. In 1959, any American soldiers voted in what was recognized under international law as an American territory. Iraq is a sovereign nation under international law. There is no comparison here.

I disagree with your view but respect it. If Hawaii is illegally under American control, do something about. Please file a case with the International Court Justice. If they rule in your favor, I will believe you. If they disagree with you or refuse to hear the case, the legal issue is ended and we will all know for sure that Hawaii is indeed legally state 50.

I doubt you file a case though. You know what would happen just as well as I do.

Keep on speaking up. America is a free country and even though I know you are wrong, I respect your right to free speech. You have just as much right as Mexican-Americans who speak of a reconquista to take back Mexican land from the US, Confederate sympathizers who claims the formers Conferederacy is illegally occupied by the USA, Texans who want the "illegally occupied" Republic of Texas back, and Alaskans who claim that Alaska never was legally annexed to the US.

Despite all of the above, I believe the American Motherland is safe. :]

Keliiaumoana said...


At the time of Kamehameha's conquest, each island was not a recognized independent nation. After he conquered/united the islands and form a European style nation with constitutions etc, they became a nation equal to other nations of the world. In fact, Hawaii was the first nation outside of Europe to be recognized as an independent nation. After Kamehameha's actions was the start of the Kingdom, not before.

When the US annexed Hawaii, the Republic of Hawaii transferred sovereignty to the US. Well, they never legally had it. Governments can be overthrown, not sovereingty.

And there was a complaint filed againt the united states with the UN Security Council. Also research the Lance Larsen vs. Hawaiian Kingdom case that went to the World Permanent Court of Arbitration
at The Hague, Netherlands, whose strict policy is that only Nations can be parties in arbitration. Also the united states government issued a formal apology and admitted it's wrong doing in US Public Law 103-150.

The statehood vote was fixed. According to the UN Charter Article 73, there should have been 4 choices: Statehood, Remain a terrirtory, free-association and Independence. There were not. The only options offered were statehood yes or no. Don't tell me that's fair.

If the United States does not man up and take responsibility and undo the wrongs it has done, then you are no better than the evil dictators of the world which you condemn and go to war with.

M said...


I realize my arguments are pointless as nothing will shake your beliefs. International law is not important is it? Only ideology?

Nonetheless, here is another go at it:

"At the time of Kamehameha's conquest, each island was not a recognized independent nation."

And how did the Hawaiian Kingdom come to be recognized? It was by the international community recognizing the Hawaiian Kingdom. And the Hawaiian Kingdom ceased to exist when the Republic of Hawaii was internationally recognized. And an independent Hawaiian state ceased to exist when the international community recognized US sovereignty over Hawaii.

If international recognition of nation states means nothing, every kingdom Kamehameha conquered still exists legally. Why should the victims of these invasions be forced to live under an invader? You can not have it both ways Keliiaumoana.

The Larsen case was not a lawsuit before the world court. It was arbitration before a non-UN body. The Permanent Court of Arbitration is not part of the U.N., is open to private parties, and that appearance at the Permanent Court of Arbitration does not require nor imply any sort of legal international standing.

It is of interest that Larsen dismissed the USA as a defendant as soon as it reached the arbitrators. It did him no good. They refused to rule on the case. The arbitrators noted, "In the absence of the United States of America, the Tribunal can neither decide that Hawaii is not part of the USA, nor proceed on the assumption that it is not. To take either course would be to disregard a principle which goes to heart of the arbitral function in international law.."

You stated: "The statehood vote was fixed. According to the UN Charter Article 73, there should have been 4 choices: Statehood, Remain a territory, free-association and Independence. There were not. The only options offered were statehood yes or no. Don't tell me that's fair."

That is what the Alaskan separatists say too. However, the United Nations decolonization committee removed Hawaii and Alaska from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories after statehood votes. That is international law. The international community recognizes American sovereignty in both cases just like it acknowledged Kamehameha's establishment of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Good luck to you Keliiaumoana in everything but your political views. No amount of legal sophistry on your part can change international law. Hawaii is an intergral part of the USA.

Keliiaumoana said...

It appears as if we are wasting our time as we both have very different interpretations of events of which we were not present. Still, thank you for the conversation.