<-- CHAPTER 2
SOVEREIGNTY AND SELF-DETERMINATION		 CONTENTS CHAPTER 4
STATE-WITHIN-A-STATE		 -->
The Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement:
Roles of and Impacts on Non-Hawaiians

By Anthony Castanha, August 1996

CHAPTER 3

A HISTORY OF
THE HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT

An examination of the struggle by Native Hawaiians against the U.S. federal government is provided in this chapter to give historical background necessary to understand the reasons for the sovereignty movement today. Despite the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i and annexation to the United States, indigenous Hawaiians have never relinquished their inherent sovereignty and right of self-determination. On January 17, 1893, Queen Lili'uokalani yielded her authority to the justice of the United States under protest:
I, Lili'uokalani, by the grace of God and under the constitution of the Hawaiian kingdom Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the constitutional government of the Hawaiian kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this kingdom. . . .

Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest and impelled by said forces, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo (?) the action of its representative, and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.1

U.S. President Grover Cleveland condemned American political and military involvement in the overthrow as an "act of war" and a "lawless occupation."2 For decades it had been argued that the overthrow and annexation of Hawai'i were "justified as unfortunate consequences of historical evolution."3 However, the American excuse of manifest destiny in ultimately taking Hawai'i was not inevitable. According to Glen Grant:
History is inevitable only in the apologia of winners. In viewing this controversial period of Hawaiian politics as the "sweep of time" or the "progress of democracy," the deeper moral and legal issues are obscured by rhetoric. Whatever the actions of the Hawaiian monarchs, whatever the validity of the charges of irresponsibility or ineptitude made against them by Americans with vested interests in the islands, it was the prerogative of native Hawaiians to determine their form of government. The "democracy" introduced by the 1893 provisional government far from represented the will of Hawaiians, Asians, and Europeans who comprised the majority of the population. The annexationist machinations of U.S. Minister John Stevens and the impact of the marines landed by the U.S.S. Boston on January 15, 1893, were not "inevitable" political and military actions.4
The United States managed to annex Hawai'i in 1898 by a joint resolution of Congress, rather than the two-thirds majority ratification required under its own constitution.5 Moreover, the Native Hawaiian segment of the population was vastly opposed to annexation.6 Hawai'i later became a state of the U.S. in 1959. However, the validity of both these acts are strongly contested by many indigenous Hawaiians today. Because the independent nation of Hawai'i was subject to an illegal act by the United States in 1893, which violated bilateral treaties between the two nations and international law,7 many Hawaiians believe annexation and statehood are invalid. Haunani-Kay Trask writes that all Native Hawaiian sovereignty groups developed their arguments for nationhood from
the prior existence of the Hawaiian nation, the culpability of the United States in the loss of Hawaiian domain and domination in 1893, the unilateral change in Native citizenship that came with forcible annexation in 1898, and the internationally recognized right of all peoples to self-determination.8
Since the early 1970s, many Hawaiians have been advocating the return of lands and self-government. The modern Hawaiian movement began out of anti-eviction and land struggles, specifically the eviction of residents of Kalama Valley in 1970, as Hawaiian rights were asserted:
More akin to the American Indian Movement than to the Black Civil Rights Movement, the Hawaiian Movement began as a battle for land rights but would evolve, by 1980, into a larger struggle for native Hawaiian autonomy. Land claims first appeared, as in Kalama Valley, as community-based assertions for the preservation of agricultural land against resort and subdivision use. By the mid 1970s, these claims had broadened to cover military-controlled lands and trust lands specifically set aside for Hawaiians by the U.S. Congress but used by non-beneficiaries.9
The anti-Vietnam War protests, the Black and Native American Indian movements, and other civil and human rights struggles in the United States in the 1960s spawned a greater ethnic awareness and cultural pride among indigenous Hawaiians. Numerous Hawaiian groups and organizations have formed since the early 1970s, asserting Hawaiian rights in the process of restoring a Hawaiian nation. For example, individuals called The Hawaiians organized in 1970 seeking to reform the Hawaiian Homelands program and the Bishop Estate. In 1971, the Congress of Hawaiian People formed. In 1972, the organization ALOHA (Aboriginal Lands of Hawaiian Ancestry) was founded. The Homerule Movement emerged in 1973, along with the Hawaiian Coalition and Hui Malama 'Aina O Ko'olau. In 1974, the Council of Hawaiian Organizations, Alu Like, the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, and the first Hawaiian group calling for independence from the United States, 'Ohana O Hawai'i, were established. In 1975, the organization Hui Ala Loa formed on the island of Moloka'i, and the Hou Hawaiians, seeking federal recognition from the U.S. government, reorganized. In 1976, the Protect Kaho'olawe 'Ohana was founded to protest the American military bombing and abuse of the island of Kaho'olawe. Finally in 1978, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was created by an amendment to the state constitution.

The political organization and cultural renaissance which took place among indigenous Hawaiians during this period was very significant in influencing the need for change and the sovereignty movement of today. Davianna Pomaika'i McGregor writes:

Beginning in 1970, a dynamic and sometimes militant grass-roots movement for native Hawaiian rights emerged. Simultaneous with this political movement was a vibrant and creative renaissance of Hawaiian music, dance, language, and culture. A new level of political and cultural consciousness about the history of Hawaiians as a people was popularized in this period. Every strata of the Hawaiian people identified with the political and cultural revival of the Hawaiians as a people.10
In the 1980s and 1990s, major sovereignty organizations have formed to demand the return of lands, self-governance and independence based on the international right of self-determination. In 1985, the Institute for the Advancement of Hawaiian Affairs, formally known as the Sovereignty for Hawai'i Committee, was created. In 1987, Ka Lahui Hawai'i, and the approximately 30,000 member State Council of Hawaiian Homelands Association (SCHHA), which advocates self-governance and self-determination on Hawaiian Homelands,11 were established. Ka Pakaukau was founded in 1989. In 1991, Hui Na'auao, a coalition of 47 Hawaiian groups focusing on sovereignty education, was organized. In 1992, the 'Ohana Council of the Hawaiian Kingdom, now known as the Sovereign Nation-State of Hawai'i (Nation of Hawai'i), commenced. Also in 1992, the restored Kingdom of Hawai'i began.

In January 1993, an estimated 12,000 Hawaiians and non-Hawaiian supporters gathered in Honolulu to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. This event was widely publicized and talked about in Hawai'i and gained some U.S. national and international media attention. A formal apology by the United Church of Christ, formally the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, which sent the first missionaries to Hawai'i in 1820, was issued at this time for the church's complicity in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy:

We acknowledge and confess our sins against you and your forebears, na kanaka maoli. We formally apologize to you for 'our denomination's historical complicity in the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893,' and by unduly identifying the ways of the West with the ways of Christ, and, thereby, undervaluing the strengths of the mature society that was native Hawai'i. We commit ourselves to help right the wrongs inflicted upon you. . . .12
In August 1993, the People's International Tribunal found the United States to be guilty of genocide against the Kanaka Maoli people:
The Tribunal finds it impossible to imagine a greater transgression against the tenets of traditional Kanaka Maoli law than to engage in the physical and cultural destruction of indigenous Hawaiians themselves, whatever the motivations, and whether the destruction is accomplished through direct or indirect means.

The Tribunal finds that the U.S. actions and policies which have resulted in the present circumstances suffered by the Kanaka Maoli represent violation of several elements of international law. Most significant in the latter regard is the United Nations 1948 Convention for Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide . . .13

In November 1993, the U.S. Congress and American President Bill Clinton formally approved the "Apology Bill" (Public Law 103-150). Section 1 of the bill partially reads that the Congress:
(1) on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i on January 17, 1893, acknowledges the historical significance of this event which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people;

(3) apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination.

Although the Apology Bill does not provide redress to Native Hawaiians, the significance of this document should not be underestimated. After the vote in the U.S. Senate, Hawai'i Senator Daniel Akaka told his Senate colleagues:
Though the goal of this specific resolution is to secure a formal apology, I am also committed to seeking redress for wrongs committed against Hawaiians by the federal government.14
In addition Francis Boyle, international legal counsel for the Nation of Hawai'i, has interpreted Public Law 103-150 to mean:
. . . now the United States government, after one hundred years, has finally and officially conceded, as a matter of United States law, that Native Hawaiian people have the right to restore the Independent Nation State that you had in 1893 when the United States government came and destroyed it. And also then that as a matter of international law the Native Hawaiian people have the right to go out now and certainly proclaim the restoration of that State. . . . this resolution clears up all these matters. . . you don't need to petition Congress to do it. Congress has given you everything right here to do it . . . The United Nations Charter provides the rest of the authority to do it.15
The Apology Bill has broadened the discussion and debate of the sovereignty issue in Hawai'i. In addition to the proclamation of independence by the Nation of Hawai'i in 1994, other sovereignty organizations such as Ka Pakaukau, the IAHA, 'Ohana O Hawai'i and the Kingdom of Hawai'i, advocate Hawaiian independence. And in an article in the Honolulu Advertiser on the subject of sovereignty, 54 percent of Hawaiians interviewed wanted to keep ties with the U.S., but 27 percent of Hawaiians thought a future sovereign nation should be completely independent of the United States and 16 percent were undecided.16 This is a significant number of independence supporters considering the newness of the drive for independence.

However the practicality of Hawai'i reemerging as a fully independent nation is strongly questioned by many Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians. As with any liberation movement, direct violence could occur in Hawai'i. Recent independence struggles, e.g., in Chechnya, Sri Lanka and Kanaky, have resulted in tremendous bloodshed. Although some have said the Hawaiian movement is the longest nonviolent struggle in the world, is it possible for a large minority indigenous population to peacefully gain independence from the United States? Moreover, the U.S. government treats indigenous Hawaiians today as merely "wards" of the state of Hawai'i,17 failing to protect their rights and to recognize them as indigenous peoples. The findings in A Broken Trust, a 1991 report of the Hawai'i Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights regarding the Hawaiian Homelands program, affirms:

Since 1959 the United States has maintained a policy of non-recognition of the indigenous peoples of Hawai'i and has consistently dealt with the State of Hawai'i despite an extensive record of State neglect and mismanagement of the native trusts. The record reveals that the United States itself by acting in collusion with the State has illegally acquired for its own use trust lands set aside by the U.S. Congress for homesteading. For over 73 years, the United States has failed to protect the Civil Rights of Hawaiians.18
Alan Murakami, litigation director for the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, stated in testimony before the Committee that, because of the lack of federal recognition, Native Hawaiians
were not afforded the protective umbrella of Federal tribal recognition, they could not turn to the Federal Government to seek special consideration because of the possible risk of violating equal protection standards. . . . Ironically, Hawaiians, whose former kingdom was among the international community of nations and recognized formally by the U.S., have a much more compelling case for Federal recognition than do many already recognized tribes.19
The Committee concluded that the United States had "failed to exercise its trust obligations to the beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, . . ."20 despite the federal governments assertion that its trust responsibilities ended with statehood in 1959. Furthermore, the federal government has never provided funding or adequate technical support for the Hawaiian Homelands program.21 In 1991, approximately 19,000 indigenous Hawaiians still waited on the Hawaiian Homelands list for homestead leases, with only 6,000 leases awarded since 1921.22

Indigenous Hawaiians have the worst overall social, economic, educational and health statistics among the main ethnic groups in Hawai'i and on the U.S. continent. Blaisdell reveals that in 1990, Kanaka Maoli,

who comprised 18.8% of the total Ka Pae 'Aina multi-ethnic population of 1,108,229, continued to have generally the worst health indicators of the 5 main ethnic groups. These included the shortest life expectancy; highest mortality rates overall and for heart disease, cancer, stroke, accidents, diabetes and infants. In most instances, the rates were worse or no better than in 1980. Among Asian and Pacific Islanders (APIs), 1982-1995, Kanaka Maoli continued to have the greatest prevalence rates for AIDS. 1992 behavioral risk factors were highest in Kanaka Maoli for obesity, cigarette-smoking, alcohol drinking and non-use of auto seatbelts. In 1992 in 7 U.S. states with the largest API populations, Kanaka Maoli had the highest rates of birth from teenage and unmarried mothers. In 1994, only 2.6% of licensed M.D.s were Kanaka Maoli. In 1993-1994, 6.5% of all eligible Kanaka Maoli were seen in the 5 islands-wide Native Hawaiian Health Care Systems which became operational in 1991. In 1990, Kanaka Maoli also continued to have generally the worst social, education and economic indicators compared to other ethnic groups.23
The most controversial and hotly debated issue in the Hawaiian community today is the 1996 Hawaiian sovereignty plebiscite (now called the "Native Hawaiian Vote"). In 1993, the Hawai'i state legislature established a Governor-appointed Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission, now named the Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council (HSEC). The HSEC is to determine, in part, "the will of the native Hawaiian people to call a democratically convened convention for the purpose of achieving consensus on an organic document that will propose the means for native Hawaiians to operate under a government of their own choosing."24 The question to be presented to Hawaiian voters is: "Shall the Hawaiian people elect delegates to propose a Native Hawaiian government?" The HSEC maintains the state legislation "constitutes an exercise of expression of the will of the native Hawaiian people without any commitment to the acceptance in the State of Hawai'i of such expression."25 The HSEC stresses that, "The process is not, however, sufficient or adequate to constitute a full expression of the rights of self-determination under international law."26

Many Hawaiians, nevertheless, have charged that the Native Hawaiian Vote process is controlled by the state of Hawai'i and violates their right of self-determination. Some believe the vote is an attempt by the legislature to resolve the Apology Bill. Samuel L. Kealoha, Jr. writes, "This plebiscite is proposed to be the Hawaiian consent needed to justify U.S. and State of Hawai'i control."27 Other indigenous Hawaiians claim the state is intentionally rushing the process, since many Hawaiians remain uninformed on the sovereignty issue at this time:

The only reason for the "plebiscite" is to quickly officially affirm what the polls already show while most of us Kanaka Maoli are uniformed, confused and/or afraid. The State and U.S. may then declare that we Kanaka Maoli officially, finally and permanently relinquish our rights to our stolen lands and to ourselves as a sovereign nation and convey these rights to the State and U.S.28
Puerto Rican international human rights lawyer José Luis Morín contends that plebiscites, such as the Native Hawaiian Vote, have been used by the U.S. government as a means to legitimize control over illegally held overseas territories, as it did in Puerto Rico in the 1950s and Hawai'i in 1959.29 State of Hawai'i control of the Native Hawaiian Vote process violates the indigenous Hawaiians' right of self-determination under international law, according to Morín:
The Hawai'i state government has established a process which blatantly violates the people's right to self-determination under international law. The state government has taken upon itself to create and control the process by which the people are to make their choice about self-governance and self-determination. This form of interference in the right of a sovereign people invalidates the entire 1996 "plebiscite" process under international law. The Kanaka Maoli people themselves are not in control of the process, the government that has illegally dominated them is. Under international law, the Kanaka Maoli people must decide collectively on the process and the questions that will appear on the ballot as well as when a vote should take place. They must decide among themselves on how people are to be educated about the issues of sovereignty and the right to self-determination.30
The HSEC responds to the allegation regarding U.S. involvement in the Native Hawaiian Vote process by citing the United Nations Charter:
There is no legal basis in international law to support this allegation. In fact, all current and existing international law suggests the very opposite. In international law on decolonization, the U.S. government is charged with accepting as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost. . . the well-being of the inhabitants and to this end to promote constructive measures of development.31
As the HSEC concedes above, the Native Hawaiian Vote process is not a full expression of self-determination based on international law. It is questionable whether indigenous Hawaiians, especially those living in rural areas, are educated about sovereignty. The HSEC points out the Native Hawaiian Vote will simply ask Hawaiians if they want to elect delegates to begin discussing the issue of Hawaiian self-governance, not to vote on a model at this time.32 The HSEC has also added a disclaimer on the ballot to protect the vote from any misinterpretation:
The Native Hawaiian Vote does not surrender any claim against the United States of America or the State of Hawai'i including but not limited to lands, historical socio-economic-cultural injury, sovereignty or any right of self-determination.
However, the HSEC may be bargaining that the state and federal governments will not use their political power and this vote as a self-determination vote against indigenous Hawaiians in the future. But with a history of abuse and neglect, as depicted in this chapter, and most recently state legislation to cut OHA's ceded lands revenue by 80 percent,33 along with the constant threats and state action to evict mainly indigenous Hawaiians from illegally held lands, why would Hawaiians trust the state or federal governments in the sovereignty process at all?

Finally, some non-Hawaiians have been active in the Hawaiian movement since the early 1970s. Many are involved and active in supporting the Hawaiian cause for sovereignty today. Most non-Hawaiian advocates of sovereignty have acknowledged the historical wrongs committed against indigenous Hawaiians since the time of Cook. Many believe that reparations for the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, formal recognition as indigenous peoples by the United States, and the return of ceded lands34 should be provided, acknowledged and restored to the Hawaiian people. Some Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians believe that if these issues are not reconciled and resolved, the potential for conflict and direct violence will increase as the sovereignty movement grows. With the possibility of violence occurring here at home, many are committed to helping ensure a peaceful sovereignty process. This examination of the proposed models may help to facilitate that process.

The Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement:
Roles of and Impacts on Non-Hawaiians

By Anthony Castanha, August 1996
<-- CHAPTER 2
SOVEREIGNTY AND SELF-DETERMINATION		 CONTENTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 CHAPTER 4
STATE-WITHIN-A-STATE		 -->

1 Lili'uokalani, Hawaii's Story: By Hawaii's Queen, Honolulu: Mutual Publishing, 1990, pp. 387-388.
[return to text]

2 U.S. President Grover Cleveland, Written Address to the United States Senate and House of Representatives, Washington: December 18, 1893.
[return to text]

3 Glen Grant, in Hawaii's Story: By Hawaii's Queen, p. xi.
[return to text]

4 Ibid.
[return to text]

5 Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie, Native Hawaiian Rights Handbook (Edited), Honolulu: Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation / Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 1991, p. 24.
[return to text]

6 A document called the "Monster Petition" opposing annexation was signed by the "vast majority" of Native Hawaiians in 1897. Also, U.S. congressional records indicate it was well-known in Washington "that most, if not all, native Hawaiians opposed annexation." See Native Hawaiians Study Commission (Volume I), Report on the culture, needs and concerns of Native Hawaiians, Pursuant to Public Law 96-565, Title III, Honolulu: June 1983, pp. 306-308.
[return to text]

7 The "Apology Bill," Public Law 103-150.
[return to text]

8 Haunani-Kay Trask, "Kupa'a 'Aina: Native Hawaiian Nationalism in Hawai'i," in Ulla Hasager and Jonathan Friedman, eds., Hawai'i: Return to Nationhood, Copenhagen: 1994.
[return to text]

9 Haunani-Kay Trask, "The Birth of the Modern Hawaiian Movement: Kalama Valley, O'ahu, The Hawaiian Journal of History, Honolulu: Hawaiian Historical Society, 1987, p. 126.
[return to text]

10 Davianna-Pomaika'i McGregor, "Ho'omau Ke Ea O Ka Lahui Hawai'i: The Perpetuation of the Hawaiian People," in Michael C. Howard, ed., Ethnicity and Nation-building in the Pacific, Tokyo: The United Nations University, 1989, p. 91.
[return to text]

11 Interview with Kamaki Kanahele, November 27, 1995.
[return to text]

12 Dr. Rev. Paul Sherry, President, United Church of Christ in the USA, An Apology to Na Kanaka Maoli, Kaumakapili Church, Honolulu: January 17, 1993.
[return to text]

13 The People's International Tribunal, "Introduction to the Verdict of the International People's Tribunal Hawai'i, August 1993," Ka Ho'okolokolonui Kanaka Maoli, October 1, 1995, pp. 32-33.
[return to text]

14 Christopher Neil, "U.S. Senate again extends apology to Hawaiians," Honolulu Advertiser, November 28, 1993.
[return to text]

15 Francis Anthony Boyle, Addressing the Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission regarding U.S. Public Law 103-150--the Hawaii Apology Bill--and its implications for the Restoration of the Independent Nation State of Hawai'i under International Law, Honolulu: December 28, 1993.
[return to text]

16 Mark Matsunaga, "Most Hawaiians want to retain ties with U.S.," Honolulu Advertiser, November 24, 1995.
[return to text]

17 Ka Lahui Hawai'i, Ho'okupu a Ka Lahui Hawai'i: The Master Plan, 1995, p. 3.
[return to text]

18 Quoted in Ka Lahui Hawai'i, The Master Plan, p. 5.
[return to text]

19 Quoted in A Broken Trust: The Hawaiian Homelands Program--Seventy Years of Failure of the Federal and State Governments to Protect the Civil Rights of Native Hawaiians, Testimony by Alan Murakami, Report of the Hawai'i Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights, December 1991, pp. 12-13.
[return to text]

20 Ibid., p. 43.
[return to text]

21 Ibid., p. 45.
[return to text]

22 Charles Ka'ai'ai, "Pahe'ehe'e Ridge," in The American Friends Service Committee, He Alo A He Alo: Face to Face (Hawaiian Voices on Sovereignty), Honolulu: The Hawai'i Area Office of the American Friends Service Committee, 1993, p. 64.
[return to text]

23 Richard Kekuni Blaisdell, M.D., "1995 Update on Kanaka Maoli (Indigenous Hawaiian) Health," Revised abstract of a paper presented at the Asian American and Pacific Islander Health Summit, San Francisco: June 21-24, 1995, p. 1.
[return to text]

24 Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission, Final Report, Honolulu: February 18, 1994, p. 2.
[return to text]

25 Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council, "Position on Plebiscite," January 1995.
[return to text]

26 Ibid.
[return to text]

27 Samuel L. Kealoha, Jr., "The plebiscite: a scam and an insult," Ka Wai Ola O OHA, February 1995, p. 12.
[return to text]

28 Kekuni Blaisdell, Letter from Ka Pakaukau to the members of the Sovereignty Elections Council (SEC), January 31, 1995.
[return to text]

29 Eugene Hopkins, "Puerto Rican lawyer condemns plebiscite: US would wrest control of islands from Hawaiians," Ka Leo O Hawai'i, March 7, 1996.
[return to text]

30 José Luis Morín, "Questions and Answers about Plebiscites and Decolonization," Unpublished paper, December 8, 1995, pp. 2-3.
[return to text]

31 Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council, A Call for Hawaiian Unity (Setting the Record Straight), June 1996.
[return to text]

32 Ibid.
[return to text]

33 Patrick Johnston, "Legislators revive governor's bill, target OHA trust," Ka Wai Ola O OHA, May 1996, p. 1.
[return to text]

34 The 5(F) Ceded Lands Trust comprises approximately 1.4 million acres of Hawaiian crown and government lands ceded to the United States in 1898.
[return to text]

The Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement:
Roles of and Impacts on Non-Hawaiians

By Anthony Castanha, August 1996
<-- CHAPTER 2
SOVEREIGNTY AND SELF-DETERMINATION		 CONTENTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 CHAPTER 4
STATE-WITHIN-A-STATE		 -->