True self-determination cannot have strings attached

Were the U.S. to create today, under its own domestic laws rather than international law, a so-called government to government relationship with Kānaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians), it would be violating, once again, the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which has never legally been obliterated. Remember, inasmuch as the U.S. has never conquered us (we resisted takeover using diplomatic, not military means), nor executed a valid treaty of cession/annexation with us—either one of which was required in 1898 for an annexation to be valid under international law—the U.S. has no legal authority over our nation.

Already, the U.S. has perpetrated numerous crimes against our people including: having a determinative role in the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani’s lawfully constituted government and in its replacement by a non-elected republican government composed of a coterie of U.S.-born subjects of the Queen; the rapid and rapacious appropriation of our lands, waters and other resources; the attempted erasure of our history, language and culture; and the strangling of our diplomatic relationships with other nations in the world.

These actions violated our rightful existence under international law in the 1890s and now violate our collective right to self-determination, as well as individual human rights. The U.S.’ current initiative via the Department of the Interior is the latest item in a long list of violations and shows its utter unwillingness to take responsibility for the crimes against our nation.

What the U.S. ought to do between now and the restoration of our full independence is to officially recognize an interim trust relationship with the Kānaka Maoli inasmuch as it holds our lands and resources, depriving us of their benefits. Indeed, the United Nations imposed this international trust relationship on the U.S. when, after WWII, it placed Hawai’i on the list of non self-governing territories which, it later declared, must be decolonized.

As we are not now able to exercise our sovereignty in our own country, the U.S. must also assure, in this transitional period, that the Hawaiian people do not lose the rights and prerogatives—however inadequate—that have been garnered by Hawaiians since the American takeover. These rights include Office of Hawaiian Affairs revenues, Hawaiian Homelands, special health and education funds and resource gathering and access rights, to name a few. The U.S. government should simply acknowledge that the Hawaiian people have agencies in place that advocate for Kānaka and manage their resources and that neither the courts nor Congress should diminish their mandates. In other words, the U.S. should inflict no more harm as the Hawaiian nation continues to unify and strengthen itself.

The U.S. may also be bound by its own domestic laws, specifically 103-150—the 1993 Apology Resolution in which the U.S. recognized its complicity in the loss of our government while committing itself to an unspecified process of reconciliation. The imposition of the status of a “client state” on the Kānaka Maoli does not constitute reconciliation, but actually denotes further aggression. Consequently, no federal agency should participate in a course of action that further diminishes the collective rights of the Kānaka Maoli, as well as their individual human rights.

Finally, the U.S. needs to understand that an increasing number of people believe that restoration of our independent government is not only viable and reasonable but inevitable. This makes the political climate and future in Hawaiʻi very different, and somewhat more precarious, than in 1959 when Congress declared Hawaiʻi a state, or even in 1993 when tens of thousands of Hawaiians were seeking limited self-government. The Department of the interior and the State of Hawaiʻi should not attempt to influence or interfere with the nation building that has been ongoing among Kānaka for the past thirty years. The good will and aloha shown by Hawaiian activists will quickly sour if either the U.S. or the state of Hawaiʻi uses tactics to divide and alienate our people from one another.

I believe The Hawaiian sovereignty movement can and will produce a peaceful and just resolution of the political and legal problems created by the U.S. if it is not prevented from growing at its own pace and according to its own ideals. We do not want just any governing body. We want the restoration of our independent government and we deserve nothing less than that. Through our patience and non-violent persistence, we have earned the faith of those who inhabit these islands alongside us that we will not disenfranchise others nor deprive them of their rights. We do insist, however, on claiming our rights as a sovereign people and on the U.S. and state policy makers keeping their hands off our efforts.

Of course, this does not mean that the U.S. does not owe reparations to the Hawaiian nation for its use of our national lands and waters for its own benefit and security. Inasmuch as the invoice for 130 years of Pearl Harbor use is likely to be a substantial charge, it is important for the U.S. not to add to its obligations and, instead, to look for ways to reestablish the friendly and cooperative relationship it once enjoyed with our Kingdom.