Is Hawaii apart of the us
Hawaii separate from us?Hawaii's legal dispute against the USA
This is how Dr. David Keanu Sai, pensioned captain of the army with a doctorate in politics and teacher at Kapiolani Community College in Hawaii, characterises Hawaii's cosmopolitan state. Sai has been exploring the Hawaiian Kingdom and its complex relations with the United States since 1993.
For the past 17 years, Sai has spoken in Hawaii, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, at the United Nations and before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, testifying about Hawaii's global standing and how Hawaii as U.S. territories and finally as the Fiftieth World War.
In order to illustrate why he and others insisted that Hawaii was not now and never legally part of the United States, Sai gives an account of Hawaii's Feudal Landsystem and its past as an autonomous, supreme empire before the fall of Queen Liliuokalani on January 16, 1893.
Sai' s talks tell the story of 1842, when the Kingdom of Hawaii, under King Kamehameha III, sent emissaries to France, Britain and the United States to ensure that Hawaii's supremacy was recognised. U.S. President John Tyler recognised Hawaii's independency on 19 December 1842, followed by France and Great Britain in November 1843.
In the next 44 years, Hawaii's sovereignty was recognised by more than a decade in Europe, Asia and the Pacific, with each country setting up overseas consular offices and missions in Hawaii. Until 1893, the Kingdom of Hawaii had opened 90 ambassadors and councils around the globe, among them Washington, DC, with Consuls General in San Francisco and New York.
After concluding a pact on fellowship, trade and shipping on December 20, 1849, the United States opened its own consulate in Hawaii. On January 16, 1893, the destiny of Hawaii was forever changing when, inspired by the powerful navy official Alfred Thayer Mahan and the US ambassador to Hawaii - with the assistance of an expansionary US Congress that wanted to expand its US army to the Pacific - US forces arrived in Hawaii in violation of Hawaii' s sovereign ity and against the protests of the Governor of Oahu and the Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
The following morning, six Hawaiians, among them Sanford Dole and seven business people from abroad, officially proclaimed themselves the new temporary administration of the islands of Hawaii under the name "Citizen's Committee of Public Safety", under the auspices of the US army - basically an unbloody putsch. Sai told his audience that this marriage between non-Ethnanian Hawaiians who wanted to conduct their business with oil and gas on the US dollar and a US administration and a US army who wanted to push their own positions in the Pacific has sworn to oust the administration of a supreme alien state.
The following Monday, members of a group that claimed to be the new temporary administration of Hawaii travelled to Washington, where they concluded a "cession treaty" that went to the US Senate by President Benjamin Harrison. It was found that both the US Army and the US Ambassador to Hawaii had breached public policy and that the US was committed to restoring the administration of the Kingdom of Hawaii to its pre-downfall condition.
President Cleveland in November 1893 reached an accord to fully re-establish the rule of Queen Liliuokalani on conditions of granting pardon to all those who took part in her downfall. Shortly thereafter, Hawaiian officials tried to transfer all land of the Hawaiian people, the Hawaiian authorities and the Krone to the United States, while Liliuokalani protested to the US State Department.
Approximately 38,000 Hawaiians petitioned against annihilation in order to help the Queens and attempted to relinquish Hawaii, and a second attempted annihilation of Hawaii was unsuccessful until March 1898. In April 1898, with the beginning of the Spain conflict, the attempted expansion of the US Navy into the Pacific to combat Spain's impact in the Philippines and Guam achieved a new USP.
In the two week after the declaration of hostilities against Spain, Francis Newlands (D-Nevada) tabled a motion demanding the United States' annexation it. Impressive militarists such as rear admiral Alfred T. Mahan and General John Schofield witnessed that the ownership of Hawaii by the United States was "of the utmost importance".
" Against this backdrop, the Newlands Parliament transferred the resolutions to the Senate and adopted a common motion that President McKinley signs alleging that he has successfully annihilated the islands of Hawaii. Hawaii's banner was sown, the US banner hoisted and the territory of Hawaii officially proclaimed on August 12, 1898.
However, Sai points out that a common Congress motion is US law limited to the borders of the United States. He says the clue to Hawaii's judicial statute is the 1893 treaty between two states: "Hawaiian law is the same: Today, one hundred and seventeen years after the US Marines landing on Oahu and the fall of the Kingdom of Hawaii, what Sai called" the legend of the Hawaiian statehood" is immortalized, even hailed as a day of state identity on the third Friday of every August.
"Today, America cannot annihilate Iraq by a common dissolution more than it could buy Hawaii by a common dissolution in 1898. The Baathist Group of Saddam Hussein's administration.... was destroyed by the United States. However, the overthrow of the Iraqi authorities did not mean that Iraq was toppled as a state in power.
There was still Iraq, but it had no government," Sai says. Sai successfully claimed in his thesis that Hawaii is not yet a jurisdiction of the United States under world law, but a supreme empire, albeit without its own state. Sai says the entities that overthrow a state have a duty to manage the law of the squat.
He says that Congress's common motion and the US's unsuccessful attempt to annihilate Hawaii are US legislation confined to US soil. It underlines that the 1893 Joint Declaration between President Cleveland and the Queens of Hawaii remains paramount over all other successive Acts.
He says all of this has the capacity to fully change any claim to either publicly or privately owned property, all Hawaiian authorities and the U.S. Army's Hawaii office and activity, especially the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), the pre-eminent force that oversees Pacific, Oceania and East Asia missions.
One of the possible effects of Sai's point is the likelihood that the oldest and probably most important US powerhouse (PACOM's head office is located in Camp Smith, near Pearl Harbor) is now faced with a legislative battle and occupying an area of dubious legislative stature. Universiy of Hawaii Press, which has examined Sai's thesis and released it for release, points out that Sai's case has "far-reaching juridical consequences".
" The case itself challenges the judicial authorities of Senator Daniel Inouye, President Obama and others. Eventually, both Daniel Inouye and Barack Obama were borne in Hawaii, which, according to Sai, is not United States law. Sai lodged a complaint with the US District Court for the District of Columbia on June 1, 2010, accusing Barack H. Obama, Hillary D. R. Clinton, Robert M. Gates, (now former) Governor Linda Lingle and Admiral Robert F. Willard of the US Pacific Command.
The Sai quotes the transfer of authority by Liliuokalani as a legally mandatory arrangement extending from President Cleveland to all his successor, up to President Obama and his regime, to manage Hawaii an kingdom right before the restoration of the regime. The action is for a judgement of the Tribunal to declaring the 1898 Joint Resolution for the annexation of the islands of Hawaii to the United States as a breach of hawaiian independence and inconstitutional.
Sai tried in November to append to the lawsuit as a defendant the consulars of 35 counties that he says illegally run embassies in Hawaii in breach of the laws and treaty of the Kingdom of Hawaii. In such a courageous case challenging the highest levels of the United States administration and armed forces, it is not strange that not everyone endorses Sai's stance.
A number of private Hawaiians say that Sai's attempts have the power to negatively influence other types of official acknowledgement such as the Akaka Act, while others are concerned that such a complaint could at best be ineffectual and at worse lead to poor legislation. "And Hawaii has clearly been described as a land that needs to be decolonised, and the US has not followed the appropriate, very clear procedure.
" In 1946, Laenui points out that the United States named Hawaii as an area to be decolonised in UN General Assembly Resolution 66 (1). "Not only do we need to look at the historic regulatory framework, we also need to transform Hawaii's profound cultural heritage to improve the way we live," says Laenui.
Hiilani Cruz is Chair of the Ka Lei Maile Alii Hawaiian Civic Club and Lecturer in Humanities at Hawaii Pacific University. They support Sai's effort and say that he provides a "reliable base " for disputing the legitimacy of US actions in Hawaii. However, she also points out that there are indigenous Hawaiians who, despite the story, are unwilling to identify with the kind of judicial challenges that Sai is facing.
" Phillips proposes to go to Sai's website and read the initial historic documentation to better understanding the foundation of Sai's rights. A university graduate who believes Sai is on the right path is Dr. Jon Kamakawiwoole Usorio, Associate Professor of Hawaiian at the University of Hawaii. Specialized in Hawaii' Kingdom and Pacific settlement policy, he was a member of the Ph. D. Comittee of Sai.
Says Sai knows the rules of Hawaii and the rules of the occupying forces as they apply to Hawaii and every graduate in Hawaii today. He also says that while he argues that Hawaii has a sound world case, it does not go very far if the US administration just does not recognize the case or react in any way.
Perhaps what Sai is persecuting, Osorio proposes, is to press for a final position of the US administration, which could take the shape of a refusal of the Hawaiians' supremacy. This was a great present for the Hawaiian people because it prevents many of us from following our path of US independency instead of just contenting ourselves with a different kind of statute (like the Akaka law) because we don't think we are eligible for it," says Osorio.
"Osorio says that the power against the Kingdoms of Hawaii at the end of the nineteenth was no less brutal just because not many lives were lost. "Violating our law, violating our confidence, violating the relationships between our nation and our leaders, it still stands between any kind of friendship between Hawaiians who know this story and the United States.