I examine here and set out for your consideration a proposal of a truly national security system for the Hawaiian nation. This national security system is not merely a military plan addressing the issues of armed combat, but a total system of national security.

We are continually haunted by an unexplored fear of foreign attack and believe that the safest place to be is under the armpit of the biggest of all bullies. This is partly the result of propaganda during the pre-Statehood period following the Japan attack of the U.S. in Hawaii in 1941. As a result, we have failed to really understand the structure of national security and the appropriate role of a military force.
Let us step away from that old paradigm of national security being big guns, large number of soldiers, huge ships, and ABC weapons (Atomic, Biological and Chemical). Let us keep an open mind and drop the stumbling blocks of false loyalties to a rogue state which is in constant violation of international law.
We really do not need the U.S. military. In fact, we are far better off without them in Hawaii. What does the U.S. military represent? A target. A bait in the Pacific for others to look at with disdain.
The U.S. military has used Hawaii to fulfill its tactic of “out basing”, i.e. find bases outside its internal borders to place troops and to attract an attack, or as an early warning system. Perfect example, Japan’s attack on Dec. 7, 1941!
For the sake of Hawaii’s security, it would be far better that we had no U.S. military in Hawaii. We can survive in a defensive defense mode with the Hawaii National Guard and by adopting policies of simply protecting Hawaii from aggression but having no capability to aggress against another.
While we move to a different system of national security, what happens with the U.S. Military?
Under an independent nation status, the U.S. military would exist in Hawaii, if at all, upon Hawaii’s terms. That is not the case today. Presently the U.S. military has taken up such a gigantic portion of our lands and pay almost nothing for it. ($1 for 65 years for the Valleys of Makua and Kahanahaiki, nothing for Kaho`olawe, nothing for Lualualei, Schofield, Wheeler, Hickam-Pearl Harbor, Ka`ena, Pohakuloa, etc.) They have been polluting our waters and land such that Lualualei ammunition depot was listed as the most polluted of the U.S. military lands in the world, followed soon after by Pearl Harbor! Now they also pollute our aquifer at Red Hill, in flagrant disregard to our Board of Water Supply! How is this protecting us, or does it mean protecting the U.S. and to hell with the Hawaiian people?
The U.S. military is said to bring in lots of Federal spending into Hawai, but the numbers are manipulated by politicians and bankers tied into the military propaganda. The measure used is the amount of Federal taxes paid by Hawaii residents compared to the amount spent by the Federal government in Hawaii, to a large extent for military service.
This is a bogus equation. All Federal dollars spent by the military, including for civilian services, goes for goods and services for the military. Those transaction cancel each other out! It’s a “quid pro quo.” They pay for services or goods and they receive them. It is never a gift or a hand-out.
Federal spending for highways should also consider the fuel taxes paid by Hawaii highway users, and by Hawaii residents paying in Federal tax dollars. In return, the U.S. government can use Hawaii’s airports, road systems and seaports and lanes as part of the U.S. national defense system. There’s no gift or windfall here from the Federal government!
U.S. military personnel spends a lot of money in Hawaii. True. But they get the goods and services they pay for. Meanwhile, they also avoid State income taxes, avoid State General Excise Tax when they purchase from the military commissaries. They contribute to the cost of educating military dependents, true. But the cost of such contribution is between 40-60% of the true cost for the State to educate them. And they bring in the brown tree snake and the Covid 19 Virus while Hawaii has no oversight!
The U.S. colonizers, including the Federal and State governments, politicians, bankers, real estate developers, economists who works for them, and major business entities have been feeding the Hawaii public with a bogus equation of value received by the Federal government compared with costs to Hawaii. But they are the folks with the sharp pencil and calculators. More important, they design the economic equations to spew out their colonial tainted results.
What should a balanced equation look like?
It would include the value of the stolen lands currently used by the U.S. and State governments, originally the property owned by the Hawaiian Nation and its citizens. These are the lands considered “ceded” by those governments, land to a large extent, the Hawaii State government has refused to give an accounting to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. These include the ocean waters between these islands and should be considered to include the 200 miles designated exclusive economic zone by the Law of the Seas Convention. This would also include the land and sea area around other islands along the Hawaiian archipelago as well as Kalama atoll, Christmas islands and all other territories considered part of the Hawaiian nation prior to the U.S. invasion in 1893.
Into that equation should be added the past usage of these lands and waters since 1898 in which Hawaii was declared by the U.S. an American territory. Those many years in which Hawaiian assets were in the hands of the U.S. or its colonial place holders, the Territory of Hawaii and the State of Hawai, should be accounted for and a payment plan should be drawn up so that within 1 generation (about 25 years), the back debt would be caught up. The rent is overdue.
That equation should also consider the hijack cost assessed against the people of Hawaii. That is the cost of Federal taxation and State taxation, called a “voluntary system” but followed by threats of imprisonment, confiscation of various properties, and limited liberties should one choose not to volunteer parts of their assets to the government trough. These were payments wrought out of the hands or the accounts of the people of Hawaii, largely unwillingly, and paid over to the U.S. or its colonial creation.
But what of the benefits and values one received in return by the U.S. presence in Hawaii, one would ask? Was there no value there? There may have been value while the U.S. remained colonizers, but it cannot be properly accounted for because such “values” were part and parcel of the U.S. colonization. It is remarkably like a comparison to slavery and the argument by the slave owner that the slave received value while under slavery! Slavery and colonization is so grand a violation of human rights.
A people under colonization, like a people under slavery, cannot be charged for “value” they received if these people had no control over their colonization or their slavery. As long as the colonizer or the slave master controlled the equation, and held the pencil and computer to account for the “value” received, there will be no accurate accounting and the only response is to treat the colonizer/slave owner’s account as a trustee who co-mingled his assets with that of the beneficiary under his trust. (Note that the U.S. undertook a “sacred trust” obligation to bring the people of Hawaii to self-government under U.N. Charter Chapter XI, Article 73 with respect to non-self- governing territories.) The trustee is to lose the full amount of his claimed benefit!
Let us now turn our attention to the design of a national security system based on peace by peaceful means, an aloha security plan built on respect for ourselves and others, on life affirming attitudes, on cultural strength, on openness, and on friendship building.
We must be far wiser in our plans for National Security than simply military force. I suggest we create a four- part front for Hawaii’s National Security, each one being an integral part of the overall program. These parts are 1) Defensive Defense, 2) Outer Usefulness, 3) Inner Strength and 4) Non-Alliance with international “defense” pacts. I credit Professor Emeritus of Peace Studies, Johan Galtung, for introducing this approach of national security to me. He has been a scholar in the field and has consulted with many countries as well as the United Nations. He had been a guest on my radio shows both at Hawaii Public Radio (A Second Glance) and KWAI (Hawaiian Potpourri) as well as on several of my `Olelo T.V. programs. We both taught together at the University of Hawaii in International Relations.
1. Defensive Defense: In an earlier day, the U.S. had called it the War Department since 1789, a name aptly identifying the department’s nature and purpose. In 1824, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was formed in the War Department to battle the Indians, switching over to the Department of the Interior in 1849. Its name was converted to the Department of Defense in 1949. The name changed, the posture of the Department did not.
In the area of military operations, there are a variety of postures a military can take. They should be divided into two general categories, Offense and Defense. To undertake a defensive posture, a country would not be the aggressor, nor the instigator of a war. Its posture should essentially be one of defending its borders and territories if attacked. We could call this a Defensive – Defense posture.
The second posture is one in which the nation takes an attitude that in order to remain in a Defensive posture, we need to keep our enemies at bay, and assure that the enemies will not aggress against us. Therefore, we need to be pro-active in our defense. In fact, we need to go into other territories surreptitiously, to be certain that no other country is preparing to aggress against us. This mentality begins to unwind itself into that “slippery slope” of aggression under a concept of offensive defense, i.e. the only reason we are invading other countries is to be able to defend ourselves. Soon that excuse becomes one of defending our “national interest” or our nationals. A “sneak attack” now changes into a “pre-emptive strike.” We find very rapidly, this type of “silly talk” get out of hand.
Under that offensive defense posture, we find a plethora (over 600 bases overseas, over 5,000 bases total) of U.S. military bases across the world threatening every corner of the world not only with troops and spies but with the delivery capacity of ABC (Atomic, Biological and Chemical) weapons.
This type of military in Hawaii does not give us any greater assurance of security. It only increases the tension simply because other nations can act in kind. They develop approaches of being offensive to the U.S. and its military bases in Hawaii. They too can turn their ABC weapons toward Hawaii as their defensive measure. Who wins? Nobody. Who loses? Us in Hawaii. Is this really security?
Hawaii’s military posture should instead be one of strictly Defensive Defense. Our position should be, “WE WILL NOT ATTACK ANY OTHER COUNTRY. WE WILL ONLY DEFEND OUR TERRITORY FROM ALL ATTACKS.’ We should build up a limited National Guard with the same high efficiency as the current National Guard to effectuate this policy.
As part of this defensive posture, we should also say, “WE WILL REMOVE ALL STRIKE CAPACITY BEYOND A PROTECTIVE UMBRELLA OF 200 MILES FROM OUR SHORES. BUT WE WILL HAVE NO CAPACITY TO EXTEND WITH OFFENSIVE WEAPONS BEYOND THAT RANGE. We should extend an invitation to all nations to visit and verify our weapons capability. We could expect not only verification but the turning away of other countries weapons pointed at Hawaii.
We should take all savings from excessive military spending and use this peace dividend for peace purposes in the other three areas:
2. OUTER USEFULNESS. As a central aspect of Hawaii’s national security, Hawaii should create itself into a place of usefulness to the rest of the world, a special or even a sacred place where other nations would not want to attack Hawaii. Just as Switzerland has demonstrated its outer usefulness by acting as the hub of international financial transactions as well as the home of international organizations such as the WTO, WHO, ILO, World Council of Churches, International Red Crescent/Cross, and the United Nations, such that it would be a national shame for another nation to attempt to invade this neutral country.
For Hawaii, outer usefulness could be achieved in a number of areas:
-Education centers of the world’s present and future leaders in peace development, in cultural understanding, in science, technology. medicine, oceanography, navigation, astronomy, etc. We could showcase the extensive cultures of Asia, the Middle East, of Europe, of Africa, of the Pacific
-Entertainment in which the exhibitions of cultures of the world could be showcased here in Hawaii operating under well controlled management, catering to an international audience from around the world, not only limited to an audience controlled by U.S. immigration policies.
-Food production developing high quality and nutritious food sources which carry the distinction of being made in Hawaii, such as Hawaii’s poi, so nutritious that it can be used to feed babies when they are unable to even take their mother’s milk! Hawaii could be exporters of many other food products, just as we had once been. The specialty food we produced should be aimed at targeted audiences so that we do not enter simply an agriculture production market where we would be overrun by other large national agricultural products. Hawaii’s products should aim at the specialty markets.
– Center for religious tolerance, accepting as it does today of all religious faiths, giving us a unique ability to demonstrate a society of aloha in which not only are there the existence of many religious practices as well as a wide variety of cultural practices within a particular religion as well as the practice of multiple religions within a person, family or cultural group. For example, a family of multiple generations may have a mother ordained a Zen Buddhist priest while daughter is a lay minister of a Christian Pentecostal church and the grand-father who tolerates all but follows no practice as preferred above another. Yet the family remains whole, functional, supportive of one-another and thriving.
There could be many other aspects of Hawaii’s “outer usefulness” characteristic. The purpose here is not to attempt to define how the Hawaii society is to operate but how it may demonstrate to the world its usefulness as an example of world peace. Through such demonstration, Hawaii would build its “strength” around its moral-cultural-tolerance character and becomes highly respected by other nations, far more than if it attempts to develop into an aggressive militarized nation.
3) INNER STRENGTH. Hawaii’s inner strength is exhibited not necessarily in its military strength, although it’s national guard will be, as the State’s current national guard system is today, a highly efficient, technologically most proficient, and effective in the military defense of the nation. This inner strength will be exhibited in the sense of the society’s understanding of civil service and how its society could be turned into an efficient operational defense force in the event of military invasion or by groups or individuals who threaten the health or welfare of the society. Very similar to Switzerland, the Hawaii society would be organized in a structure where each household and each able-bodied person would have a role in this inner strength, each person having been properly trained physically, mentally, and emotionally for that role and to be able to see the overall community role of self-defense.
The core of the development of this inner strength for Hawaii is built around pride and protection. This is formed by a high degree of cultural pride among the people, often a multiple sense of cultural pride melded into a common core of identity. We already see much of this in our local society in which a family of mixed ethnicity takes pride in each of their inheritance, and willing to defend the integrity of that inheritance.
One example is the role Hula has been transformed into today. It is still an especially important expression of spirituality which reaches far into Hawaii’s past. But it is also a unifying identity with Hawaii, today open to participants from all ethnicities, religious beliefs, cultural practices, economic levels, or educational training. It is that same cultural pride which adds to the discipline, mental development, and regimentation which is also transferrable to individual as well as organized self-defense, ready to be turned on at any time against an invading force.
There is a wealth of many other forms of cultural expressions which contain those ingredients which the art of Hula has. There is Lua, huna, karate, jujitsu, tai chi, hopkido, boxing, wrestling, swimming, aikido and a multitude of other forms which have excelled at various times in Hawaii. As one’s age or interest changes or matures, the art form may also change or mature. But the period of engagement would be extended throughout one’s life. The “book end” generations, the elders and the very young would also be actively engaged, each interacting with the other to assure an exchange of generational conversation and preservation of knowledge in these arts and in life.
Economic and resource strength of Hawaii speaks not of the military strength but points out even further the inner strength of Hawaii. As a fundamental part of Hawaii’s national security, Hawaii would have a strong and self-sufficient economy. That is achieved by the protection, preservation, reclamation and increase of its agriculture and aquaculture base. Hawaii’s economy would transform itself to a state of being able to meet all its essential needs such as food, clothing, health care, from within. In this way, Hawaii will not be susceptible to economic embargoes or other trade pressures by other nations, often a form of invasion of Hawaii’s independence stature.
4. NON-ALLIANCE There are “defense” pacts tying and locking nations into a “security” agreement which works its way into giving away one’s control over its own security. Generally, the largest, most powerful military nation controls such pacts and determines what a member nation’s contribution and use of its military is to be, according to the alliance’s decision. For example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization obligates all nations which are part of NATO to defend a member country, even if that country is the aggressor into a third nation. The direction of NATO is essentially determined by one of the many countries of that pact, the United States of America, and that direction has been driven not by the protection and defense of the member countries but for the protection of the American interest, translated as oil and multi-national corporations.
NATO is just an example of such war pacts. In the Pacific, there is RIMPAC, a gathering of military forces from various nations in coordinated exercises around the Rim of the Pacific, supposedly acting as a defense training but actually working its way into threatening the waters of other countries, such as in the China Seas, the North Korean waters, etc. These trainings have flooded small nations including Guam, Hawaii, Okinawa, and other places, using these islands as bombing targets and other abuse of local cultures and historic sites
Becoming a member of a war alliance opens the Hawaii society to all of the enemies of other members of such an alliance. Hawaii would then be subject to various attacks, not only militarily, but in the form of trade, business relations, migration practices, etc.
A far better policy would be to join no military alliance which commits Hawaii to engage in a war to help an “ally’ out. Such alliance can become that slippery slope which pulls us into a fight rather than keep us out. The only alliances we should join are in trade or assistance in natural disasters or in the exporting of medical aid, food, and education.
Hawaii’s security should rest not on military armament operated by the United State whose first and only objective is to assure the furtherance of the interest of the United States. Instead, Hawaii should convert to a four-part national security system which incorporates Defensive Defense (and a promise of non-aggression), Outer Usefulness in which Hawaii shows itself useful and worthy of the good graces of other nation, Inner Strength in the development of a civil society which will commit to the protection of our shores, with a strong economy, healthy environment, and a pride in self, and Non-alignment pacts to keep out of other countries’ wars.
The benefits of this converted system of national security will reward Hawaii not only by a measure of its security, but would enrich our natural environment, increase our economic value for all of our lands and oceans, uplift the cultural and education treasures that still persist in Hawaii, and return a sense of self-control over our future of Hawaii.
The first step toward this vision is to question our self-doubt about the need for the U.S. military in Hawaii and begin the planning and structuring of this four-part national security system that is far more representative of our character and more inclusive in all sectors of Hawaii. This is our Aloha national security plan for Hawai`i.
Aloha `Aina
Poka Laenui

A Call for Review of the Historical Facts Surrounding UNGA Resolution 1469 (xiv) of 1959 Which Recognized Attainment of Self-Government for Hawaii



In 1959, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 1469 relieving the U.S. from the reporting requirements under Article 73 e, after finding that the people of the territory had exercised self-government by choosing to become a state of the United States of America. [link to original source: http://www.hawaiianperspectives.org/a-call-for-review-final-form-december-2018-w-changes-from-poka/ and PDF format]

Our current Resolution first asks the General Assembly to order a review of how the US complied with the provisions of Chapter XI of the U.N. Charter, particularly Article 73, over the relevant years from 1946, the year in which Hawaii and Alaska were inscribed in the list of Non-Self-Governing-Territories under GA Resolution 66, until 1959, the year in which the U.S. reported that the people of these territories had exercised self-determination.   It further calls on the General Assembly to initiate a review of the representations made in Report A/4226, submitted by the United States on 24 September 1959, ostensibly to be in compliance to Article 73 e, and also to review the consequent discussions and procedures that led to the adoption of GA Resolution 1469 (XIV) on 12 December 1959.

A careful review of the case will reveal that the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1469 under false premises, on the basis of false and incomplete information provided by the United States of America, relying on representations that were tainted by grave material and procedural irregularities surrounding the fraudulent referendum on Hawaii’s entry into the United States as a State, which amounted to an act of annexation.  Because the referendum was fundamentally flawed, the resolution based thereon must be deemed null and void.


Part One:

U.S. Non-compliance with U.N. Charter Article 73

Article 73 of the United Nations Charter addresses the responsibilities of member nations for the administration of territories “whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.”

This Article called upon the Administrative authority to “recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories.” 

Among the responsibilities mentioned are:

“a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses; and

  1. “to develop self-government…, to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions….”


Replacing Hawaiian culture

It was U.S. policy from the beginning for Hawai’i to be completely Americanized.  Instead of “due respect for the culture of the people,” great effort was made to completely replace Hawaiian culture with American culture.  During the time of the monarchy, there had been forty-eight Hawaiian language newspapers.   Hawaii’s 96% literacy rate was the highest in the world.   When the U.S. Territorial Government was formed, Hawaiian language was banned in schools and in government, and there was an aggressive effort to raise the next generations as speakers only of English.  As a result, the Hawaiian language nearly died out completely.


Failure to ensure political, economic, social, and

educational advancement, and just treatment

Prior to the United States’ takeover, Hawaii was a fully recognized independent nation-state, with international treaties and diplomatic consular posts all around the world.  Its national character was multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic, highly literate, informed, and progressive.

A careful review will establish that the Hawaii Kingdom was overthrown by the United States through aggression to support the power and position of a small number of non-native, mostly American insurrectionists, and to meet the needs of the U.S. economic and military expansionism.

After the U.S. established its Territorial Government of Hawaii, those insurrectionists, descendants of the American missionaries, became fabulously wealthy, forming the Big 5 corporations that controlled almost all aspects of economic, education, and political life in Hawaii.

At the same time, under U.S. rule, “the political, economic, social, and educational advancement” of other descendants of the Hawaiian Nation, particularly native Hawaiians, suffered from loss of land and resources, resulting in poverty, far greater exposure to illness than whites, prejudice, blatant racism and significantly higher rates of incarceration than the settler population.

The Hawaiian colony lacked almost all control over public and private life.  The governor, and all judges of the Territory were appointed by and served at the pleasure of the President of the U.S.  The U.S. Constitution and the laws adopted by the U.S. Congress were elevated as superior to Hawaii’s laws.  Migration into Hawaii was controlled by the U.S.  Education, health policies, communications, international and inter-island transportation were all controlled by the U.S. government.

Schools became the tool for American indoctrination and destruction of the Hawaiian culture.  They focused on American history, beloved American icons, American songs, loyalty and allegiance to the United States of America.  The U.S. Territorial Government re-wrote history, hiding from succeeding generations the knowledge that their kingdom had been overthrown and supplanted by the United States.  Children were taught American culture and taught to look down on anything Hawaiian.  Some Hawaiian children were able to succeed under these circumstances, but in general Hawaiians sank to the bottom of their classes or dropped out of school.

The Kamehameha Schools were founded in the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1887 as a private school with the mandate to educate native Hawaiian children.  But, under the U.S. Territory of Hawaii, Hawaiian children in Kamehameha Schools were primarily trained for military service, farming, home-making and prepared for blue-collar jobs, while non-Hawaiian children (Asians and Caucasians) were in private schools being trained in academics, business, politics, and other professions that would make them leaders in society.  There was a systematic degradation of, and discrimination against, native Hawaiians.


Non-compliance with “developing self-government”

There never was any attempt by the Territorial Government “to develop self-governance” among the descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom subjects, as required by the UN Charter, and by the 1946 U.N.G.A. Resolution 66.  Instead, the United States engaged in 1) a program of propaganda and indoctrination aimed at thoroughly Americanizing the descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom subjects, and 2) a program making it possible for mass numbers of American settlers to move to Hawaii, eventually outnumbering the autochthonous population.  The primary goal of the American occupiers was to retain total control of the islands.  To this day, they have been successful in this variant of classical imperialism.

In requesting a review of U.S. compliance with UN Charter Article 73, we ask the reviewers to especially study how the U.S. failed in its administering responsibilities to ensure “with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses,” and how the U.S. failed to develop self-government, both of which were required pursuant to the UN Charter.


Part Two:

Problems with UNGA Resolution 1469 (XIV)

 Paragraph 2. of Resolution 1469 (XIV) reads: “The General Assembly… 2.  Expresses the opinion, based on its examination of the documentation and the explanations provided, that the people of Alaska and Hawaii have effectively exercised their right to self-determination and have freely chosen their present status.”

Paragraph 3. Congratulates the United States of America and the people of Alaska and Hawaii upon the attainment of a full measure of self-government by the people of Alaska and Hawaii;

This section will look at how “the people of Hawaii” that voted were the wrong “people of Hawaii,” how actual self-governance had never been presented to the public as a possibility, much less an option, how the ballot question did not conform to essential U.N. requirements, how thorough indoctrination had hidden the true history of Hawaii from voters preventing the informed consent they needed to freely choose and to cast a valid vote, and how the U.S. falsely reported a 94% yes vote on statehood, even though, in this most important election ever held in Hawaii, 65% of people of voting age stayed away from the polls.


Incorrectly defining “the people of the territory”

The wrong “people” voted

When Article 73e of the UN Charter speaks of “Member nations who assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government,” clearly it is talking about governments which have taken over, occupied, and/or colonized other nations; and the “people who have not yet attained a full measure of self-government” are the occupied and colonized people.  In the case of Hawaii, where a once independent and internationally recognized Hawaiian Kingdom was taken over, occupied, and colonized by the U.S., the Charter obviously was addressing currently living people who were descendants of subjects of the overthrown Hawaiian Kingdom who had “not yet attained a full measure of self-government.”  However, it was not these descendants who were offered the vote on statehood. Accordingly, the referendum was invalid ratione personae.

During the 59 years that Hawaii was a Territory, there was a huge in-migration of American settlers.  The U.S. military presence also grew exponentially during the period with World War II, the Korean Conflict, and the Cold War. Great numbers of military dependents were also moved to Hawaii.

In the statehood referendum, the U.S. ignored the fact that this vote for self-determination needed to be held among the descendants of subjects of the taken-over, occupied, and colonized Hawaiian Nation.  Instead, the entire populace was allowed to vote, as long as they were American citizens, had lived in Hawaii for one year, and were at least 20 years old.  Even the U.S. military personnel and their dependents stationed in Hawaii for at least a year could vote.  However, since only U.S. citizens could vote, if one pledged allegiance only to the Hawaiian Nation, he or she could not vote in the referendum.

Three quarters of the citizens of the American Territory were racially and culturally different from most of the descendants of the Kingdom subjects.  They were thoroughly Americanized.  They were not at all the people whose Kingdom had been taken over, occupied, and colonized.  These were not at all the people contemplated in the U.N. Charter, Article 73.  They should not have been allowed to vote!  The fact that they did vote invalidates the referendum as an event in which the correct “people of Hawaii” have effectively exercised their right to self-determination and have freely chosen their current status.”

It must also be noted that the immigration of American citizens raises an issue under Geneva Convention IV of 1949, article 49 (6) which stipulates: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” This provision was included so as to prevent demographic manipulation with the ultimate aim of effecting annexation.  According to Demographic Statistics of Hawaii: 1778-1965 by Robert C. Schmitt, between 1950, one year after the U.S. signed onto that Geneva Convention, and 1960, a year after the statehood vote, while all other ethnicities in Hawaii grew by 10% to 19%, the Caucasian population in Hawaii increased by 63%, growing from 124,344 to 202,230. The African American population increased by 86%, grow grew from 2,691 to 4,943.  Clearly the Occupying Power transferred parts of its own population into the territory it occupied, contrary to the Geneva Convention article.


Switched concept of “full measure of self-governance”

Article 73 intended that the descendants of the Kingdom be offered independence or some other form of self-governance, separating themselves from the United States.  Instead, all the people of Hawaii were offered exactly the opposite, movement from a Territory of the United States to a state within the United States.  Instead of separation, they were offered, and given, total absorption.  And this was passed off as “the attainment of a full measure of self-government by the people of Alaska and Hawaii,” in Resolution 1469 (XIV).

The United States government was responsible for implementing the steps to self-determination listed in Article 73.  It deliberately failed to do this.  It is noted that in Hawai’i at the time of the plebiscite, there was little or no awareness of the right of self-determination, that is, no awareness of the possibility of independence, or of the possibility of an independent state in free association with the United States.  None of these possibilities were ever discussed with the general public.  Seemingly, they also were not even discussed among the local American leadership.

Evidence of this is found thirty years after statehood in a television program with William Quinn, the Governor of Hawaii appointed by the U.S. President prior to statehood.  Pōkā Laenui offered an argument that the plebiscite was illegitimate because there was no option for independence on the plebiscite ballot.  Governor Quinn responded, “Har, har, har. [Laughter] That’s the first time I have ever heard anyone make that argument, today, right now….”    ”I’m saying you’re the first time I’ve ever heard someone say that.  I’ve never heard it from Congress, I’ve never heard it from the Presidential office, I’ve never heard it from… (See p. 5, 6 of “DIALOGUE: Statehood & Sovereignty HAWAII PUBLIC TELEVISION, August 16, 1996,” found in Documents at www.Hawaiianperspectives.org)

Whether this is true or not, it seems clear that once the American settler population far surpassed the number of Kingdom descendants, the U.S. switched identification of “the people of Hawaii” from the Kingdom descendants to all residents of the Hawaiian Islands.  Since the new majority of residents was then primarily American, the U.S. then switched the meaning of “full self-governance” from “independence for Kingdom descendants” to “moving from U.S. Territory status to U.S. Statehood.”

But a great wrong was done here.  The right of the descendants of the Kingdom to self governance had been summarily denied and ‘swept under the rug.’

It might also be asked, what “attainment of full measure of self-governance” took place?  Practically nothing changed.   Hawai’i moved from a Territory of the United States to a State of the United States.  The same occupier/colonizer remained in place.  That occupier controlled the foreign relations, the U.S. mechanisms for war, political and economic systems, shipping and air travel. Hawai’i had the same U.S. currency, the same U.S. courts and U.S. laws, and the same government agencies.  The same occupier-controlled immigration and population growth, bringing in ever more American settlers.  Moreover, the occupier’s school system continued to indoctrinate youth, stressing allegiance to America and, for at least another decade, concealing the truth that America had overthrown their kingdom, done everything it could to destroy Hawaiian language and culture, and flooded their islands with U.S. settlers to assure its position.

Except for being allowed to elect four people to Congress and electing their own governor, nothing changed.

This was not “attaining a full measure of self-government,” as the U.S. claimed.  For descendants of the Kingdom, it was attaining the full measure of imperial annexation.


Non-conforming ballot question

The complete wording of the ballot question was: “Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a State?”  The only answers were “Yes” and “No.”  Thus the only choices were: to become a State within the United States of America, or to remain a Territory of the United States of America.  There was no choice for becoming independent of the United States or to have some other relationship with the United States.  U.N. Resolution 742 in 1953 declares that one of the “factors indicative of the attainment of independence or of other separate systems of self-government,” is “freedom of choosing between several possibilities including independence.”  The ballot as written did not comply with U.N. requirements and clearly prevented voters from “effectively exercising their right to self-determination.”

The United States had been a part of the United Nations General Assembly in 1953, six years before the statehood vote, when it approved Resolution 742 (VIII) “Factors which Should be Taken into Account in Deciding Whether a Territory is or is Not a Territory Whose People Have Not yet Attained a Full Measure of Self-Government.” Certainly, the U.S. was aware that Resolution 742 (VIII) required the offer of “independence” as a ballot choice in the statehood vote.

Whatever the reason that the option for independence was not on the ballot, it was an essential requirement of Resolution 742 (VIII) that it be there, and its absence invalidated the vote for statehood.  It also should have been a reason for the United Nations General Assembly to reject UNGA Resolution 1469 instead of accepting it.


Voters lacked informed consent

It should also be questioned whether the people “have freely chosen their present status.” One can only freely choose if one has the ability to make an informed decision. Throughout the years as a Territory, the United States thoroughly indoctrinated the people of Hawai’i into an American worldview and mindset.

In 1906, “as a means of inculcating patriotism in a school population that needed that kind of teaching, perhaps more than mainland children do,” the Board of Education published a “Programme for Patriotic Exercises in the Public Schools.” By the time of the statehood vote, generations of children had been indoctrinated into loving the noble and righteous, glorious United States of America.

History was taught in a way that avoided mentioning the landing of American troops and the overthrow of the Queen.  That is, textbooks were arranged so that one year covered stories of the kings and ended with the happy reign of Queen Lili`uokalani.   The next year began with Annexation and told the glories of the United States.  The Overthrow and the ugly events leading up to and surrounding “Annexation” were assiduously avoided.  One textbook even related that the Queen begged the United States to take over the kingdom.

Very few knew that, contrary to international law, this seemingly kindly, benevolent United States, seventy years before, had committed an act of aggression against Hawaii by landing its troops and overthrowing their peaceful and friendly Hawaiian Kingdom, so that the U.S. could take over the islands. (For a brief history of this period see the Source Document, “Historical Analysis” at pp 5-19, www.hawaiianperspectives.org under the heading Hawaiian Sovereignty.)

Further, at the time of the vote, almost no one knew that there were alternatives to integration into the U.S. that should have been included on the ballot: alternatives such as “independence” or “free association with the U.S.”

Not knowing the complete and true history of relations with Hawaii and the U.S., not fully appreciating that they were victims of propaganda programmed to achieving not only American patriotism, but adulation of the United States, and not aware of and certainly not understanding the alternatives they should have been given, voters clearly lacked the knowledge to make a valid, free choice.

Informed consent is an integral part of free choice.   To have a valid referendum, those voting needed to give their free and informed consent.  Since they could not, the entire statehood referendum (or plebiscite) was invalid.  It is therefore not true that the people had freely chosen statehood.


Only 35% of eligible age voted

While 1959 newspapers gleefully reported that 94% supported statehood, the actual facts are much different.  First, it must be pointed out, that the 94% only counts the Yes and No votes cast.  18% of the voters left the question blank.  When all of the votes are included, only 77% of those who voted actually voted for statehood, not 94%.

But even more stunning is that fact that, while this was undeniably the most important vote ever taken in the history of Hawai’i, and under ordinary circumstances would be expected to draw huge numbers of voters to the polls, only 35% of those of eligible age to vote actually turned up to the polls.  There were 381,859 Hawaii residents of eligible age to vote at that time.  Yet, despite all of the hype in the campaign to “get out the vote,” only 35% (132,772) actually wanted statehood strongly enough to go to the polls to vote for it.

With only 35% of eligible voters casting ballots, it cannot be truthfully claimed that “the people of Hawai’i effectively exercised their right to self-determination and have freely chosen their present status,” statehood.

Indeed, contrary to accepting the report that 94% of the people voted for statehood, it must be asserted that 65% actually voted with their feet against statehood by staying home from the polls.

The question to be investigated is how much of this overwhelming 65% non-voting majority should be counted as resistance to statehood.  It may well be found that the 94% vote for statehood should be re-assessed at a number well below the 50% required to win the vote.


Plebiscite invalid due to all above

Individually, and even more so collectively, the above problems with the 1959 Hawaiian Plebiscite on Statehood render it invalid.  It must be clearly stated: There was no valid vote for statehood.  There was no valid vote of self-determination. Further, it is not at all true, as Resolution 1469 states, that “the people of Alaska and Hawaii” have effectively exercised their right to self-determination and have freely chosen their present status.”

The descendants of the subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom still await the very first U.S. efforts on their behalf “to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions,” as promised by paragraph b. of the United Nations Charter Article 73.


U.N. intentionally circumvented with statehood vote

This section will expose an effort to devise a process to avoid the administering responsibilities of the United States and to devise a process to overcome the scrutiny of the General Assembly.

Allowing Hawaii and Alaska to be placed on the 1946 list of non-self-governing territories was considered a great mistake by many.  Being on the list could eventually lead to pressure to prepare them for independence, and the U.S. had no intention of ever letting them go.

Francis O. Wilcox, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, sent a letter to Secretary of State John Foster Dulles on 17 July 1956, titled “Possible Procedure and Arguments for Cessation of Reporting on Alaska and Hawaii to the United Nations.”  The letter proposes ways to delude the United Nations into allowing the U.S. to stop reporting.  The last two paragraphs read,

To many United Nations Members, the above arguments would seem to evade the main issue of constitutional advance since 1946. It would therefore be desirable, even essential, for us to demonstrate that the people of the two Territories oppose further reporting to the United Nations. This might help to persuade those Members, which attach importance to the idea of the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned. At the moment, however, we have no evidence of a popular demand in Alaska and Hawaii for cessation of reporting. Such a demand would therefore have to be stimulated in one form or another.

One of the following methods, which are listed in the order of their possible effectiveness, might be used in expressing [t]he desires of the people of Alaska and Hawaii to cease reporting: 1) the Territorial Legislatures might adopt resolutions to this effect; 2) the Territorial Delegates to the Congress might request the Congress to adopt a resolution; 3) The Territorial Delegates might ask the President to cease reporting, a request that would be strengthened if the Delegates could base it upon a widely circulated petition in the Territories; and 4) the Territorial Governors might ask the President to cease reporting.

But Secretary of State Dulles, (cited above) had another way to stop the reporting on Hawaii.  He wrote to Senator William F. Knowland on June 26, 1956, “The grant of statehood to Alaska and Hawaii would provide the best means of convincing other United Nations Members that the two territories have achieved “a full measure of self-government.”  This became the plan. (Both letters can be found in the “Source Documents” section of this paper.  They are also available on Statehood Hawaii.org, a website created by researcher Arnie Saiki, http://statehoodhawaii.org/category/statehood-countdown  NEED TO SPECIFY WHAT COUNTDOWN YOU ARE REFERENCING HERE pp. 1-2.)


Request to the General Assembly for Review 

Given the evidence of egregious irregularities, we call on the General Assembly of the United Nations to conduct a review of UN General Assembly Resolution 1469 of 12 December 1959 to verify the veracity of the representations submitted by the United States in Report A/4226 on September 24, 1959, regarding its obligation as an Administering Power under Article 73 e. We further call for a review of the discussions, deliberations and actions taken by the General Assembly leading to the passage of UN General Assembly Resolution 1469 of 12 December 1959.

Should the review reveal that UN General Assembly Resolution 1469 of 12 December 1959 was adopted by relying on incomplete and fraudulent information, and that the referendum was vitiated by material errors and deliberate misrepresentations, we also call upon the General Assembly to take appropriate action to correct the consequences of the multiple errors by annulling or rescinding UN General Assembly Resolution 1469 of 12 December 1959.


Part Three:

Definition of Aggression, U.N.G.A. Resolution 3314 (XXIX)

A further consideration:

UNGA Resolution 3314 (XXIX) adopts the following Definition of Aggression: [FN3]

Article I

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

Article 3

Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,

Article 5

  1. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.


U.S. Extension of Manifest Destiny Doctrine

Prior to the United States’ military aggression and occupation, Hawaii was a fully recognized independent nation-state, with international treaties with almost every major nation/state.[i]  It was a member of one of the first international organizations, the Universal Postal Union, and had ninety-nine diplomatic and consular posts around the world[ii].

Hawaiian literacy was among the highest of the world.  Hawai`i had telephones and electricity built into its governing palace, `Iolani, prior to the U.S.’s White House.  Multi-lingual citizens abounded.  Hawaiian leaders had excellent comprehension of world and political geography.  King Kalākaua was the first Head of State to circle the world in a visit of nations in his plan to weave a tapestry of international economic and political alliances to assure Hawaiian independence.  By 1892, Hawai`i was a vibrant multi-racial, multi-cultural nation engaged in intellectual and economic commerce throughout the world.

Across the ocean, the United States was obsessed with expansion and the belief that it was the Manifest Destiny of America to not just rule from Atlantic to Pacific, but beyond.  The plan for the aggression into Hawaii was initiated by the landing of U.S. military forces upon the shores of Hawaii in January 1893 and the subsequent absorption of Hawaii as a “Territory of the United States of America” in 1898, was to expand the reach and influence of the United States politically and militarily into the Pacific and to Asia, first in possessing a military outpost with a deep harbor from which the U.S. Navy could operate exclusively.[iii]  (See President Cleveland’s Address to the Joint Houses of the U.S. Congress, December 1893; Special Investigation Report by Senator Blount to the President of the United States, 1893)

On January 16, 1893, the U.S.S. Boston landed 162 U.S. Bluejackets, fully armed with carbines and Howitzer cannons, and marched upon the streets of peaceful Honolulu, the capitol city, billeting themselves directly across from the seat of government, `Iolani Palace.  Queen Lili`uokalani, the Constitutional Monarch of the Hawaiian Kingdom, learning of this landing of the U.S. troops, immediately protested to the U.S. Minister Plenipotentiary, John L. Stevens, demanding that the troops be returned to the U.S. warship Boston, which had been moored in Honolulu Harbor.  The U.S. Minister gave no response, as it was he who had ordered the landing of the U.S. troops.

In the afternoon of January 17, 1893 the real purpose of the U.S. troops billeting themselves at this location became obvious.  The Committee for Public Safety, consisting of 13 members, in an act of high treason, stood on the side steps of the government building, facing away from the Palace across the street, and began the “public reading” of a proclamation declaring themselves a new government of Hawaii, the Provisional Government (provisional until terms of annexation could be negotiated between its members and the United States of America).  They declared Sanford B. Dole as their President.   (He was the son of one of the early missionaries from the United States, Daniel Dole of the 9th Missionary Company to Hawaii from the American Board of Commissioners of Foreign Missions, based in Boston, Massachusetts U.S.A.).

As the reading of the proclamation of this self-proclaimed Provisional Government was taking place, the U.S. Bluejackets stood guard on Mililani Street.  After receiving and reading the proclamation, the U.S. Minister, John L. Stevens, officially recognized this Provisional Government as the government of Hawaii.[iv]

In the years immediately following this, this Provisional Government of Hawaii, on July 4, 1894 converted itself into the Republic of Hawaii, with U.S. government officials directly participating in the step-by-step process.  The Republic of Hawaii, claiming it had the authority to do so, “ceded” Hawaii to the United States in 1898. The people of Hawaii were disenfranchised from participating in these transactions.  Their many protests were ignored by the U.S. and its puppet Republic of Hawaii.

In 1900, the U.S. Territory of Hawaii was created through the U.S. Organic Act for the Organization of the Territory of Hawaii.

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives the President the power to make Treaties if two thirds of the Senators present in the Senate concur. This power was used by the United States to enter 9 treaties of cession, annexing 56 out of 58 acquired territories, over a period of 168 years (1783-1951).  Hawaii never had a Treaty of Annexation because the U.S. Senate could not get the two-thirds vote required to Constitutionally annex the islands.  Acting in non-compliance with its own Constitution, the U.S. annexed Hawaii through the Newlands Resolution passed by both Houses of Congress by a simple majority vote of both houses of Congress.

In the UN Resolution Defining Aggression, UNGA Resolution 3314 (XXIX) Article 5, section 3, we see a definition of aggression: “the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof.”

Article 5, section 3 states, “No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.”  It must be averred that this territorial acquisition must no longer be recognized as lawful.


Anticipating U.S. Reaction to this Initiative and proposed Resolution on Hawaii’s status

 In moving ahead, it is to be expected that the United States of America will strongly oppose any action by the General Assembly.   The easy path would be to back down and enable this powerful country to continue flaunting the repeated UN doctrine of commitment to self-determination of all peoples, found in the very Charter of the United Nations, which every member has accepted as a trust obligation, along with the plentiful declarations, conventions and resolutions supporting the principle especially in occupied territories deemed non-self- governing.   We ask all members of the United Nations to stand with the “people of Hawaii,” the descendants of the subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

The Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (GA Res 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970), states: “Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principles of equal rights and self determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.“

This statement has been misused to argue that Hawaii cannot be separated from the United States since it reads, „Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.”  This is often quoted by those resistant to applying self-determination to Hawaii.

But the sentence does not end there.  It continues on to qualify the sovereign and independent States which cannot be dismembered as states “conducting themselves in compliance with the principles of equal rights and self-determination.”  As has been shown in all of the pages above, the whole history of the United States of America and Hawaii contradicts the claim that the U.S.  conducted itself in compliance with the principles of equal rights and self-determination for the subjects of the Kingdom and their descendants.

Let us close with the Letter to the American People by Queen Liliuokalani found in her 1898 book, Hawaii’s Story by Hawaii’s Queen:

„Oh, honest Americans, as Christians hear me for my downtrodden people! Their form of government is as dear to them as yours is as precious to you. Quite warmly as you love your country, so they love theirs. With all your goodly possessions, covering a territory so immense that there yet remain parts unexplored, possessing islands that, although new at hand, had to be neutral ground in time of war, do not covet the little vineyard of Naboth’s, so far from your shores, lest the punishment of Ahab fall upon you, if not in your day, in that of your children, for „be not deceived, God is not mocked.“ The people to whom your fathers told of the living God, and taught to call „Father,“ and whom the sons now seek to despoil and destroy, are crying aloud to Him in their time of trouble; and He will keep His promise and will listen to the voices of His Hawaiian children lamenting for their homes.“

The time has come.


Authored by:

Dr. Kioni Dudley  DrKioniDudley@hawaii.rr.com

Leon Kaulahao Siu  leonhits@gmail.com

Pōkā Laenui (Hayden F. Burgess) plaenui@hawaiianperspectives.org

Professor Dr. Alfred de Zayas, former UN Independent Expert on the Promotion

of a Democratic and Equitable International Order (2012-2018)

copyright 2019-us troops
Landing of the U.S. troops for Overthrow of Hawaiian Nation   Honolulu Harbor   January 17, 1893.
copyright 2019-uss boston troops
U.S. troops from USS Boston across the street from ‘Iolani Palace  January 17, 1893.


copyright 2019-troops boston
Troops from the USS Boston   Honolulu   January 17, 1893.

[i]By 1887, Hawai`i had treaties and conventions with Belgium, Bremen, Denmark, France, the German Empire, Great Britain, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New South Wales, Portugal, Russia, Samoa, Spain, the Swiss Confed­eration, Sweden and Norway, Tahiti, and the United States.  Treaties and Conventions concluded between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Other Powers since 1825, Elele Book, Card, and Job Print., 1887.  See also Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow, Times Books, Henry Holt & Company, New York 2006.

[ii] Directory and Handbook of the Kingdom of Hawaii, F.M. Hustat, 1892

[iii] In January, 1893, Thurston organized twelve of his associates to form the „Committee of Public Safety“ and arranged an immediate visit to the American Minister plenipotentiary in Hawai`i, John L. Stevens, to conspire for the overthrow of Lili`uokalani.

Little convincing was necessary for Stevens was already one of the foremost advocates for a U.S. takeover of Hawai`i.  Appointed in June, 1889 as the U.S. Minister plenipotentiary, he arrived in Hawai`i on September 20 of that year and regarded himself as having a mission to bring about annexation of Hawai`i to the United States.  His letters to Secretary of State James G. Blaine, beginning less than a month after his arrival reflect his passion to take Hawai`i for the United States.

After three years of encouraging taking Hawai`i, he writes on March 8, 1892, for instruction of how far he may deviate from established international rules and precedents in the event of an orderly and peaceful revolutionary movement, setting forth a step-by-step prediction of future events.

On November 19, 1892, he writes to the Secretary of State, arguing that those favoring annexation in Hawai`i are qualified to carry on good government, „provided they have the support of the Government of the United States.“  He continued, „[H]awaii must now take the road which leads to Asia, or the other, which outlets her in America, gives her an American civilization, and binds her to the care of American destiny. . . .To postpone American action many years is only to add to present unfavorable tendencies and to make future possession more difficult.“

He called for „bold and vigorous measures for annexation.  I cannot refrain from expressing the opinion with emphasis that the golden hour is near at hand. . . . So long as the islands retain their own independent government there remains the possibility that England or the Canadian Dominion might secure one of the Hawaiian harbors for a coaling station.  Annexation excludes all dangers of this kind.“

Thus, when Thurston met with Stevens on January 15, 1893, the „golden hour“ was at hand.  It was agreed that the United States marines would land under the guise of protecting American lives (the missionary parties‘).  The „missionary“ party would declare themselves the „provisional government.“  This puppet government would immediately turn Hawai`i over to the United States in an annexation treaty.  The missionary party would be appointed local rulers of Hawai`i as a reward.  The United States would obtain the choicest lands and harbors for their Pacific armada.  Cleveland’s Address to Congress, 18 December 1893,“ Richardson, A Compilation of The Messages and Papers of the Presidents: 1789-1908, Vol. IX (1908).

[iv] See the U.S. Apology Law, Public Law 103-150, 107 Stat. 1510

Wai‘anae Town Hall on the UN Memorandum Regarding the Illegal Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Moku o O‘ahu, Wai‘anae, Wai‘anae District Park, ‘Okakopa 24th 2018 . panel guests speak on the UN memorandum from Dr. Alfred M. deZayas and other important topics.

„I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a nation-state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and a fraudulent annexation.“ ~ Dr. Alfred M. deZayas, United Nations Independent Expert, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

camera and edit: Oren Tsutsumi

production and logistics: Pono Kealoha

Ke Aupuni Update

September 28, 2018
Keeping in touch and updated on activities regarding the restoration of Ke Aupuni o Hawaii, the Hawaiian Kingdom. Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka Aina I Ka Pono.
Leon Siu – Hawaiian National
Quick Update on the  foreclosure case against  Routh Bolomet 
The courtroom was packed with people in support of Routh at the September 18 court proceedings in Honolulu. Judge Castagnetti allowed Routh to present her position as a Kingdom subject. Reminding the judge of the memo from Dr. Alfred deZayas of the UN, Routh questioned the jurisdiction of the court and provided evidence of apparent collusion and conspiracy to commit fraud among the lenders and state courts. Routh has put the courts, the “State of Hawaii” and the lending institutions on notice with some very serious assertions. Instead of responding, Judge Castagnetti has scheduled another court session for this case for October 23… probably to figure out what to do about their predicament…
Councilwoman(?) Jen Ruggles 
Dr. deZayasʻ memo also plays a key part in Puna councilwoman, Jen Ruggles, recusing herself from her Hawaii County Council position. Letʻs remember that without Dr. deZayasʻ memo, which is really about Routh Bolometʻs foreclosure case, Jen would still be a voting council member. However, now she is still waiting for a satisfactory answer to her question of whether her participation in the County Council would make her liable for war crimes and other violations of international law. Meanwhile, she has conducted town meetings on the United Statesʻ international obligation to administer Hawaiian Kingdom laws in compliance to the Laws of Occupation. She also recently challenged the Queenʻs Medical Center for illegally altering its original mandate, in order to diminish (and even deny) access to services by its intended clients, native Hawaiians.
At the UN in New York 
The 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly opened this week and many dignitaries and heads of state were in New York. I’ve been here in New York to meet with several delegations to follow up on the advice by their ambassadors to “talk to their capitols.” We are setting up visits to those capitols in the near future to speak with leaders about getting their assistance to advance some resolutions at the UN that would help greatly to change the notion that the Hawaiian Islands is part of the United States… or that the “State of Hawaii” is located in the Hawaiian Islands. Things are about to ʻhuliʻ at the international level…

The Quick Facts Series…



Can  Hawaii  Function as a Free Country?

  • Yes! Like many other small countries, Hawaii can function very nicely as an independent country. As an existing sovereign country, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s framework for self-governance is still intact with its constitution, treaties, session laws, civil codes, etc.
  • Most of the systems, structures, mechanisms — and the people — necessary to run a modern, fully functioning country are already in place, right now…currently operating as the “State of Hawaii” and the United States of America.
  • Think of it as a change of management — transitioning from being American-operated to being Hawaiian-operated. We would not have to re-build the entire operating system from scratch or even put it through major overhaul. The transition can be done with minor tweaks as a smooth and orderly change of management… with a friendly management style.
  • Management Hawaiian-style would be people-friendly, infusing values like Aloha Aina into the operations of governance, economics, education, food production, land policies, security and other vital national functions.

YES! We can do this! Our kupuna criss-crossed the vast ocean with waʻa made of wood and leaves! They operated a productive, fully sustainable agricultural system that would be the envy of the world today…  While the rest of the original peoples and nations were falling to colonialism and imperialism the Hawaiian Kingdom gained recognition as an sovereign, independent state. So, YES! We can do this!

Next Quick Fact coming soon…


Malama pono,

Leon Siu

Ke Aupuni Update

Ke Aupuni Update
September 17, 2018
Keeping in touch and updated on activities regarding the restoration of Ke Aupuni o Hawaii, the Hawaiian Kingdom. Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka Aina I Ka Pono.
From Leon Siu, Hawaiian National
Aloha kakou,
Aloha from Geneva
I am currently at the  Palais des Nations, headquarters for the United Nations in Geneva… (this is my fourth time this year)… Where I’m continuing to pursue support for the Hawaiian Kingdom from foreign diplomats, UN officials, the press and others that congregate here at the UN . From here I’ll go to New York where the heads of states and other dignitaries will be gathered for the opening of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly.
Some very positive signs are developing. Despite the crisis and chaos going on in parts of the world, states (countries) are becoming more and more interested in the Hawaii situation. Some of the diplomats who used to politely nod and say “thatʻs interesting” or “I wish you all the best” or “you’ve got a big task ahead of you” have recently started to say, “How do you think we can help?” or “have you tried this…?” or “maybe you should talk to…”
Another recent development is on the day I arrived on my previous visit to Geneva in June to attend the UN Human Rights Council, the United States announced they were immediately pulling out of the Human Rights Council.
Several people jokingly said, “See, you arrive and the US retreats!” or something to that effect. But itʻs partially true. Weʻre not the only ones putting on the pressure, but we (Hawaii and Alaska), have been making the U.S. uncomfortable by continually raising the question of how the U.S. came to be in control and how we came to be integrated as “states” into the United States; and the numerous human rights violations resulting from the prolonged occupation of Hawaii. And when other countries started to ask those questions, it made the U.S. representatives visibly nervous.
The US has left the Human Rights Council, leaving us, Hawaii and Alaska, to press our concerns at this important forum without opposition.
Speaking of the UN  Dr. Alfred deZayas, the UN Independent Expert (Emeritus)  for the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, sends his regards to all, and is pleased that his memorandum has been helpful to us. As he says, “Facts are facts, you canʻt argue with the facts.” He’s on holiday with his wife who just retired after 30 years as a UN official. Theyʻre on their way from Switzerland to Holland… riding bicycles.
And speaking of the memo  the deZayas memorandum has given quite a boost to our advocacy for a Free Hawaii. Already itʻs being used by some in the following ways –
Councilwoman Jen Ruggles asked the Hawaii County Council whether she is committing a war crime by serving on the council, a governing body that appears to be functioning  in violation of the Laws of Occupation. She requested an opinion from County Corporate Counsel  Joe Kamelamela who basically said: No you wonʻt incur any criminal liability. That was a highly flippant answer with no facts or arguments to back his “legal“ opinion.  It doesn’t appear that Kamelamela has any expertise or background in international law, therefore, he is incompetent to render an opinion. The best and most honest answer he could have given was: “I donʻt know” and then call in someone who is competent in international humanitarian law. So thereʻs an impasse. Jen Ruggles wants an answer and wonʻt serve until she gets an answer. And the county/state is scared to death of finding that answer.
Routh Bolometʻs fight for her lands is what triggered the memo from Dr. deZayas. The whole thing is too complex to get into right now, but you should hear Routh’s story  when you can by watching it here –  A Visit With Routh Bolomet
In a nutshell, several years ago Routh went to the county/state to ask to see  the title for the property she „owned.” In getting the runaround, but being very persistent, she uncovered not just a can of worms, but the whole nest of vipers that comprise the great Hawaii land scam. To shut her up from asking uncomfortable questions, the lending institution, bank, insurance company  and the courts conspired (colluded?) and initiated foreclosure proceedings on her property, committing all kinds of fraud and other criminal acts in the process.
On Tuesday September 18 Routh will be appearing before (confronting?) one of the two state judges to whom deZayas addressed his memorandum. It should be very interesting, to say the least. Routh is asking everyone who can to show your support by being at the courtroom tomorrow, Tuesday, September 18, 9:30 AM, 777 Punchbowl Street, State Circuit Court Building, 4th Floor, courtroom of Judge Jeanette A. Castagnetti.
Aloha Aina,
Leon Siu
Who Owns This Land? – A Visit With Routh Bolomet
Voices of Truth – One On One With Hawaiiʻs Future

Ke Aupuni Update 17 August 2018

Keeping in touch and updated on activities regarding the restoration of Ke Aupuni o Hawaii, the Hawaiian Kingdom. Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka Aina I Ka Pono.
Lā Hoʻihoʻi Ea 
175th Anniversary Celebration
The celebration of Lā Hoʻihoʻi Ea — Sovereignty Restoration Day — on Sunday, July 29 was the best yet!  Maikaʻi loa! With the biggest crowd in modern times, we celebrated the historical event of Great Britainʻs return of control of the Hawaiian Islands to the proper ruler, King Kamehameha III.
The two-year rejuvenation and rededication of Thomas Square (by the City and County of Honolulu) restores the park as a place of historical significance… on par with ʻIolani Palace and Maunaʻala. The restoration was well done and much appreciated, especially for this seminal celebration.
King Kamehameha III Statue
On July 31, the actual 175th anniversary of Lā Hoʻihoʻi Ea — Sovereignty Restoration Day — the city unveiled and dedicated the newly commissioned statue of King Kamehameha III. There were great speeches recounting the history and significance of Lā Hoʻihoʻi Ea. Mayor Caldwellʻs speech was exceptional as was Puakea Nogelmeierʻs and Clarke Brightʻs… and the sculptor, Thomas Jay Warren.
The level of honor, credit and recognition of Kamehameha Ekoluʻs character and accomplishments was greatly emphasized. To have City and State officials pay such homage and respect to the King definitely raised public awareness of the true greatness of the Hawaiian Kingdom… and, hopefully, advanced the notion that restoring the Hawaiian Kingdom — again — would be a good thing.
TMT Ruling
On August 8, the fake-state Supreme Court unanimously ruled against requiring another contested case hearing over the project’s sublease. This “victory” for the TMT moves it closer to being built… according to the policies and rules of the fake-state.
The 5-0 decision leaves only one more question pending: whether the $1.4 billion TMT project will be issued a conditional use permit allowing it to proceed with construction on Mauna Kea.
Or so they think…
The real issues are: Who has title to the land? and Who has jurisdiction over the land? Those questions should be coming front and center soon. And the answers will not be favorable to the fake-State of Hawaii/USA cartel.
A lot is happening internationally. After 12 years of using friendly persuasion in various venues of the United Nations, with foreign ministers, diplomats and heads of states from numerous countries… and with the international press… we have made great progress.
People are beginning to ʻget itʻ.  Our narrative of who we are, what really happened, what the current situation is, and the goal to restore our kingdom, has begun to sink in. Basically, we have been able to convince people in the international community that: 1) the so-called “US State of Hawaii“ is bogus; and 2) the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists and is on the rebound.
A memo was sent in February by UN expert, Dr. Alfred deZayas, to two „State of Hawaii“ judges, advising those judges that under international law, their country, the USA, has no lawful jurisdiction in the Hawaiian Islands because the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands is still a sovereign, independent state.
The memo has triggered several actions, one of which is a lawsuit filed by Dr. Keanu Sai to compel President Trump to comply with the Laws of Occupation by administering the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the Hawaiian Islands… instead of continuing to impose U.S. laws.
In another action, are working to draft two resolutions to be submitted to the UN General Assembly this Fall. We expect to persuade a significant majority of the UN member states to vote to pass these resolutions. This will ultimately cause the UN to no longer recognize the U.S. claim to the Hawaiian Islands as legitimate.
A number of other actions have been filed in various venues, including ones by a number of Hawaiians to halt the flagrant violations of private property rights (original land titles) by foreigners in collusion with the courts of the State of Hawaii. These challenges will put a stop to the years of illegal land grabbing.
Malama pono,
Leon Siu