The Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom

---

To many, Hawai’i the dream. It is the perfect honeymoon getaway and the ideal vacation. As such, many regard Hawai’i as a state of the United States of America. What is often not told of Hawai’ian history is that Hawai’i was a country, formally known as the Hawaiian Kingdom (1). Thus, this calls the legal and political status of Hawai’i into question; is it a country under occupation, or a state? To answer this, we would need to look at the history of how Hawaii became a state in the first place, and then look into the legal matter of its statehood, or its occupation.

In 400 C.E. (A.D.), Polynesians from the Marquesas Islands settled in the Hawaiin Islands, as skilled farmers and fishermen (2). The Hawaiian Kingdom reigned as an independent State (ie. Country) that had vast relations through diplomacy and trade (3). Not only did it have extensive trade agreements with the United States, but by 1882, it had also joined the Universal Postal Union (UPU), which we would now refer to as the United Nations (3). It was one of 44 sovereign nations of that time (3).

The first European to arrive in Hawaii was Captain James Cook, in 1778 (4). More would come during the 19th century, and would heavily oppose Hawaii’s monarchy, to favour Britain’s constitutional monarchy instead (4). Not only did they have an issue with Hawaii’s monarchy, but they also drafted the first Bayonet Constitution, which would extend voting rights to non-citiens, exclude Asians, and restrict access for Hawaiians in land ownership and schooling (4). They threatened Hawaii’s king, David Kalakua, with violence to sign the Constitution (4). When Queen Liliuokalani, King Kalakua’s sister, took the throne, a new constitution that included voting rights for Hawaiians was proposed, angering the white settlers (4). They formed the Committee of Safety to overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy and annex Hawai’i to the United States (4).

Thus, on January 16, 1893, the United States invaded the Hawaiian Kingdom, leading to the overthrow of Queen Liluokalani (3). On January 17, the Queen surrendered, but with the condition that the United States will restore sovereignty to the Kingdom, with the Queen reinstated as its sovereign (3). The ending of her statement supports this:

“Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest, and impelled by said force, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands” (3).

Thus, the condition of the Queen’s surrender of the Hawaiian Islands was such that the United States would reinstate her as the ruling monarch of the sovereign Hawaiian Kingdom. On March 11, 1893, President Grover Cleveland issued an investigation that was completed on July 17 (3). When the investigation was concluded, President Cleveland declared that the invasion of Hawaii in Honolulu was “an act of war” (3). In his full manifesto to Congress, the President essentially states that the United States aligned itself with the Queen’s enemies and recognized them as the true government of the Kingdom (3), though they were not.

This manifesto was powerful because it showed the political aspects of occupation, and “was a political determination under international law of the existence of a state of war, of which there is no treaty of peace” (3). Without a treaty of peace, Hawaii became the United States’ forefront to show its actions to the world. However, without the President’s knowledge, a settlement was reached between the Queen and a United States Minister, that never actually implemented the reinstatement of the monarchy (3), which, as mentioned, was the sole condition of the Queen’s surrender.

On June 16, 1897, President McKinley (successor or President Cleveland) entered into a treaty of annexation with the insurgents of Hawai’i, whose goal from the very beginning was Hawai’i’s annexation to the United States (5). In December (5), the movement to strike down the treaty had started. After several protests and meetings between the Queen, Hawaiian organizations, and senators in favour or striking down the treaty, the votes necessary for ratification were not collected, and the treaty was “dead by March” (5). However, one month later, the United States went to war with Spain, and Congressman Francis Newlands submitted a resolution to annex the Hawaiian Islands on May 4 (5). Numerous Senators and Representatives objected, but the annexation got a majority vote, and President McKinley signed the resolution on July 7, 1898 (5).

Even in the United States, this was cause for problem, as many could not fathom how a “resolution could have the extra-territorial force and effect of a treaty in annexing Hawai’i” (5), meaning that from a legal perspective, a resolution was not enough to annex Hawai’i. Here, it becomes important to note that not only did the United States try to pass a treaty that was stricken down, but now a resolution was passed in what seems like a last resort to ensure annexation. In fact, Senator Augustus Bacon alluded to this idea, by sarcastically saying that the annexation was not possible under the Constitution through a treaty, so now the treaty had to embedded in a statute (5). The resolution is what made the annexation possible, not the treaty, though to many, the resolution did not have the jurisdiction over a sovereign nation.

Thus, in a clear violation of international law, not only did the United States maintain the insurgents’ power in Hawai’i for the appearance of the government, but it also changed the name to the Territory of Hawai’i and later to the State of Hawai’i in 1959 (5), arguably as a formal announcement that Hawai’i was now a U.S. state. Thus, in 2018, a United Nations Independent Expert, Dr. Alfred M. deZayas, acknowledged the U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom (5). According to Professor Keanu Sai from the University of Hawaii, “belligerent occupation” (1), is the term used under international law, when power is seized through an act of war (1). Not only, but the professor argues that the “illegal occupation” (1) has had extremely adverse impacts on Native Hawaiians to this day (1).

The first way America extended its occupation was through the Hawaiian school system. Prior to occupation, the Hawaiian school system was incredibly strong, and was the fifth country to provide mandatory education, almost eight decades before the United States (6). However, the invasion led to the United States controlling every aspect of the Hawaiian government (6). The policies to Americanize the Hawaiian school system began with Hawaiian children, by passing policies that only allowed them to speak English, and speaking Hawaiian would lead to punishment (6). The goal of these schools was to “obliterate the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the minds of school children throughout the islands” (6). By forcing them to chant to the flag every morning, and cutting out their language entire, America sought to completely assimilate Hawaiians into America, through forceful policies to instill American patriotism. This policy comes under the umbrella term of “denationalization” (6), to essentially take out every sense of national consciousness from the children of Hawai’i. In fact, it became so institutionalized that children had become “strangers in their own country” (6), and without Americanization, they were often not allowed to go to high school, thus entering the workforce right after elementary (6).

Prior to American occupation, Hawai’i had an incredibly strong health infrastructure, and Native Hawaiians received universal healthcare free of charge (6). Not only did America change hospital policies, but it also sought the active denial of healthcare for Native Hawaiians (6), to enforce discriminatory healthcare policies in the name of American patriotism and the squandering of Hawaiian nationalism.

The last aspect to look at is the constant land desecration that Hawai’i suffers from. From the arrival of Europeans to now, Hawaiian land is constantly used for other means, though Native Hawaiians see it as sacred. For example, in 1988, approximately 1,100 ancestral Native Hawaiian remains were removed for the construction of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, on Maui, Hawai’i (7). The constant land desecration continues today, and a more recent example would be the Thirty Metre Telescope (TMT), which is being built on Mauna Kea, a sacred volcano to Native Hawaiins (8).

Though many Hawaiians do in fact support the TMT on Mauna Kea, with Hawai’i’s Supreme Court ruling that the construction permit was valid, many others oppose it because they believe sacred land is being harmed (8), and arguably because it takes away the remaining agency that Hawaiians have left. Though telescopes are already on the Mauna Kea, an issue that some activists have is that, “they keep asking for more and more and more, and we have no say at this point” (9), upholding the earlier point that this also concerns the agency of Native Hawaiians and their land, not an opposition to a telescope itself. For others, it is also about the resources that Hawai’i continues to lose, as Hawai’i has a “precious and fragile ecology” (9), so such a large construction project on the Mauna Kea is harmful for the remaining resources of the Kingdom. The land desecration that Hawai’i continues to face, whether in the name of science or not, are arguably a product of U.S. occupation on Indigenous land.

The U.S. occupation of Hawai’i started with an act of war launched to overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy and is now under the full acknowledgement of the United Nations as an occupation. To this day, Native Hawaiians are subject to the changes in their education and healthcare infrastructures, as well as routine land desecration. Under international law, the United States holds an illegal occupation of Hawai’i (1).

Endnotes

1. Hunt, Tam. “What is the status of Hawaii under international law today?” Interview with Prof. Keanu Sai. Tam Hunt, August 27, 2019. https://tamhunt.medium.com/what-is-the-status-of-hawaii-under-international-law-today-863349e678e1

2. Smithsonian.com. “Hawaii – History and Heritage.” Smithsonian Magazine, November 6, 2007. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/hawaii-history-and-heritage-4164590/

3. Sai, Keanu. “The Illegal Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government.” National Education Association, April 4, 2018. https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/illegal-overthrow-hawaiian-kingdom-government

4. The Learning Network. “Hawaiian Monarchy Overthrown by America-Backed Bussinessmen.” The New York Times, January 17, 2012. https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/jan-17-1893-hawaiian-monarchy-overthrown-by-america-backed-businessmen/

5. Sai, Keanu. “The U.S. Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.” National Education Association, October 1, 2018. https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/us-occupation-hawaiian-kingdom

6. Sai, Keanu. “The Impact of the U.S. Occupation on the Hawaiian People.” National Education Association, October 13, 2018. https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/impact-us-occupation-hawaiian-people

7. Halealoha, Edward Avao. “Native Burials, Human Rights and Sacred Bones.” Cultural Survival, March 2000. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/native-burials-human-rights-and-sacred-bones

8. Witze, Alexandra. “Astronomy impasse: What’s next for the Thirty Meter Telescope?” Nature, August 7, 2019. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02354-5

9. Cuddy, Alice. “Hawaii TMT: Desecrating sacred land or finding new frontiers” BBC, July 25, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49082156

Author

Marhamah Sohail

Research Associate