1893 Executive Agreements and Their Profound Impact Today

On March 15, 2013, at the Keauhou Sheraton Hotel on the Island of Hawai‘i, Dr. Keanu Sai gave a presentation that provides a political science perspective of Hawaiian history that incorporates law on the repercussions of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government in 1893, and the effect of two executive agreements between Queen Lili‘uokalani and President Grover Cleveland that mandated the United States to administer Hawaiian law, restore the government, and thereafter the Queen to grant amnesty to the insurgents. The United States seizure of the Hawaiian Islands since 1898 and its willful violation of these agreements and international law have now given rise to war crimes that have and continue to be committed on a monumental scale. The presentation was sponsored by the Keauhou-Kahalu‘u Education Group, Kamehameha Schools, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo Kīpuka Native Hawaiian Student Center, Eia Hawai‘i Lecture Series, Keauhou Beach Resort, and The Kohala Center.

Dr. Sai received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa specializing in international relations and public law. His research specifically addressed the legal and political history of the Hawaiian Islands since the eighteenth century to the present. Dr. Sai has authored several law journal articles on the topic of the continuity of Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign state, is the author of a new history book titled “Ua Mau Ke Ea: Sovereignty Endures,” and served as lead agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom in arbitration proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, in Lance Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom (1999-2001).

10 thoughts on “1893 Executive Agreements and Their Profound Impact Today

  1. We just got through reading/watching this blog. Although the video stopped for some strange reason, we were able to watch the rest of the film to it’s end on Vimeo’s site using the subject title.

    Excellent presentation, Clear and precise. Mahalo nui loa.

    Your ending? COMPLIANCE is key to end the occupation — great word!

    Aloha ke akua,

  2. Dr. Sai,can the so called state, force me a Hawaiian national to pay money to the dept. of finance to register my car to travel in my homeland,or would that also be considered a war crime,under illegal appropriation of money or assets. Any kokua or clarity would be greatly appreciated,mahalo Lono.

    • If you look at the money you’re using, is it their money (American) or your homelands money? If you earned your money through their system then you are consenting to their authority over you and are subject to compliance to their laws. In the absence of a functioning lawful government the de facto government has the authority over occupied lands because they are tasked with keeping peace and order. It is not an unreasonable act that they are imposing upon you and would hardly be considered a war crime. A great man once said “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

  3. What is the name of the documentary film, excerpted at about 1 hour and 54 minutes into the video, which won awards? How can we watch it?

    • As shown in the video: “A History of the Future: Keanu Sai and the Occupation of Hawaiʻi,” a film by Gorav Kalyan and Rohan Kalyan. Has the film been released yet? Here is the trailer:

  4. Aloha no e Dr Keanu Sai: The video was extremely informative, insightful and invaluable. I feel comforted that the Restoration of our Hawaiian Kingdom has begun. I am sure that our Kupuna who have gone before us are truly comforted too. I remember your “Tutu Rose”, “Aunty Rose” to us, very well there, at the church in Kuliouou. I will always remember her lilting, happy keystrokes on the organ on Sundays. She had the rascality in her playing and I see some of the resemblance in you. What a lady she was and the unforgettable memories and legacy she has left us. I especially liked the picture of her with the “Mo’opuna” on the couch. Your Uncle Hank looked a lot like her. She was always so engaging and full of Aloha!

    Mahalo nui loa

  5. In response to Aloha Aina,
    August 4, 2013 at 8:01pm.

    Don’t know where you’ve been hiding, but the money
    of exchange currently being used here in the
    Hawaiian Islands is American; it’s the evidence of unlawful american occupation! How could america have done a razzle dazzle just like a treaty of annexation move without changing the Hawaiian money? Even got you fooled into thinking america has authority in Hawaii because of their means of exchange! No, no!
    Money (American debt, federal reserve notes)is a
    medium of exchange not a consent to their authority!
    Bank robbers never consent to their authority they just deal with it! Whether earned or not, deal with it!
    It’s not the Hawaiian Kingdom’s fault that american insurgents chose to unlawfully occupy the Hawaiian Islands, I’m sure you’d agree the american government should go over and beyond to make right what they have done wrong!
    I say if the war crime fits let’um ware it!
    Whether an act is reasonable or unreasonable
    is not the question to ponder upon, but whether it is lawful or not?
    A wise man once said: “In God we trust, all others
    pay cash.”
    And yeah, I agree with you! It’s time for the U.S.
    to give back to the Hawaiian Kingdom what is the Hawaiian Kingdom’s and for america to repent to God!!

    • Kanekeawe, I think you missed the mark in your explanation and understanding of what Aloha Aina stated. He/she did not mention that the U.S. was a lawful government here in Hawaii. The question by Lono was if the events that occurred could be construed as a war crime. Aloha Aina made it clear when he stated that the “de facto” government was in authority. De facto as described in the Black’s Law Dictionary means “a government which exists actually…but which is illegal or illegitimate.” Aloha Aina is correct. The United States is the illegal authority in Hawaii for lack of a “de jure” government which is the Hawaiian Kingdom.

      Human rights are freedoms established by custom or international agreement that impose standards of conduct on all nations so again Aloha Aina is correct in stating “In the absence of a functioning lawful government the de facto government has the authority over occupied lands… It is not an unreasonable act that they are imposing upon you and would hardly be considered a war crime.”

      You have managed to not only misconstrue the question at hand but also taken one persons opinion out of context. Apparently Aloha Aina was to the point in reference to the questions posed and apparently not “hiding” as you claim due to his direct answer which may be subject of opposing opinions through international law.

      Before an intelligible answer be given to Lono’s questions a legal understanding of what defines “war crimes” and “illegal appropriation” must be understood. Illegal appropriation would fall under civil liberties which is very distinctively different from war crimes. Unfortunately for descendents of subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom, we are all subject to de facto laws until our government can be brought back to full recognition. However, I will be the first to admit that all that I have said above is my opinion only and Keanu’s opinion would be the only credible one on the subject given his deep understanding and education on the topic.

  6. Mahalo Ke Kupa’a.
    I reviewed what Aloha Aina stated above and
    the questions Lono and Nalani were asking and
    I stand corrected! My apology to Aloha Aina!
    I totally zoned out Lono’s question about
    registering a vehicle with the dept. of finance
    and whether or not that could be considered a
    war crime while traveling on the homeland.
    I think it sucks, but I don’t think it to be a war
    crime or under the circumstance unreasonable.
    (It sucks to me because payment is being made
    to the occupier rather than lawful government)
    Consenting to their authority is where I got
    tangled up. If we are to survive we may have
    no choice but to use their money, but I do
    not consent to their occupation and unlawful
    authority over the Hawaiian Kingdom!
    I know using their monies subject us to their
    laws however consenting to their authority
    might suggest that the U.S. has standing in
    Hawaiian Kingdom territorial jurisdiction.
    In other words, the U.S. is without a treaty of
    annexation for the Hawaiian Islands, where is
    their lawful authority upon which they stand,
    except that of an occupying country and that
    is their only source of authority, no more!
    Mahalo again!

Leave a Reply