Archives Takes Wraps off 1898 Senate Transcript: Secret Debate on U.S. Seizure of Hawaii Revealed [Feb. 1, 1969]

1969_Article

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Saturday, February 1, 1969

WASHINGTON (AP) – Now it can be told—what happened during the longest of three Senate sessions during the Spanish-American War, a debate over whether to take over Hawaii.

The debate of nearly three hours on that day—May 31, 1898—and in two secret sessions the previous month had remained locked up until last week. Then at the request of a historian who noted gaps in the Congressional Record, the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the National Archives to take the wraps off the debate transcript.

The government’s only explanation for the long suppression of the debate records is that they had been long forgotten.

THE SECRECY WAS clamped on during a debate over whether to seize the Hawaiian Islands—called the Sandwich Islands then—or merely developing leased areas of Pearl Harbor to reinforce the U.S. fleet at Manila Bay.

Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, grandfather and namesake of the current chief U.S. peace negotiator in Paris, had the floor. He was pleading for all war measures and particularly for the dispatch of reinforcements to Adm. George Dewey who already had destroyed the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay.

But before Lodge could press his case for the need of Hawaii as a rear base, Sen. David Turpie of Indiana demanded and got the Senate chamber cleared. Even the official reporter of debate was expelled for five minutes.

Study of the transcripts is unlikely to add more than a minor footnote to history, for as Lodge contended during the debate:

“I do not know anything that would give them (the enemy) any information,” because “there is nothing, nothing not already in the newspapers.”

LODGE COMPLAINED BITTERLY at the time about the secrecy, but his peers went along with Turpie and Sen. Georg Gray of Delaware, who questioned the “propriety” of public utterances “addressed to the ears of the enemy.”

Going further, Sen. Eugene Hale of Maine declared that the Senate is “the last place in which to discuss what shall be done about war,” for its word “goes on the wing of the lightning to every part of the globe.”

Lodge said Dewey’s need for reinforcement was urgent because “great and powerful interests in Europe (Paris bankers holding Spanish loan bonds) are directly interested in having Manila wrested from him and his fleet destroyed.”

Sen. William Stewart of Nevada saw “no possible secrets involved in the discussion of the annexation of the Sandwich Islands.” He contended the Navy required a coaling station for its ships and a “residing place” for the men enroute to the Philippines.

PEARL HARBOR, ALREADY UNDER LEASE, Stewart argued, wouldn’t be much use until costly dredging operations opened the entrance channel. “Either we must have the Sandwich Islands,” he declared, “or the administration must recall Dewey.”

The senate was unimpressed by the argument of Sen. Richard F. Pettigrew of South Dakota that the great circle route to Manila, skirting the Aleutian Islands, was 500 miles shorter than the route through Honolulu.

He argued that many warships and fortifications could be built with $10 million proposed to be “thrown away in the interest of a few sugar planters and adventures in Hawaii,” and asked: “Why embarrass that feeble republic, or monarchy, or oligarchy or whatever it is, with our presence?”

Sen. John T. Morgan of Alabama was concerned about the bubonic plague, cholera, yellow fever, small pox and “all the horrible diseases to which humanity is incident” prevailing in the Philippines. Therefore, “we cannot refuse to men going there a stopping place on the salubrious islands of Hawaii.”

Sen. Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina had the last word about the islands, saying “is not Hawaii lying there praying to the United States: ‘Please come and swallow me and pay the $4 million you promised.’”

THE UNITED STATES ANNEXED the Hawaiian Islands five weeks after the debate. But before the Senate reopened its doors that day, Morgan steered the discussion back to Cuba, the original cause of the war with Spain.

The first secret session, April 25, 1898, involved technical and emotional debate over wording of the declaration of war and why it or some accompanying resolution did not formally recognize the independence of Cuba or at least declare the Cubans to have the rights of belligerents in the conflict.

THE SENATE ENDED UP BY ACCEPTING the House passed version reading that “war and the same is hereby declared to exist and that war has existed since the 21st of April”—four days earlier.

Dropped from the final declaration was a Senate proposed tagline requiring the administration to “prosecute said war to a successful conclusion.”

Sen. Stephen White of California joined the unanimous vote for war “even with that mild prevarication” about when the war started.

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).

National Holiday – Restoration Day (July 31)

Today is July 31st which is a national holiday in the Hawaiian Kingdom called “Restoration day,” and it is directly linked to another holiday observed on November 28th called “Independence day.” Here is a brief history of these two celebrated holidays.

Kam IIIIn the summer of 1842, Kamehameha III moved forward to secure the position of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a recognized independent state under international law. He sought the formal recognition of Hawaiian independence from the three naval powers of the world at the time—Great Britain, France, and the United States. To accomplish this, Kamehameha III commissioned three envoys, Timoteo Ha‘alilio, William Richards, who at the time was still an American Citizen, and Sir George Simpson, a British subject. Of all three powers, it was the British that had a legal claim over the Hawaiian Islands through cession by Kamehameha I, but for political reasons the British could not openly exert its claim over the other two naval powers. Due to the islands prime economic and strategic location in the middle of the north Pacific, the political interest of all three powers was to ensure that none would have a greater interest than the other. This caused Kamehameha III “considerable embarrassment in managing his foreign relations, and…awakened the very strong desire that his Kingdom shall be formally acknowledged by the civilized nations of the world as a sovereign and independent State.”

PauletWhile the envoys were on their diplomatic mission, a British Naval ship, HBMS Carysfort, under the command of Lord Paulet, entered Honolulu harbor on February 10, 1843, making outrageous demands on the Hawaiian government. Basing his actions on complaints made to him in letters from the British Consul, Richard Charlton, who was absent from the kingdom at the time, Paulet eventually seized control of the Hawaiian government on February 25, 1843, after threatening to level Honolulu with cannon fire. Kamehameha III was forced to surrender the kingdom, but did so under written protest and pending the outcome of the mission of his diplomats in Europe. News Admiral Thomasof Paulet’s action reached Admiral Richard Thomas of the British Admiralty, and he sailed from the Chilean port of Valparaiso and arrived in the islands on July 25, 1843. After a meeting with Kamehameha III, Admiral Thomas determined that Charlton’s complaints did not warrant a British takeover and ordered the restoration of the Hawaiian government, which took place in a grand ceremony on July 31, 1843. At a thanksgiving service after the ceremony, Kamehameha III proclaimed before a large crowd, ua mau ke ea o ka ‘aina i ka pono (the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness). The King’s statement became the national motto.

The envoys eventually succeeded in getting formal international recognition of the Hawaiian Islands “as a sovereign and independent State.” Great Britain and France formally recognized Hawaiian sovereignty on November 28, 1843 by joint proclamation at the Court of London, and the United States followed on July 6, 1844 by a letter of Secretary of State John C. Calhoun. The Hawaiian Islands became the first Polynesian nation to be recognized as an independent and sovereign State.

The ceremony that took place on July 31 occurred at a place we know today as “Thomas Square” park, which honors Admiral Thomas, and the roads that run along Thomas Square today are “Beretania,” which is Hawaiian for “Britain,” and “Victoria,” in honor of Queen Victoria who was the reigning British Monarch at the time the restoration of the government and recognition of Hawaiian independence took place.

Hawai‘i’s Lawful Status Educating Our Community

In this edition of “Kanaka Express,” the host, Kale Gumapac, asks Dexter K. Kaiama, Esq. to elaborate on the points he brought up when he was on a panel hosted by Dan Boylan on PBS television called “Insights.” With Kaiama is another guest of the show Dr. Keanu Sai who is a political scientist specializing in international relations and public law.

Dr. Keanu Sai Lectures at the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo and at the Keauhou Sheraton Hotel in Kona

Hilo Tribune 1

Hilo Tribune-2

Click the newspaper article to enlarge.

For more information on Sai’s presentations and the seminar, contact Cunefare. For lecture schedules, visit http://kohalacenter.org/puanakaike/about.html. Webcasts of previous lecture are available at http://www.keauhouresort.com/learn-puanakaike.html.

First War Crime Complaint Filed with International Criminal Court

ICC

The first war crime complaint was filed on February 14, 2012, with the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and copied to the United Nations Human Rights Commission by Dexter Kaiama, attorney, on behalf of his client Kenneth K.K. Kawa‘auhau. Kawa‘auhau is a Hawaiian subject and a protected person under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. The specific war crime is denying a protected person a fair and regular trial. According to the ICC, elements of the war crime of denying a fair trial include:

  1. The perpetrator deprived one or more persons of a fair and regular trial by denying judicial guarantees as defined, in particular, in the third and the fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949.
  2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
  3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
  4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an [occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party].
  5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an [occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party].

The ICC also clarifies that with respect to the last two elements listed for the war crime of denying a fair trial:

  1. There is no requirement for a legal evaluation by the perpetrator as to the existence of an [occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party] or its character as international or non-international;
  2. In that context there is no requirement for awareness by the perpetrator of the facts that established the character of the [occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party] as international or non-international;
  3. There is only a requirement for the awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an [occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party] that is implicit in the terms “took place in the context of and was associated with.”

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

In 2012, ejectment proceedings were instituted by the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General against Kawa‘auhau seeking a court order from the District Court of the First Circuit, Waianae Division, to remove him from his home in Waianae. Kawa‘auhau held a 99-year lease from the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. On January 24, 2012, Kawa‘auhau filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the District Court was not lawfully constituted because the United States has been illegally occupying the Hawaiian Kingdom in violation of the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the Restoration Agreement, being international compacts, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and international law. Kaiama provided special appearance for Kawa‘auhau at the hearing on the motion that was held on February 7, 2012.

According to Kawa‘auhau’s pleadings in the case, his argument and supporting evidence centered on the fact that there is no treaty between Hawai‘i and the United States, and without a treaty United States laws enacted by the Congress have no force and effect beyond U.S. territory. As a result, the District Court, which derives its authority from An Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawai‘i into the Union (March 18, 1959), cannot claim to have jurisdiction in territory that does not belong to the United States. Kawa‘auhau argues that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and that international laws, not U.S. laws, apply in his situation.

Despite Kaiama getting District Court Judge Maura Okamoto to take judicial notice of the evidence, she denied the motion to dismiss without cause and the court eventually granted the order for eviction. Kawa‘auhau’s appeal with the Intermediate Court of Appeals was also denied by Presiding Judge Daniel Foley, Associate Judge Katherine Leonard and Associate Judge Lawrence Reifurth without any counter-evidence as well. (United States) State of Hawai‘i Government is a War Crime under International Law.

The War Crime Complaint alleges:

“State of Hawai‘i Judges OKAMOTO, FOLEY, LEONARD, and REIFURTH committed a war crime by willfully depriving my client, a protected person, of a fair and regular trial prescribed by the fourth Geneva ConventionThe Plaintiff, State of Hawai‘i Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Chair JOBIE MASAGATANI and State of Hawai‘i Governor NEAL ABERCROMBIE, represented by the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General DAVID M. LOUIE and Deputy Attorney Generals MATTHEW S. DVONCH, DIANE K. TAIRA and S. KALANI BUSH were complicit in these proceedings and therefore committed a war crime as accessories.”

The War Crime Complaint concludes:

“Accordingly, pursuant to Article 17(3) of the Rome Statute, I respectfully request the office of the Prosecutor, with all due speed, investigate the situation in order to determine if the alleged perpetrators should be charged with the war crime specified above.”

The ICC jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands will begin March 4, 2013.

Hawaiian Legations and Consulates in 1893

On January 17, 1893, Foreign Legations accredited to the Court of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the city of Honolulu included the United States of America, Portugal, Great Britain, France and Japan. A Legation is a diplomatic mission in a foreign country headed by an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. After the Second World War legations were considered embassies. Foreign Consulates in the Hawaiian Kingdom included the United States of America, Italy, Chile, Germany, Sweden-Norway, Denmark, Peru, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Great Britain, Mexico and China.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

Hawaiian Legations accredited abroad to foreign States included:

  1. United States of America in the city of Washington, D.C.;
  2. Great Britain in the city of London;
  3. France in the city of Paris,
  4. Russia in the city of Saint Petersburg;
  5. Peru in the city of Lima; and
  6. Chile in the city of Valparaiso.

Hawaiian Consulates abroad in foreign States included:

  1. United States of America in the cities of New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, San Diego, Boston, Portland, Port Townsend and Seattle;
  2. Mexico in Mexico city and the city of Manzanillo; Guatemala;
  3. Peru in the city of Callao;
  4. Chile in the city of Valparaiso;
  5. Uruguay in the city of Monte Video;
  6. Philippines (former Spanish territory) in the city of Iloilo and Manila;
  7. Great Britain in the cities of London, Bristol, Hull, Newcastle on Tyne, Falmouth, Dover, Cardiff and Swansea, Edinburgh and Leith, Glasgow, Dundee, Queenstown, Belfast;
  8. Ireland (former British territory) in the cities of Liverpool, and Dublin;
  9. Canada (former British territory) in the cities of Toronto, Montreal, Bellville, Kingston Rimouski, St. John’s, Varmouth, Victoria, and Vancouver;
  10. Australia (former British territory) in the cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Hobart, and Launceston;
  11. New Zealand (former British territory) in the cities of Auckland and Dunedin;
  12. China in the cities of Hong Kong and Shanghai;
  13. France in the cities of Paris, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Dijon, Libourne and Papeete;
  14. Germany in the cities of Bremen, Hamburg, Frankfort, Dresden and Karlsruhe;
  15. Austria in the city of Vienna;
  16. Spain in the cities of Barcelona, Cadiz, Valencia Malaga, Cartegena, Las Palmas, Santa Cruz and Arrecife de Lanzarote;
  17. Portugal in the cities of Lisbon, Oporto Madeira, and St. Michaels;
  18. Cape Verde (former Portuguese territory) in the city of St. Vincent;
  19. Italy in the cities of Rome, Genoa, and Palermo;
  20. Netherlands in the cities of Amsterdam and Dordrecht;
  21. Belgium in the cities of Antwerp, Ghent, Liege and Bruges;
  22. Sweden in the cities of Stockholm, Lyskil, and Gothemburg;
  23. Norway in the city of Oslo (formerly known as Kristiania);
  24. Denmark in the city of Copenhagen; and
  25. Japan in the city of Tokyo.

United States of America—1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation

US Treaty

On December 20, 1849, the Treaty between the United States of America and the Hawaiian Kingdom was concluded and signed in Washington, D.C. Ratifications by both countries were exchanged in Honolulu on the Island of O‘ahu, on August 24, 1850. Article VIII of the treaty provides:

“…each of the two contracting parties engages that the citizens or subjects of the other residing in their respective States shall enjoy their property and personal security in as full and ample manner as their own citizens or subjects, or the subjects or citizens of the most favored nation, but subject always to the laws and statutes of the two countries, respectively.”

In addition, Article XVI of the said treaty provides that any:

“…citizen or subject of either party infringing the articles of this treaty shall be held responsible for the same, and the harmony and good correspondence between the two governments shall not be interrupted thereby, each party engaging in no way to protect the offender, or sanction such violation.”

Neither the United States nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XVI of the 1849 Treaty.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former United States territories, which acquired their independence from the United States, are successor States to, at the very least, Article VIII of the Hawaiian-American Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. These successor States are:

  1. Federated States of Micronesia. Independence from American trusteeship on November 3, 1986.
  2. Marshall Islands. Independence from American trusteeship on October 21, 1986.
  3. Palau. Independence from American trusteeship on October 1, 1994.
  4. Philippines.  Independence:  July 4, 1946

Sweden and Norway—1852 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation

Sweden_Norway Treaty

On July 1, 1852, a Treaty was signed between Sweden and Norway and the Hawaiian Kingdom in Honolulu and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article II of the treaty provides:

“there shall be between all the dominions of His Swedish and Norwegian Majesty, and the Hawaiian Islands, a reciprocal freedom of commerce.  The subjects of each of the two contracting parties, respectively, shall have liberty freely and securely to come with their ships and cargoes to all places, ports and rivers in the territories of the other, where trade with other nations in permitted.  They may remain and reside in any part of the said territories, respectively, and hire and occupy houses and warehouses and my trade, by wholesale or retail, in all kinds of produce, manufactures or merchandise of lawful commerce, enjoying the same exemptions and privileges as native subjects, and subject always to the same laws and established customs as native subjects.”

Following the separation of Austria-Hungary into two separate States, both States remained parties to the 1852 Treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom. Neither Norway nor Sweden nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of their intentions to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XVII of the 1852 Treaty.  Therefore, the treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date.

Switzerland—1864 Treaty of Friendship, Establishment and Commerce

Swiss Treaty

On July 20, 1864, a Treaty was signed between the Swiss Confederation and the Hawaiian Kingdom in Berne and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article III of the treaty provides:

“the citizens of each of the contracting parties shall enjoy on the territory of the other the most perfect and complete protection for their persons and their property.  They shall in consequence have free and easy access to the tribunals of justice for their claims and the defense of their rights, in all cases and in every degree of jurisdiction established by the law.”

Neither the Swiss Confederation nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XIII of the 1864 Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date.

Spain—1863 Treaty of Peace and Friendship

Spanish Treaty

On October 29, 1863, a Treaty was signed between Spain and the Hawaiian Kingdom in London and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article IV of this treaty provides:

“the respective citizens of the two countries shall enjoy the most constant and complete protection for their persons and property.  Consequently, they shall have free and easy access to the courts of justice in the pursuit and defense of their rights, in every instance and degree of jurisdiction established by the laws.”

Neither Spain nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article XXVII of the 1863 Treaty.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date day. Former Spanish territories, which acquired their independence from Spain, are successor States to, at the very least, Article IV of the Hawaiian-Spanish Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. These successor States are:

  1. Cuba.  Independence:  May 20, 1902.
  2. Equatorial Guinea.  Independence:  October 12, 1968.

Russia—1869 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation

Russia Treaty

On June 19, 1869, a Treaty was signed between Russia and the Hawaiian Kingdom in Paris and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article II of this treaty provides:

“the subjects of His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, and the subjects of His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, shall be treated reciprocally on the footing of the most favored nation.”

Neither Russia nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the principles of customary international law.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former Russian territories, which acquired their independence from Russia, are successor States to, at the very least, Article II of the Hawaiian-Russian Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. These successor States are:

  1. Armenia.  Independence:  September 23, 1991.
  2. Azerbaijan.  Independence:  August 30, 1991.
  3. Belarus.  Independence:  August 25, 1991.
  4. Estonia. Independence. February 24, 1918.
  5. Finland.  Independence:  December 6, 1917.
  6. Georgia.  Independence:  April 9, 1991.
  7. Kazakhstan.  Independence:  December 6, 1991.
  8. Kyrgyzstan.  Independence:  August 31, 1991.
  9. Latvia.  Independence:  November 18, 1918.
  10. Lithuania.  Independence:  February 16, 1918.
  11. Poland. Independence: November 11, 1918.
  12. Republic of Moldova.  Independence:  August 27, 1991.
  13. Tajikistan.  Independence:  September 9, 1991.
  14. Turkmenistan.  Independence:  October 27, 1991.
  15. Ukraine.  Independence:  August 24, 1991.
  16. Uzbekistan.  Independence:  August 31, 1991.

Portugal—1882 Treaty of Friendship and Commerce

Portugal Treaty

On May 5, 1882, a Provisional Convention was signed between Portugal and the Hawaiian Kingdom in Lisbon and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article I of this convention provides:

“the Consular Agents, the subjects, the ships and products of the soil, or of the industry of one of the two countries, will enjoy on the territory of the other the same exemptions, privileges, and immunities which other Consular Agents, subjects, ships and products of the soil, or of the industry of the most favored nation, enjoy.”

Neither Portugal nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this Provisional Convention in accordance with the principles of customary international law.  Therefore, this Portuguese Provisional Convention is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former Portuguese territories, which acquired their independence from Portugal, are successor States to, at the very least, Article I of the Hawaiian-Portuguese Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. These successor States are:

  1. Angola.  Independence:  November 11, 1975.
  2. Cape Verde.  Independence:  July 5, 1975.
  3. Guinea-Bissau.  Independence:  September 24, 1973.
  4. Mozambique.  Independence:  June 25, 1975.
  5. Sao Tome and Principe.  Independence:  July 12, 1975.
  6. Timor-Leste. Independence: November 28, 1975. May 20, 2002 is the official date of international recognition of Timor-Leste’s independence by the United Nations.

Netherlands-Luxembourg—1862 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation

Dutch Treaty

On October 16, 1862, a Treaty was signed between the Netherlands and the Hawaiian Kingdom in The Hague and thereafter ratified by both governments. The King of the Netherlands, William III, was also Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Article II of this treaty provides:

“the respective subjects of the two high contracting parties shall be perfectly and in all respects assimilated on their establishment and settlement, whether for a longer or shorter time in the States and Colonies of the other party on the terms granted to the subjects of the most favored nation in all which concerns the permission of sojourning, the exercise of legal professions, imposts, taxes, in a word, all the conditions relative to sojourn and establishment.”

Neither the Netherlands nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article VI of the 1862 Treaty.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former Dutch territories, which acquired their independence from the Netherlands, are successor States to, at the very least, Article II of the Hawaiian-Dutch Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. These successor States are:

  1. Indonesia.  Independence:  August 17, 1945.
  2. Suriname.  Independence:  November 25, 1975.

Japan—1871 Treaty of Amity and Commerce

Japan Treaty

On August 19, 1871, a Treaty was signed between Japan and the Hawaiian Kingdom in the city of Yedo and thereafter ratified by both governments. Article II of this treaty provides:

“the subjects of each of the two high contracting parties, respectively, shall have the liberty freely and securely to come with their ships and cargoes to all places, ports and rivers in the territories of the other, where trade with other nations is permitted;  they may remain and reside in any such ports, and places respectively, and hire and occupy houses and warehouses, and may trade in all kinds of produce, manufactures and merchandise of lawful commerce, enjoying at all times the same privileges as may have been, or may hereafter be granted to the citizens or subjects of any other nation, paying at all times such duties and taxes as may be exacted from the citizens or subjects of other nations doing business or residing within the territories of each of the high contracting parties.”

Neither Japan nor the Hawaiian Kingdom gave notice to the other of its intention to terminate this treaty in accordance with the terms of Article VI of the 1871 Treaty.  Therefore, this treaty is still in full force and continues to have legal effect to date. Former Japanese territories, which acquired their independence from Japan, are successor States to, at the very least, Article II of the Hawaiian-Japanese Treaty with regard to the citizenry of the successor State that effectively replaced the citizenry of the predecessor State in the treaty. The successor States are:

  1. North Korea.  Independence:  August 15, 1945.
  2. South Korea. Independence: August 15, 1945.