Hawai‘i War Crimes: Depleted Uranium found in Army Training Areas in Hawai‘i

Posted on by
7

War crimes are actions taken by individuals, whether military or civilian, that violates international humanitarian law, which includes the 1907 Hague Conventions, 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. War crimes include “grave breaches” of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which also applies to territory that is occupied even if the occupation takes place without resistance. Protected persons under International Humanitarian Law are all nationals who reside within an occupied State, except for the nationals of the Occupying Power. The International Criminal Court and States prosecute individuals for war crimes.

War Crimes: Destroying or seizing the [Occupied State’s] property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war

In 2006, the United States Army disclosed to the public that depleted uranium (DU) was found on the firing ranges at Schofield Barracks on the Island of O‘ahu. It subsequently confirmed DU was also found at Pohakuloa Training Area on the Island of Hawai‘i and suspect that DU is also at Makua Military Reservation on the Island of O‘ahu. The ranges have yet to be cleared of DU and the ranges are still used for live fire. This brings the inhabitants who live down wind from these ranges into harms way because when the DU ignites or explodes from the live fire, it creates tiny particles of aerosolized DU oxide that can travel by wind. And if the DU gets into the drinking water or oceans it would have a devastating effect across the islands.

The following video and information is provided by Kamakako‘i: Cutting Edge.

The information below has been consolidated and summarized primarily from publicly available documents on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s web-based “Agencywide Documents Access and Management System” (ADAMS). A comprehensive listing of the original documents related to U.S. Army depleted uranium licensing in Hawai‘i can be found by going to http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/ and doing a search of “Docket Number 04009083.” The date and “accession” reference number for each document is provided in the filename of each downloadable document.

DEPLETED URANIUM BACKGROUND:

Depleted Uranium (DU) (external link) is a byproduct of the nuclear energy and atomic weapon industries. Because it has been altered, DU is less radioactive than natural uranium, which occurs naturally in the environment. DU is forty percent more dense than lead, yet lighter than other comparable materials, and has civilian uses such as in medical applications, as well as for ballast in aircraft and boats. DU is used in military applications as ballast for spotting rounds and as armor and weaponry because it has the ability to pierce other kinds of armor, self-sharpen, and ignite on impact at very high temperatures.

DEPLETED URANIUM AND THE ARMY IN HAWAI‘I:

According to Army documents, between 1962 and 1968, the Army used DU in M101 spotting rounds for the Davy Crockett Weapon system, a low-yield battlefield nuclear device. The body of the M101 spotting round contained 6.2 ounces of DU that allowed soldiers to simulate the flight path of the munitions fired from the Davy Crockett Weapon system. Although not an atomic explosive, M101 spotting rounds contained a small amount of explosive charge that created a puff of smoke to allow training soldiers to locate the point of impact for a round. Remnants of the M101 rounds were rediscovered during unexploded ordnance clearance at the Schofield Barracks impact area in August 2005, and again following prescribed burns in September 2006.

LICENSE APPLICATION:

In November 2008, the U.S. Army submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a materials license to possess depleted uranium at military installations where the Davy Crockett M101 spotting round was used in training activities. In Hawai‘i, the U.S. Army application covered impact areas (where access is restricted due to the presence of in-field hazards, including unexploded ordnance) within training ranges located at Schofield Barracks on O‘ahu and the Pohakuloa Training Area on Hawai‘i Island. The license was requested to cover the possession and maintenance of depleted uranium remaining in the field from the 1960s training. Due to sparse training records (full document with appendices can be found here (external link)), the amount of DU and the distribution of rounds within each training range could not be determined, so the Army sought to license the 125 kilograms of DU from 714 spotting rounds that the Army believed it had fired at Schofield Barracks and Pohakuloa Training Area.

ENFORCEMENT ACTION:

In response to a request filed by a Hawai‘i Island resident, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission initiated an enforcement investigation against the U.S. Army for its possession of DU without a materials license, following the expiration of its previously held license in April 1978. On August 1, 2011, the NRC issued a notice of violation to the Army for its possession of DU at training ranges located at Schofield Barracks and the Pohakuloa Training Area from spotting round fragments of the M101 Davy Crockett weapon system, fired at Army training ranges during the 1960s. The NRC considered the violation to be significant, but did not impose a civil penalty due to the corrective actions proposed by the Army to control access into areas suspected of containing DU.

LICENSE EXEMPTION REQUEST: 

During its extended negotiations with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over the conditions of a DU possession license, the U.S. Army formally applied for an exemption for its in-field DU at Schofield Barracks and Pohakuloa Training Ranges, by letter dated September 10, 2012. Through information provided in its original request and a later February 6, 2013 response, the Army argued that it had met its burden of showing that the exemption would not “endanger life or property, or the common defense and security and [would be] otherwise in the public interest.” The NRCdenied the Army’s request for a license exemption.

DU POSSESSION LICENSE ISSUED:

On October 23, 2013, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued to the U.S. Army a materials license for DU located at Schofield Barracks and Pohakuloa Training Area. In addition to the conditions contained in the license, the NRC incorporated the commitments, representations, and statements contained in the Army’s original license application, the Physical Security Plan, and the Radiation Safety Plan. The materials license also requires the Army to provide the NRC with an air sampling plan and a plant sampling plan for its review and approval. In accordance with its materials license and air sampling plan, the Army conducted training that included high-explosive fire into the radiological control area at Schofield Barracks in February 2014, with an NRC inspector present.

1998 Memorandum Confirms Women Can Vote under Hawaiian Kingdom Law

Posted on by
9

MEMORANDUM

 March 12, 1998

TO: SUBJECTS OF THE KINGDOM

FROM: OFFICE OF THE REGENT

RE: SUFFRAGE OF FEMALE SUBJECTS

On March 12, 1997, at a public meeting held at the Queen Lili‘uokalani Children Center at Halona, it was brought to the attention of this office by a female subject of the Kingdom, that there is no provision in the law that bars female subjects from voting in the election for Representatives of the Kingdom. She asserted that although the “voter qualification” statute specifically relates to the male gender, §15, chapter III, title I, provides, in part, that “…every word importing the masculine gender only, may extend to and include females as well as males.” Based upon the dubious nature of this statute in its relation toward both genders, I have diligently researched the election laws and have arrived at the following conclusion.

§783, article XXXII, Civil Code of the Hawaiian Islands, Compiled Laws of 1884, p. 221, provides that every “…male subject of the Kingdom who shall have paid his taxes, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have been domiciled in the Kingdom for one year immediately preceding the election, and shall know how to read and write, if born since the year 1840, and shall have caused his name to be entered on the list of voters of his district, as hereinafter provided, shall be entitled to one vote for Representative or Representatives of that district; provided, however, that no insane or idiotic person, or any person who shall have been convicted of any infamous crime within this Kingdom unless he shall have been pardoned by the King, and by the terms of such pardon have been restored to all the rights of a subject, shall be allowed to vote; and no other person than those qualified as in this section provided shall be allowed to vote at any election for Representatives to the Legislative Assembly of this Kingdom.”

“The intention of the makers of a statute is frequently to be collected from the cause or necessity for the statute; and whenever this intention can be discovered it ought to be followed with reason and discretion in the construction of the statute, although such construction may seem contrary to the letter of the statute.” See Rixman v. Goodale, 1 Haw. 298, 300 [536, 540] (1856); Shillaber v. Waldo, 1 Haw. 21, 25, [31, 38] (1848).

Pursuant to §12, chapter III, title I, Civil Code of the Hawaiian Islands, Compiled Laws of 1884, p. 3, the statute provides that one “…of the most effectual ways of discovering the true meaning of the law, when its expressions are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it, or the cause which induced the Legislature to enact it.” Therefore in order for this office to ascertain the intent of this statute as it relates to the Representative body, a careful examination of the old laws must first be done in order to determine the reason and spirit of their enactment.

In the year 1839 His Majesty King Kamehameha III declared protection for the persons and private rights of all his people from the highest to the lowest. In 1840 he granted the first Constitution by which he declared and established the equality before the law of all his subjects, Chiefs and people alike. By that Constitution, he voluntarily deprived himself of some of his powers and attributes as an absolute Sovereign, and granted certain political rights upon his subjects, admitting them to a share with himself in legislation and government. See Estate of His Majesty Kamehameha IV, 2 Haw. 720 (1864). The Constitution of 1840 specifically provides a provision respecting the Representative Body, by stating, in part, to wit, that there “…shall be annually chosen certain persons to sit in council with the Nobles and establish laws for the nation. They shall be chosen by the people…” These political rights that were conferred upon all subjects of the Kingdom were not limited to a specific gender, but rather upon his “people” who comprised the Chiefly class and the Commoner class.

On November 2, 1840, a statute providing the means of electing the Representative body in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution, was enacted by the House of Nobles and signed into law by the King. Section 3 of this election statute provides that should “…any man forge another’s name as a signature to a letter written as above…he shall be fined ten dollars for every name thus criminally written.” See chapter II, Of the Representative Body, Laws of 1842 (Old Laws). When this provision of a male gender is compared with the original provision of respecting the Representative body as stated in the Constitution, the latter does not disqualify the female gender, but merely states that certain persons are to be chosen to sit in council with the Nobles in order to establish laws for the nation. The Constitution does not specify that only men can vote for Representatives. On the contrary, the Constitution repels the conclusion of excluding the female gender from participating in the Legislative body, when that Constitution specifically provided for certain women to serve in the government, namely, Kekauluohi as Premier, and Hoapiliwahine, Kekau‘onohi, Konia, and Keohokalole as members of the House of Nobles.

Since that first statute relating to the Representative body was enacted on November 2, 1840, in conformity with the Constitution of October 8, 1840, the following Statutes were passed by the Legislative Assembly and signed into law affecting the House of Representatives:

  • December 10, 1845, Second Act of Kamehameha III, “An Act to Organize the Executive departments of the Hawaiian Islands” Title I, part V, – Duties to the Legislative Branch of Government
  • July 30, 1850, “An Act to Increase the number of the Representatives of the People in the Legislative Council”
  • July 11, 1851, “An Act to Amend the Law relating to the Election of the Representatives of the People”
  • June 14, 1852, Constitution of 1852, “Articles 19, and 75-80”
  • May 26, 1853, “An Act to Regulate the number of the Representatives of the People”
  • June 16, 1853, “An Act Repealing Certain Laws,” which includes Chapter II of the Old Laws, 1842, respecting the Representative Body
  • May 14, 1855, “An Act to Amend the Law relating to the Election of Representatives of the People”
  • May 30, 1856, “An Act to Amend an Act to Regulate the Election of Representatives of the People”
  • May 17, 1859, enactment of the Civil Code of the Hawaiian Islands,
    • Article XXXI – Of the House of Nobles
    • Article XXXII – Of the Election of Representatives, Of the Time and Place of Holding Elections, Of the Qualifications of Electors, Of the Manner of Conducting Elections, Mode of Annulling an Election and of Filling Vacancies, Provisions to Preserve the Purity of Elections
  • April 18, 1856, “Articles of Amendment of the Constitution of this Kingdom proposed and agreed to, pursuant to the 105th Article of the original Constitution”
  • April 18, 1856, “Articles of Amendment of the Constitution of this Kingdom proposed and agreed to, pursuant to the 105th Article of the original Constitution”
    • Article 2 amending Article 29, which provides for the convening of both houses of the legislature
    • Article 6 amending Article 61, which provides when the legislative body shall assemble
  • August 20, 1864, Constitution of 1864, “Articles 18, 19, 28, 45-56, 60-63, 75-78, and 80”
  • December 31, 1864, “An Act regarding the Qualifications of Electors”
  • June 22, 1868, “An Act to Amend Section 788 of the Civil Code,” providing for the Number of Representatives
  • June 22, 1868, “An Act to Amend Section 780 of the Civil Code,” providing for the Voting Polls
  • June 24, 1868, “An Act to Establish the Compensation of Representatives”
  • June 24, 1868, “An Act to Repeal an Act entitled ‘an Act Regarding the Qualifications of Electors,’ approved December 31st, 1864, and to Regulate the Qualifications of Electors for Representatives to the Legislative Assembly of the Kingdom”
  • July 13, 1874, “An Act Providing for the Tenure of Office of Representatives”
  • July 13, 1874, “An Act to Regulate the Time for Holding Elections for Representatives”
  • August 7, 1874, “An Act to Amend Sections 2 and 3 of an Act entitled, ‘an Act to Repeal an Act entitled an Act Regarding the Qualification of Electors for Representatives to the Legislative Assembly of the Kingdom as approved on the 24th of June, 1868, and to Repeal Sections 1 and 2 of Chapter 86 of the Penal Code’”
  • August 3, 1876, “An Act to Amend Sections 796, 797, 799 of the Civil Code,” pertaining to the Duties of the Legislative Assembly
  • September 15, 1876, “An Act to Amend Section 18, Chapter 86, of the Penal Code, of Holding Elections”
  • September 19, 1876, “An Act to Amend Chapter 86 of the Penal Code, ‘regarding the Qualification of Electors,’ by adding a new Section to be Numbered 17a”
  • May 2, 1882, “An Act to Authorize the Holding of an Election for Representative for the district of Kaanapali, Maui”
  • May 13, 1882, “A proposed Amendment to Article 56 of the Constitution granted by His Majesty Kamehameha v on the 20th day of August, a.d. 1864, as amended and approved on the 13th day of May a.d. 1868, according to Article 80 of the Constitution”
  • May 22, 1882, “An Act to Amend Section 1 of an Act entitled ‘an Act to Establish the Compensation of Representatives,’ approved on the 24th day of June, a.d. 1868”
  • July 11, 1884, “An Act to Amend Section 782 of the Civil Code, relating to Time and Places of Holding Elections”
  • October 7, 1886, “An Act to Amend Chapter lxxxvi of the Penal Code,” relating to Inspectors of Elections
  • October 15, 1886, “An Act to Provide the Residence Required by Law as necessary to the Exercise of the Elective Franchise”

Careful examination of the Organic laws and Statutes which affect the Representative body of the Kingdom fails to disclose any provision precluding the female gender from participating in the electoral process, except for insane or idiotic persons or persons convicted of an infamous crime without a pardon by the Monarch. See §783, article XXXII, Civil Code of the Hawaiian Islands, Compiled Laws of 1884, p. 221.

In conclusion, the intent of the election statute was to have a Representative Body chosen by the people in order to help establish laws for the nation together with the King and Chiefs, and not a Representative Body to be chosen exclusively by men. This is in line with the intention of the Declaration of Rights of 1839, and the granting of the first Constitution, 1840, that “…conferred certain political rights upon his (King Kamehameha III’s) subjects, admitting them to a share with himself in legislation and government.” See Estate of His Majesty Kamehameha IV, 2 Haw. 720 (1864). According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 1325, political rights are defined as the “…power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, that of suffrage, the right to hold public office, and the right of petition.”

The issue here is not a question of whether Hawaiian women can or cannot participate in the election of Representatives or serving as a candidate for the House of Representatives, but whether there is any provision in the election laws that preclude Hawaiian women from participating. If no such provision exists, as the case be, then Hawaiian women do have a right to participate in the electoral process under their political right, and that the male gender referred to in the “qualifications of electors” does not preclude the female gender, provided the female is a subject of the Kingdom, of the age of 20 and is neither an idiot, an insane person, or a convicted felon.

David Keanu Sai
Regent, pro tempore

Canadian Television Series “Native Planet” on Hawai‘i’s Occupation

Posted on by
11

Native Planet

In the Fall 2014 APTN television in Canada will be airing six one-hour TV documentaries of the television series Native Planet. Episode 4 was shot in the Hawaiian Islands. In this episode, Host Simon Baker travels to Hawai‘i to examine the growing sovereignty movement and how it helped halt construction of the largest public infrastructure project in Hawaii’s history. Here is a trailer for that episode.

 

United States Falsely Reports to United Nations Hawai‘i’s Status

Posted on by
2

When the United Nations was established in 1945 one of its goals was to address the colonial possessions of the allied countries who prevailed during World War II. Article 73(e) of the UN Charter required these countries to transmit information regarding their territorial possessions and the progress of these territories towards a full measure of self-government. The term “self” means for oneself and not imposed, and “government” means a system of governing or administration. These colonial possessions did not have a government of their own and came to be known as non-self-governing territories.

The process of achieving “self-government” is called “self-determination.” According to the United Nations Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council, “Article 1(2) establishes that one of the main purposes of the United Nations, and thus the Security Council, is to develop friendly international relations based on respect for the ‘principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.’ The case studies in this section cover instances where the Security Council has discussed situations with a bearing on the principle of self-determination and the right of peoples to decide their own government, which may relate to the questions of independence, autonomy, referenda, elections, and the legitimacy of governments.”

According to UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), a non-self-governing territory “can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by: (a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State; (b) Free association with an independent State; or (c) Integration with an independent State.” In other words, a non-self-governing territory was never a sovereign independent State, never in association with an independent State, or was never integrated with an independent State.

According to Dr. James Summers, Peoples and International Law (p. 210), “No conditions were set for self-government by independence, but conditions were attached to integration and free association. Free association…was to be established by the free and voluntary choice of the people concerned expressed by informed and democratic means. The individuality and culture of the territory had to be respected and its people had the right to determine their internal constitution without interference. This status, moreover, was not necessarily permanent and could later be changed by democratic means. Integration…was to take place on the basis of equality: people were to have equal status, citizenship, fundamental rights, representations and participation.”

In 1946, prior to the passage of the Hawai‘i Statehood Act by the United States Congress, the United States misrepresented its relationship with Hawai’i when its permanent representative to the United Nations identified Hawai’i as a non-self-governing territory under the administration of the United States since 1898. In accordance with Article 73(e) of the U.N. Charter, the United States permanent representative erroneously reported Hawai’i as a non-self-governing territory, which implied Hawai‘i was never a “sovereign independent State.”

Secretary-General Trygve LieOn June 4, 1952, United Nations Secretary General Trygve Halvdan Lie reported information submitted to him by United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Warren Austin, regarding American Samoa, Hawai‘i, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. In this report, the United States Ambassador made no mention that Hawai‘i was an independent State since 1843 and that its government was illegally overthrown by U.S. forces, which was later settled by an executive agreement through mediation and exchange of notes. The representative also failed to disclose diplomatic protests that succeeded in preventing the second attempt to annex the Islands by a treaty of cession in 1897. Instead, the representative provided a picture of Hawai‘i as if it were a non-self-governing territory. The report stated,

Austin_Warren_Robinson“The Hawaiian Islands were discovered by James Cook in 1778. At that time divided into several petty chieftainships, they were soon afterwards united into one kingdom. The Islands became an important port and recruiting point for the early fur and sandalwood traders in the North Pacific, and the principal field base for the extensive whaling trade. When whaling declined after 1860, sugar became the foundation of the economy, and was stimulated by a reciprocity treaty with the United States (1896).

American missionaries went to Hawaii in 1820; they reduced the Hawaiian language to written form, established a school system, and gained great influence among the ruling chiefs. In contact with foreigners and western culture, the aboriginal population steadily declined. To replace this loss and to furnish labourers for the expanding sugar plantations, large-scale immigration was established.

When later Hawaiian monarchs showed a tendency to revert to absolutism, political discords and economic stresses produced a revolutionary movement headed by men of foreign birth and ancestry. The Native monarch was overthrown in 1893, and a republic government established. Annexation to the United States was one aim of the revolutionists. After a delay of five years, annexation was accomplished.

…The Hawaiian Islands, by virtue of the Joint Resolution of Annexation and the Hawaiian Organic Act, became an integral part of the United States and were given a territorial form of government which, in the United States political system, precedes statehood.”

Statehood PhotoIn 1959, the Secretary General received a communication from the United States permanent representative that they will no longer transmit information regarding Hawai‘i because it was supposedly “integrated” into the United States under a new constitution that would take effect on August 21, 1959. This resulted in a General Assembly resolution stating it “Considers it appropriate that the transmission of information in respect of Alaska and Hawaii under Article 73e of the Charter should cease.”Evidence that the United Nations was not aware of Hawaiian independence since 1843 can be shown from the following statement by the United Nations’ Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Extracts relating to Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations, Supplement No. 1 (1955-1959), volume 3, at200, para. 101.

“Though the General Assembly considered that the manner in which Territories could become fully self-governing was primarily through the attainment of independence, it was observed in the Fourth Committee that the General Assembly had recognized in resolution 748 (VIII) that self-government could also be achieved by association with another State or group of States if the association was freely chosen and was on a basis of absolute equality. There was unanimous agreement that Alaska and Hawaii had attained a full measure of self-government and equal to that enjoyed by all other self-governing constituent states of the United States. Moreover, the people of Alaska and Hawaii had fully exercised their right to choose their own form of government.”

Although the United Nations passed two resolutions acknowledging Hawai‘i to be a non-self-governing territory that has been under the administration of the United States of America since 1898 and was granted “so-called” a full measure of self-governance in 1959, it did not affect the continuity of the Hawaiian State because, foremost, United Nations resolutions are not binding on member States of the United Nations, let alone a non-member State—the Hawaiian Kingdom. Professor Crawford explains, The Creation of States in International Law (p. 113), “Of course, the General Assembly is not a legislature. Mostly its resolutions are only recommendations, and it has no capacity to impose new legal obligations on States.” Secondly, the information provided to the General Assembly by the United States was distorted and flawed.  In East Timor, Portugal argued that resolutions of both the General Assembly and the Security Council acknowledged the status of East Timor as a non-self-governing territory and Portugal as the administering power and should be treated as “givens.” The International Court of Justice, however, did not agree and in its judgment (p. 103) found “that it cannot be inferred from the sole fact that the above-mentioned resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council refer to Portugal as the administrating Power of East Timor that they intended to establish an obligation on third States.”

Even more problematic is when the decisions embodied in the resolutions as “givens” are wrong. Acknowledging this possibility, Professor Bowett, The Impact of Security Council Decisions on Dispute Settlement Procedures (p. 97), states, “where a decision affects a State’s legal rights or responsibilities, and can be shown to be unsupported by the facts, or based upon a quite erroneous view of the facts, or a clear error of law, the decision ought in principle to be set aside.” Marco Öberg, The Legal Effects of Resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ (p. 892), also agrees and acknowledges that resolutions “may have been made on the basis of partial information, where not all interested parties were heard, and/or too urgently for the facts to be objectively established.” As an example, Öberg cited Security Council Resolution 1530, March 11, 2004, that “misidentified the perpetrator of the bomb attacks carried out in Madrid, Spain, on the same day.”

There exists a common misunderstanding that stems from Americanization, which promoted the lie that Hawai‘i was a colony of the United States, that Hawai‘i did not fully exercise “self-determination” in 1959 because there was no option for the people to choose to become a “sovereign independent State.” This has resulted in a paradoxical fringe movement of “re-inscription” onto to the Article 73(e) list of non-self-governing territories. The inherent contradiction of this argument is that in order to “re-inscribe” is to start from the premise that Hawai‘i was never a “sovereign independent State” in order to choose through a process of self-determination for Hawai‘i to be an “independent sovereign State.”

The underlying paradox to this argument is that to re-inscribe is to place the United States in a position of power as the administrator over a territory that is not a sovereign independent State, in order to negotiate with the United States to become a sovereign independent State. This is a contradiction, especially after the Permanent Court of Arbitration stated in its 2001 Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom Arbitral Award that Hawai‘i “existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties.”

There is no evidence in the history of international law where an already established sovereign independent State was ever considered a non-self-governing territory, because international law provides for the rule preserving the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign independent State even during an illegal and prolonged occupation.

A History of the Future: Keanu Sai and the Occupation of Hawai‘i

Posted on by
6

In 2012, brothers Gorav Kalyan and Professor Rohan Kalyan, Ph.D., of Nonetheless Productions produced an award winning short film on the United States illegal overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 and the subsequent U.S. illegal and prolonged occupation since the 1898 Spanish-American War. Filmed entirely on the campus of the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, the film interviews academics on their research of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

https://vimeo.com/88787901

rohan-kalyanNonetheless Productions has authorized the posting of the film. Dr. Kaylan is an Assistant Professor in International and Global Studies at Sewanee: University of the South in Tennessee. Nonetheless Productions is currently working on expanding the short film into a full documentary. For more information on their project contact Dr. Kaylan at rohan.kalyan@gmail.com.

“Hawaiian Nationality” Dissertation Defense – Willy Kauai, Ph.D. candidate

Posted on by
13

***UPDATE. Willy Kauai successfully defended his dissertation. He will be graduating in May 2014 with a Ph.D. in political science. His committee members were comprised of Professor Neal Milner, Chair, Professor Debora Halbert, Professor Charles Lawrence III, Dr. Keanu Sai, Professor Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie, and Professor Puakea Nogelmeier.

Kauai_Defense