In 1875, a Commercial Reciprocity Treaty was entered into between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States that was to last for seven years. In 1884, a Supplemental Convention extended the duration of the commercial treaty for another seven years with the express condition that the United States was granted exclusive access to Pearl Harbor. Article II of the Supplemental Convention states:
His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands grants to the Government of the United States the exclusive right to enter the harbor of Pearl River, in the Island of Oahu, and to establish and maintain there a coaling and repair station for the use of vessels of the United States, and to that end the United States may improve the entrance to said harbor and do all other things needful to the purpose aforesaid.
The Supplemental Convention came into effect in 1887 after ratifications were exchanged and would last for seven years and further until “either of the High Contracting Parties shall give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same,” where termination would commence twelve months after the notification is received by the other High Contracting Party. Although the Hawaiian government was unlawfully overthrown by the United States on January 17, 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law continued to exist. In 1997, the Hawaiian Kingdom government was restored as a Regency serving in the absence of a Monarch.
On October 20, 2023, the Hawaiian Kingdom, by its Council of Regency, proclaimed the termination of the 1875 Commercial Reciprocity Treaty and its 1884 Supplemental Convention in accordance with Article I of the said Supplemental Convention. The following day, a notice of termination was sent, by courier United States Postal Service, to Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken. The notice of termination was received by the United States Department of State on 26 October 2023 at 5:47am ET, which consequently triggered the tolling of twelve months after which the Commercial Reciprocity Treaty and its Supplemental Convention would terminate.
The reasoning behind the notice of termination was that the United States in its unlawful and prolonged military occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 17 January 1893 has exploited its use of Pearl Harbor by establishing military bases and facilities throughout the Hawaiian Islands under the Indo-Pacific Command of the U.S. Department of Defense in violation of the Article 1 of the 1907 Hague Convention (V) respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land. Although the Hawaiian Kingdom is not a Contracting State to the 1907 Hague Convention (V), it is mere codification of nineteenth century customary international law. On April 7, 1855, King Kamehameha IV proclaimed the foreign policy of the Kingdom:
My policy, as regards all foreign nations, being that of peace, impartiality and neutrality, in the spirit of the Proclamation by the late King, of the 16th May last, and of the Resolutions of the Privy Council of the 15th June and 17th July, I have given to the President of the United States, at his request, my solemn adhesion to the rule, and to the principles establishing the rights of neutrals during war, contained in the Convention between his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias and the United States, concluded in Washington on the 22nd July last.
This policy of neutrality remained unchanged throughout the nineteenth century. Furthermore, the policy of neutrality by the Hawaiian Kingdom as a Neutral Power were inserted as treaty provisions in the Hawaiian-Swedish/Norwegian Treaty of 1852, the Hawaiian-Spanish Treaty of 1863, and the Hawaiian-German Treaty of 1879. In its treaty with Sweden/Norway, Article XV states, “His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway engages to respect in time of war the neutral rights of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and to use his good offices with all other powers, having treaties with His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, to induce them to adopt the same policy towards the Hawaiian Kingdom.”
As a result of the termination of the treaty and its convention, all United States military forces in the Hawaiian Islands will be withdrawn in twelve months by 5:47am ET on October 26, 2024. On the withdrawal, the Council of Regency proclaimed:
And, We do require that when the United States has received this notice of termination, it shall, prior to the expiration of twelve months in accordance with Article I of the 1884 Supplemental Convention, remove all movable property at its military facilities throughout the Hawaiian Islands, including unexploded munitions, and fuel, with the exception of real property attached to the land or erected on it, including man-made objects, such as buildings, homes, structures, roads, sewers, and fences, to include on other properties that have been or are currently under its supervision and command.
Not all military forces in the Hawaiian Islands are affected by the notice of termination. There are two military forces present within the Hawaiian Kingdom today. That of the United States Federal government called Title 10 United States Code (“USC”) armed forces, and that of the State of Hawai‘i National Guard called Title 32 USC armed forces. Title 10 troops are purely American in origin while the Title 32 troops are Hawaiian in origin, and, therefore, remain in the Hawaiian Islands to be called by its original designation—the Royal Guard.
When the United States unilaterally annexed the Hawaiian Islands in violation of international law on 7 July 1898, it initiated the establishment of the United States Army Pacific, United States Marine Forces Pacific, United States Pacific Fleet, and the United States Pacific Air Forces. The United States Army Pacific was established in the Hawaiian Islands in 1898 during the Spanish-American War, headquartered at its first military base called Camp McKinley on the Island of O‘ahu, and later headquartered at Fort Shafter on the Island of O‘ahu in 1921. In 1908, the Congress allocated funds to establish a Naval Station at Pearl Harbor.
In April 1942, the United States military forces in the Hawaiian Islands were organized into two commands for the Army under United States Army Forces Pacific and for the Navy as Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet, and Pacific Oceans Areas Commander-in-Chief. This command structure of the Army and Navy in the Hawaiian Islands during the Second World War was transformed into the United States Pacific Command on 1 January 1947, which is presently called the Indo-Pacific Command, whose headquarters is at Camp H.M. Smith on the Island of O‘ahu. In September 1947, the United States Air Force separated from the United States Army as a separate branch of the armed forces with its base headquartered at Hickam Air Force Base on the Island of O‘ahu, and later, in 2010, merged to become an element of Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam with the Navy.
The Indo-Pacific Command has four component commands stationed in the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom—United States Army Pacific, whose headquarters is at Fort Shafter on the Island of O‘ahu, United States Marine Forces Pacific, whose headquarters is at Camp H.M Smith on the Island of O‘ahu, United States Pacific Fleet, whose headquarters is at Naval Station Pearl Harbor on the Island of O‘ahu, and United States Pacific Air Forces, whose headquarters is at Hickam Air Force Base/Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam on the Island of O‘ahu.
There is no legal basis for the presence of Title 10 USC military forces in the Hawaiian Islands by virtue of Congressional legislation because municipal laws have no extraterritorial effect. Since Congressional legislation is limited in operation to the territory of the United States, it cannot unilaterally establish military installations in the territory of a foreign State without the State’s consent through a treaty or convention. According to traditional international law, the concept of jurisdiction is linked to the State territory. As the Permanent Court of International Justice in the 1927 Lotus case stated:
[T]he first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that – failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary – it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention […] all that can be required of a State is that it should not overstep the limits which international law places upon its jurisdiction; within these limits, its title to exercise jurisdiction rests in its sovereignty.
The presence of all Title 10 USC military forces throughout the Hawaiian Islands has a direct nexus to the 1884 Supplemental Convention that granted the United States exclusive access to Pearl Harbor. The 1884 Supplemental Convention was a valid treaty under international law up until the Hawaiian Kingdom’s notice of intention to terminate was received by the U.S. Department of State at 5:47am ET on 26 October 2023. As a consequence of the termination, all Title 10 USC military forces shall have to be withdrawn from the Hawaiian Islands no later than 5:47am ET on 26 October 2024. The military forces that remain is the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Royal Guard that is referred to today as the Hawai‘i Army and Air National Guard.
For a comprehensive report on the termination of the 1875 Commercial Reciprocity Treaty and its 1884 Supplemental Convention go to the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s Preliminary Report on this subject.
CLARIFICATION. The 1884 Supplemental Convention began a seven-year term as of 1887 when ratifications were exchanged in Washington, D.C. It would continue after the seven-year period until either the Hawaiian Kingdom or the United States gives notification of its intention to terminate the treaty. When notice is received by the other party a twelve-month period begins for termination. Article I specifically states:
The High Contracting Parties agree, that the time fixed for the duration of the said Convention, shall be definitely extended for a term of seven years from the date of the exchange of ratifications hereof, and further, until the expiration of twelve months after either of the High Contracting Parties shall give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same, each of the High Contracting Parties being at liberty to give such notice to the other at the end of the said term of seven years or at any time thereafter.
In other words, the seven-year term was locked in, but it would continue in force if there was no notice of termination. A similar provision for termination of the 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States was stated in Article XVI:
The present treaty shall be in force from the date of the exchange of the ratifications, for the term of ten years, and further, until the end of twelve months after either of the contracting parties shall have given notice to the other of its intention to terminate the same, each of the said contracting parties reserving to itself the right of giving such notice at the end of the said term of ten years, or at any subsequent term.
Only the 1875 Commercial Reciprocity Treaty and the 1884 Supplemental Convention have been terminated. All other treaties with the United States remain in full force and effect.
Mahalo Dr Sai this is finally coming to an END OF THE ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF THE US MILITARY.
Good timing, just before the 2024 USA elections. If Johnny hasn’t matched home by next October, there might be another chance to resubmit with a new POTUS’s Admin, should Biden (or his replacement) be out of office in Jan 2025. A different POTUS could make all the difference in the world – POTUS is key! / Not being politically partisan here (as I care not for the USA political realm, except as it pertains to the Hawaiian Kingdom), but, should Kennedy (or Cornel West) be elected, the chances of Johnny marching home will have risen tremendously.
Having not known the sadness of the Hawaiian kanaka oiwi when their Queen Liluokalani was taken prisoner at gunpoint by U.S. Marines, I deeply feel the sadness and shame as a U.S. Marine who takes orders from my Commanding Officers even when I feel in my heart it is a travesty of justice. The Marines from aboard the USS Boston were unaware that they were being used illegally by civilian entities under the premise that their Commander in Chief was fully aware of the situation unfolding on the grounds within the independent Nation of Hawaii. A conspiracy between Lauren Thurston and Sanford Dole was without any knowledge and authority of POTUS. This revocation of the Commercial Reciprocity Treaty is a long time coming, but it is the right thing to happen within the Laws of Jurisdiction within the World Courts, the eyes of the Hawaiian Peoples, in the eyes of God the Father, and in my eyes and heart as not of Hawaiian Blood, but of a Hawaiian hearted haole, and United States Marine. Mahalo ke akua 🙏 ❤️
Aloha, may I use this letter, or portions of it, without distortions to the original content? Having this information like this allows me to confront non-Hawaiians.
The problem is Blame. However the treaties and their content as written here is a very big plus.
We seem to have a small revolution in groups, which I have run into on Twitter. I go for them and manage to put’em in check.
But Pearl Harbor now? Seriously? We are involved in potentially 3 wars. China will attack Taiwan.
What we could use now is simple diversions. Examples below.
1. Win the hearts and minds of our people. Because we are being watched.
2. Where to start; go to YouTube, and enter Mandrake Coll / The Duke Kahanamoku Legacy.
I subscribed to an AI, text to Video, and created this presentation. It is meant as the first stage to help incur more favor upon Hawaiian’s as a Nation. So after many Videos similar to my post. We do this.
3. Why?
Because what comes next is based on your Regency’s power to bestow; a new form of Knighthood, and; call it KNIGHTHOOD.
After viewing my poorly done video, you will perhaps see a different line of approach, that if done correctly we will have international support from
Millions of Surfers 🏄
We should have representatives at all of the most important surf meets in the World. And bestow A Knighthood division for surfing. That’s very popular stuff, and in the long run it will help tremendously.
Once the Knighted Surfers start showing up visually, then it shouldn’t be difficult to have interviews on TV.
Then and only then, we take a half step back, and generate good will and Aloha on a much Higher scale.
We need a hero’s park, bloody statues and all, generated by a: Sovereign Taxes on the
Knighthood of $12.00 a year. Like I explained in the Queens Tax.
Can you imagine our own young surfers talking about this? There will be constant conversations.
Knighthood is the stuff of Dreams, it’s empowerment to the psyche of a bunch young surfers, to the up coming generations.
But KnightHood does not stop there. If we talk story to Aunty Edith’s, Merry Monarch to include a few Knighthood presentation somewhere on the list. Well once again we will be mentioned.
Knighthood is given in different divisions.
Entertainers.
Scholars.
Scholastic Abilities.
Artist.
Writers.
You know just the income from the Surfing Knighthoods money alone can sponsor many solid ideas.
We can offer the positions of: Squire, for Minors.
Come on, talk about bragging rights!
My mother was a Haleakala Niau, don’t know who my daddy was.
Check me on these sites please.
Always put in, Mandrake Coll, it’s Moi Nom de Plume.
http://www.fineartamerica.com
Barnes & Nobel
Amazon & Amazon Music
I can’t travel, hip replacement 2weeks ago, might have to reopen wound and flush it out.
Mahalo for your kind contact with me.
Everyone calls Prince.
Knighthood? That sounds so white.
No, it’s simply in English. The Ali’s structure of military Ranking, as in any modern or ancient Army remains the same; like Generals & Sargent.
But when the military is based on Royalty, like ours or the Samoans, or the Maori’s, Tahitians, then you have lower ranking Ali’s vying for favor from their Crown.
The most plain example I can share is this: If a Hawaiian Warrior who was a commoner, and showed battle field heroism, above and beyond the call of duty, he was granted to be; an Ali’s, with all the benefits that come with it.
But, when this Hawaiian Koa, Hawaiian Warrior, when this Ali’s died, so did his rank. Which means one cannot lay claim to Royal blood.
A rose is a rose in any name. Now look at Sir, Elton John, or Sir Tom Jones. That knight ship cannot be passed forwards.
But Knighthood has a very valuable side to it.
It denotes this individual as having, Leadership capabilities, recognition.
But most importantly we can create: ROLE MODELS, other than the face of the oppressed.
😳KAULANA !!! 🤭
You’re too much lol… but also, yes, it does.
I recall Dr. Sai explaining in some of his lectures there are 4 ways to terminate a treaty. 1. There’s an expiration date set in the treaty. 2. One of the contracting powers notifies the other contracting power(s) of their intent to terminate. 3. A contracting power is absorbed into another, terminating the existence of the state and its treaties. 4. If the permanent population of a state abandons their country, that also terminates the existence of the state and its treaties.
If the supplemental convention extended the treaty another 7 years, wouldn’t that treaty already have been automatically terminated in the 1890s via its expiration date?
Not necessarily cause there is a clause that requires notice. The terms and conditions of the contract state that one must give notice. It’s an administrative process under the agreement. So the notice provides intent and the provision thereof provides a clause for a termination date making the termination self executing as provided in the treaty. Very similar to our agreements for licenses but we’re not high contracting parties of course.
The overthrow shows intent too. The joint resolution by US congress provides intent. We can definitely argue our case. But we need to make an argument and dictate. Giving notice of termination is a sure thing ending in 2024 but we can also make an argument and dictate that any treaty we desire to be terminated could have occured since 1893 or 1898 served without notice. Do I need to explain why? Forget what the terms say, it didn’t mention belligerent prolonged occupation did it?
Unlike the Anglo-Franco proclamation, the 1844 letter from the US Secretary of State verifying US recognition of the “independence of the Hawaiian government” does not promise the same guarantees.
The joint resolution of annexation of the Hawaiian Islands or the Newlands resolution is the notice. Whether legal or illegal, true or false.
Please continue the good fight for the preservation of the Hawaiian Kingdom! Imua ‘o Hawai’i nei!!!!
E’O Mahalo Gertude.
Yes, get rid of American commerce!!! No need sign under protest anymore with these agents of successors of usurpers!!! No need for the Uniform Commercial Code in this natural paradise!!! Mahalo Kumu!!!
Aloha kakou,
I want to ask the people and Council of Regency a question. My question is if the Kingdom of Hawaii or the Hawaiian Kingdom has a policy of neutrality then why do we have the Union Jack on our flag? May I suggest a redesign of the HK flag? It’s not intend to disrespect our late King, our Kingdom, the UK or the reason why the Union Jack is even on our flag. Let’s disassociate ourselves from foreign countries in time of war if that is what we claim. This causes confusion and gives me a headache. No need to attempt to dispel the misunderstanding and confusion because no matter the reason I still want a new flag. I hope the people and council can agree to my reasoning. I can list a large number of reasons why we could and should change the flag, I don’t think it’s necessary. Keep the stripes, keep the color, replace the union jack.
first king* Kamehameha I
First of all, I am pretty sure that the acting Council of Regency doesn’t have the power/authority to do that. The acting Council of Regency came about through necessity and thusly their power is limited. The acting government was not established by virtue of Hawaiian Kingdom law, but rather by virtue of the legal doctrine of necessity though the use and application of Hawaiian Kingdom law. As in any constitutional government, there is an organizational infrastructure established under the constitution and laws that provides for its effective administration. Within this infrastructure, co-partnerships come under the direct supervision of the office of the Minister of the Interior; the Minister of the Interior sits on the Cabinet Council comprised of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Attorney General; and the Cabinet Council serves as a Council of Regency who serves in the absence of a monarch according to Article 33 of the Hawaiian constitution.
But even if they could, why would we do that? That is our history as under Kamehameha we joined the British Empire as a vassal State and in a way owe our independence to Britain as they were one of two countries that were the first to recognize us as independent. In fact, other countries owe their existence to Britain too (granted their weren’t vassal States but were instead colonized by Britain) which also have the Union Jack. Countries such as Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, and Tuvalu.
Due to the fact that we are in a state of war, it is important that we restore/reestablish a Hawaiian national consciousness, a Hawaiian national consciousness that our kūpuna had, not alter it more than it already has been due to americanization.
The Union Jack had its purpose in the 1800s it was a proclamation of alliance between the Hawaiian Islands and GB. A military alliance that came with maritime privileges etc. That’s why we fly that flag. The Union Jack no longer has any of those effects and privileges regarding the HK like it does to Australia and NZ etc. It doesn’t offer us any protection. It doesn’t come to fight our enemies in a time of war. Nor did GB protect us from the Americans in our time of need. However because we proclaim the policy of neutrality and not a policy of alliance is the reason why I am making my argument in regards to a suggestion of a design change of our flag. I am addressing this issue regarding our proclamation of neutrality that is written in this article. We are in a state of war with the US a loyal ally of GB. We don’t need to make this about history and old time friendships etc. The UJ had its purpose a long time ago but not anymore.
I agree we need a Hawaiian national consciousness but more than that we need to protest the Annexation as our Kupuna have done, and therefore we must dispense with the social security and bureaucratic controls and rituals governing our way of life in our territory!
Aloha e Kaulana 🤙🏽. I actually posed this question on Instagram before and about 99% of the people who responded wanted it changed. I do agree that being a neutral country, it gives a wrong message of bias towards Britain and the US (many Americans claim the stripes are an ode to them). The biggest arguments for a change that people had, is wanting a clean slate moving forward because the flag causes negative feelings in people and also a desire for a complete disassociation with foreign countries. I know there’s nostalgia for many people and the regency has argument for why the flag is the way it is, but I think the people are looking for a sense of morale from our flag that can’t fully be achieved when looking at a flag that is visual embodiment of colonial settler history.
That being said, I think this is an issue that should wait until after the occupation is ended to tackle. The council of regencies priority is deoccupation, and rightfully so, but yes, I agree that this is something that needs to be addressed at some point in the future.
Question: What mechanism is there that will compel the US to comply with the Law of Occupation? Cause can’t they just continue to portray Hawaiʻi as if it were apart of the US. How do we get them to withdraw/force them to leave?
I don’t think anyone actually expects the US to suddenly comply after 130 years of occupation, I believe this is more so a legal formality.
It would be nice if they actually began to finally comply though.
Question: Have you read what went down in 1893?
It would be nice to have access to the letter that was sent to Anthony Blinken stating the Kingdoms demand to remove certain American military personnel by 2024. I’ve been searching and have found NO RECORD of this letter being brought before the Biden Administration. This tells me that they are trying to minimize its intent and possibly remove it all together. I would like to send a copy myself, and a group of like minded Marines who are also willing to send until a time when the Administration cannot deny its content and the receipt of said documents.
Spiritus Hawaiiana Invictus
I noticed there were some comments about having the Hawaiian flag being changed in the future .
Per the Hawaiian constitution of 1864, Article 38 states, “The National Ensign shall not be changed, except by Act of the Legislature.”
Even if we wanted to do such a thing in the future, the big question is why? Why would we want to change a national emblem that has culture and historical ramifications to this nation? Including the Union Jack. Our national flag was unfurled a year and a half after Independence. (May 25, 1845)
The Union Jack means something in the Hawaiian context. So does the 8 main stripes, the colors of it, and the placement of those stripes too. It all means something! I think to change it would be an insult to our past and I think plant the seed for something destructive.
The Union Jack symbolizes the strong relationship between Hawaii and the British Empire. One example: Hawaii willingly joined the British Empire. King George III was Emperor of this dominion. Among plenty of other things….
The eight stripes signifies all the eight main islands under one sovereign rule, the colors in the placement of it is another thing: For example, the white stripe, being at the top of the banner as well, symbolizes Lono, God of Peace. The red, signifies Ku, God of War. The 2 blue stripes, symbolizes Kane, God of the Hawaiian Waters and the longer of the blue stripe symbolizes Kane’s brother, Kaneloa—God of the Pacific Ocean. And the interesting thing is if the Hawaiian flag is turned upside down, well, not only does it symbolize the international sign of distress. It also signifies Hawaii is at war considering the red stripe is at the bottom of the flag and it signifies war. (And yes, we are still formally at war until a peace treaty is signed, that is.)
In conclusion, the Hawaiian ensign is not only our national banner, it symbolizes the past of Hawaii And any red-blooded Hawaiian would be wise to know of his past. Failure to do so will result in the future being a living nightmare. Hence our century-long occupation by the USA—nearly obliterated our national identity through brainwashing!
Well said Iolani, I agree, and in your words, I quote, “the Hawaiian ensign is not only our national banner, it symbolizes the past of Hawaii and any red-blooded Hawaiian would be wise to know of his past, Failure to do so will result in the future being a living nightmare”.
The talk of changing the flag reflects exactly what is happening throughout the America. The “woke agenda” in wanting to eliminate their history with respect to monuments, statues, quotes, books etc. so not to offend so called protected classes of individuals.
Those trying to eliminate their history in America are pissing on all those that contributed to the building of what most of them are enjoying as their freedoms today, good and bad. It’s not perfect, no country is and neither was the Hawaiian Kingdom, but it’s our country and our Queen was attempting to make it better when she was removed illegally by the traitors, with the help of the United States.
Question, and I’m sorry if I missed it but what happens if the Title 10 Armed Forces don’t withdraw? What is their consequence?