{"id":4826,"date":"2020-01-18T16:49:41","date_gmt":"2020-01-18T16:49:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/?p=4826"},"modified":"2020-01-18T16:57:46","modified_gmt":"2020-01-18T16:57:46","slug":"national-lawyers-guild-supports-council-of-regencys-strategic-plan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hawaiiankingdom.org\/blog\/national-lawyers-guild-supports-council-of-regencys-strategic-plan\/","title":{"rendered":"National Lawyers Guild Supports Council of Regency’s Strategic Plan"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Posted on the National Lawyers Guild’s website<\/a> on January 13, 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The National Lawyers Guild<\/a> (NLG), the oldest and largest progressive bar association in the United States, calls upon the United States to immediately begin to comply with international humanitarian law in its prolonged and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 1893. As the longest running belligerent occupation of a foreign country in the history of international relations, the United States has been in violation of international law for over a century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM AS A SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On November 28, 1843, Great Britain and France jointly\nrecognized the Hawaiian\nKingdom<\/a> as a sovereign and independent State, which was followed by\nformal recognition by the United States on July 6, 1844. By 1893, the Hawaiian\nKingdom maintained<\/a> over\n90 legations (embassies) and consulates throughout the world, to include a\nlegation in Washington, D.C., and consulates in the cities of New York, San\nFrancisco, Philadelphia, San Diego, Boston, Portland, Port Townsend and\nSeattle. The United States also maintained a legation and consulate in\nHonolulu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Hawaiian Kingdom also held treaties<\/a> with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Belgium, Bremen, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hamburg, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Samoa, Spain, Switzerland, the unified Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, and the United States. It was also a member of the Universal Postal Union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a constitutional monarchy, the kingdom provided<\/a> universal healthcare for the aboriginal Hawaiian population since 1859 with the establishment of Queen\u2019s Hospital, and it became the fifth country in the world to provide compulsory education for all youth in 1841. This predated compulsory education in the United States by seventy-seven years and its literacy rate was universal and second to Scotland. Also, between 1880 and 1887, a study abroad program was launched where 18 young Hawaiian subjects attended schools in the United States, Great Britain, which included Scotland, Italy, Japan and China where they studied engineering, law, foreign language, medicine, military science, engraving, sculpture, and music.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PRESIDENT GROVER CLEVELAND\u2019S MESSAGE TO THE CONGRESS IN\nDECEMBER 18, 1893<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After completing an investigation into the United States role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893, President Cleveland apprised the Congress of his findings and conclusions. In his message<\/a> to the Congress, he stated, \u201cAnd so it happened that on the 16th day of January, 1893, between four and five o\u2019clock in the afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States steamer Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at Honolulu. The men, upwards of 160 in all, were supplied with haversacks and canteens, and were accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself an act of war.\u201d He concluded, that \u201cthe military occupation of Honolulu by the United States on the day mentioned was wholly without justification, either as an occupation by consent or as an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American life and property.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This invasion coerced Queen Lili\u2018uokalani, executive monarch\nof the Hawaiian Kingdom, to conditionally surrender to the superior power of\nthe United States military, where she stated, \u201cNow, to avoid any collision of\narmed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest, and\nimpelled by said force, yield my authority until such time as the Government of\nthe United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action\nof its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the\nconstitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.\u201d The President acknowledged,\nthat by \u201can act of war\u2026the Government of\u2026friendly and confiding people has been\noverthrown.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Through executive mediation between the Queen and the new\nU.S. Minister to the Hawaiian Islands, Albert Willis, that lasted from November\n13, 1893 through December 18, 1893, an agreement of peace was reached.\nAccording to the executive agreement, by exchange of notes, the President\ncommitted to restoring the Queen as the constitutional sovereign, and the Queen\nagreed, after being restored, to grant a full pardon to the insurgents.\nPolitical wrangling in the Congress, however, blocked President Cleveland from\ncarrying out his obligation of restoration of the Queen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LIMITATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND LAWS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Five years later, at the height of the Spanish-American War,\nPresident Cleveland\u2019s successor, William McKinley, signed a congressional joint\nresolution of annexation on July 7, 1898, unilaterally seizing the Hawaiian\nIslands for military purposes. In the Lotus<\/em> case, the\nPermanent Court of International Justice stated that \u201cthe first and foremost\nrestriction imposed by international law upon a State is that\u2026it may not\nexercise its power in any form in the territory of another State.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This rule of international law was acknowledged by the Supreme Court in United States v. Curtiss-Wright, Corp.<\/em> (1936), when the court stated, \u201cNeither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.\u201d In 1988, the U.S. Department of Justice\u2019s Office of Legal Counsel concluded<\/a>, it is \u201cunclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under international law, \u201ca disguised annexation aimed at\ndestroying the independence of the occupied State, represents a clear violation\nof the rule preserving the continuity of the occupied State (Marek, Identity\nand Continuity of States in Public International Law<\/em>, 2nd<\/sup> ed.\n110 (1968)).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite the limitations of United States legislation, the Congress went ahead and enacted the Territorial Act<\/a> (1900) changing the name of the governmental infrastructure to the Territory of Hawai\u2018i. Fifty-nine years later, the Congress changed the name of the Territory of Hawai\u2018i to the State of Hawai\u2018i in 1959 under the Statehood Act<\/a>. The governmental infrastructure of the Hawaiian Kingdom continued as the governmental infrastructure of the State of Hawai\u2018i.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Professor Matthew Craven in his 2002 legal opinion<\/a> for the Hawaiian Council of Regency<\/a> concluded, \u201cThat authority exercised by [the United States] over Hawai\u2018i is not one of sovereignty i.e. that the [United States] has no legally protected \u2018right\u2019 to exercise that control and that it has no original claim to the territory of Hawai\u2018i or right to obedience on the part of the Hawaiian population. Furthermore, the extension of [United States] laws to Hawai\u2018i, apart from those that may be justified by reference to the law of (belligerent) occupation would be contrary to the terms of international law.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW OBLIGATES THE UNITED\nSTATES TO ADMINISTER THE LAWS OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite over a century of occupation, international humanitarian law, otherwise known as the laws of war, obligates the United States to administer the laws of the occupied State. In 2018, United Nations Independent Expert, Dr. Alfred deZayas, sent a communication<\/a> from Geneva to the State of Hawai\u2018i that read:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs a professor of international law, the former Secretary\nof the UN Human Rights Committee, co-author of [the] book, The United Nations\nHuman Rights Committee Case Law 1977-2008, and currently serving as the UN\nIndependent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international\norder, I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the\nHawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a\nnation-state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States\nresulting from an illegal military occupation and a fraudulent annexation. As\nsuch, international laws (the Hague and Geneva Conventions) require that\ngovernance and legal matters within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian\nIslands must be administered by the application of the laws of the occupied\nstate (in this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom), not the domestic laws of the\noccupier (the United States).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Violations of the provisions of the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention are war crimes. Professor William Schabas, recognized expert in international criminal law, determined in a 2019 legal opinion<\/a> for the Hawaiian Royal Commission of Inquiry<\/a>, that war crimes have and continue to be committed in the Hawaiian Islands since January 17, 1893. He states, \u201cIn addition to crimes listed in applicable treaties, war crimes are also recognized under customary international law. Customary international law applies to States regardless of whether they have ratified relevant treaties. The customary law of war crimes is thus applicable to the situation in Hawai\u2018i. Many of the war crimes set out in the first Additional Protocol and in the Rome Statute codify customary international law and are therefore applicable to the United States despite its failure to ratify the treaties.\u201d And according to Professor Lenzerini in his 2019 legal opinion<\/a> for the Royal Commission of Inquiry, that violations of human rights in the Hawaiian Kingdom \u201cwould first of all need to be treated as war crimes, which are primarily to be considered under the lens of international criminal law.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCEALING THE ILLEGAL OCCUPATION THROUGH\nAMERICANIZATION\u2014DENATIONALIZATION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

How could such a travesty have gone unnoticed until now? The answer is obliteration of Hawaiian national consciousness through a process of denationalization. Predating the policy of Germanization in the German occupied State of Serbia from 1915-1918, a formal policy of Americanization<\/a> was initiated in 1906 that sought to obliterate the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the minds of school children throughout the islands. Classroom instruction was in English and if the children spoke Hawaiian they were severely punished. The Hawaiian Gazette reported<\/a>, \u201cIt will be remembered that at the time of the celebration of the birthday of Benjamin Franklin, an agitation was begun looking to a better observance of these notable national days in the schools, as tending to inculcate patriotism in a school population that needed that kind of teaching, perhaps, more than the mainland children do.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1907, a reporter from New York\u2019s Harper\u2019s Weekly visited Ka\u2018iulani public school in Honolulu and showcased the seeds of indoctrination<\/a>. The reporter wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAt the suggestion of Mr. Babbitt, the principal, Mrs.\nFraser, gave an order, and within ten seconds all of the 614 pupils of the\nschool began to march out upon the great green lawn which surrounds the\nbuilding.\u2026 Out upon the lawn marched the children, two by two, just as precise\nand orderly as you find them at home. With the ease that comes of long practice\nthe classes marched and counter-marched until all were drawn up in a compact\narray facing a large American flag that was dancing in the northeast trade-wind\nforty feet above their heads.\u2026 \u2018Attention!\u2019 Mrs. Fraser commanded. The little\nregiment stood fast, arms at side, shoulders back, chests out, heads up, and\nevery eye fixed upon the red, white and blue emblem that waived protectingly over\nthem. \u2018Salute!\u2019 was the principal\u2019s next command. Every right hand was raised,\nforefinger extended, and the six hundred and fourteen fresh, childish voices\nchanted as one voice: \u2018We give our heads and our hearts to God and our Country!\nOne Country! One Language! One Flag!\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The word \u201cinculcate\u201d imports force such as to convince,\nimplant, or to indoctrinate. Brainwashing is its colloquial term. Within three\ngenerations, the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom was effectively\nobliterated from the minds of the Hawaiian people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE RISE OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE HAWAIIAN\nKINGDOM<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The year 1993, which marked the 100th anniversary of the American invasion and occupation, began the resurgence of Hawaiian national consciousness. It was also the year that the Congress enacted a joint resolution<\/a> apologizing for the United States role in illegally overthrowing the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Six years later on November 8, 1999, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague accepted a dispute between Lance Larsen, a Hawaiian subject, and the restored Hawaiian government\u2014the Council of Regency (Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom<\/a>)<\/em>. Larsen alleged the Council of Regency was legally liable for \u201callowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant\u2019s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.\u201d The Regency\u2019s position was that it was not liable and that the United States was responsible under international humanitarian law. Due to the United States decision not to participate in the arbitral proceedings after being invited<\/a> by the Regency and Larsen\u2019s counsel, Larsen was unable to maintain his suit against the Hawaiian government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These proceedings, however, drew international attention to the American occupation which prompted the NLG\u2019s International Committee to form the Hawaiian Kingdom Subcommittee<\/a> in March of 2019. The Subcommittee \u201cprovides legal support to the movement demanding that the U.S., as the occupier, comply with international humanitarian and human rights law within Hawaiian Kingdom territory, the occupied. This support includes organizing delegations and working with the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and NGOs addressing U.S. violations of international law and the rights of Hawaiian nationals and other Protected Persons.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In December of 2019, the NLG\u2019s membership voted and passed a resolution<\/a> where \u201cthe National Lawyers Guild calls upon the United States of America immediately to begin to comply with international humanitarian law in its prolonged and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Islands.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n