In 1959, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 1469 relieving the U.S. from the reporting requirements under Article 73 e, after finding that the people of the territory had exercised self-government by choosing to become a state of the United States of America.<\/p>\n
Our current Resolution first asks the General Assembly to order a review of how the US complied with the provisions of Chapter XI of the U.N. Charter, particularly Article 73, over the relevant years from 1946, the year in which Hawaii and Alaska were inscribed in the list of Non-Self-Governing-Territories under GA Resolution 66, until 1959, the year in which the U.S. reported that the people of these territories had exercised self-determination.\u00a0\u00a0 It further calls on the General Assembly to initiate a review of the representations made in Report A\/4226, submitted by the United States on 24 September 1959, ostensibly to be in compliance to Article 73 e, and also to review the consequent discussions and procedures that led to the adoption of GA Resolution 1469 (XIV) on 12 December 1959.<\/p>\n
A careful review of the case will reveal that the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1469 under false premises, on the basis of false and incomplete information provided by the United States of America, relying on representations that were tainted by grave material and procedural irregularities surrounding the fraudulent referendum on Hawaii\u2019s entry into the United States as a State, which amounted to an act of annexation.\u00a0 Because the referendum was fundamentally flawed, the resolution based thereon must be deemed null and void.<\/p>\n
Part One:<\/h2>\n
U.S. Non-compliance with U.N. Charter Article 73 <\/strong><\/p>\n Article 73 of the United Nations Charter addresses the responsibilities of member nations for the administration of territories \u201cwhose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.\u201d<\/p>\n This Article called upon the Administrative authority to \u201crecognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories.\u201d\u00a0 <\/u><\/p>\n Among the responsibilities mentioned are:<\/p>\n Replacing Hawaiian Culture<\/strong><\/p>\n It was U.S. policy from the beginning for Hawai\u2019i to be completely Americanized.\u00a0 Instead of \u201cdue respect for the culture of the people,\u201d great effort was made to completely replace Hawaiian culture with American culture.\u00a0 During the time of the monarchy, there had been forty-eight Hawaiian language newspapers.\u00a0\u00a0 Hawaii\u2019s 96% literacy rate was the highest in the world.\u00a0\u00a0 When the U.S. Territorial Government was formed, Hawaiian language was banned in schools and in government, and there was an aggressive effort to raise the next generations as speakers only of English.\u00a0 As a result, the Hawaiian language nearly died out completely.<\/p>\n Failure to Ensure Political, Economic, Social, and Educational Advancement, and Just Treatment<\/strong><\/p>\n Prior to the United States\u2019 takeover, Hawaii was a fully recognized independent nation-state, with international treaties and diplomatic consular posts all around the world. \u00a0Its national character was multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic, highly literate, informed, and progressive.<\/p>\n A careful review will establish that the Hawaii Kingdom was overthrown by the United States through aggression to support the power and position of a small number of non-native, mostly American insurrectionists, and to meet the needs of the U.S. economic and military expansionism.<\/p>\n After the U.S. established its Territorial Government of Hawaii, those insurrectionists, descendants of the American missionaries, became fabulously wealthy, forming the Big 5 corporations that controlled almost all aspects of economic, education, and political life in Hawaii.<\/p>\n At the same time, under U.S. rule, \u201cthe political, economic, social, and educational advancement\u201d of other descendants of the <\/u><\/strong>Hawaiian Nation, particularly native Hawaiians, suffered from loss of land and resources, resulting in poverty, far greater exposure to illness than whites, prejudice, blatant racism and significantly higher rates of incarceration than the settler population.<\/p>\n The Hawaiian colony lacked almost all control over public and private life.\u00a0 The governor, and all judges of the Territory were appointed by and served at the pleasure of the President of the U.S.\u00a0 The U.S. Constitution and the laws adopted by the U.S. Congress were elevated as superior to Hawaii\u2019s laws.\u00a0 Migration into Hawaii was controlled by the U.S. \u00a0Education, health policies, communications, international and inter-island transportation were all controlled by the U.S. government.<\/p>\n Schools became the tool for American indoctrination and destruction of the Hawaiian culture.\u00a0 They focused on American<\/em> history, beloved American<\/em> icons, American <\/em>songs, loyalty and allegiance to the United States of America.\u00a0 The U.S. Territorial Government re-wrote history, hiding from succeeding generations the knowledge that their kingdom had been overthrown and supplanted by the United States.\u00a0 Children were taught American <\/em>culture and taught to look down on anything Hawaiian.\u00a0 Some Hawaiian children were able to succeed under these circumstances, but in general Hawaiians sank to the bottom of their classes or dropped out of school.<\/p>\n The Kamehameha Schools were founded in the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1887 as a private school with the mandate to educate native Hawaiian children.\u00a0 But, under the U.S. Territory of Hawaii, Hawaiian children in Kamehameha Schools were primarily trained for military service, farming, home-making and prepared for blue-collar jobs, while non-Hawaiian children (Asians and Caucasians) were in private schools being trained in academics, business, politics, and other professions that would make them leaders in society.\u00a0 There was a systematic degradation of, and discrimination against, native Hawaiians.<\/p>\n Non-Compliance with \u201cDeveloping Self-Government\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n There never was any attempt by the Territorial Government \u201cto develop self-governance\u201d among the descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom subjects, as required by the UN Charter, and by the 1946 U.N.G.A. Resolution 66.\u00a0 Instead, the United States engaged in 1) a program of propaganda and indoctrination aimed at thoroughly Americanizing the descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom subjects, and 2) a program making it possible for mass numbers of American settlers to move to Hawaii, eventually outnumbering the autochthonous population.\u00a0 The primary goal of the American occupiers was to retain total control of the islands.\u00a0 To this day, they have been successful in this variant of classical imperialism.<\/p>\n In requesting a review of U.S. compliance with UN Charter Article 73, we ask the reviewers to especially study how the U.S. failed in its administering responsibilities to ensure \u201cwith due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses,\u201d and how the U.S. failed to develop self-government, both of which were required pursuant to the UN Charter.<\/p>\n Problems with UNGA Resolution 1469 (XIV)<\/strong><\/p>\n Paragraph 2.<\/strong> of Resolution 1469 (XIV) reads: \u201cThe General Assembly\u2026 2.\u00a0 Expresses the opinion, based on its examination of the documentation and the explanations provided, that the people of Alaska and Hawaii have effectively exercised their right to self-determination and have freely chosen their present status.\u201d<\/p>\n Paragraph 3.<\/strong> Congratulates the United States of America and the people of Alaska and Hawaii upon the attainment of a full measure of self-government by the people of Alaska and Hawaii;<\/p>\n This section will look at how \u201cthe people of Hawaii\u201d that voted were the wrong \u201cpeople of Hawaii,\u201d how actual self-governance had never been presented to the public as a possibility, much less an option, how the ballot question did not conform to essential U.N. requirements, how thorough indoctrination had hidden the true history of Hawaii from voters preventing the informed consent they needed to freely choose and to cast a valid vote, and how the U.S. falsely reported a 94% yes vote on statehood, even though, in this most important election ever held in Hawaii, 65% of people of voting age stayed away from the polls.<\/p>\n Incorrectly Defining \u201cThe People of the Territory\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n The Wrong \u201cPeople\u201d Voted<\/em><\/p>\n When Article 73e of the UN Charter speaks of \u201cMember nations who assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government,\u201d clearly it is talking about governments which have taken over, occupied, and\/or colonized other nations; and the \u201cpeople who have not yet attained a full measure of self-government\u201d are the occupied and colonized people.\u00a0 In the case of Hawaii, where a once independent and internationally recognized Hawaiian Kingdom was taken over, occupied, and colonized by the U.S., the Charter obviously was addressing currently living people who were descendants of subjects of the overthrown Hawaiian Kingdom who had \u201cnot yet attained a full measure of self-government.\u201d\u00a0 However, it was not these descendants who were offered the vote on statehood. Accordingly, the referendum was invalid ratione personae.<\/em><\/p>\n During the 59 years that Hawaii was a Territory, there was a huge in-migration of American settlers.\u00a0 The U.S. military presence also grew exponentially during the period with World War II, the Korean Conflict, and the Cold War. Great numbers of military dependents were also moved to Hawaii.<\/p>\n In the statehood referendum, the U.S. ignored the fact that this vote for self-determination needed to be held among the descendants of subjects of the taken-over, occupied, and colonized Hawaiian Nation.\u00a0 Instead, the entire populace was allowed to vote, as long as they were American citizens, had lived in Hawaii for one year, and were at least 20 years old.\u00a0 Even the U.S. military personnel and their dependents stationed in Hawaii for at least a year could vote.\u00a0 However, since only U.S. citizens could vote, if one pledged allegiance only to the Hawaiian Nation, he or she could not vote in the referendum.<\/p>\n Three quarters of the citizens of the American Territory were racially and culturally different from most of the descendants of the Kingdom subjects.\u00a0 They were thoroughly Americanized.\u00a0 They were not at all the people whose Kingdom had been taken over, occupied, and colonized.\u00a0 These were not at all the people contemplated in the U.N. Charter, Article 73.\u00a0 They should not have been allowed to vote!\u00a0 The fact that they did vote invalidates the referendum as an event in which the correct \u201cpeople of Hawaii\u201d have effectively exercised their right to self-determination and have freely chosen their current status.\u201d<\/p>\n It must also be noted that the immigration of American citizens raises an issue under Geneva Convention IV of 1949, article 49 (6) which stipulates: \u201cThe Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.\u201d This provision was included so as to prevent demographic manipulation with the ultimate aim of effecting annexation.\u00a0 According to Demographic Statistics of Hawaii: 1778-1965 <\/em>by Robert C. Schmitt, between 1950, one year after the U.S. signed onto that Geneva Convention, and 1960, a year after the statehood vote, while all other ethnicities in Hawaii grew by 10% to 19%, the Caucasian population in Hawaii increased by 63%, growing from 124,344 to 202,230. The African American population increased by 86%, grow<\/span> grew<\/u><\/strong> from 2,691 to 4,943.\u00a0 Clearly the Occupying Power transferred parts of its own population into the territory it occupied, contrary to the Geneva Convention article.<\/p>\n Switched Concept of \u201cFull Measure of Self-Governance\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n Article 73 intended that the descendants of the Kingdom be offered independence or some other form of self-governance, separating themselves from the United States.\u00a0 Instead, all the people of Hawaii were offered exactly the opposite, movement from a Territory of the United States to a state within the United States.\u00a0 Instead of separation, they were offered, and given, total absorption.\u00a0 And this was passed off as \u201cthe attainment of a full measure of self-government by the people of Alaska and Hawaii,\u201d in Resolution 1469 (XIV).<\/p>\n The United States government was responsible for implementing the steps to self-determination listed in Article 73.\u00a0 It deliberately failed to do this.\u00a0 It is noted that in Hawai\u2019i at the time of the plebiscite, there was little or no awareness of the right of self-determination, that is, no awareness of the possibility of independence, or of the possibility of an independent state in free association with the United States.\u00a0 None of these possibilities were ever discussed with the general public.\u00a0 Seemingly, they also were not even discussed among\u00a0the local American leadership.<\/p>\n Evidence of this is found thirty years after statehood in a television program with William Quinn, the Governor of Hawaii appointed by the U.S. President prior to statehood.\u00a0 P\u014dk\u0101 Laenui offered an argument that the plebiscite was illegitimate because there was no option for independence on the plebiscite ballot.\u00a0 Governor Quinn responded,\u00a0\u201cHar, har, har. [Laughter]\u00a0That\u2019s the first time I have ever heard anyone make that argument, today, right now\u2026.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201dI\u2019m saying you\u2019re the first time I\u2019ve ever heard someone say that.\u00a0 I\u2019ve never heard it from Congress, I\u2019ve never heard it from the Presidential office, I\u2019ve never heard it from… (See p. 5, 6 of \u201cDIALOGUE: Statehood & Sovereignty HAWAII PUBLIC TELEVISION, August 16, 1996,\u201d found in Documents at www.Hawaiianperspectives.org<\/a>)<\/p>\n Whether this is true or not, it seems clear that once the American settler population far surpassed the number of Kingdom descendants, the U.S. switched identification of \u201cthe people of Hawaii\u201d from the Kingdom descendants to all residents of the Hawaiian Islands.\u00a0 Since the new majority of residents was then primarily American, the U.S. then switched the meaning of \u201cfull self-governance\u201d from \u201cindependence for Kingdom descendants\u201d to \u201cmoving from U.S. Territory status to U.S. Statehood.\u201d<\/p>\n But a great wrong was done here.\u00a0 The right of the descendants of the Kingdom to self governance had been summarily denied and \u2018swept under the rug.\u2019<\/p>\n It might also be asked, what \u201cattainment of full measure of self-governance\u201d took place?\u00a0 Practically nothing changed. \u00a0\u00a0Hawai\u2019i moved from a Territory of the United States to a State of the United States.\u00a0 The same occupier\/colonizer remained in place.\u00a0 That occupier controlled the foreign relations, the U.S. mechanisms for war, political and economic systems, shipping and air travel. Hawai\u2019i had the same U.S. currency, the same U.S. courts and U.S. laws, and the same government agencies.\u00a0 The same occupier-controlled immigration and population growth, bringing in ever more American settlers.\u00a0 Moreover, the occupier\u2019s school system continued to indoctrinate youth, stressing allegiance to America and, for at least another decade, concealing the truth that America had overthrown their kingdom, done everything it could to destroy Hawaiian language and culture, and flooded their islands with U.S. settlers to assure its position.<\/p>\n Except for being allowed to elect four people to Congress and electing their own governor, nothing changed.<\/p>\n This was not \u201cattaining a full measure of self-government,\u201d as the U.S. claimed.\u00a0 For descendants of the Kingdom, it was attaining the full measure of imperial annexation.<\/p>\n Non-Conforming Ballot Question <\/strong><\/p>\n The complete wording of the ballot question was: \u201cShall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a State?\u201d\u00a0 The only answers were \u201cYes\u201d and \u201cNo.\u201d\u00a0 Thus the only choices were: to become a State within the United States of America, or to remain a Territory of the United States of America.\u00a0 There was no choice for becoming independent of the United States or to have some other relationship with the United States.\u00a0 U.N. Resolution 742 in 1953 declares that one of the \u201cfactors indicative of the attainment of independence or of other separate systems of self-government,\u201d is \u201cfreedom of choosing between several possibilities including independence.\u201d\u00a0 The ballot as written did not comply with U.N. requirements and clearly prevented voters from \u201ceffectively exercising their right to self-determination.\u201d<\/p>\n The United States had been a part of the United Nations General Assembly in 1953, six years before the statehood vote, when it approved Resolution 742 (VIII) \u201cFactors which Should be Taken into Account in Deciding Whether a Territory is or is Not a Territory Whose People Have Not yet Attained a Full Measure of Self-Government.\u201d <\/a>Certainly, the U.S. was aware that Resolution 742 (VIII) required the offer of \u201cindependence\u201d as a ballot choice in the statehood vote.<\/p>\n Whatever the reason that the option for independence was not on the ballot, it was an essential requirement of Resolution 742 (VIII) that it be there, and its absence invalidated the vote for statehood.\u00a0 It also should have been a reason for the United Nations General Assembly to reject UNGA Resolution 1469 instead of accepting it.<\/p>\n Voters Lacked Informed Consent <\/strong><\/p>\n It should also be questioned whether the people \u201chave freely chosen <\/em>their present status.\u201d One can only freely choose if one has the ability to make an informed decision. Throughout the years as a Territory, the United States thoroughly indoctrinated the people of Hawai\u2019i into an American worldview and mindset.<\/p>\n In 1906, \u201cas a means of inculcating patriotism in a school population that needed that kind of teaching, perhaps more than mainland children do,\u201d the Board of Education published a \u201cProgramme for Patriotic Exercises in the Public Schools.\u201d By the time of the statehood vote, generations of children had been indoctrinated into loving the noble and righteous, glorious United States of America.<\/p>\n History was taught in a way that avoided mentioning the landing of American troops and the overthrow of the Queen. \u00a0That is, textbooks were arranged so that one year covered stories of the kings and ended with the happy reign of Queen Lili`uokalani.\u00a0\u00a0 The next year began with Annexation and told the glories of the United States.\u00a0 The Overthrow and the ugly events leading up to and surrounding \u201cAnnexation\u201d were assiduously avoided.\u00a0 One textbook even related that the Queen begged the United States to take over the kingdom.<\/p>\n Very few knew that, contrary to international law, this seemingly kindly, benevolent United States, seventy years before, had committed an act of aggression against Hawaii by landing its troops and overthrowing their peaceful and friendly Hawaiian Kingdom, so that the U.S. could take over the islands. (For a brief history of this period see the Source Document, \u201cHistorical Analysis\u201d at pp 5-19, www.hawaiianperspectives.org<\/a> under the heading Hawaiian Sovereignty.)<\/p>\n Further, at the time of the vote, almost no one knew that there were alternatives to integration into the U.S. that should have been included on the ballot: alternatives such as \u201cindependence\u201d or \u201cfree association with the U.S.\u201d<\/p>\n Not knowing the complete and true history of relations with Hawaii and the U.S., not fully appreciating that they were victims of propaganda programmed to achieving not only American patriotism, but adulation of the United States, and not aware of and certainly not understanding the alternatives they should have been given, voters clearly lacked the knowledge to make a valid, free choice.<\/p>\n Informed consent is an integral part of free choice.\u00a0 \u00a0To have a valid referendum, those voting needed to give their free and informed consent.\u00a0 Since they could not, the entire statehood referendum (or plebiscite) was invalid.\u00a0 It is therefore not true that the people had freely chosen<\/em> statehood.<\/p>\n Only 35% of Eligible Age Voted<\/strong><\/p>\n While 1959 newspapers gleefully reported that 94% supported statehood, the actual facts are much different.\u00a0 First, it must be pointed out, that the 94% only counts the Yes and No votes cast.\u00a0 18% of the voters left the question blank.\u00a0 When all of the votes are included, only 77% of those who voted<\/em> actually voted fo<\/em>r statehood, not 94%.<\/p>\n But even more stunning is that fact that, while this was undeniably the most important vote ever taken in the history of Hawai\u2019i, and under ordinary circumstances would be expected to draw huge numbers of voters to the polls, only 35% of those of eligible age to vote actually turned up to the polls.\u00a0 There were 381,859 Hawaii residents of eligible age to vote at that time.\u00a0 Yet, despite all of the hype in the campaign to \u201cget out the vote,\u201d only 35% (132,772) actually wanted statehood strongly enough to go to the polls to vote for it.<\/p>\n With only 35% of eligible voters casting ballots, it cannot be truthfully claimed that \u201cthe people of Hawai\u2019i effectively exercised their right to self-determination and have freely chosen their present status,\u201d statehood.<\/p>\n Indeed, contrary to accepting the report that 94% of the people voted for statehood, it must be asserted that 65% actually voted with their feet against statehood<\/em> by staying home from the polls.<\/p>\n The question to be investigated is how much of this overwhelming 65% non-voting majority should be counted as resistance to statehood. \u00a0It may well be found that the 94% vote for statehood should be re-assessed at a number well below the 50% required to win the vote.<\/p>\n Plebiscite Invalid Due to All Above<\/strong><\/p>\n Individually, and even more so collectively, the above problems with the 1959 Hawaiian Plebiscite on Statehood render it invalid.\u00a0 It must be clearly stated: There was no valid vote for statehood. \u00a0There was no valid vote of self-determination. Further, it is not at all true, as Resolution 1469 states, that \u201cthe people of Alaska and Hawaii\u201d have effectively exercised their right to self-determination and have freely chosen their present status.\u201d<\/p>\n The descendants of the subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom still await the very first U.S. efforts on their behalf \u201cto develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions,\u201d as promised by paragraph b. of the United Nations Charter Article 73.<\/p>\n U.N. Intentionally Circumvented with Statehood Vote<\/strong><\/p>\n This section will expose an effort to devise a process to avoid the administering responsibilities of the United States and to devise a process to overcome the scrutiny of the General Assembly.<\/p>\n Allowing Hawaii and Alaska to be placed on the 1946 list of non-self-governing territories was considered a great mistake by many.\u00a0 Being on the list could eventually lead to pressure to prepare them for independence, and the U.S. had no intention of ever letting them go.<\/p>\n Francis O. Wilcox, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, sent a letter to Secretary of State John Foster Dulles on 17 July 1956, titled \u201cPossible Procedure and Arguments for Cessation of Reporting on Alaska and Hawaii to the United Nations.\u201d\u00a0 The letter proposes ways to delude the United Nations into allowing the U.S. to stop reporting.\u00a0 The last two paragraphs read,<\/p>\n To many United Nations Members, the above arguments would seem to evade the main issue of constitutional advance since 1946. It would therefore be desirable, even essential, for us to demonstrate that the people of the two Territories oppose further reporting to the United Nations. This might help to persuade those Members, which attach importance to the idea of the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned. At the moment, however, we have no evidence of a popular demand in Alaska and Hawaii for cessation of reporting. Such a demand would therefore have to be stimulated in one form or another.<\/p>\n One of the following methods, which are listed in the order of their possible effectiveness, might be used in expressing [t]he desires of the people of Alaska and Hawaii to cease reporting: 1) the Territorial Legislatures might adopt resolutions to this effect; 2) the Territorial Delegates to the Congress might request the Congress to adopt a resolution; 3) The Territorial Delegates might ask the President to cease reporting, a request that would be strengthened if the Delegates could base it upon a widely circulated petition in the Territories; and 4) the Territorial Governors might ask the President to cease reporting.<\/p>\n But Secretary of State Dulles, (cited above) had another way to stop the reporting on Hawaii.\u00a0 He wrote to Senator William F. Knowland on June 26, 1956, \u201cThe grant of statehood to Alaska and Hawaii would provide the best means of convincing other United Nations Members that the two territories have achieved \u201ca full measure of self-government.\u201d\u00a0 This became the plan. (Both letters can be found in the \u201cSource Documents\u201d section of this paper.\u00a0 They are also available on Statehood Hawaii.org, a website created by researcher Arnie Saiki, http:\/\/statehoodhawaii.org\/category\/statehood-countdown<\/a>\u00a0 NEED TO SPECIFY WHAT COUNTDOWN YOU ARE REFERENCING HERE pp. 1-2.)<\/p>\n Request to the General Assembly for Review\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n Given the evidence of egregious irregularities, we call on the General Assembly of the United Nations to conduct a review of UN General Assembly Resolution 1469 of 12 December 1959 to verify the veracity of the representations submitted by the United States in Report A\/4226 on September 24, 1959, regarding its obligation as an Administering Power under Article 73 e. We further call for a review of the discussions, deliberations and actions taken by the General Assembly leading to the passage of UN General Assembly Resolution 1469 of 12 December 1959.<\/p>\n Should the review reveal that UN General Assembly Resolution 1469 of 12 December 1959 was adopted by relying on incomplete and fraudulent information, and that the referendum was vitiated by material errors and deliberate misrepresentations, we also call upon the General Assembly to take appropriate action to correct the consequences of the multiple errors by annulling or rescinding UN General Assembly Resolution 1469 of 12 December 1959.<\/p>\n Definition of Aggression, U.N.G.A. Resolution 3314 (XXIX)<\/strong><\/p>\n A Further Consideration:<\/strong><\/p>\n UNGA Resolution 3314 (XXIX) adopts the following Definition of Aggression: [FN3]<\/p>\n Article I<\/em><\/p>\n Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.<\/p>\n Article 3<\/em><\/p>\n Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:<\/p>\n (a)<\/em> The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,<\/p>\n Article 5<\/em><\/p>\n U.S. Extension of Manifest Destiny Doctrine <\/strong><\/p>\n Prior to the United States\u2019 military aggression and occupation, Hawaii was a fully recognized independent nation-state, with international treaties with almost every major nation\/state.[i]<\/a> \u00a0It was a member of one of the first international organizations, the Universal Postal Union, and had ninety-nine diplomatic and consular posts around the world[ii]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Hawaiian literacy was among the highest of the world.\u00a0 Hawai`i had telephones and electricity built into its governing palace, `Iolani, prior to the U.S.’s White House.\u00a0 Multi-lingual citizens abounded.\u00a0 Hawaiian leaders had excellent comprehension of world and political geography.\u00a0 King Kal\u0101kaua was the first Head of State to circle the world in a visit of nations in his plan to weave a tapestry of international economic and political alliances to assure Hawaiian independence.\u00a0 By 1892, Hawai`i was a vibrant multi-racial, multi-cultural nation engaged in intellectual and economic commerce throughout the world.<\/p>\n Across the ocean, the United States was obsessed with expansion and the belief that it was the Manifest Destiny of America to not just rule from Atlantic to Pacific, but beyond.\u00a0 The plan for the aggression into Hawaii was initiated by the landing of U.S. military forces upon the shores of Hawaii in January 1893 and the subsequent absorption of Hawaii as a \u201cTerritory of the United States of America\u201d in 1898, was to expand the reach and influence of the United States politically and militarily into the Pacific and to Asia, first in possessing a military outpost with a deep harbor from which the U.S. Navy could operate exclusively.[iii]<\/a>\u00a0 (See President Cleveland\u2019s Address to the Joint Houses of the U.S. Congress, December 1893; Special Investigation Report by Senator Blount to the President of the United States, 1893)<\/p>\n On January 16, 1893, the U.S.S. Boston landed 162 U.S. Bluejackets, fully armed with carbines and Howitzer cannons, and marched upon the streets of peaceful Honolulu, the capitol city, billeting themselves directly across from the seat of government, `Iolani Palace.\u00a0 Queen Lili`uokalani, the Constitutional Monarch of the Hawaiian Kingdom, learning of this landing of the U.S. troops, immediately protested to the U.S. Minister Plenipotentiary, John L. Stevens, demanding that the troops be returned to the U.S. warship Boston, which had been moored in Honolulu Harbor.\u00a0 The U.S. Minister gave no response, as it was he who had ordered the landing of the U.S. troops.<\/p>\n In the afternoon of January 17, 1893 the real purpose of the U.S. troops billeting themselves at this location became obvious.\u00a0 The Committee for Public Safety, consisting of 13 members, in an act of high treason, stood on the side steps of the government building, facing away from the Palace across the street, and began the \u201cpublic reading\u201d of a proclamation declaring themselves a new government of Hawaii, the Provisional Government (provisional until terms of annexation could be negotiated between its members and the United States of America).\u00a0 They declared Sanford B. Dole as their President.\u00a0\u00a0 (He was the son of one of the early missionaries from the United States, Daniel Dole of the 9th<\/sup> Missionary Company to Hawaii from the American Board of Commissioners of Foreign Missions, based in Boston, Massachusetts U.S.A.).<\/p>\n As the reading of the proclamation of this self-proclaimed Provisional Government was taking place, the U.S. Bluejackets stood guard on Mililani Street.\u00a0 After receiving and reading the proclamation, the U.S. Minister, John L. Stevens, officially recognized this Provisional Government as the government of Hawaii.[iv]<\/a><\/p>\n In the years immediately following this, this Provisional Government of Hawaii, on July 4, 1894 converted itself into the Republic of Hawaii, with U.S. government officials directly participating in the step-by-step process.\u00a0 The Republic of Hawaii, claiming it had the authority to do so, \u201cceded\u201d Hawaii to the United States in 1898. The people of Hawaii were disenfranchised from participating in these transactions.\u00a0 Their many protests were ignored by the U.S. and its puppet Republic of Hawaii.<\/p>\n In 1900, the U.S. Territory of Hawaii was created through the U.S. Organic Act for the Organization of the Territory of Hawaii.<\/p>\n Article 2, Section 2<\/em> of the Constitution of the United States gives the President the power to make Treaties if two thirds of the Senators present in the Senate concur. This power was used by the United States to enter 9 treaties of cession, annexing 56 out of 58 acquired territories, over a period of 168 years (1783-1951).\u00a0 Hawaii never had a Treaty of Annexation because the U.S. Senate could not get the two-thirds vote required to Constitutionally annex the islands.\u00a0 Acting in non-compliance with its own Constitution, the U.S. annexed Hawaii through the Newlands Resolution passed by both Houses of Congress by a simple majority vote of both houses of Congress.<\/p>\n In the UN Resolution Defining Aggression, UNGA Resolution 3314 (XXIX) Article 5, section 3, we see a definition of aggression: \u201cthe invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof.\u201d<\/p>\n Article 5, section 3<\/em> states, \u201cNo territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.\u201d \u00a0It must be averred that this territorial acquisition must no longer be recognized as lawful.<\/p>\n Anticipating U.S. Reaction to This Initiative and Proposed Resolution on<\/strong> Hawaii\u2019s Status<\/strong><\/p>\n In moving ahead, it is to be expected that the United States of America will strongly oppose any action by the General Assembly.\u00a0\u00a0 The easy path would be to back down and enable this powerful country to continue flaunting the repeated UN doctrine of commitment to self-determination of all peoples, found in the very Charter of the United Nations, which every member has accepted as a trust obligation, along with the plentiful declarations, conventions and resolutions supporting the principle especially in occupied territories deemed non-self- governing.\u00a0\u00a0 We ask all members of the United Nations to stand with the \u201cpeople of Hawaii,\u201d the descendants of the subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom.<\/p>\n The Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (GA Res 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970), states: \u201cNothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principles of equal rights and self determination of peoples as described above<\/em> and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.”<\/p>\n This statement has been misused to argue that Hawaii cannot be separated from the United States since it reads, “Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.\u201d\u00a0 This is often quoted by those resistant to applying self-determination to Hawaii.<\/p>\n But the sentence does not end there.\u00a0 It continues on to qualify the sovereign and independent States which cannot be dismembered as states \u201cconducting themselves in compliance with the principles of equal rights and self-determination.\u201d\u00a0 As has been shown in all of the pages above, the whole history of the United States of America and Hawaii contradicts the claim that the U.S.\u00a0 conducted itself in compliance with the principles of equal rights and self-determination for the subjects of the Kingdom and their descendants.<\/p>\n Let us close with the Letter to the American People by Queen Liliuokalani found in her 1898 book, Hawaii’s Story by Hawaii\u2019s Queen:<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n “Oh, honest Americans, as Christians hear me for my downtrodden people! Their form of government is as dear to them as yours is as precious to you. Quite warmly as you love your country, so they love theirs. With all your goodly possessions, covering a territory so immense that there yet remain parts unexplored, possessing islands that, although new at hand, had to be neutral ground in time of war, do not covet the little vineyard of Naboth’s, so far from your shores, lest the punishment of Ahab fall upon you, if not in your day, in that of your children, for “be not deceived, God is not mocked.” The people to whom your fathers told of the living God, and taught to call “Father,” and whom the sons now seek to despoil and destroy, are crying aloud to Him in their time of trouble; and He will keep His promise and will listen to the voices of His Hawaiian children lamenting for their homes.”<\/p>\n The time has come.<\/p>\n Troops from the USS Boston Honolulu January 17, 1893<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n U.S. troops from USS Boston across the street from \u2018Iolani Palace January 17, 1893<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Landing of the U.S. troops for Overthrow of Hawaiian Nation. Honolulu Harbor January 17, 1893<\/p><\/div>\n NOTES:<\/strong><\/p>\n [i]<\/a>By 1887, Hawai`i had treaties and conventions with Belgium, Bremen, Denmark, France, the German Empire, Great Britain, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New South Wales, Portugal, Russia, Samoa, Spain, the Swiss Confed\u00aderation, Sweden and Norway, Tahiti, and the United States. \u00a0Treaties and Conventions concluded between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Other Powers since 1825<\/u>, Elele Book, Card, and Job Print., 1887.\u00a0 See also Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow<\/em>, Times Books, Henry Holt & Company, New York 2006.<\/p>\n [ii]<\/a> Directory and Handbook of the Kingdom of Hawaii, F.M. Hustat, 1892<\/p>\n [iii]<\/a> In January, 1893, Thurston organized twelve of his associates to form the “Committee of Public Safety” and arranged an immediate visit to the American Minister plenipotentiary in Hawai`i, John L. Stevens, to conspire for the overthrow of Lili`uokalani.<\/p>\n Little convincing was necessary for Stevens was already one of the foremost advocates for a U.S. takeover of Hawai`i.\u00a0 Appointed in June, 1889 as the U.S. Minister plenipotentiary, he arrived in Hawai`i on September 20 of that year and regarded himself as having a mission to bring about annexation of Hawai`i to the United States.\u00a0 His letters to Secretary of State James G. Blaine, beginning less than a month after his arrival reflect his passion to take Hawai`i for the United States.<\/p>\n After three years of encouraging taking Hawai`i, he writes on March 8, 1892, for instruction of how far he may deviate from established international rules and precedents in the event of an orderly and peaceful revolutionary movement, setting forth a step-by-step prediction of future events.<\/p>\n On November 19, 1892, he writes to the Secretary of State, arguing that those favoring annexation in Hawai`i are qualified to carry on good government, “provided they have the support of the Government of the United States.”\u00a0 He continued, “[H]awaii must now take the road which leads to Asia, or the other, which outlets her in America, gives her an American civilization, and binds her to the care of American destiny. . . .To postpone American action many years is only to add to present unfavorable tendencies and to make future possession more difficult.”<\/p>\n He called for “bold and vigorous measures for annexation.\u00a0 I cannot refrain from expressing the opinion with emphasis that the golden hour is near at hand. . . . So long as the islands retain their own independent government there remains the possibility that England or the Canadian Dominion might secure one of the Hawaiian harbors for a coaling station.\u00a0 Annexation excludes all dangers of this kind.”<\/p>\n Thus, when Thurston met with Stevens on January 15, 1893, the “golden hour” was at hand.\u00a0 It was agreed that the United States marines would land under the guise of protecting American lives (the missionary parties’).\u00a0 The “missionary” party would declare themselves the “provisional government.”\u00a0 This puppet government would immediately turn Hawai`i over to the United States in an annexation treaty.\u00a0 The missionary party would be appointed local rulers of Hawai`i as a reward.\u00a0 The United States would obtain the choicest lands and harbors for their Pacific armada.\u00a0 Cleveland’s Address to Congress, 18 December 1893,” Richardson, A Compilation of The Messages and Papers of the Presidents: 1789-1908,<\/u> Vol. IX (1908).<\/p>\n [iv]<\/a> See the U.S. Apology Law, Public Law 103-150, 107 Stat. 1510<\/p>\n ______________________________________________________<\/p>\n A careful review of the case will reveal that the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1469 under false premises, on the basis of false and incomplete information provided by the United States of America, relying on representations that were tainted by grave material and procedural irregularities surrounding the fraudulent referendum on Hawaii\u2019s entry into the United States as a State, which amounted to an act of annexation. Because the referendum was fundamentally flawed, the resolution based thereon must be deemed null and void.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":114778,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40,65,56,82,221],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124912","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-transcend-members","category-anglo-america","category-asia-pacific","category-united-nations","category-indigenous-rights"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124912","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=124912"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124912\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/114778"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124912"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124912"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124912"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
Part Two:<\/h2>\n
Part Three:<\/h2>\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/hawaii-poka-troops-usa.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/hawaii-poka-troops-usa2.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/hawaii-poka-troops-usa3.jpg\")
<\/a>\n