1

INDEPENDENT & SOVEREIGN NATION STATE OF HAWAI‘I

UNPFII Questionnaire to Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations

1. Please provide the name of your organization/entity and where it is based. Please also

provide details on the objectives and goals of your organization.

The Independent & Sovereign Nation State of Hawai‘i (Nation of Hawai‘i) is based out

of Waimānalo, on the island of Oahu, in the “State” of Hawai‘i. The Nation of Hawai‘i’s main

goals are to correct the injustice, restore the National Sovereignty of the Hawaiian people and

help our people exercise their right to self-determination in a meaningful, practical way. The

following websites provide a lot of great background information about the Nation:

programs, and services for the business and asset formations required to make it all happen and

keep it all moving forward. For more information, please visit our website at

http://alohafirst.com/.

Dennis “Bumpy” Kanahele’s involvement in the Hawaiian National sovereignty

movement started in 1978, at the end of the session of the Hawai‘i State Constitutional

Convention that resulted in the creation of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). In 1980,

Kanahele ran for OHA’s trustee at-large seat, knowing that something really bad had happened

to our ancestors and wanting to do something about it. At the time, there was a different

atmosphere regarding Hawaiian issues. No one knew very much about the illegal overthrow of

the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, which was unfortunate and those that knew what really happened were

2

It was a very new thought process from the mindset that had been forced upon us and a

time of mental and spiritual awakening for Hawaiians who began to learn about what had really

happened to our people and who began to strategize on how to achieve justice for these awful

crimes committed against our people and our Nation. To actually have an Office of Hawaiian

Affairs at that time was very exciting. From the 1980’s to the 1990’s, the Trustees of this newly

created office had to negotiate with the State of Hawai‘i about back payments and future

payments from the Public Lands Trust that would fund OHA. OHA Trustees had no playbook to

released in 1988.

Timeline of Events

August 1992 – Ohana Council is established (the vehicle that created the Kupuna Council).

June 1993 – 15-month land occupation of Kaupo Beach Park, Makapu‘u (across from Sea Life

Park Hawaii).

January 17, 1993 – 100

Anniversary of the Illegal Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i.

Resolution).

December 28, 1993 – Francis A. Boyle’s legal opinion on U.S. Public Law 103-150 (Apology

Law): “When I read the Public Law for the first time, the first thought that occurred to me is that

now, after 100 years, the United States government, has finally and officially conceded, as a

matter of United states law that the Native Hawaiian people have the right to restore the

Independent nation state that you had in 1893.”

The following excerpts from an affidavit

1

prepared by international law scholar and

3

4

5

Hawaiians

*Hawaiians are an indigenous people who also possess a national identity.

The Nation of Hawai‘i is composed of the Kānaka Maoli (Hawaiian people) who are

indigenous if you define that term in the broadest sense (i.e. the original people inhabiting the

land prior to Western contact) but the Nation focuses on reframing Hawaiian as a national and

6

important to a people’s identity and we ask that you show due deference and respect for our right

to name ourselves in a way that is true to who we are.

The Nation of Hawai‘i’s land base, Pu‘uhonua o Waimānalo, has about 20 households

and about 80 people currently living there but we have citizens throughout the State of Hawai‘i,

the continental U.S. and the world and we would like to increase our land base so that we can

bring more Hawaiians home. Although the Nation focuses on the Kānaka Maoli people, we

work closely with many non-Hawaiian allies and partners who support the Nation and its fight to

law scholar and lawyer Francis A. Boyle said that he could prove that the Kānaka Maoli people

have been subjected to the crime of genocide. Our position is that the denial of a Hawaiian

national identity is a genocidal act. Today, many of the lawsuits against Hawaiian trusts are

based on claims that Hawaiian entitlements constitute racial discrimination (per the destructive

and dangerous 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rice v. Cayetano).

None of those lawsuits

address the Nationality of the Hawaiian people. However, we will discuss the significance and

importance of a Hawaiian nationality at length in Question 10.

on Indigenous Issues? If yes, please indicate the year(s).

10. What are the major successes as well as the remaining obstacles for the implementation

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in

her 2014 report to the Human Rights Council, discussed the importance of reconciliation and

redress for historical wrongs as well as the need to address and combat continuing negative

impacts:

7

3

Tauli-Corpuz’s sentiments capture the current situation of the Hawaiian people perfectly.

Our current predicament is a direct consequence of the overthrow of our once sovereign nation

that continues to have impacts on our people to the present day. We cannot overcome our

extreme marginalization in all facets of life unless these outstanding wrongs are addressed and

of Indigenous Peoples (hereinafter the Declaration or the UNDRIP) as well as the foundational

principles encompassed by various sources of international human rights jurisprudence in

general. Our submission does not touch on all of these principles, but we hope that our story

helps the world better understand that Hawaiians cannot live truly free until these outstanding

injustices are addressed in a meaningful, fair and effective manner. We carry the hurt and pain

of generations of Hawaiians who were treated as if they were nothing and we still bear the heavy

burden of 124 years of suffering and abuse that has not been adequately addressed by the U.S.

and its various political subdivisions that systematically carry out this oppression to this day.

The U.S. and the State of Hawai‘i have made some concessions but we still do not enjoy a

widely recognized and formal political status as a nation. More importantly, we are still

alienated from the lands that are essential to who we are.

evidence that the U.S. government has left behind and evaluate your role in bringing them to

Crime Scene Exhibit A: Unrelinquished and Unaddressed “Ceded” Lands Claims

‘Āina (land) is of particular significance to Hawaiians because we view our lands as

members of our family and Hawaiians are supposed to be caretakers of the land, which in turn

provides us with sustenance and also grounds us as a people. However, most of our lands are

currently held by the U.S. federal and state governments who have not treated the ‘āina well--

bombing Kaho‘olawe, establishing military bases, building harmful developments and

preventing us from being the caretakers we were destined to be.

http://unsr.vtaulicorpuz.org/site/images/docs/2014-annual-hrc-a-hrc-27-52-en.pdf, pg. 10 (Aug. 11, 2014) (emphasis

added).

8

applied to it; as the stable dwelling place of men, it was called aina, land, (place of food).”

4

E.S.

Craighill Handy and Elizabeth Green Handy, with the collaboration of Mary Kawena Pukui,

expressed similar sentiments, “‘Aina is the specific term meaning land…In relationship to birth

and family, ‘aina conveys the sense of homeland, birthplace, one’s country.”

5

They further

explain:

In this way, we are not fully Hawaiian and we will never have a homeland and a nation without

our lands. This forced alienation is painful and it manifests itself in the many socioeconomic ills

Hawaiians suffer today.

The land base for the Nation of Hawai‘i, Pu‘uhonua o Waimānalo (aptly named a

“refuge”), in stark contrast, serves as a living testament to the power of ‘āina, place and space to

Hawaiian identity. You can breathe easier here because our lands are set apart from the State of

Hawai‘i and the U.S. and they belong to and are exclusively managed and maintained by our

land, to breathe the air and to talk to the people here. It is truly a safe space for our people and a

caring for it in pono (just) way.

And so, Pu‘uhonua o Waimānalo, the only sovereign Hawaiian land base in existence

today, is both a hope and a promise for a better future for Hawaiians--one where we can get back

to the land and mālama (take care of) it in the way that only Hawaiians can--with the proper

cultural and spiritual foundations and with a focus on bringing our people home. Pu‘uhonua o

Waimānalo lives in a peaceful coexistence with the State of Hawai‘i as a true starting point and a

land base for the development of an independent and sovereign Hawaiian Nation State. This

unique attribute speaks directly to Article 46 in the UNDRIP, which emphasizes the territorial

integrity of the State:

HAWAII: THEIR LIFE, LORE AND ENVIRONMENT 44 (Bishop Museum Press rev. ed. 1991) (emphasis added).

9

However, due to Hawai‘i’s unique history, geographical distance and cultural distinctiveness

from the continental U.S. anyways, this would not actually disrupt the territorial integrity of the

original U.S. Nation State. Hawai‘i and the other U.S. territories were always considered and

treated as additions to, rather than integral parts of the U.S. (as shown through the independence

homeland and more importantly, our Hawaiian nation.

The Declaration has several provisions that address the importance of land, but Articles

27, and 28 are particularly relevant. Article 27 describes the process that must be followed for

adjudicating land claims:

to secure lands and address its other claims at a later date through Congress. However, as shown

through the many failures of the Akaka Bill, whose many iterations could never gain full

Congressional approval, the U.S. Congress is not a good forum for Hawaiians to engage with the

U.S. in the negotiation of our claims. The extraordinary number of Hawaiians who engaged in

the public comment process for the administrative rule

shows that the Hawaiian community

had grave concerns about the rule and many commenters were especially concerned that the rule

did not provide for lands for the Hawaiian government and also tried to make Hawaiians fit into

and also fulfill a sacred trust obligation to promote the well-being of those inhabitants, as Article

73(a) clearly mandates:

Article 73(a) emphasizes that the Member State (the U.S.) overseeing the process must respect

political, economic, social, and educational conditions, ensure their just treatment and protect

them against abuses. Article 73(e) speaks to the Member State’s obligations “to transmit

regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as

security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a

technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for

which they are respectively responsible.”

However, the U.S. blatantly violated both of these provisions and they are spelled out

clearly in the report the U.S. wrote under its Article 73(e) reporting mandate about the

decolonization process for Hawai‘i.

30

During a December 3, 1959, meeting concerning

Summary and Analysis of Information Transmitted Under Article 73 e of the Charter; Report of the Secretary-

General; Summary of information transmitted by the Government of the United States of America, Hawaii, at 15-33,

U.N. Doc. A/2135 (June 4, 1952).

Charter,” Mr. Espinosa and Mr. Prieto from Mexico emphasized the importance of equality and

consent to the decolonization process:

They clarified this statement with “so far as was known,” and since the U.S. controlled all the

information in the report, how would the U.N. have known otherwise? The statement about the

lack of an “any movement for independence” is all the more alarming because Hawaiians have

been fighting for independence in a very organized, public and persistent manner ever since the

American Samoa, which states that the “population of American Samoa is almost entirely

inhabitants.

Hawai‘i in whom the national sovereignty resided and still resides because although we are

indigenous to this land, we were also internationally recognized as a sovereign nation on par

with other Nation States and can be once again. Although the U.S. can deliberately leave

Hawaiians out of their reports, the U.S. cannot change the fact that we will always be the

and protect us against abuses.

Even the U.S. government freely admits in the Apology Bill that there were major issues

General; Summary of information transmitted by the Government of the United States of America, American

Samoa, at 4, U.N. Doc. A/2135 (June 4, 1952).

people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or

through a plebiscite or referendum[.]”

35

The fact that an independence option was not offered to

the people of the territory of Hawai‘i is one of the major reasons. The ballot only asked, “Shall

Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a state?” and the only options were “yes” or

“no.”

Crime Scene Exhibit D: Problematic U.S. Reporting about the Real Situation of Hawaiians

The U.S. qualifies its support of the Declaration by emphasizing that it is “not legally binding or

a statement of current international law” and stating that it will seek to achieve the aspirations in

the Declaration subject to “U.S. Constitution, laws, and international obligations.” It does,

however, state that it will seek “where appropriate, to improve our laws and policies.” This is

Hawaiians. The U.S. discusses the need to improve relationships with native peoples and to take

serving as a model in the international community in promoting and protecting the collective

rights of indigenous peoples as well as the human rights of all individuals.”

Hawaiians need

the U.S. to live up to the promise it made six years ago to promote both indigenous and human

rights.

The U.S. referred directly to how it has helped Hawaiians:

Announcement of U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/184099.pdf, pg. 1 (emphasis added).

Hawaiians counter these assertions by emphasizing that the U.S. has made some strides but

much remains to be done. Acknowledging the national sovereignty of the Hawaiian people,

giving us back our lands and supporting the reestablishment of the Hawaiian nation would be

great first steps.

Although the U.S. made the above-mentioned promises to fulfill the principles in the

Declaration, recent U.S. reports to the U.N. about the situation of Hawaiians reflect the same

erasure and marginalization in the earlier Article 73(e) reports. The U.S. has only ever submitted

in 2015--but Hawaiians per usual are almost entirely absent from the reports.

Ninth Session discussed how it changed its position on the Declaration and referred to its “recent

federal government work on many indigenous issues.”

Hawaiians were mentioned only four

times, lumped in with Native Americans and Alaska Natives even though we are drastically

different with respect to geography, culture and history among other things.

The focus on

Native Americans and Alaska Natives shows that although the U.S. considers us to be an

indigenous people, it does not prioritize our interests nor does it acknowledge and honor our

unique needs and attributes as Hawaiians.

The U.S.’s 2015 questionnaire response regarding recommendations from the Thirteenth

Session of the UNPFII focused on its work implementing the World Conference on Indigenous

United States, Questionnaire to Governments Re: Any Action Taken or Planned in Response to the Permanent

Forum’s Recommendations, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/2015/states-info/USA.pdf, pg. 3.

“indigenous tribal leaders and representatives,” explaining, “The U.S. Department of State held

consultations with indigenous tribal leaders and representatives to develop the U.S. position on

the WCIP outcome document, and continues to be in close contact with indigenous leaders on

follow-up to the WCIP and implementation of its outcome document.”

44

Hawaiians are not

mentioned by name at all even though the U.S. applauded its consultation efforts regarding the

Declaration with tribal leaders and representatives. Why were Hawaiians not included in these

discussions? How come we were not deserving of a consultation opportunity even though as a

actually incapable of providing us with effective redress mechanisms for the many injustices it

has committed against us.

The U.S.’s troubling statement about obstacles for implementing the UNPFII

recommendations shows how little the U.S. understands international indigenous human rights as

well as its self-centered and rather egotistical perception of its own actions, “The United States

has strong mechanisms in place to discuss the merits of PFII recommendations and whether and

how they may be accommodated.”

Obviously, these mechanisms are not strong enough

because they are not working for Hawaiians and other indigenous peoples in the U.S.

U.N. Special Rapporteur James Anaya shared concerns with the U.S. that he had

“received information regarding ongoing grievances with special legal and policy regimes that

affect indigenous peoples in Maine, Alaska, Hawaii and Guam,” in a 2014 follow-up letter to his

“What measures are being taken by federal or state governments to address the outstanding

and the annexation of Hawaii by the United States, and to implement the right to self-

determination for indigenous Hawaiians?”

The U.S. admitted that the “Native Hawaiian

community has a unique status as the indigenous people of a once-sovereign nation with whom

the United States has a special political and legal relationship” and that “Congress has reflected

this in a number of statutes.”

that makes it clear that the U.S. government blatantly tries to minimize its power:

U.S. Response to Special Rapporteur’s February 2014 Letter,

https://spdb.ohchr.org/hrdb/30th/USA_12.05.15_(5.2014).pdf, pg. 9 (May 12, 2015).

49

The U.S. then goes on to describe its “reconciliation efforts” with Hawaiians, referring to its

support of the Akaka Bill and the establishment of the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations.

Declaration and we do not fit into the current frameworks the U.S. is offering us because we are

not a tribal community and we will never be. We need more than an empty apology and we call

on the U.N. and the international community to help us achieve the aspirations in the UNDRIP.

Crime Scene Exhibit E: Suppression and Denial of Hawaiian National Sovereignty

The U.S.’s own “Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987 (the Proxmire Act)”

describes the crime of genocide as:

The Act defines the term “national group” as a “set of individuals whose identity as such is

distinctive in terms of nationality or national origins.”

53

Tragically, all of these offenses have

been committed against Hawaiians with the specific intent to destroy their national identity.

18 U.S.C. § 1093(5) (emphasis added).

encompasses our right to a Hawaiian nationality. If we apply the broad definition for a

“national group” used in the U.S.’s own 1987 Genocide Convention Implementation Act,

Hawaiians, who are able to trace their national identity (which has never been relinquished) back

to the internationally recognized Kingdom of Hawai‘i, would comprise such a set of individuals

whose identity is distinctive in terms of nationality or national origins. If the United Nations

had existed during the time of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, our Hawaiian nation would have been

considered equal to other Nation States and since we have never relinquished our right to be

for true justice that honors who we were and who we are meant to be. There will never be true

justice for Hawaiians unless the U.S. starts acknowledging the immutable facts of their crime

against us, accepts who Hawaiians are as a people and starts working together with us to come to

a mutually beneficial resolution. The only resolution to the original crime of the illegal

overthrow that will allow us to achieve true and real justice is for us to become an independent

Hawaiian nation again. U.S. Republican Senator Slade Gorton from Washington state agreed

with our position in an October 27, 1993, Senate Congressional hearing regarding the Apology

Bill, arguing:

International law scholar and lawyer Francis Boyle pushed this notion even further, explaining:

103 CONG. REC. S14,479 (Oct. 27, 1993) (statement of Sen. Slade Gorton) (emphasis added).

THOMAS L. REV. 723, 741-42 (1995) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added).

Both U.S. Senator Gorton’s and Francis Boyle’s statements support our own assertion

that Hawaiians need to be able to practice and fully express their Hawaiian national sovereignty

as a starting point and as an end goal, Hawaiians must be given a fair and practical means of

reestablishing an independent and sovereign Hawaiian nation in the present day.

The U.S.’s weapons have become more subtle but they are deadly nonetheless because

they are largely silent, invisible and confusing. It is no longer acceptable for the U.S. to engage

with Hawaiians in the imperialist and openly oppressive way they used to because they must

perfectly exemplifies the U.S.’s own description of the crime of genocide:

regarding our lands and other claims. The U.S. has never played fair and we do not trust them to

do so now. We call on the U.N. and the international community to help us in this process. Now

that you have visited the scene of the crime and have all the evidence, you have a duty to bring

our perpetrator to justice.

18 U.S.C. § 1091(a) (emphasis added).