intersections online

Volume 10, Number 1 (Winter 2009)

Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco, “Past, Present, and Politics: A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty
Movement,” intersections 10, no. 1 (2009): 341-387.

ABSTRACT
For many years, Hawai„i has been a favored destination of vacationers and adventurers,
colonizers and usurpers. Its beautiful landscape and strategic placement lend itself for these
purposes. However, there is another side of Hawai„i that many do not see, and even less
understand. When the sunscreen, ABC Stores, and hotel lū„au‟s are left behind, one will
find that there is a part of Hawai„i that longs for the return of its independence, its identity,
its rights. This Hawai„i no longer wishes to see its people impoverished or imprisoned. It no
longer wishes to be forgotten in history books, and remembered only when it‟s time to plan
a family trip over the summer. This is the Hawai„i being fought for by those in the Hawaiian
sovereignty movement and is addressed in this article.

http://depts.washington.edu/chid/intersections_Winter_2009/Amanda_Mae_Kahealani_Pacheco_The_Hawaiian_Sovereignty_Movement.pdf

© 2009 intersections, Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco. This article may not be reposted, reprinted, or included in any print or online publication,
website, or blog, without the expressed written consent of intersections and the author

341
 intersections Winter 2009

Past, Present, and Politics

A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

By Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco

University of San Francisco, School of Law

Introduction

F or many years, Hawai‗i has been a favored destination of vacationers and

adventurers, colonizers and usurpers. Its‘ beautiful landscape and strategic
placement lend itself for these purposes. However, there is another side of
Hawai‗i that many do not see, and even less understand. When the sunscreen,
ABC Stores, and hotel lū‗au‘s are left behind, one will find that there is a part of
Hawai‗i that longs for the return of its independence, its identity, its rights. This
Hawai‗i no longer wishes to see its people impoverished or imprisoned. It no
longer wishes to be forgotten in history books, and remembered only when it‘s
time to plan a family trip over the summer. This is the Hawai‗i being fought for
by those in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, and this is the movement to be
addressed in this article.

The participants and supporters of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement want

some form of independence or self rule; they want native communities to rise up
and work towards the common goal of nationhood; and, perhaps most of all,
they want to live in a place where native Hawaiians have been given, as much as
possible, their way of life back, as it once was before colonization, assimilation,
and acculturation took over their identities.

In order to gain a general overview of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, one

must first understand who the people are that the movement implicates.
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Hawaiian is defined as being ―A
native or resident of Hawai‗i, especially one of Polynesian ancestry.‖ The
language, ―especially,‖ implies that the term ―Hawaiian‖ cannot only be used to
describe those of Polynesian ancestry, but also those who are born in or have
become residents of Hawai‗i but are not of Hawaiian Polynesian descent. As
such, for the purposes of this article the definition of a native Hawaiian will refer
to someone who is specifically of Hawaiian Polynesian ancestry. This definition
is chosen because being native Hawaiian, for many in the sovereignty movement,
is about blood. Native Hawaiian sovereignty leader, lawyer and scholar Mililani

342
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

Trask, writes that ―To be Hawaiian (for political and other reasons) you have to
have the koko (blood). I don‘t agree with, and do not support, the concept of
being ‗Hawaiian at heart‘…You never hear of someone being ‗Japanese at heart.‘
There is a racial connotation to that phrase.‖1

Haunani-Kay Trask, a Professor of Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai‗i,

Mānoa and sovereignty leader, writes that, ―there is the claim [by non-natives]
that Hawaiians, the Native people of Hawai‗i, are the same as settlers to Hawai‗i.
Apart from denying Hawaiians their 2,000-year-old indigenous2 history, this
position also equates a voluntary status (settlers) with involuntary status (a forced
change in nationality resulting from colonization). This argument often underlies
state and federal policy.‖3 Haunani-Kay Trask emphasizes that the difference
between Kanaka Maoli – Native Hawaiians – in Hawai‗i today, and Hawai‗i
residents who are not of native Hawaiian blood is simply that residents who
settled in Hawai‗i voluntarily gave up their homeland rights; native Hawaiians,
on the other hand, have had those rights taken from them.4

Therefore native Hawaiian is used in reference to the indigenous peoples of

Hawai‗i who existed in the archipelago before Western contact, as well as the
people of native Hawaiian blood, whose histories are tied inextricably with the
history of that place dating back 2,000 years. The ―Hawaiian sovereignty
movement‖ refers to the purposes of the movement itself, since not all those
who participate in the movement are native Hawaiians. Though the sovereignty
movement is a fight to gain self-determination and self-governance for native
Hawaiians, many non-natives are supporters of the cause as well and will most
definitely be implicated in any of its results.

Identity, History, and the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

The issue of being a native Hawaiian, or simply a resident of Hawai‗i, becomes

part of the larger discussion of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement when we
take into account what the movement hopes to achieve, and why change is

1
Ho‘oipo Decambra, ―An Interview with Mililani Trask,‖ He alo a he alo: face to face, Hawaiian voices on
sovereignty (Honolulu: The Hawai‗i Area Office of the American Friends Service Committee, 1993),
113.
2
Defined as ―having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a
particular region or environment.‖
3
Haunani-Kay Trask, From a native daughter: colonialism and sovereignty in Hawai„i (Honolulu: University of
Hawai‗i Press, 1999), 30.
4
Ibid. Haunani-Kay Trask and Mililani B. Trask are sisters.

343
 intersections Winter 2009

desired and/or necessary. To understand this, one must first understand the
history of Hawai‗i.

United States interests in Hawai‗i, as more than a friendly neighbor became clear
to the Hawaiian monarch, as well as to the people of Hawai‗i, when white
settlers began buying up a majority of the Kingdom‘s land, as well as asserting
themselves in the national government. These strategic moves inevitably made it
easier for white landholders, businessmen and other rich plantation owners to
usurp power from the already dwindling native population and weakening
monarchy. When Queen Lili‗uokalani assumed the throne and attempted to
establish a new constitution in 1893 (which was to rectify the dismal situation of
native Hawaiians), United States businessmen such as Sanford B. Dole and
American Minister to the Islands John L. Stevens took it upon themselves to
enlist the help of U.S. troops stationed at Pearl Harbor to protect American lives
which they claimed the new constitution purportedly put in jeopardy. In direct
violation of Kingdom law as well as international treaty, the troops were
marched to ‗Iolani Palace and, under the threat of military power, the Queen
was ordered to step down from her throne.5 She was subsequently imprisoned
in her bedroom for eight months before the new Provisional American
government in place in Hawai‗i released her and forced her abdication. The
Hawaiian Kingdom was illegally annexed in 1898.

Dudley and Agard estimate before contact with the West (1778), 1 million
native Hawaiians lived in the Hawaiian archipelago. By 1892 this number had
diminished to a mere 40,000.6 ―Today,‖ Dudley and Agard write, ―there are a
mere 8,244 [full-blooded native Hawaiians left]. That is 992,000 less people
[than before Western contact], a decrease of more than 99%.‖ 7 This dismal
history, coupled with the persistence of Western colonization in the State of
Hawai‗i today8, has led to the creation of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement in
the mid-1970‘s that still remains true to its cause in 2009. Thus, it is said that:
5
Act of war: the overthrow of the hawaiian nation, DVD. Directed by Puhipau, and Joan Lander. (San
Francisco, CA: CrossCurrent Media, National Asian American Telecommunications Association, 1993).
6
Ibid.
7
Michael Kioni Dudley and Keoni Kealoha Agard, A call for Hawaiian sovereignty (Honolulu: Nā Kāne O
Ka Malo Press, 1993), 87.
8
According to the 2002 Native Hawaiian Databook, native Hawaiians have the highest percentage of
abortions by teens under the age of 17, the highest percentages of drug abuse by teens in the 9th-12th
grade level, the highest percentage of State offenders and third highest percentage of murder victims,
the highest rate of arrests among youths, and the second highest percentage of homelessness. Native
Hawaiian databook (Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 2002),
http://www.oha.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=101&Itemid=173 (accessed
Jan. 14, 2009)

344
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

Deep in the soul of all Hawaiians is a desire to speak our own language,
to relate with the natural world publicly and unashamedly as our
ancestors did, to think our own thoughts, to pursue our own
aspirations, to develop our own arts, to workshop our own goods, to
follow our own moral system, to see our own people when we look
around us, to be Hawaiians again. We long to make contributions to the
world as Hawaiians, to exist as a Hawaiian nation, to add ‗a Hawaiian
presence‘ to the world community. Establishment of a sovereign
Hawaiian nation will give us that chance.9

Natives and non-natives alike have begun fighting for self-governance, for
independence, and for justice by both participating in and through the support of
the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. They are mobilized and educated, and are
ready to become players in the political arena that determines the future of
Hawai‗i, the unwillingly and illegally colonized playground of the United States.
The movement has been building strength, and the voices of its followers are
now ready to be heard. What are some of the options that the people of Hawai‗i
have regarding sovereignty? Are sovereignty, self-governance, independence,
and justice feasible goals? Is the movement for sovereignty a practical and
probable enough ambition to be achieved? And what do those who live in
Hawai‗i today think of the movement? These are all questions this article hopes
to answer.

This is not meant to be a comprehensive critical analysis of the depth and breadth
of entire movement. Instead, I develop of general description of three different,
representative perspectives of the movement, in the hope of spurring further
dialogue and research on the topic as a whole.

The History of the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

E Kū Kanaka. Stand tall, people of Hawai‗i. This is a call for strength,

confidence, and perhaps sovereignty as well. 10 But what is sovereignty?
When did it begin? What does it mean for future native Hawaiians? This section
will explore those questions in order to better understand what exactly the
Hawaiian sovereignty movement is. It will do so by expanding on the brief
history of the movement given in the previous section, as well as by investigating

9
Dudley and Agard, ix.
10
Shawn Malia Kana‘iaupuni, ―Ka‘akālai Kū Kanaka: A Call for Strengths-Based Approaches from a Native
Hawaiian Perspective,‖ Educational Researcher 34, no. 5 (2005): 36.

345
 intersections Winter 2009

the ways that resistance has manifested itself, both historically and
contemporarily, in order to offer a field of reference when considering the path
sovereignty has taken to get to its current state.

The first step in this discussion, however, is to define in clear terms what the
accepted meaning of the word ‗sovereignty‘ is. According to the Merriam-
Webster Dictionary, ‗sovereignty‘ refers to ―supreme power especially over a
body politics; freedom from external control; autonomy; controlling influence,‖
and can also be summed up to mean ―an autonomous state.‖ With this in mind,
let us begin by discussing what the Hawaiian sovereignty movement is, at its
root, and what it hopes to accomplish.

The Birth of a Movement

When I think of sovereignty, sovereignty sounds like there‘s a group of

people – Hawaiians – who are living in a dominant culture – Western –
who feel that some of the policies, attitudes or ways put a halt to some
of their own goals. And when this group of people, Hawaiian people,
come together and say: ―Let‘s form this community,‖ or nation, or
whatever you call it; and say: ―let‘s draw up something that we can have
a voice in how we want to govern our lives.‖ I know that‘s a crude
definition but that‘s the way I look at it, just a group of people who say:
―Okay, this is what we want: we don‘t want Joe Blow over there telling
us what to do, we respect Joe Blow, but we would like that same
respect in return.11

This passage above is an excerpt from an interview in which a Wai‗anae man, and
sovereignty leader, articulates what many in the movement feel is at the root of
sovereignty. Dudley and Agard chronicle the start of the sovereignty movement
and offer a key reason for its inception when they state that, ―After decades that
saw Hawaiians denying and neglecting their cultural heritage, the early 1970‘s
brought a renewal of interest in traditional Hawaiian music, arts, and
crafts…The time was right…It was okay to be Hawaiian again…And Hawaiians
began to be proud of being Hawaiian again.‖12 This sense of pride in Hawaiian
culture and history is, according to Dudley and Agard, what helped to facilitate
the birth of the sovereignty movement. Native Hawaiians are proud to be
indigenous to this land; they are proud to have their own language, music, and
society; and most of all, they are proud to have had their own government. The
11
Ho‘oipo Decambra, ―An Interview with Lyle Kaloi,‖ He alo a he alo: face to face, Hawaiian voices on
sovereignty (Honolulu: The Hawai‗i Area Office of the American Friends Service Committee, 1993), 94.
12
Dudley and Agard, 107.

346
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

sovereignty movement is a fight to regain that government, that source of

pride.13

This sense of pride manifested itself in grassroots organizations beginning to

protest and rally publicly against further land dispossession suffered by native
Hawaiians, and the continuing urbanization of kaikua‘ana o nā kanaka.14 Haunani-
Kay Trask writes that ―[The] Hawaiian Movement evolved from a series of
protests against land abuses, through various demonstrations and occupations to
dramatize the exploitative conditions of Hawaiians, to assertions of Native forms
of sovereignty based on indigenous birthrights to land and sea.‖ 15 Specifically,
the protest movements that began in the 70‘s were first known as anti-eviction
efforts, or efforts to thwart the continued use of the island of Kaho‗olawe for
target practice by the United States military. ―The movement [then] evolved
both cultural and political demands that focused on the historical injury of the
overthrow and annexation. The goals of [the native Hawaiian sovereignty]
movement now include some form of self-government, the creation of a public
educational system in the Hawaiian language, and legal entitlements to a national
land base, including water rights.‖16

What sets the Hawaiian sovereignty movement apart from many other
movements for indigenous rights is that, although many native and non-native
Hawaiians have mobilized as a community in the name of sovereignty, they have
taken that mobilization a step farther and organized themselves into more than
300 different factions.17 These factions, while in agreement on the need for self-
determination in a general sense, are vying for recognition, legitimacy, and in
most cases, different forms of sovereignty in the name of Hawai‗i. In a two-day
sovereignty convention held in 1988, spokespersons from six of the major pro-
sovereignty groups came together to clearly state their stances on a number of
positions concerning the native community. What was made clear at this
conference was that:

13
Ibid., 107.
14
Literally translates to: ―the older sibling of the Hawaiian people.‖ Refers to the historical Kumulipo (the
genealogical legend – or creation story – of Hawaii), which names the land as the older sibling of the
people. It instills in the people a sense of familial connection with the land, and requires them to care
for it, as it cares for them.
15
Haunani-Kay Trask, From a native daughter, 66.
16
Haunani-Kay Trask, ―Native social capital: The case of Hawaiian sovereignty and Ka L āhui Hawaii,‖
Policy Sciences 33, no.3-4 (2000): 150.
17
Daniel Wood, ―Hawaii‘s Search for Sovereignty,‖ The Christian Science Monitor, October 17, 1994, 10.

347
 intersections Winter 2009

it was not yet time [for sovereignty groups] to solidify on one stand. The
Hawaiian people as a whole need to be presented with a number of possibilities
for future nationhood, and have the time to explore them, so that when they
are finally asked to vote, they will make the most enlightened choice.18

In the years since the conference, these different groups have continued to take
their views out to the people for consideration. Some groups, like Kōkua
Kalama, were formed in direct opposition to the further development of
Hawaiian lands, and continue to focus on the dispossession and rights of native
Hawaiians. Groups like ‗Ohana o Hawai‗i (The Extended Family of Hawai‗i),
which was founded in 1974 and is one of the longest running native Hawaiian
sovereignty organizations, focus primarily on the political aspects of sovereignty,
―having taken the case of the illegally overthrown Hawaiian nation before the
World Court at The Hague, and before a number of other international
tribunals, calling for the decolonization of Hawai‗i, and laying the groundwork
for recognition of an eventual declaration of actual sovereignty.‖19 And still
other groups, like A.L.O.H.A. focus on reparations for the illegal overthrow and
annexation of our monarchy and our kingdom.

But perhaps the clearest and most concise reason for the creation of the Hawaiian
sovereignty movement comes from the legal testimony of international scholar,
Professor Francis Boyle, who stated that:

The State of Hawai‗i, the federal government, are…the civilian arms of

the military occupation authority, and…do not have sovereignty
powers. The sovereignty resides in the people…An independent
sovereign nation is one way a people who are threatened with
extermination by means of [cultural] genocide can attempt to protect
themselves…What is the best way to protect the existence of your
people?…To proclaim your own state, [to restore the inherent
sovereignty of the people] and then ultimately seek international
recognition and finally United Nations membership…20

With this in mind, supporters of sovereignty hold to a saying that dates back to
the time of Kamehameha I, the first king of Hawai‗i, which translates to: ―So
many Hawaiians are not surviving in the world of the white man. Give us our

18
Dudley and Agard, 125.
19
Ibid., 113.
20
Francis Boyle, ―Restoration of the Independent Nation State of Hawai‗i Under International Law,‖ St.
Thomas Review 7 (1995): 743.

348
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

lands and seas, and let us return to the ways of our culture. Hawaiians can
survive if they can be Hawaiian and live Hawaiian.‖21

The Tools of Struggle

Since the early days of U.S. occupation in the islands, survival for Hawaiians has
been synonymous with resistance to American oppression, and early forms of
resistance are what Hawaiians now consider the first indications of the impending
push for sovereignty.22 In 1998, a committee wishing to educate the public on
the 1897 anti-annexation struggle by native Hawaiians obtained 556 pages –
21,269 signatures – of the official petition opposing annexation.23 From then on,
people would have physical proof that their grandparents or great-grandparents
were activists for sovereignty. ―The petition, inscribed with the names of
everyone‘s kūpuna [elders], gave people permission from their ancestors to
participate in the quest for national sovereignty. More important, it affirmed for
them that their kūpuna had not stood by idly, apathetically, while their nation
was taken from them. Instead, contrary to every history book on the shelf, they
learned that their ancestors had, as James Kaulia put it, taken up the honorable
field of struggle.‖24

Contemporary native Hawaiians learned that their ancestors had not willingly
allowed their country, their homeland, and their beloved leaders to be taken
over. Instead, they had fought in a number of ways to stem off the flow of
American colonization. One of the most common ways of proclaiming
solidarity, both then and now, was through the use of ‗olelo Hawai‗i, or the
Hawaiian language. ―Songs, poems, and stories with the potential for kaona, or
‗hidden meanings,‘ presented…opportunities to express anticolonial sentiments.
People made use of these forms, and they created and maintained their national
solidarity through publication of these and more overtly political essays in
newspapers.‖25

For example, in the days following the overthrow of Queen Lili‗uokalani, and
the imprisonment of many of her followers, Hawaiian language newspapers used
key phrases and morals in the stories and legends printed on their pages to

21
Dudley and Agard, 93.
22
Noenoe K. Silva, Aloha betrayed: Native Hawaiian resistance to American colonialism (Durham: Duke
University Press, 2004), 4.
23
Ibid., 4.
24
Ibid., 4.
25
Ibid., 5.

349
 intersections Winter 2009

encourage those who were fighting for sovereignty, and instill hope in those who
felt as if it were a losing battle. The Queen regularly submitted songs and poems
to their papers that spoke to her people in ways that she was not allowed to do
vocally, reminding them that they were the rightful heirs of the land, that their
monarch had not forgotten them, and that justice would prevail. ―Four mele
[songs] were apparently smuggled out of the queen‘s prison room to the
newspaper Ka Makaainana, where they were published in weekly installments.
Her main message in these mele was that her heart was still with her people and
her nation, and that contrary to the representation being made by the [pro-
republic] papers she had not abandoned the po‗e aloha ‗aina or the struggle for
their nation.‖26 Today, those mele and stories are used as a source of pride and
inspiration for participants in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement.

As the occupation by America went on, those loyal to the Hawaiian Nation of the
time signed petitions calling for the reinstatement of the Queen and the return of
the kingdom. The Queen herself, once released from her eight-month
imprisonment by the illegal Provisional Government, went to Washington to
appeal to American government officials for justice to be done. 27 What is
important to note here is that unlike many other struggles for decolonization,
such as conflicts like the Northern Ireland Troubles, the native Hawaiian struggle
from its outset has been a non-violent one, with supporters of sovereignty
choosing to use cultural and international politics as weapons, and trusting that
those methods would be enough to restore a kingdom.

Today‘s sovereignty activists continue to fight in the same manner that their
ancestors did. In Ka Lāhui Hawai‗i‘s 1995 Master Plan, the organization includes
a section entitled ―Commitment to Peace, Disarmament, and Non-Violence‖
which reads:

The practice of peace requires that we resolve conflict in a non-violent

manner. This commitment to non-violence relates not only to our
undertakings in the political arena, but involves the seeking of non-
violent solutions to family, personal, and community
problems…Disarmament means that the Hawaiian Nation shall not
engage in acts of militarism, nor shall it endorse military undertakings
on its land or territories.28

26
Ibid., 180-203.
27
Ibid., 5.
28
Haunani-Kay Trask, From a native daughter, 211-212.

350
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

This commitment to peace means that native Hawaiians have had to find ways of
demonstrating their displeasure with the operating government while still
maintaining law-abiding methods.

For example, today‘s sovereignty activists often use the hula to increase unity
among the people, as well as create a more culturally political stance on which to
state their case. This could be seen years ago in the opposition by the community
to attempted legislation, such as Senate Bill 8, which would have prohibited
kumu hula29 from gathering the necessary materials needed for dance by making
even more land private property in Hawai‗i, and thus unavailable for use. Alone,
this may not sound like such a drastic move on the part of the government, but
this bill followed nearly a hundred years of land dispossession and privatization
suffered by native Hawaiians, and would have been yet another attack against
native Hawaiian culture at the hands of the government.

Prior to this, and ―although the hula movement embodied practical aspects of
native resistance to colonial domination, many kumu hula…did not perceive
hula itself as political nor did they see the political resistance of Hawaiians as
impacting or influencing hula.‖30 This was all about to change.

In the 25 hours of constant demonstration at the State Building in downtown

Honolulu on February 25, 1997, along with sovereignty organizations, activists,
and supporters, ―Kumu hula throughout the Hawaiian Islands mobilized hundreds
of their hula students in an extraordinary feat of grace and power never seen in
modern colonial times…[it was] the politicization of hula…Thus, [the Hawaiian
community] all agreed to allow the most sacred symbol of hula into a political
arena and to use this cultural instrument for a most political purpose.‖ 31

As a result of this mass demonstration, the pounding of 100 pahu32 every hour on
the hour, and the power that cultural force can wield, Senate Bill 8 was
eventually shot down before the hula practitioners left the State Building. Since
then, ―Hula kū‘ē is the term now widely used in the hula community. It means a
dance performed to resist, protest or oppose the status quo. Hula k ū‘ē is

29
Teachers and practitioners of native Hawaiian dance.
30
Momiala Kamahele, ―‗Ilio‗ulaokalani: Defending Native Hawaiian Culture,‖ Amerasia Journal 26, no. 2
(2000): 40.
31
Kamahele, 52.
32
Sacred drum used exclusively for the hula.

351
 intersections Winter 2009

resistance that is equated with endurance and survival.‖33 Hula kū‘ē is now the
term for the use of hula in the sovereignty movement.

But the question remains as to whether a movement, any movement, can bring
about real change and decolonization via cultural politics. It seems difficult to
tell. The Hawaiian sovereignty movement is not just cultural politics, however.
Couple those politics with educated key players, and organizations that are
willing to take their struggle to the international arena in the form of Indigenous
Rights Conferences and World Court cases, then yes, the Hawaiian sovereignty
movement can bring about real change and decolonization.

The foundation laid in this section in regards to the history of the sovereignty
movement, as well as the general sense of what the movement is about and how
it operates, will be now be used to begin a much more in-depth examination of
the vehicles of the movement. I will discuss three specific organizations, their
principles and theories, their methods, and their goals, in the hopes that by doing
so, one will gain a deeper understanding of what sovereignty can mean for
everyone it would touch.

An Overview of Key Organizations

O ne of the most famed of all Hawaiian sayings was uttered by one of the
Kingdom‘s greatest chiefs while embarking on his journey towards
building a unified Hawaiian Nation. It is seen as a call for solidarity and courage,
and is still repeated by many today:

Imua e nā pōki‗i Forward my brothers and sisters

A inu i ka wai ‗awa‗awa And drink the bitter water
A‗ohe hope e ho‗i mai ai. There is no turning back now.

As previously discussed, and in keeping with this sentiment, the Hawaiian

sovereignty movement has chosen to move forward, and since the early 1970‘s
has begun forming factions within the movement as a whole with varied, and
sometimes conflicting, positions on self-governance and self-determination.
With so many different organizations fighting for sovereignty, it‘s difficult to
imagine what independence would look like should pro-sovereignty Hawaiians
emerge victorious from the debate over American decolonization. Many

33
Kamahele, 56.

352
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

questions surface: What sorts of organizations are there? What are the options
for sovereignty? What are the differences between these organizations?

Due to the sheer number of Hawaiian sovereignty organizations and the diversity
in terms of their goals, theories, and methodologies, it would be impossible to
discuss each and every one at length here. Instead, I examine three organizations
in the hope of exposing the reader to as much of an in-depth exploration of
sovereignty as possible, as well as gaining a thorough understanding as to what
some of these groups are trying to achieve and how. Featuring these three
organizations over the many others in existence does not indicate that their
practices represent the practices of all. Rather, the preference simply indicates
that information on these groups was most readily obtainable, and their practices
were widely varied enough that it would offer the most diverse cross-section of
Hawaiian sovereignty organizations available. These groups are Ka Lāhui
Hawai‗i, the Provisional Government of the Independent Nation State of
Hawai‗i, and the Hawaiian Kingdom Government.

Ka Lāhui Hawai‗i is arguably one of the most mobilized and public native
Hawaiian sovereignty organizations. Some of its key members have also held
positions in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, as well as the Center for Hawaiian
Studies at the University of Hawai‗i.

The Provisional Government of the Independent Nation State of Hawai‗i has

been chosen as a representative group because, while it too is large in number, it
can also regarded as an example of the organizations willing to take tangible steps
towards proclaiming sovereignty now. This organization features a charismatic
leader with a considerable land base among its supporters. Members of the group
already consider to be the independent Nation of Hawai‗i.

Finally, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government is discussed because, unlike many

other organizations in the movement, this organization is unique in that it
operates on the assumption that the Kingdom of Hawai‗i has always been, and is
still currently, very much in existence in Hawai‗i today. The Hawaiian Kingdom
Government also views itself not as a sovereignty organization, but rather as a
stand-in for the official Kingdom government until such a time when the citizens
of the Kingdom can elect their own representatives who will assume governing
powers.

I shall look at each of these individual organizations, their methods, and their
goals, in order to lay the groundwork for a more well-rounded discussion of the
practicality and feasibility of each group. Some key concepts to note are: 1) The

353
 intersections Winter 2009

mission and purpose of each organization; 2) How the term sovereignty is used
and defined; 3) The method of sovereignty proposed, and how the organizations
plan to achieve it, and 4); the support each organization has and who is allowed
to participate.

Ka Lāhui Hawai‘i

Ka Lāhui Hawai‗i is most simply described as a native initiative for self-

government.34 Founded in 1987 by the organizations‘ former Kia‘āina,35 Mililani
Trask, and others as a consolidation of several Hawaiian rights groups, Ka Lāhui‘s
primary objective is securing recognition of a sovereign government for native
Hawaiians.36 The organization has also been described by Ka Lāhui Hawai‗i‘s
press secretary Haunani-Kay Trask, as a way to focus discontent felt by native
Hawaiians ―over continued state abuse of the trust lands and revenues,‖ and raises
an issue that had previously been ignored: ―inclusion of Hawaiians in federal
Indian policy that recognized over 300 Native nations in the United States while
not extending this recognition to Hawaiians.‖37

Exactly what sovereignty is, and the kind of sovereignty that will be
implemented by the organization should it have the opportunity to do so, is an
issue very clearly defined by Ka Lāhui Hawai‗i. ―Sovereignty is defined…as the
ability of a people who share a common culture, religion, language, value system
and land base, to exercise control over their lands and lives, independent of
other nations,‖38 and furthermore, ―an essential part of sovereignty and self-
determination is the right of a native people, as a government, to define who
they are.‖39

The five elements of sovereignty now agreed upon within Ka Lāhui Hawai‗i are
as follows:40

34
Haunani-Kay Trask, From a native daughter, 37.
35
Governor, President, Head of the Execute Branch.
36
Mililani B. Trask, ―Ka Lāhui Hawaii: A Native Initiative for Sovereignty,‖ Turning the Tide: Journal of
Anti-Racist Activism, Research & Education 6 (1993): 5-6.
37
Haunani-Kay Trask, From a native daughter, 71.
38
Ibid., 71.
39
Decambra, 117.
40
Mililani B. Trask, ―Ka Lāhui Hawaii‖, 5-6.

354
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

1) A strong and abiding faith in ke Akua.41

2) A people with a common culture.
3) A land base.
4) A government structure.
5) An economic base.

According to members of the organization, ―When you assume responsibility for

these elements of sovereignty, change occurs. We are not in a position where
we can continue to point a finger at the State because there‘s 20,000 people on a
list for housing [referring to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands]…Home-
rule requires that we fashion the solution and that we demonstrate that we are
capable of doing the job…Self-sufficiency is the goal of nationhood.‖42

But how exactly does Ka Lāhui Hawai‗i, an organization that advocates nation-
within-a-nation43 status for Hawai‗i, according to Ka Lāhui Lt. Governor Keali‘i
Gora,44 propose to achieve sovereignty? To put it plainly, Ka Lāhui would like
U.S. recognition as an indigenous nation, and from there will begin to seek
reparations, as well as native Hawaiian entitlements (such as native lands held in
trust by the United States). They propose to go about achieving this by seeking
inclusion for native Hawaiians in existing U.S. federal policy, which is the vehicle
through which Native Americans have obtained the right to be self-governing.
Through this, native Hawaiians will have access to the federal courts for judicial
review on the overthrow, illegal annexation, and the current position and plight
of the native Hawaiian community.45

However, federal recognition is not the end goal for sovereignty. ―As a first step
for the Hawaiian nation, Ka Lāhui proposes achieving – through treaty –
recognition as a sovereign nation…with ‗nation to nation‘ status like that of the

41
God.
42
Decambra, 115-117.
43
According to Mililani B. Trask, Nation to Nation,‘ or ‗Nation within a Nation,‘ ―is a term used to
describe how America relates to its Native people. Under the existing U.S. policy, America wants to
establish government to government relations with its Native people. This is why over 500 Indian and
Native Alaska governments (councils) have been established. When the U.S. gives money, land, or
programs to the Sioux or Navaho, federal representatives meet with Indian governments to work out
the details. Right now Hawaiians have no such government.‖ See Mililani B. Trask, ―Ka L āhui Hawaii:
A Native Initiative for Sovereignty,‖ 5-6.
44
Christine Donnelly, ―No Legal, Moral or Historical Basis: One opposer of sovereignty says, ‗This isn‘t
about righting some wrong; it‘s about getting power and money and land‘,‖ Honolulu Star-Bulletin,
March 20, 2000: Supp5, http://archives.starbulletin.com/2000/03/20/special/index.html (accessed
Jan. 14, 2009).
45
Mililani B. Trask, 5-6.

355
 intersections Winter 2009

Iroquois…Ka Lāhui would then move to place the Hawaiian land base on the
United Nations list of non-self-governing territories.‖46 This strategic move of
placing the Hawaiian land base, made up of trust lands that would have
theoretically been returned to the Hawaiian nation as part of a reparations
package by the U.S., on to the U.N. list of non-self-governing territories would
grant the new government ―special guarantees‖ of security allotted to these types
of nations. Furthermore, it would give the new nation the right to decide what
type of relationship it wants with the U.S. in future dealings.47

Alongside the organizations‘ Lt. Governor, former Kia‘āina, and press secretary,
are some 23,152 adult members, more than 8,000 of which are native
Hawaiians, who are committed to regaining native lands and re-establishing
native Hawaiians as a self-governing people.48 With such large numbers, Ka
Lāhui is considered by many to be one of the largest and most mobilized of the
sovereignty groups,49 with room to spare for anyone who wishes to join.
According to Mililani Trask:

[non-native Hawaiians] should not be frightened. My advice to that

person is to…work with us. There‘s a great deal of work that has [to be
done]…I don‘t have time to deal with their guilt. [We] need help. I
think you might find people who feel that way, but they don‘t want to
help. They feel that they‘re not Hawaiians, they‘re not involved in
it…To these people, my advice is, better educate yourself about
sovereignty, better become involved, because this is not a fencepost you
can straddle…Sovereignty is not an issue that just addresses the
concerns of 20% of the population of this state. Sovereignty is going to
impact everyone.50

However, the requirements of one becoming a citizen in Ka Lāhui‘s sovereign

Hawaiian nation are slightly more complicated than they are to simply join the
organization. While everyone, both native and non-native, is encouraged to be a
part of and are welcome in the nation, only those with native Hawaiian blood are
allowed to become full citizens. Those who are residents of Hawai‗i but are not
of native Hawaiian blood are allowed to become honorary citizens of the
Hawaiian nation, and although they are not allowed to vote or to hold elective
46
Dudley and Agard, 135.
47
Ibid., 135.
48
Christine Donnelly, ―Holo I Mua: Official Transcript,‖ Honolulu Star-Bulletin, March 20, 2000: Supp1,
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2000/03/20/special/index.html (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).
49
Haunani-Kay Trask, From a native daughter, 74.
50
Decambra, 121-122.

356
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

office, they are allowed to be members of island councils and are not excluded in
debates and discussions surrounding the government and politics of the nation. 51

In order to make every possible effort to ensure that this form of sovereignty
becomes more than just a discussion, in the early 90‘s Ka Lāhui began
reorganizing itself into a firmly structured government. One of the ways it chose
to do so was by drafting an organizational (and hopefully national) Constitution.
―In 1994, Ka Lāhui created the most comprehensive plan for the attainment of
Hawaiian sovereignty yet devised…The inclusive vision of the Master Plan
follows, at one and the same time the language of international law and the
cultural precepts of Native Hawaiians.‖52

The Ho‟okupu a Ka Lāhui Hawai„i: the master plan 1995 includes eight sections that
cover issues that range from an emphatic commitment to peace to plans for
economic development and positioning within the international arena. 53 The
Constitution also sets forth what the organization believes are native Hawaiian
traditional and cultural rights, as well as providing that the native Hawaiian
people have the right to elect their own government. Such a government will
be, according to Ka Lāhui, democratic in nature, with its political process being
the elective process, and its cultural process being Lōkahi, or harmony. Under
this plan, all residents and citizens in Hawai‗i exist under two Constitutions: The
Constitution of the U.S. and the Constitution of the State of Hawai‗i—Ho‟okupu
a Ka Lāhui Hawai„i.54

With the Ho‟okupu as a hopeful constitution for a new nation, Haunani-Kay Trask
states firmly that, ―No other Hawaiian entity…has even approached the level of
analysis and practical self-government that Ka Lāhui Hawai‗i has attained.‖55
With this level of practicality and structure, Ka Lāhui keeps its main goal clearly
in sight: ―The primary objective of Ka Lāhui is to secure recognition for a
sovereign government for the Hawaiian people…Native Hawaiians are ready and
entitled to govern their own lands.‖56

51
Ibid., 121.
52
Haunani-Kay Trask, From a native daughter, 74.
53
Ibid., 211.
54
Mililani B. Trask, ―Ka Lāhui Hawaii‖, 5-6.
55
Haunani-Kay Trask, From a native daughter, 78.
56
Mililani B. Trask, ―Ka Lāhui Hawaii‖, 5-6.

357
 intersections Winter 2009

The Provisional Government of the Independent Nation State of Hawai‘i

F ormerly known as the Nation of Hawai‗i, then the ‗Ohana Council, the
Provisional Government of the Independent Nation State of Hawai‗i is the
third incarnation of one of the most radical sovereignty organizations in today‘s
current movement.57 Headed by native Hawaiian activist Dennis ―Bumpy‖
Kanahele, founder of Pu‗uhonua o Waimānalo Village,58 and unanimously
elected as the Head of State, the Provisional Government of the Independent
Nation State of Hawai‗i have organized themselves, educated the community,
and become a powerful force fighting for sovereignty.

Kanahele, who has worked to strengthen the cultural authority of native

Hawaiian elders in the community since the 1980‘s, and has also served on the
Board of Directors for organizations such as the International Indian Treaty
Council, envisions the Nation State of Hawai‗i as one day encompassing all of the
Hawaiian Islands. The Head of State feels that this Nation, which will prosper on
international trade and banking, free of control by the U.S. federal and state
governments, will be a place where Native Hawaiians will have far more political
and economic clout than they do now.59 The current, comprehensive mission of
the Nation State of Hawai‗i is that it:

will continue to develop…educational programs for the people of

Hawai‗i, develop its legislative, executive, and judicial infrastructure,
begin to implement home rule on each of the islands, engage the
illegitimate state of Hawai‗i in a smooth and peaceful transition, and
seek formal international recognition to rejoin the world community of
nations.60

This very independent form of sovereignty is founded upon the Black‘s Law
Dictionary definition of sovereignty, which follows that:

[Sovereignty is:] the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by

which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority;
the supreme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of
government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political

57
Wood, 9.
58
Native homesteads in Waimānalo, where residents enjoy a subsistence living much like that of their
ancient Hawaiian ancestors.
59
Mark Matsunaga, ―The Birth of a Nation in Pu‗uhonua,‖ Honolulu Advertiser, July 9, 1995, A1.
60
The Provisional Government of the Independent Nation State of Hawai‗i, ―Nation of Hawai‗i Ratifies
New Constitution,‖ http://www.hawaii-nation.org/conprom.html (accessed Jan. 14, 2009)

358
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the
international independence of a state, combined with the right and
power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation…61

The Nation State of Hawai‗i also calls upon the Restatement of the Law Third in the
context of Rights and Duties of States, which reads that sovereignty, in plain
terms, ―implies a state‘s lawful control over its territory generally to the
exclusion of other states, authority to govern in that territory, and authority to
apply law there.‖62

According to Kanahele, this independence is of the utmost importance when

dealing directly with the unique case of native Hawaiian sovereignty.
―‘Independence‘ means more than just political independence. Right now,
Hawai‗i is a very ‗dependent‘ society, depending on outside sources, primarily
the United States, to meet most of our needs…Therefore we are subject to the
control of outside forces. We lack self-reliance and suffer from great
vulnerability. Hawai‗i must become more independent in many ways to ensure
the future stability of our land and people...The only true sovereignty is
independence.‖63

Therefore, the ―true sovereignty‖ that the Nation State of Hawai‗i is vying for
comes in the form of full independence from the U.S. government. Christine
Donnelly, a journalist for The Honolulu Advertiser and project coordinator for olo
I Mua, the Hawaiian Roundtable discussion on Hawaiian Sovereignty, describes
how ―[Supporters of full independence] reason that the 1959 vote for Hawai‗i
statehood was invalid and believe the United States should recognize and support
reinscription of Hawai‗i on the United Nations List of Non-Self-Governing
Territories eligible for decolonization,‖64 which would in turn open up discussion
for the creation of a completely independent Nation.

Kanahele states that, as the Head of State and public representative of the Nation
State of Hawai‗i, ―I believe in independence, I believe [the U.S.] stole Hawai‗i,
and that it is a crime to steal anyplace in the world…We cannot forget the
violation they did…because that violation, under international law, allows us

61
Ibid.
62
Ibid.
63
Dennis Kanahele, ―Voices on Sovereignty: Sovereignty is Coming Soon,‖ Honolulu Advertiser, October
11, 1994: A12, http://www.cwis.org/fwdp/Oceania/5_essay.txt (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).
64
Donnelly, ―Holo I Mua,‖ Supp1.

359
 intersections Winter 2009

restoration of our government.‖65 Steve Toyama, the Nation State of Hawai‗i‘s

Head of Security, further explained that ―[The U.S.] cannot annex by internal
‗resolution‘ nor make a territory or a state from something illegally taken. This
is the crux of our argument…[Our organizations has been advised] that under
International Law we can restore our independent nation-state in any form we
wish and need not ask anybody but ourselves for permission.‖66

Those who are in full support of the Nation State of Hawai‗i reach numbers near
to 7,000 citizens67 and native Hawaiians as well as non-natives are invited to offer
support. Kanahele sites one of the most common misconceptions about his pro-
independence organization is that non-native Hawaiians would no longer be
welcome or offered citizenship in the sovereign nation. ―However, this fear is
truly unfounded…Those non-Hawaiian residents who wish to become citizens in
the nation will share the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, like any other
country…There are many innocent people of all nationalities who care deeply
about Hawai‗i. It is our responsibility to care for all these people, protect them,
and include them as we develop our Country.‖68 Like other nations, the Nation
State of Hawai‗i makes no blood-quantum requirement for citizenship, and
allows full citizenship to those who are not native Hawaiians but who are
permanent residents of the Nation.

Development for this Nation has already been underway as the group, under its
former name the ‗Ohana Council, publicly announced its Proclamation of
Restoration on January 16, 1994, the 99th anniversary of the overthrow of Queen
Lili‗uokalani. The proclamation, which encompasses the entire Hawaiian
archipelago, reclaimed all land, waters, natural resources, and political status
that once belonged to the Hawaiian Kingdom. 69 It also sites, in accordance with
both previous Kingdom documentation, and contemporary international laws,
that ―The Independent and Sovereign Nation of Hawai‗i will establish procedures
for according citizenship by means of naturalization to all people who are habitual
residents of Hawai‗i as of today‘s date.‖ (emphasis added) 70

Furthermore, not only was the Proclamation of Restoration drafted and ratified,
but the Nation State of Hawai‗i has already ratified a Constitution as well, which
65
Ibid.
66
Steve Toyama, e-mail to Amanda Pacheco, September 30, 2005.
67
Matsunaga, A1.
68
Kanahele, A12.
69
The Provisional Government of the Independent Nation State of Hawai‗i. ―Proclamation‖
70
Kanahele, A12.

360
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

was made public on January 16, 1995, the 100th year anniversary of the
overthrow. The Constitution of the Nation State of Hawai‗i lists first the history
of subjugation of the native Hawaiian people, and then begins its Chapters and
Articles which include, but is not limited to, sections on: 71

• Equal Protection of all citizens within the Nation

• The Business of the Nation, both internally and internationally
• Instructions on the formation of a Citizens‘ Assembly to represent
the people
• The powers of the different bodies of government.

In keeping with native Hawaiian culture and tradition, the Constitution also
lays the foundation of Nā Kūpuna Council, a council of elders to help with the
affairs of running the government. Nā Kūpuna Council would be the
equivalent to, but not in substitution of, advisors to the President of America. 72
Furthermore:

While the Constitution is based on the ―inherent sovereignty‖ of Kanaka

Maoli people and is designed to protect and perpetuate the culture and
rights of the original people of these islands, at the same time it is an
inclusive document that recognizes the unique multi-cultural heritage of
modern Hawai‗i, and provides for citizenship and participation in
government for all the inhabitants of the [Nation State of Hawai‗i].73

Aside from a Proclamation and a Constitution, Kanahele sites ‗patience‘ as a

fundamental aspect of obtaining sovereignty for the Nation State of Hawai‗i:

[We were] the rowdiest group [in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement],
so if anybody would make trouble, it would have been us…[but] we‘ve
learned you don‘t have to fight [the government]. We just have to have
patience, and we have to educate each other, and we have to be
concerned about the non-Hawaiians as well as our own people as we
develop this process.74

One of current concerns for Kanahele and the organization is getting inter-
national acknowledgment by as many nations as possible, as a prerequisite for
71
The Provisional Government of the Independent Nation State of Hawai‗i. ―Nation‖.
72
Ibid.
73
Kanahele, A12.
74
Joan Beecher, ―Series on Hawaiian Sovereignty: What‘s Next?‖ Voice of America, November 15 1996:
#4-09460.

361
 intersections Winter 2009

acceptance to the United Nations.75 In 2005, Kanahele tried to rally his fellow
sovereignty movement leaders in endorsing his call to retake ‗Iolani Palace.
Unfortunately, no responses were received. However, in an interview with
Kanahele by SPASIFIK Magazine, a publication for New Zealand‘s Pacific Islander
and Maori communities, the Nation State of Hawai‗i leader stated firmly, ―It is
time…for us to take our seat of government back. Then we can gather there, in
the footsteps of our ancestors, to decide on our pathway back to
independence.‖76

The Hawaiian Kingdom Government

I t is difficult to determine a specific year that the Hawaiian Kingdom

Government began, as this particular organization operates on the premise
that the original Hawaiian Kingdom never actually stopped existing and the
organization is simply a continuation of that government in exile. 77 What is clear
is that it wasn‘t until 1995, when Keanu Sai and an associate embarked publicly
claimed the Hawaiian Kingdom Government as an organization. Finding its
beginnings as a co-partnership firm attempting to register with the proper
governmental organization for operation rights, The Perfect Title Company, led
by Sai, petitioned for registration under the annexed Hawaiian Kingdom.
According to rules set forth by both international law and the Constitution of the
Kingdom of Hawai‗i, in the absence of a governmental body present for the
registration, The Perfect Title Company could serve in the acting position of the
Regent or Council of Regency of the Hawaiian Kingdom until a permanent
Regent or Council of Regency could be elected by a legally constituted
Legislative Assembly.78

How this came to be is quite complicated, but in theory, according to the

Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawai‗i, the organization – the Hawaiian
Kingdom Government – was established when the true government officials of
the Kingdom were in absentia. By registering the Perfect Title Company as a

75
Wood, 11.
76
Gretchen Kelly, ―Hui Pu: Hawaiians Unifying for Independence?‖ SPASIFIK Magazine,
(September/October 2005) [page number unavailable, ed.].
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/C1126750129/E20050922123842/index.html (accessed Jan. 14,
2009).
77
The Hawaiian Kingdom Government, ―Government Re-established‖,
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/govt-reestablished.shtml (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).
78
The Hawaiian Kingdom Government, ―The Establishment of the First Co-partnership Firm under
Kingdom Law since 1853‖, http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/govt-reestablished.shtml (accessed Jan.
14, 2009)

362
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

corporation under the Hawaiian Constitution, the Perfect Title Company

registered another co-partnership firm which it called the Hawaiian Kingdom
Trust Company. This second company then became the acting body for the
Hawaiian Government through the process of ascension under Hawaiian
Kingdom Law, elected acting officials to the acting Council of Regency, elected
Sai, a scholar of international law, as acting Regent, and became the Hawaiian
Kingdom Government until such a time as the absent government can
reconvene.79

According to Sai, all of this hinges on how one defines the term ‗sovereignty.‘
Following Black‘s Law Dictionary, Sai cites sovereignty as ‗supreme authority‘
over the territory of an independent state.80 Therefore, sovereignty is a legal
construct, while the government of an independent state is the agent that
exercises this sovereignty. According to this definition then, governments are not
sovereign and, as they are not the sovereign entity, can be legally or illegally
overthrown, while the sovereignty of the state can remain.

To put it plainly, the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom, according to the

Hawaiian Kingdom Government, never ended. Governments can be altered
through constitutional means, internal revolt or by sanctioned foreign
intervention, but the sovereignty of a recognized State, under international law,
can only be affected through the consented merger with another sovereign state,
political and social dismemberment in accordance with international law, or as the
result of internal revolt.81

Sai took his case, and the assertion that he was the acting Regent of the Hawaiian
Kingdom Government, to the World Court of Arbitration in 1999, by way of a
minor dispute which originated on the Big Island of Hawai‗i. Before the Court,
he argued that ―when a nation, such as the United States, has a treaty with
another nation, such as the Kingdom of Hawai‗i, the United States cannot impose
its own domestic laws.‖82 Which is to say that it‘s illegal (by way of the
established treaties) for one country to go to another country and overthrow the

79
Ibid.
80
David Keanu Sai. ―The American Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom: Beginning the Transition from
Occupied to Restored State,‖ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawai‗i, 2008): 7,
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/pdf/Dissertation(Sai).pdf, (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).
81
Ibid., 8-10.
82
Anne Keala Kelly, ―Kingdom Come,‖ Honolulu Weekly, April 18-24, 2001: 11,
http://www.alohaquest.com/arbitration/news_honoluluweekly_010418.htm (accessed Jan. 14,
2009).

363
 intersections Winter 2009

government of that country just because it has the military and economic might
to do so.

Furthermore, Sai also points out that the United States annexed Hawai‗i through
the passage of a joint resolution, which was signed into law by President
McKinley in 1898. However, as a general rule in American jurisprudence, the
U.S. legislative branch – the Congress – does not have treaty making powers.
This power belongs solely to the Senate when in executive session. Congress‘s
legislative powers are limited to the territory of the United States. In other
words, because the joint resolution that purported to annex the Hawaiian Nation
was made without proper legal ratification under U.S. law, there could have
been no cession of territorial sovereignty recognizable under international law.

Although the World Court refused to rule in the case due to the absence of the
United States at the hearings,83 the Hawaiian Kingdom Government remains
convinced of its position that the Hawaiian Kingdom is still very much in
existence, particularly since under the laws of occupation, the United States, as
the occupier, must administer the laws of the occupied State whether the
organization gets diplomatic recognition or not.84 In the eyes of the Hawaiian
Kingdom Government, the lapse of time between the illegal overthrow and the
21st century means nothing more under international law than that the United
States has held Hawai‗i under prolonged occupation. ―We already have
sovereignty…We are working to end the occupation.‖85

Because the Hawaiian Kingdom Government functions in the absence of the

lawful Hawaiian Kingdom government, the form of sovereignty they endorse is
full independence from the United States. The difference between this form of
absolute independence and other forms supported by sovereignty movement
organizations is that the Hawaiian Kingdom Government is not working towards
establishing a new nation, but rather is trying to re-establish an already existing
nation. With this in mind, the primary objective of the Hawaiian Kingdom
Government is cited as exposing the occupation of the rightful Hawaiian Nation,
as well as providing a catalyst for the transition and the ultimate end of the
occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.86

83
The Permanent Court of Arbitration, ―Lance Paul Larson v. The Hawaiian Kingdom,‖ Arbitration
Award: 35, http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/LHKAward.PDF (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).
84
Sai, ―The American Occupation‖, 186.
85
Kelly, ―Kingdom Come‖, 11.
86
The Hawaiian Kingdom Government, ―The Chairman‘s Welcome,‖ http://www.hawaiiankingdom.
org/index.shtml, (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).

364
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

After this transition takes place, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government intends to
continue overseeing governmental affairs for the nation until such a date as the
people of the Hawaiian Kingdom can elect an appropriate leader. For now, the
government will continue to be overseen by the acting Regent and Council, as
they are under the firm belief that an election of a Monarch is presently
premature.87

Aside from leadership roles, the Constitution followed by the Hawaiian Kingdom
Government also provides the groundwork for who will be granted citizenship in
the Kingdom. The number of citizens currently enrolled in the Hawaiian
Kingdom Government comes directly from the government census conducted in
the Kingdom in 1890, in addition to anyone born in the Hawaiian Islands prior to
August 12, 1898, the date of the second American occupation. 88 Using this
information, as well as recent Hawaiian population statistics taken in 1990,
calculations can be made which would estimate the number of Hawaiian subjects
(both native and non-native) presently existing in the islands as compared to the
foreign national population. Thus, the number of subjects the Hawaiian
Kingdom Government considers as citizenry is a minimum of 164,225. 89

The Constitution of the Kingdom, however, also provides the stipulations as to

who can become citizens:

States who regained their former independence are called restored

States, and as these States are not new there would be no need to
redefine a new body of citizens, but rather utilize the laws that existed
before the occupation to determine the citizenry…The Hawaiian
citizenry of today is comprised of descendants of Hawaiian subjects and
those foreigners who were born in the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1898.
This exclusion of the Hawaiian citizenry is based upon precedence and
law, but a restored Hawaiian government does have the authority to
widen the scope of its citizenry and adopt a more inclusive model in the
aftermath of prolonged American Occupation.90

87
David Keanu Sai, ―The Vision of the acting Council of Regency,‖ Focus on Hawaiian History: 2,
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Acting_Council_of_Regency.pdf, (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).
88
David Keanu Sai, ―Hawaiian Nationality: Who Comprises the Hawaiian Citizenry?‖ Focus on Hawaiian
History: 1-2, http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Hawaiian_Nationality.pdf, (accessed Jan. 14,
2009).
89
The Hawaiian Kingdom Government. ―Hawaiian Subjects in the Islands Estimated at a Minimum 164,
225.‖ The Polynesian (October 2000): 1.
90
Sai, ―Hawaiian Nationality‖, 1-2.

365
 intersections Winter 2009

This also allows, therefore, that citizenry be offered to anyone born in Hawai‗i,
not just those of native Hawaiian blood. Furthermore, these non-native citizens,
much like non-native citizens in the latter part of the 1800‘s, are allowed the
benefits of full citizenship, including voting rights and the option of running for
political office.91

All legal decisions for the organization are made in accordance with the
Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawai‗i, which is, as stated earlier, still
considered the lawful and just Constitution of Hawai‗i. ―[The Constitution of
1864] still has legal effect in the Hawaiian Kingdom, due to Article 78, which
provides that, ―laws now in force in this Kingdom, shall continue and remain in
full effect, until altered or repealed by the Legislature; such parts only excepted
as are repugnant to this Constitution. All laws heretofore enacted, or that may
hereafter be enacted, which are contrary to this Constitution, shall be null and
void.‖92

Aside from their Constitution, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government sites as one
of its articles of reference the Strategic Plan of the acting Council of Regency. Made
up of three phases, the Strategic Plan serves as a guide for the organization and
was developed in order to address the long-term occupation of Hawai‗i, and the
effects of that occupation on the politics, economics, and mentalities of the
native Hawaiian population and the national population of Hawai‗i as a whole, as
well as the international community. The three phases of the Strategic Plan are
as follows:93

1) Verification of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State and a

subject of International Law

2) Exposure of Hawaiian Kingdom Statehood within the framework of

international law and the laws of occupation as it affects the realm of
politics and economics at both the international and domestic levels

3) Restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State and a

subject of International Law

91
Ibid.
92
The Hawaiian Kingdom Government, ―Constitutional History,‖
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/constitutional-history.shtml, (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).
93
The Hawaiian Kingdom Government, ―Strategic Plan of the acting Council of Regency,‖ 6
http://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/HK_Strategic_Plan.pdf, (accessed Jan. 14, 2009)

366
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

Currently, Sai places the Hawaiian Kingdom Government in phase two. ―The
exposure phase…is clearly education. And as such, we need to understand the
terminology associated with prolonged occupation…Hawai‗i can‘t be
decolonized if it was never colonized, but Hawai‗i can be de-occupied because it
is presently occupied. Phase two of the strategic plan will expose the occupation
in order for the de-occupation to begin.‖94

So what exactly are Sai and the Hawaiian Kingdom Government working
towards?

Queen Lili‗uokalani protested [annexation] at home and in Washington,

D.C., and entered into an estoppel agreement with President Grover
Cleveland, wherein the president asked the queen effectively to pardon
the traitors who were calling themselves the provisional government. In
return for this, the United States would support the reinstatement of the
Hawaiian monarchy. She agreed; however, to this day, the United
States has not lived up to its end of the agreement.95

The Hawaiian Kingdom Government is seeking recognition and the

implementation of this agreement, and will continue to function as the true
government of the Hawaiian Kingdom until such a time comes to pass.

Putting Theories into Practice

Queen Lili‗uokalani, the last reigning monarch of the Hawaiian Kingdom, was
certainly an activist for native Hawaiian sovereignty. As evidenced in many
native Hawaiian newspapers of her time, she was naturally one of the first to
formally oppose annexation and was an extremely passionate supporter of her
people.96 As shown by the varying theories offered by the organizations
presented in the previous section, sovereignty for Hawai‗i in the current day and
age can mean many things. Whatever the theory, however, sovereignty clearly
would entail continuing the fight of Hawai‗i‘s beloved Queen.

94
David Keanu Sai, E-mail to Amanda Pacheco, October 12, 2005.
95
Kelly, ―Kingdom Come‖, 11.
96
Silva, Aloha betrayed, 5.

367
 intersections Winter 2009

―‗Onipa‗a kākou,‖ Lili‗uokalani‘s call to both native and non-native Hawaiian

residents to remain steadfast in times of struggle, was a sentiment she believed
in, and it remains in wide use today by Hawaiian sovereignty activists.97
Unfortunately, much like Lili‗uokalani a century ago, the current Hawaiian
sovereignty movement has come up against many obstacles in its nearly four
decades of activism. Some of the obstacles facing the three sovereignty
organization in particular will be covered in this section. Specifically, the key
concepts under discussion are: 1) The practicality and feasibility of the theories
and methods of achieving sovereignty put forth by each organization; and 2) The
probability that these proposals for sovereignty would be supported by the
Hawaiian public and the U.S. government.

By taking a closer look at three organizations – Ka Lāhui Hawai‗i, The

Provisional Government of the Independent Nation State of Hawai‗i, and The
Hawaiian Kingdom Government – and by exploring and fleshing out these key
ideas, it is the hope that the reader will gain a wider breadth of knowledge as to
what the sovereignty movement needs to achieve in order to fully realize its goals
and regain what was once taken from the Hawaiian people.

Practicality and Feasibility

I ask here the important question of whether or not the proposals of each
organization are in fact proposals which could be successfully implemented to
achieve sovereignty. This includes examining whether or not the organization
has a cohesive explanation of how a new government and new nation would be
created, and if these explanations address issues from realistic political,
economic, social perspectives. Is the proposed idea for sovereignty something
that the people would theoretically support? Why or why not? And finally,
should the organization be successful in achieving sovereignty for Hawai‗i, has it
considered where the new nation would go?
Ka Lāhui Hawai‘i

―The drafting of a constitution which incorporates traditional, cultural and

spiritual values and practices with current processes and which can be altered to
accommodate the need of the indigenous people to change,‖98 is cited as one of

97
The Queen Lili‗uokalani Trust, ―Deed of Trust,‖ http://www.onipaa.org/4.html, (accessed Jan. 14,
2009).
98
Haunani-Kay Trask, From a native daughter, 215.

368
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

Ka Lāhui Hawai‗i‘s major accomplishments. In terms of practicality, this offers

an overview of Ka Lāhui‘s Constitution, which states that the organization has
successfully bridged native Hawaiian culture with aspects of contemporary
practices. In fact, Ka Lāhui‘s Constitution is believed by many, including one of
the organizations founding members Haunani-Kay Trask, to be the most
comprehensive plan for the attainment of Hawaiian sovereignty that any
organization has yet devised.99 This plan and Constitution, named Ho‟okupu a ka
Lāhui Hawai„i, was purportedly the first step an organization had ever taken to
pro-actively tackle both questions of feasibility and practicality, and bring those
two concepts together coherently in one document that laid the foundation for
the creation of a new Hawaiian nation. Broken down, what Ka Lāhui has done is
to create somewhat of a blueprint, both clear and public, for what they propose
for sovereignty.

For example, Section III of Ho‟okupu a ka Lāhui Hawai„i, entitled ―Dealing with
the United States‖ highlights its main points as being:100

• The Evolution of the United States Policy Relating to Hawai„i and its
Indigenous People: Here, Ka Lāhui lays out the basis for their
argument for sovereignty, citing treaties and international policies
that the United States had with the Kingdom of Hawai‗i, and has
violated by continued colonization.

• The Current Policy of the United States Towards Hawaiians: The Policy of
Non-Recognition, Denial, and State Wardship: Ka Lāhui provides
evidence for the claim that continued colonization of Hawai‗i has
been detrimental to native Hawaiians.

• Ka Lāhui Hawai„i‟s Position Regarding United States Policy: The

organization rejects the illegal and continued actions of United
States policies regarding native Hawaiians, accepts the Apology Bill
offered by the United States, and begins a proposal for
reconciliation.

This third notation regarding reconciliation is where Ka Lāhui will have to argue
their case of practicality and feasibility. According to this section, reconciliation
for Ka Lāhui will bring about final resolutions to the overthrow, misuse of native

99
Ibid., 74.
100
Ibid., 216-221.

369
 intersections Winter 2009

land trusts, violations of human and civil rights of Hawai‗i residents, and will
require the U.S. to recognize Ka Lāhui as the legal and governmental
representative for the Hawaiian people.101 ―Probably the most controversial
point in Ka Lāhui‘s bill is a commitment from the United States to decolonize
Hawai‗i through the United Nations process for non-self-governing
territories…Decolonization is seen by many as an extreme move that will
receive little federal support.‖102 However, Mililani Trask has stated that she
thinks achieving sovereignty is ―very feasible, and I think the appropriate way to
pursue it is through…a multifaceted approach and strategic plan for moving the
issue of federal recognition and status through the U.S. Congress.‖ 103

By endorsing federal recognition, Ka Lāhui takes a position that perhaps offers

the most practical avenue for achieving sovereignty: engaging the United States
as well as international bodies in the discussion, and allowing the colonizing
power to be included in debates that will eventually result in a decision made by
that power. Ka Lāhui has also stated that, after the initial phase in which the
organization will assume leadership of the new nation, the new government will
hold a democratic election in which citizens of the nation will be able to elect
their own representatives to serve in office.104

Aside from actions outlining what sovereignty would mean for Hawai‗i, Ka
Lāhui‘s Constitution also offers suggestions for economic and educational
development programs that would form the support system of the new nation
brought about by decolonization by the United States.105 Both feasible and
practical, Ka Lāhui proposes that, once the United States honors the reparations
package and native land trusts are once again under native Hawaiian control, the
nation will have sole jurisdiction over revenues received from those land trusts,
and will use such revenues (such as taxes from lands leased to the United States)
―in order to support economic initiatives for housing, employment, education,
and the development of [the nations] own businesses and those of its citizens.‖ 106

So, while Ka Lāhui may seemingly be asking the United States for a lot, the
avenues that the organization is taking in order to bring about sovereignty and

101
Ibid., 222-223.
102
Pat Omandam, ―Bills drawn outlining status of Hawaiians,‖ Honolulu Star-Bulletin, June 21, 2000, A4.
103
Donnelly, ―Holo I Mua‖, Supp1.
104
Mililani B. Trask, ―Ka Lāhui Hawaii‖, 5-6.
105
Haunani-Kay Trask, From a native daughter, 232.
106
Ibid., 233.

370
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

change in Hawai‗i are arguable very practical and feasible. Boasting upwards of
23,000 adult members,107 one could infer that more than 23,000 people agree.

The Provisional Government of the Independent Nation State of Hawai‘i

It is time…for us to take our seat of government back. Then we can

gather there, in the footsteps of our ancestors, to decide on our pathway
back to independence.108

For Kanahele and other members of The Provisional Government of the

Independent Nation State of Hawai‗i, native Hawaiians are justified in their
desire to take their government back from the United States. Still, other
members of the sovereignty movement are skeptical about the practicality,
feasibility, and perhaps reasonability of the practices the Nation State of Hawai‗i
has, and therefore, ―[Kanahele‘s] call for a recapture of [‗Iolani Palace] has not yet
been endorsed by the entire coalition.‖109

However, regaining this political seat isn‘t the only plan Kanahele‘s group has for
beginning to pro-actively seek nationhood. In fact, Kanahele may be a perfect
example of proof that independence is within the grasp of all native Hawaiians.
In a place called Pu‗uhonua o Waimānalo, on the island of O‗ahu, Kanahele and
other sovereignty supporters have planted the seeds of the self-proclaimed
Nation of Hawai‗i. In this village, there are more than two-dozen dwellings
occupying the sloping foot of the Ko‗olau Mountains, where villagers work in
restored taro paddies and drive cars that carry Nation of Hawai‗i license plates.
An estimated 60 to 80 citizens populate Pu‗uhonua, where children are educated
on-site, and much of what is used on the premises is either produced there or
donated, making it an almost completely self-sustaining township. The land
itself is leased from the state as part of an 55-year agreement between the two
organizations to ―get rid of a 200-resident tent city‖ the group had used to occupy
beachfront, as well as to put an end to members passing out leaflets on the
beaches of Waikīkī asking non-native Hawaiian tourists to leave the islands. 110

―Kanahele‘s nation [numbering around 7,000 citizens, both within Pu‗uhonua

and elsewhere] has adopted a constitution, claimed the right to try a federal
fugitive, and embarked on an education campaign that blends radical politics,

107
Donnelly, ―Holo I Mua‖, Supp1.
108
Kelly, ―Hui Pu‖, [page number unavailable, ed.].
109
Ibid.
110
Wood, ―Hawaii‘s Search for Sovereignty‖, 10.

371
 intersections Winter 2009

right-wing economics, and Hawaiian [culture].‖111 Through this the Nation State
of Hawai‗i has at least begun to show that independence is possible through their
organization, arguably much more convincingly than other organizations have at
this time.

Unfortunately, some sovereignty activists and leaders are convinced Kanahele

and the somewhat radical nature of his organization are less practical than they
may seem. Mililani Trask has previously stated that, ―Everything [Kanahele‘s]
done has been detrimental to sovereignty. His approach has been to basically tap
into the [U.S. State] system by using sovereignty as an excuse to avoid
responsibility.‖112 Others, such as pro-sovereignty leader Kekuni Blaisdell,
worry that the groups‘ previous ―tourists-go-home‖ tactics could discredit the
sovereignty movement as a whole, as well as cause those who are on the fence to
shy away from supporting native Hawaiian causes. 113

The Nation State of Hawai‗i, unlike Ka Lāhui Hawai‗i, has not offered a
comprehensive and detailed public plan for actually going about achieving
sovereignty. The organization gained control of Pu‗uhonua o Waim ānalo Village
through an agreement with the State for the lease of that land, but the
organization has not yet breached the subject of attempting an agreement with
the United States for control over Hawai‗i as a whole. While the organization
offers validation that its methods have worked in the past, it has not offered a
plan of what those methods are and how it will play out on a federal and
international level.

Yet the Nation State of Hawai‗i remains convinced of its ability to achieve
sovereignty, and has continued to discuss several practical provisions for the
success of a sovereign nation in educational lectures given by Kanahele
throughout the State of Hawai‗i. Kanahele is also CEO of Aloha First, a native
Hawaiian owned and operated non-profit organization whose purpose is ―to
facility the development of a comprehensive blueprint and roadmap for Native
Hawaiian reconciliation and restitution, and to provide support, guidance,
programs, services, for the business and asset formations required to make it all
happen and keep it all moving forward.‖114

111
Matsunaga, ―The Birth of a Nation in Pu‗uhonua‖, A1.
112
Ibid., A1.
113
Wood, ―Hawaii‘s Search for Sovereignty‖, 10.
114
―About Aloha First,‖ http://www.alohafirst.com/about.html, (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).

372
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

In addition to the group declaring independence from the United States in 1994,
and continuing to live as an independent nation in Pu‗uhonua, Kanahele and
other members of the group have devised an economic plan for the Nation State
of Hawai‗i. ―We could take advantage of our unique global position in the center
of the Pacific Rim, controlling our 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone, and
becoming a center for international trade and development of global ethical
banking, while…investing in the diversification of our local economy with
innovative community based projects for meaningful employment and self-
sufficiency.‖115 This plan, however, seems almost theoretically impossible, and
the Nation State of Hawai‗i has yet to put into practice, support by way of
action, or explain the position of the United States in this proposal for partial
Pacific Rim control.

A much more viable option for an economic base, however, can be found in
Kanahele‘s support for the creation of a Native Hawaiian Bank, owned and
operated by native Hawaiians, which will initially provide the majority of, if not
all, financial and economic support for native Hawaiian programs that are
currently poorly funded by the federal government. This practical, and arguably
feasible plan will eventually provide the initial economic base for the new nation,
should the group achieve the form of sovereignty they propose.116

The Hawaiian Kingdom Government

The Hawaiian Kingdom Government tackles the idea of practicality through their
Strategic Plan, as previously discussed in the last section. The first phase of the
Strategic Plan states that the Hawaiian Kingdom Government‘s role is to achieve
―[v]erification of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State and a subject of
international law.‖117 The use of the term ―verification‖ implies that it is the
position of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government that, under international law,
Hawai‗i remains a kingdom still, and is therefore already sovereign. This is
unique in that it‘s the major basis for the entire organization; sovereignty isn‘t
simply a theoretical and idealistic goal, but it‘s the practical solution to an issue
within the international arena.

115
Kanahele, ―Voices on Sovereignty‖, A12.
116
Dennis Kanahele, ―Follow the Money: Native Hawaiian Economics,‖ http://bumpykanahele.
com/hawaiian_economics.php, (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).
117
The Hawaiian Kingdom Government, ―Strategic Plan,‖ 6.

373
 intersections Winter 2009

The second phase of the Strategic Plan is the ‖[e]xposure of Hawaiian Kingdom
Statehood within the framework of international law and the laws of occupation
as it affects the realm of politics and economics at both the international and
domestic levels.‖118 As a continuation of phase one, phase two speaks to the
education and public involvement required if the Hawaiian Kingdom
Government wishes to succeed. Rather than simply publicly protesting U.S.
occupation, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government is using education to make the
general public, much of whom aren‘t well-informed on the subject, more aware
of the international violations the U.S. has committed against the Nation of
Hawai‗i, and more importantly, what can and should be done about those
violations.

To prove the feasibility of sovereignty, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government has

gone as far as to file a complaint with the United Nations Security Council in
2001. The complaint was a request from the Hawaiian Kingdom Government to
the Security Council to ―investigate the Hawaiian Kingdom question, in
particular, the merits of the complaint, and to recommend appropriate
procedure or methods of adjustment.‖119 The complaint also gained media
coverage for, and called international attention to, the illegality of continued
U.S. occupation within the rightful Hawaiian Kingdom.

Phase three of the organizations plan to achieve sovereignty in a straightforward,

practical sense is akin to its end goal: ―The restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom
as an Independent State and a subject of International Law.‖120 From this phase
onward, the newly reinstated Government would take its place as a restored
State among the Nations, reactivate the Hawaiian Constitution as the operating
constitution, and continue to decide Hawai‗i‘s position in the international arena
and its relationships with other Nations through the de jure government already
operating as the Hawaiian Kingdom Government.

Chair of the Council of Regency and acting Minister of the Interior of the Nation
of Hawai‗i according to the Hawaiian Kingdom Government, Keanu Sai, has
shown how practical and feasible it is for the organization to attempt achieving
sovereignty by continuously engaging in the international arena. In 1997, Sai and
his organization sued President Clinton in the Supreme Court, ―asking the
justices to compel Clinton to honor the 1850 treaty between the Hawaiian

118
Ibid., 6.
119
Ibid., 9.
120
Ibid., 6.

374
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

Kingdom and the United States,‖121 which, had he succeeded, would have set a
precedent for the people of Hawai‗i to operate under a Kingdom Government
once more. Then, in 1999, a citizen who claimed that the Hawaiian Kingdom
Government failed to protect him against legal action taken by Hawai‗i State
police took the Hawaiian Kingdom Government before the Permanent Court of
Arbitration. The Kingdom took the position that they were unable to protect
him due to United States law.122

However, the practicality of The Hawaiian Kingdom Government has been

challenged, specifically by anti-sovereignty scholar and former Office of
Hawaiian Affairs trustee candidate, Kenneth Conklin. Conklin has stated that the
case taken to the Court of Arbitration was a ―fraudulent…use of the international
court at The Hague for a propaganda circus.‖123 Furthermore, although Sai has
succeeded in taking cases regarding the Hawaiian Kingdom to international
courts, he has yet to win a case, or gain substantial support from international
bodies that will force the United States into discussions about sovereignty.

Realistically speaking, while the law may be on the side of the Hawaiian
Kingdom, the United States is the most powerful government in the
international arena, and as such, has decisive power on any debates surrounding
the sovereignty of Hawai‗i. If the Hawaiian Kingdom Government is adamant
about achieving sovereignty, perhaps there needs to be a greater effort at
engaging the United States itself in these debates, instead of relying on
international law to force the U.S. into compliance.

However, although there are obviously some, like Conklin, who disagree
emphatically with the reasonableness of the politics of the Hawaiian Kingdom
Government, the international arena has in fact taken notice and has listened to
several of these cases. Sai considers this proof that sovereignty is possible.124

121
Rob Perez, ―Perfect Title Co-Founder Sues Clinton in High Court,‖ Honolulu Star-Bulletin, December
18, 1997: A1, http://www.hawaii-nation.org/mandamus-highcourt.html (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).
122
Lance Paul Larson v. The Hawaiian Kingdom Government, ―Memorial of the Hawaiian Kingdom
Government,‖ The Permanent Court of Arbitration: 1
http://www.alohaquest.com/arbitration/pdf/Memorial_Government.pdf (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).
123
Kenneth Conklin, ―Fraudulent Hague Arbitration – The Use of ‗the International Court at the Hague‘
for a Propaganda Circus,‖ http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/fraudhague.html
(accessed Jan. 14, 2009).
124
Perez, ―Perfect Title‖, A1.

375
 intersections Winter 2009

Probability

I now consider the issue of probability within each of the three organizations,
focusing on the methods used by the organizations to gain public support.
What are the organizations doing to rally more support for their particular model
of sovereignty? What are they doing to discourage support? What is the United
States position regarding the form of sovereignty proposed by each organization?
Now that we have examined the practicality and feasibility of each organization,
what is the probably that it will create a sustainable government?

Ka Lāhui Hawai‘i

As previously noted, Ka Lāhui numbers more than 23,000 members, and is the
consolidation of several grassroots sovereignty organizations which have joined
forces to create a strong, coherent option of government for Hawai‗i. Two key
figures and founding members in the movement are sisters Mililani and Haunani-
Kay Trask. Under their leadership, Ka Lāhui has become a faction of the
Hawaiian sovereignty movement much like a political party. They have
represented native Hawaiians in the World Council of Indigenous People‘s at the
United Nations, given lectures at universities around the country educating
people on Hawaiian affairs, and have also assisted in the organization of the initial
native Hawaiian vote for or against sovereignty.125

But high media coverage and an organization base within the University of
Hawai‗i system has lead Ka Lāhui members to suffer accusations of blatant racism
and discrimination in the past,126 which in turn may reflect unkindly on Ka Lāhui
by association. In fact, several news articles have been published which clearly
connect politically and culturally charged statements made by Haunani-Kay
Trask as being directly linked to the ideology of the sovereignty movement as a
whole, a mentality that, if strengthened, could lessen the probability of
sovereignty for the organization.

One of the strongest, and perhaps most far-fetched criticisms made concerning
Haunani-Kay Trask, Ka Lāhui, and the sovereignty movement (by association)
was leveled by conservative columnist Ryan O‘Donnell:

125
Speak Out, ―Hawaiian Sovereignty and Indigenous Rights,‖
http://www.speakoutnow.org/People/HaunaniKayTrask.html (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).
126
Ryan O‘Donnell, ―Hate America Professor,‖ FrontPageMagazine.com, June 25, 2003,
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={CE95A956-9158-4DFA-8ED9-
116843A010EA} (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).

376
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

Even more chilling than Professor Trask and her movement‘s vision of an
independent and racially segregated Hawai‗i, is their open sympathy for the
terrorists who murdered thousands on September 11th. Speaking to crowds
after the 9/11 attacks, Trask proclaimed, ‗Chickens have come home to roost.
. . . What it means is that those who have suffered under the imperialism and
militarism of the United States have come back to haunt in the 21st century that
same government…Why should we support the United States, whose hands
are soaked with blood?127

Almost in direct contrast to the complaints of racism against Ka Lāhui, by those

who do not support sovereignty in any form, are complaints and skepticism from
fellow sovereignty activists regarding the level of nationhood Ka Lāhui endorses.
According to Keali‘i Gora, Ka Lāhui Hawai‗i endorses a nation-within-a-nation
status much like Native Americans for the native Hawaiian nation. 128 Activists
like Bumpy Kanahele and other native Hawaiian factions, however, find nation-
within-a-nation status an unsatisfactory solution to a larger problem. According
to Kanahele:

[Agreeing to federal recognition] could be a trap…You know, that sticky trap

they catch all the rats inside?…That‘s what we feel we‘re walking into. Now
unless somebody can convince me that we will never lose the right to
independence, because there‘s no other example out there that has gone into a
nation-within-a-nation that came out an independent country [I won‘t endorse
federal recognition].129

If recent polling on the Akaka Bill, legislation currently under debate in the
Senate which would grant native Hawaiians a status much like Native Americans,
is any indication, federal recognition still remains widely unpopular among
Hawaiian residents, both native Hawaiian and non-native. According to a
statewide survey taken by the Grassroots Institute of Hawai‗i in 2005, there is a 2
to 1 ratio of opposition for federal recognition of a native Hawaiian nation, with
more than 60% of those polled disagreeing with the Bill.130 Unless the
organization can continue to distinguish its model of sovereignty form the one
proposed by the Akaka Bill, this mentality among Hawai‗i residents could prove
to lower the probability that Ka Lāhui Hawai‗i and their nation-within-a-nation
form of sovereignty has of succeeding.
127
Ibid.
128
Donnelly, ―Holo I Mua‖, Supp1.
129
Ibid.
130
Grassroots Institute of Hawai‗i, ―New Statewide Survey: 2 to 1 Oppose Akaka Bill,‖ July 14, 2005,
http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/Akaka/PollResultsLarge.htm (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).

377
 intersections Winter 2009

The Provisional Government of the Independent Nation State of Hawai‘i

Kanahele‘s group was at one point commonly thought to be one of the most
radical organizations in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, particularly after
the groups‘ occupation of a beachfront on O‗ahu before moving to Pu‗uhonua o
Waimānalo Village.131 However, Kanahele‘s organization sought out to achieve a
land base to begin a Hawaiian Nation, and as a result Pu‗uhonua o Waim ānalo
was formed. Whether or not this alludes to sovereignty being within reach for
Kanahele‘s group is anyone‘s guess.

Unfortunately, other well-known sovereignty activists such as Mililani Trask

distrust Kanahele‘s work, and have claimed that Kanahele and his organization do
not represent the majority of Hawaiians (though, to be fair, with 300 factions
operating in the sovereignty movement, it would be difficult to argue that any
one organization represents a majority of Hawaiians).132 Furthermore, in regards
to the Nation State of Hawai‗i fighting for full independence, Mililani Trask
states that, ―If we woke up tomorrow in an independent Hawai‗i, none of our
problems would have gone away…[Most Hawaiians] are not worried about
independence. They‘re worried about paying their bills.‖ 133 The former leader
of Ka Lāhui has also said that the declaration Kanahele‘s group made asserting
their independence from the United States was ―merely a statement, not a form
of government. At least three similar declarations have been issued [by other
groups] during the past 20 years, none of them resulting in any substantial change
for native Hawaiians.‖134 And although these statements may infer that
Kanahele‘s group will not gain the needed support by ―most Hawaiians,‖ such an
attack against the politics of the organization could also infer that the Nation
State of Hawai‗i has become a strong alternative to Ka Lāhui Hawai‗i in the
struggle over a form of sovereignty to represent a Hawaiian nation.

Aside from the criticisms of rival groups on the probabilities of the Nation State
of Hawai‗i gaining sovereignty, one must examine the actions such a group has or
has not taken, and what these could mean for the future of the organization. Of
the three organization included in this article, the Nation State of Hawai‗i has
arguably done the least to engage in the international arena, participating less

131
Wood, ―Hawaii‘s Search for Sovereignty‖, 10.
132
Burl Burlingame, ―10 Who Made a Difference in 1994,‖ Honolulu Star-Bulletin, January 2, 1995, A7,
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/10diff.html, (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).
133
James Podgers, ―Greetings from 'Independent' Hawaii,‖ ABA Journal 83 (1997): 74.
134
Jon Yoshishige, ―Group Declares Hawaiian Independence,‖ Honolulu Advertiser, January 17, 1994, A1,
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/procart.html (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).

378
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

often in indigenous affairs in the United Nations, as well as gaining little publicity
for Hawaiian affairs in international law. One of Mililani Trask‘s main critiques
of Kanahele‘s group is that it uses the state to further internal matters, while
ignoring what will gain sovereignty for the Hawaiian people: international
agencies.135

However, Kanahele has managed to create the foundation for an independent

Hawai‗i in Pu‗uhonua, and with it has begun to tackle the next step, what many
believe to be the crucial step, in maintaining a successful nation: the formation of
an economic base in the form of his proposal for the Native Hawaiian Bank. 136

Unfortunately, according to federal officials, when it comes to the official U.S.

position on Hawai‗i becoming the independent nation Kanahele claims it will:

There is nothing the president, Congress or any federal agency can do to

allow Hawai‗i to secede from the union and be led by a native Hawaiian
government…The only way that could occur is if two-thirds of the 50
states voted to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow the secession…But
that‘s an unlikely scenario at best…137

Although the Nation State of Hawai‗i may have a proposal for an economic base
of a Hawaiian Nation, they have yet to make public the initial step of a
comprehensive plan for achieving that Nation.

The Hawaiian Kingdom Government

If the Nation State of Hawai‗i avoids the international arena to a point where it
could harm their politics, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government may do the exact
opposite. The organization, which operates in an official capacity as though the
Hawaiian Kingdom were still in effect, fights its battle for independence
completely in the international arena, using international law as its biggest
supporter.

Acting Minister of the Interior, Keanu Sai, has stated that, ―the important issue
between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States is really that of an

135
Matsunaga, ―The Birth of a Nation in Pu‗uhonua‖, A1.
136
Kanahele, ―Follow the Money‖.
137
Pat Omandam, ―Official: Hawaiian independence unlikely,‖ Honolulu Star-Bulletin, December 11,
1999: A3, http://archives.starbulletin.com/1999/12/11/news/story4.html (accessed Jan. 14,
2009).

379
 intersections Winter 2009

international dispute, dealing with treaties. We‘re talking [about the

recognition] of these treaty violations [to begin] working towards reconciliation
and possible reparations.‖138 Because the Kingdom operates at a completely
international level, it is Sai‘s position that ―Laws passed by Congress affect the
other 49 states but not Hawai‗i, because Hawai‗i remains a nation with standing
among other nations and was never part of the U.S….In pleadings and oral
arguments before the international court, the United States, in its occupation of
Hawai‗i, has violated international law by administering its laws instead of
kingdom laws.‖139 Sai remains convinced of the probable success of reclaiming
the Hawaiian Kingdom with the law on his side.

An interesting note of support for his claim is the award issued by the Permanent
Court of Arbitration at The Hague, at which Sai represented and defended the
Hawaiian Kingdom Government against legal action taken by a self-proclaimed
―Hawaiian Kingdom citizen.‖ The courts went so far in their award as to
acknowledge the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, under
international law, regardless of a century of U.S. occupation. 140
Unfortunately for the organization, however, due to the United States‘ refusal to
recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom Government as a legal body to which the
lawsuit was applicable, and because it was not a party to the immediate lawsuit,
the Court of Arbitration could not conduct a hearing on the matter of Hawaiian
national independence.141 This brings to the foreground the reality that the
United States has the power to decide the fate of Hawai‗i, and therefore must be
addressed as the political entity in control of the State of Hawai‗i rather than
simply an obstacle taking illegal actions against a sovereign kingdom.

The probability of the organizations‘ success may also prove doubtful when it one
considers that the Hawaiian Kingdom Government has brought several claims
before U.S. and World Courts in previous years, and each case has been
overturned, denied, or ruled in favor of the opposing argument. For example,
when on behalf of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government Sai attempted to sue

138
David Keanu Sai, ―Supreme Court, International Courts,‖
http://www.alohaquest.com/scripts/supreme_court_international.htm (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).
139
Lester Chang, ―Kingdom advocates predict World Court victory,‖ The Garden Island, February 4,
2001: page number unavailable,
http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2001/02/05/news/export5974.txt (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).
140
The Hawaiian Kingdom Government, ―Arbitral Award Verifies Continued Existence of Hawaiian
Kingdom,‖ The Polynesian Feb. 2001: 2
http://www.alohaquest.com/arbitration/news_polynesian_0102.htm (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).
141
The Permanent Court of Arbitration, ―Lance Paul Larson v. The Hawaiian Kingdom,‖ Arbitration
Award: 44, http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/LHKAward.PDF (accessed Jan. 14, 2009).

380
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

former President Bill Clinton, the Supreme Court‘s action came in a one-line
order stating that Sai‘s petition for a writ of mandamus was denied, due to the
inability of the courts to recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom Government as a
nation, as it still existed within the United States.142

The question remains as to whether engaging in the international arena is enough

to ensure the realization of sovereignty. The Hawaiian Kingdom Government
has shown by example that, as legal scholarship follows that Hawai‗i has never
relinquished control over its sovereignty to the United States, there can be no
legal justification for the century that the United States has remained in power in
Hawai‗i. In light of this, one can propose that what first must happen, before an
organization such as this can gain its full momentum in order to actively and
successful achieve sovereignty, is that it must deal with the legal issues of
nationhood and self-determination within the boundaries of the United States
and their occupation. Although Sai may be of the impression that Hawai‗i can‘t
be decolonized because it was never actually colonized (though it is currently
occupied) one arguably cannot simply bypass state and federal laws and deal
directly with international laws. Perhaps the United States is simply too
powerful for that in this day and age.

The Obstacle Facing Sovereignty Initiatives

A side from the challenges each organization faces on an individual level – be

it debates over principles, issues of representations, conflict over methods,
etc. – there is one challenge that most movement activists and participants can
agree on: the need for more support and unity.143 According to Keali‘i Gora,
―Ka Lāhui and [other sovereignty organizations] are really calling upon all
Hawaiians to unite. And we really believe that it‘s time for us to put down our
spears and come together, stand in solidarity, and seize this tremendous
opportunity. This is a once in a lifetime chance for us to build this nation by
uniting our people.‖144

The people of Hawai‗i, however, have concerns of their own that call into
question the practicality, feasibility and probability of the sovereignty movement

142
Rob Perez, ―Court won‘t hear case of title firm‘s co-founder,‖ Honolulu Star-Bulletin, March 23, 1998:
page number unavailable, http://archives.starbulletin.com/98/03/23/news/index.html (accessed
Jan. 14, 2009).
143
Donnelly, ―Holo I Mua‖, Supp1.
144
Ibid.

381
 intersections Winter 2009

becoming a success. I include below some of the voices of the people of Hawai‗i
as they shuffle through the ideologies and theories, much like this article did, that
make up the Hawaiian sovereignty movement:145

“I support recognition, but not all of the movements‟ politics. It‟s calling for self-
governance and I don‟t agree with that. I also don‟t agree with native
Hawaiians trying to get the [U.S.] military out of Hawai„i. I absolutely
support OHA and I know a lot of organizations don‟t. Ka L āhui hasn‟t done
anything great really except unite Hawaiians and make them aware of
sovereignty issues. The Nation of Hawai„i began as one of the most radical
groups. They abandoned their cause to occupy ceded lands, refused to pay rent
and taxes, gave sanctuary to some other people that refused to pay taxes, and
[Kanahele] ultimately ended up in jail! This organizations...methods were not
justified and resulted in nothing.”
– native Hawaiian, 27

“There are too many organizations to choose from. And I don‟t particularly feel
like now is the time during which change can be effected—the world isn‟t ready
to accept and recognize us as an independent nation, and our people are not
ready or able to govern ourselves. I fully support the movement, though I agree
that it is not one movement, but rather separate entities pushing for variations of
one goal in different ways. It must become a unified fight if anything is to be
accomplished, and the movement itself lacks direction and people aren‟t sure what
they would be getting themselves into if they were involved.”
– native Hawaiian, 24

“I don‟t support the movement because it is too far to the [left], in most parts. I
feel Hawaiians should have some form of sovereignty though, maybe some sort of
government within a government. I feel they should have some compensation for
the land that was taken, be it financial or re-instatement of the land. I also feel
that Hawaiians should have some form of recognition from the U.S. But I think
the movement has too many groups though, and they are unable to agree on one

145
These interviews were conducted by the author, either by phone or email, between the months of July
and October, 2005. All participants are, or have been, residents of the state of Hawaii for a majority
of their lives, although some have recently moved out of the state. They are both native Hawaiians,
and non-native, as cited below their answers. All participants are the friends, family members,
colleagues or acquaintances of the author, and have given their permission to be included in this article.
This limited number of opinions is not meant to be representative of all members of the Hawaiian
community, but rather, simply offer a tiny glimpse into some of the attitudes present in Hawaii today
as regards the sovereignty movement.

382
Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

concept. The groups are pushing their own agendas instead of the agenda which
is best for all the Hawaiian people.”
– native Hawaiian, 50

“I don‟t [support the movement] because I‟m not convinced of its efficacy. I think
the feelings behind it are justified, but the organizations are too divided to bring
about constructive change. Radical groups that want complete independence from
the U.S. and banning of all foreigners do not have my support. I will support
groups that are not purely racist and have a comprehensible idea of how to restore
rights to Hawaiians and incorporate old ideals and ways to improve general
economic strife resulting from the capitalistic nature of the U.S.”
– non-native Hawaiian, 24

“I support sovereignty. I am a representative of my people. However, I‟m not

entirely supportive of the facilitators of the movement and their methods.
Currently, a lot of people running the show are misinforming those who
are/should be eligible to participate in a sovereign entity. I don‟t feel that a
race-based nation will benefit anyone. But I‟m all for an independent nation…I
don‟t think it‟s fitting for the people of Hawai„i to be governed by individuals
halfway around the world who can‟t even pronounce our name correctly.”
– native Hawaiian, 22

“I feel that sovereignty is a fight only for native Hawaiians. It‟s their right to
fight for what they think is right, and what they deserve. Other people can
empathize with them, but you have to be Hawaiian in order to fully understand
what it‟s like to lose something and then fight for it. That‟s a problem with the
movement, I think. Non-native Hawaiians don‟t feel they have the right to fight
with and for the cause.”
– non-native Hawaiian, 47

“I think sovereignty is a scary concept. Some people may feel that it‟s not needed,
but others may also feel that they‟ll lose everything once sovereignty happens. I
think the main thing is that people end up happy, and I‟m not sure sovereignty
can do that for everyone.”
– native Hawaiian, 24

“I think the struggle for sovereignty is futile. I think it‟s not a possibility, but an
ideal, and not much of an ideal at that, because no matter how much I agree
with the historic facts…I know that not only would any attempt to achieve our

383
 intersections Winter 2009

past government system be chaotic and dangerous, but the U.S. would simply
never let it happen. Sovereignty is impractical and unfeasible.”
– native Hawaiian, 24

“I believe the struggle for sovereignty is headed in the right direction, but have
witnessed too many instances of race discrimination between the native Hawaiians
and the „haoles‟ [non-natives]…I disagree with the kind of hatred portrayed by
the natives towards the whites in [sovereignty] meetings. I believe compromise is
the only answer. The movement is justified and long overdue, but I question the
qualifications of the native people that will run the new Republic. Also, there is
not enough support…most people feel it‟s a losing battle.”
– native Hawaiian, 47

“I find the idea of sovereignty frightening, and I don‟t feel it‟s wise to try and
„undo‟ Hawaiian history. But I believe my ideal outcome for sovereignty would
be a compromise between the Hawaiian people and the U.S. government that
would ensure both parties having a fairly equal share in the decision making for
the islands. Also for native Hawaiians to have a louder voice in socio-political
happenings in the islands. But I‟m not sure about the forms of sovereignty that
are our options right now.”
– native Hawaiian, 24

“I support sovereignty. And I think the organizations need to motivate these

natives so that they play a more active role in the movement and it can be more
effective. Until then we‟re just going to be going in circles and it‟s just going to
seem like a bunch of complaining. Plus, I don‟t think anything is really going to
change. I feel we‟re going to be fighting this for decades to come. There needs to
be more support. There isn‟t enough because we‟re lazy and some people don‟t
want change. We need 100% from our natives, and even non-natives have
shown more support at times.”
– native Hawaiian, 24

“I support the movement to a point. There are a lot of issues I don‟t agree with.
But I think the Hawaiian people need to be recognized as the indigenous natives
of Hawai„i and receive compensation for what the Americans have done
throughout Hawaiian history. I feel that the U.S. government should be
recognized for the faults that they have done to Hawai„i and its people.”
– native Hawaiian, 47

384
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

“I am all for sovereignty, but not cutting off all connections with the U.S.
Hawai„i as a whole would not be able to handle it. I‟d like to gain sovereignty
but still have the protection of the U.S. Sort of like Puerto Rico, I guess. But I
think more native Hawaiians aren‟t involved in the movement because they don‟t
know the facts of the sovereignty movement. Knowing there is a movement isn‟t
enough, people need to be more educated regarding what it‟s about.”
– native Hawaiian, 23

Conclusion

T he term Kūna‘e translates to ―stand firmly and unyielding against

opposition.‖146 Many people, Kanaka Maoli and those from other ethnic and
racial backgrounds alike, have answered the call to stand firmly and unyielding,
and indeed, as discussed in previous sections, pro-sovereignty organizations
number into the hundreds. This sheer number, however, has often been a point
of contention many have with the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Indeed, the
few opinions offered in the last section show that many of those who are not part
of the movement choose not to become members not because of the movement‘s
lack of strength of persistence, but rather, because of a lack of unity.

Growing up as a native Hawaiian, I have always been exposed to the truth about
my history and people, though I did not learn it in any textbook: we were
illegally occupied by the United States; our Queen was illegally dethroned;
native Hawaiians, like every other group of peoples in the world, deserve to have
our rights recognized and respected. And there has always been a plethora of
choices as to the form the resolutions to these issues would take, almost to a
fault.

The three organization discussed here represent the diversity of theories and
methodologies present within the sovereignty movement. While these groups in
no way represent all of the different viewpoints that the movement puts forth, I
had hoped that, given their public involvement and the media attention they
draw to themselves and one another, this choice would allow me to firmly grasp
some of the theories, principles, and problems behind the movement today.

146
Mary Kawena Pukui & Samuel H. Elbert, New pocket Hawaiian dictionary (Honolulu: University of
Hawai‗i Press, 1992), 72.

385
 intersections Winter 2009

In summary then, Ka Lāhui Hawai‗i, one of the largest and most comprehensive
of the organizations, engages both the U.S. government and the international
arena in issues concerning native Hawaiians as an indigenous group. Ka Lāhui is
constantly lobbying and educating the public, and the organization has also
proposed one of the more detailed and thorough Master Plans within sovereignty
movement as a whole.

However, in some circles the group has gained the reputation of being
discriminatory, and key members of Ka Lāhui have been accused in the media as
using sovereignty to create a race-based nation, despite their commitment to
allowing non-native Hawaiians to become honorary citizens of Ka Lāhui and their
proposed nation. The organization has also been challenged by rival sovereignty
factions which claim that the nation-within-a-nation status that Ka Lāhui endorses
is necessary, but not enough of a resolution to satisfy native Hawaiians.

On the other hand, The Provisional Government of the Independent Nation

State of Hawai‗i, which proposes a completely independent Nation of Hawai‗i,
has been criticized by sovereignty activists as being too radical. Our interview
answers also show us that previous actions taken by the organization may have
damaged their reputation permanently in the eyes of the general public.
Furthermore, many activists also feel that some level of engagement within the
international legal system is key to achieving sovereignty, and while the Nation of
Hawai‗i agrees, they have yet to engage themselves in internationally in a formal
manner.

This organization, however, is the only organization to successfully implement an

actual ―nation‖ within the current state of Hawai‗i. Pu‗uhonua o Waimānalo
Village serves as evidence that the proposals of the organization, at least on a
smaller scale, are practical, feasible, and possible. The organization is also
currently involved in perfecting a plan for an economic base of the Nation, with
their proposal of the Native Hawaiian Bank.

Finally, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government continues to function and operate as

the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, despite U.S. annexation. If
nothing more, this particular organization has shown how difficult the fight for
sovereignty is when one considers the political power wielded by the United
States. Though the Hawaiian Kingdom Government has engaged the U.S. in
several legal battles, the organization has yet to gain significant headway in the
international or national level.

386
 Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco A Look at the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

However, one of the significant accomplishments of the organization to date is

that, through rallies and lectures, members of this organization, far more than
others, have begun spreading the word throughout the State of Hawai‗i about the
legal basis for the restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Hawaiian Kingdom
Government has both domestic and international law on its side, and has even
succeeded in gaining an award from the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The
Hague, which acknowledged the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom,
under international law, in spite of the century-long U.S. occupation.

In light of these factors, it is clear that though the fight for sovereignty is alive
and well within the Hawaiian community, there is much debate about what an
―ideal‖ plan for achieving sovereignty would entail. Perhaps it is a nation-within-
a-nation form of federal recognition. Perhaps it is complete independence from
the United States. Or perhaps it needs to be a completely new form of
sovereignty, unique to the history and culture of Hawai‗i itself. Whatever the
decision, and whenever that decision needs to be made, it is my hope that this
article contributes to the work currently being done by Hawaiian activists within
the movement to achieve what many consider their most important goal for the
time being: educating the general public, and offering the people of Hawai‗i
enough options and information so that they are better equipped to make a sound
decision once the time arrives.

Amanda Mae Kāhealani Pacheco, a native Hawaiian, is a 2005 graduate of the Comparative History of
Ideas program at the University of Washington. Originally from Honomu, on the Big Island of Hawai'i,
she now resides in the Bay Area where she expects to graduate from the University of San Francisco
School of Law with a J.D. in May 2009. She is currently pursuing a career in federal Indian law and
policy.

387