Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 11, Number 2, 1 February 1994 — Illinois lawyer urges Hawaiians to proclaim independence [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Illinois lawyer urges Hawaiians to proclaim independence

bv Patrick Johnston The Apology Resolution: is it a symbolic pieee of legislation or a legal foundation for a Hawaiian nation-state? For Illinois law professor Francis Boyle, legal representative for such burgeoning states as Palestine, Lithuania, and Bosnia, the answer is clearly the latter. Boyle spoke at Mabel Smythe auditorium on Dec. 28 at the invitation of the 'Ohana Council and the Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission. He argued that the Apology Resolution signed by the President last November is all

Hawaiians need to create a sovereign entity. "The U.S. government has eonceded as a matter of law (Ed. note: a resolution is not a statute in law) that native Hawaiian people have the right to restore the independent nation-state that they had," Boyle claimed. He went on to say that this admission means, under international law, Hawaiians ean, and should, go out and proclaim an independent state, if that is what Hawaiians choose to do. Palestinians, Boyle added, did just that in 1988. Five years later they are recognized by 125 indenendent nations

although they are not a member of the U.N. Boyle laid out four characteristics necessary for independence: a fixed territory, a distinguishable population of people, a form of government, and the capacity to enter into international relations. He argued that Hawaiians have all of these. The arch-

ipelago represents the territory, kūpuna councils as developed recently by Ka Lāhui and Ka Pākaukau ean serve as the government, and that many Pacific Island and African nations might recognize a Hawaiian nation if it asserted itself. Boyle went through the apology line by line, pointing out the specific language the apology uses to incriminate the U.S. government. He said the admission that the "agents" of the U.S. helped "invade" the "sovereign" nation of Hawai'i - with whieh the U.S. had formal treaties - provides ample foundation both in international law and in American eonstitutional law for Hawaiians to reassert their independence. Boyle asserted that the fact that U.S. forces did play a key role in the initial overthrow and America annexed a "Republic" created from that illegal act makes the U.S. a guilty party to the event whether it admits official support or not. He compared the provisional government that controlled the islands from 1893 to 1898 to the Israelis in Palestine, and argued that it could not cede sovereignt\ to the U.S. because "they never had sovereignty to cede."' "Mililan occupying armies do not exercise sovereignty" he said. Because the U.S. had entered

into several friendship, eommerce and navigation treaties with Hawaiian monarchs during the 19th centur>'. violating those treaties by playing a part in the submission of the Hawaiian kingdom was illegal. Boyle also mentioned that the U.S. constitution itself prohibits treaty violations. "You are now free to determine your own fate," he said. Boyle warned against accepting the same settlement as Native Americans, who never had a state

recognized by the federal government and are now treated as wards of the state, their commereial activity limited. "On the basis of this statute, (Ed notc: resolution) yOu"fe entitled to a lot more than Native Americans." But instead of waiting around for Congress to decide their status Boyle urged native Hawaiians to go out and assert their independence. "Understand your rights, and assert them."

Francis Boyle