Jon Osorio's response to Conklin


And here's Jonathan Kamakawiwo'ole Osorio's response to Ken Conklin's Maui News editorial:
April 16, 2008

I am responding to Mr. Ken Conklin’s assertions in the Maui News that De Jure recognition was given to the self-proclaimed republic in 1894. He cites as evidence letters written by heads of states including Great Britain, France and the United States formally recognizing the Republic that were sent to Sanford Dole.

Keanu Sai who has done a significant research in the area confirms that these letters do exist. What is not so clear is what the existence of these letters actually mean. Ken Conklin insists that foreign recognition of the Republic legalizes the actions of the United States and signifies the legal replacement of the Kingdom. But they actually signify nothing more than the willingness of these states to do business with the Republic—not a recognition of the Republic’s sovereignty. The sovereign Hawaiian nation was recognized by Britain, France and the United States in 1843. Thousands of people have seen that document. Regardless of what government these nations were willing to acknowledge in 1894, the nation’s essential sovereignty was already well-established. The question then becomes, did that sovereignty come to an end with the passage of the Newlands Resolution in 1898?

In terms of law the answer is clear. Only a treaty of annexation could actually extinguish Hawaiian sovereignty and transfer that sovereignty to the United States. As the United States was unable to ratify such a treaty, it settled for a joint resolution accepting the cession of the Republic. But could the Republic actually cede the governing authority of Hawai`i and the public and crown lands whose ownership was legally vested in the Kingdom? Perhaps the Republic could cede its willingness to govern and its control over the lands but it could not give away what it did not possess—sovereignty and title.

This is consistent with practically every published history. Even the haole historians: Allen; Dougherty; Russ and Coffman point out the Republic was not formed to be sovereign, it existed only to seek annexation. If the Republic was not sovereign, then what was? The lahui—the people who made their will known in the petitions sent to the Senate in 1897. There is a vast difference between the political reality of Hawaii’s occupation and a legal transferal of authority and sovereignty. This is what Keanu has been saying for the past fifteen years and nothing in Conklin’s latest foolishness challenges this.

Aloha ‘ina
Jon Osorio


Posted: Thu - April 17, 2008 at 09:47 AM    
   
 
Categories
XML/RSS Feed
Search
World Court Case DVD
Larsen Case on DVD
Larsen DVD
Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom at the
Permanent Court of Arbitration
The Hague, 2001
DVD Mini-Documentary & Booklet
Order your copy
FREE HAWAII STICKERS
Free Hawaii
Over at the Free Hawaii blog, Koani Foundation is giving away "Free Hawaii" stickers and pins, and will post photos of them displayed in interesting places. Spread them far and wide!
HAWAII DOCUMENTS
HAWAII LINKS
HAWAII BLOGROLL
HAWAII FORUMS
HAWAII PODCASTING
PROGRESSIVE BLOGROLL
TV Worth Watching
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
The Colbert Report
NOW with David Brancaccio
Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria
Countdown with Keith Olbermann
Russell Simmons presents Def Poetry
Real Time with Bill Maher
Washington Journal on C-Span
PBN Friday with Howard Dicus
Portfolio
Archives
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
Browse archives by date
CURRENT IMAGE
Support Organ Donation
DONATE LIFE
Comments powered by
Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com
TECHNORATI
Add to Technorati Favorites
SUPPORT THIS BLOG
If you find this weblog valuable, please consider making a secure donation via PayPal to support its ongoing maintenance:

Mahalo!
Or contact me about sponsoring this blog in exchange for space in the Sponsored Links area above.
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2008 09:49 AM
Powered by
iBlog


©