Apology Resolution (1993)

Apology Resolution (1993) The Apology Resolution (1993) is a United States congressional joint resolution that formally acknowledged and apologized for the role of the United States in the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom and expressed regret for the consequences experienced by Native Hawaiians. The resolution, enacted as Public Law 103-150 during the administration of Bill Clinton, emerged from debates in the Senate and the House and has influenced discussions involving Daniel Inouye, Daniel K. Inouye, Mazie Hirono, Hiram Fong, John A. Burns, Ben Cayetano, Neil Abercrombie, Linda Lingle, Patsy Mink, Daniel Akaka, Spark Matsunaga, Robert Dole, and other political figures.

Background

The historical context traces to the 1893 overthrow of the Queen Liliuokalani-led Hawaiian Kingdom by a committee supported by agents associated with the United States Minister to Hawaii John L. Stevens, members of the U.S. Marines, and business interests tied to the sugar and pineapple sectors. Debates about annexation involved the administrations of Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and later Theodore Roosevelt, and intersected with events such as the Spanish–American War and the expansion of U.S. expansionism. The overthrow precipitated the establishment of the Republic of Hawaii, followed by annexation under the Newlands Resolution and the creation of the Territory of Hawaii, culminating in statehood as Hawaii in 1959.

Text and Legislative History

The text of the resolution—introduced in Congress as a joint resolution—acknowledges that the Provisional Government of Hawaii and forces established in 1893 acted with the active support of agents and citizens of the United States of America, recognizes the overthrow as illegal, and expresses "sincere regret" to Native Hawaiians. Legislative sponsors and supporters included Daniel Inouye, Daniel Akaka, Mazie Hirono, Patsy Mink, and other members of the Congressional delegation from Hawaii. Committee considerations involved the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Committee on Resources (formerly House Committee on Natural Resources), with hearings that referenced historical documents such as the Blount Report and the Morgan Report. The resolution passed both chambers and was signed into law by Bill Clinton on November 23, 1993, as Public Law 103-150. Subsequent administrative and congressional references involved figures like Janet Reno and agencies including the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service.

Political and Diplomatic Reactions

The resolution provoked responses from a broad array of actors: Native Hawaiian leaders such as Haunani-Kay Trask, Kanaka Maoli activists, and organizations like the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and political leaders including Ben Cayetano, Neil Abercrombie, and Linda Lingle. National and international observers included scholars at Harvard University, University of Hawaii, and commentators in outlets linked to figures like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Diplomatic implications touched relations with foreign governments and institutions that monitor indigenous rights, invoking instruments and forums associated with the United Nations, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Congressional reactions included support from members such as Daniel Inouye and critique from conservatives including Robert Dole and commentators tied to The Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute.

Legal and Constitutional Issues

Legal debate after enactment addressed whether the apology creates a basis for reparations, claims to sovereign land, or recognition of a continuing Hawaiian sovereignty. Courts considered the resolution alongside cases involving the Supreme Court, references to doctrines such as plenary power doctrine in cases like United States v. Wong Kim Ark and precedents involving Indian tribes and trust doctrine matters. Legal scholars and litigants cited historical findings in the Blount Report and subsequent legal opinions while engaging statutes including the Newlands Resolution and decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals and district courts. Debates involved attorneys and judges connected to institutions such as Columbia Law School, Yale Law School, Stanford Law School, and think tanks associated with legal analysis.

Impact on US–Native Hawaiian Relations

The resolution has shaped policy, activism, and institutional reforms affecting Native Hawaiian self-determination, cultural revitalization, and claims to land and resources. Institutions like the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and initiatives within the State of Hawaii and the Department of the Interior pursued programs addressing education, health, and land management in partnership with community organizations and academic centers at the University of Hawaii. Movements including sovereignty organizations, cultural institutions, and legal advocacy groups cited the resolution in negotiations, protests, and litigation concerning sites such as Mauna Kea, Kahoʻolawe, and the Bishop Museum. International indigenous rights developments, including instruments discussed at the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples forums, also intersect with ongoing dialogues initiated or amplified by the 1993 apology.

Category:United States federal legislation Category:Hawaii