Reflections on Hawaiian Identity and Service to the Nation
Posted: September 12, 2025
From the desk of the KING:
Hawaiian Identity and Service
His Majesty King Edmund K. Silva II reflects on his military service, Hawaiian identity, and the Kingdom’s sovereignty — and explains why Hawaiʻi stands outside NATO protection.
The Lone Soldier statute at Pearl Harbor.
Defending an Unprotected Nation: A King’s Reflection on Hawaiian Identity and Service
In a deeply personal letter titled “Reflections on Hawaiian Identity and Service,” His Majesty King Edmund K. Silva II shares a powerful journey of duty, heritage, and sovereignty.
Drawing on his years of service in the United States Army, His Majesty reflects on the oath he swore to defend the U.S. Constitution — and how that duty awakened an even greater responsibility to protect his true homeland, Hawaiʻi.
Though Hawaiʻi is often treated as a U.S. state, it was never lawfully annexed by treaty. Because NATO’s collective defense agreement applies only to the recognized territories of member nations, Hawaiʻi is not protected under NATO treaties. This leaves the islands uniquely vulnerable, with no international defense pact guaranteeing their security.
This reality shaped His Majesty’s sense of kuleana (responsibility): to defend and preserve the Hawaiian Kingdom even when global powers overlook its sovereignty.
The letter honors the bravery of Native Hawaiian soldiers who served in World War II, many hoping that their sacrifice would lead to the return of their ancestral nation. It also recounts the ceremonial act of restoration in 2002, when Aliʻi Manaʻo Nui Lanny Sinkin delivered the Kingdom’s Constitution and Declaration of Independence to Washington, D.C., and the United Nations.
Today, His Majesty stands as the King of the restored Hawaiian Kingdom, carrying forward the vision of his ancestors, rooted in aloha, duty, and unwavering love for the ʻāina.
NATO and Hawaiʻi’s Status
- NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is a collective defense alliance formed in 1949 between the United States, Canada, and many European nations.
- Article 5 of the NATO Treaty states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, obligating mutual defense.
However:
- NATO protection only applies to the territory of NATO member states (North America and Europe) and certain territories under their recognized sovereignty.
- Hawaiʻi is not named in the NATO treaty and is only covered insofar as it is considered U.S. territory by the United States.
- If Hawaiʻi is not recognized as U.S. territory by other nations (or if its sovereignty is disputed), it would not automatically receive NATO protection.
Sovereignty Dispute Context
- The Kingdom of Hawaiʻi was an internationally recognized sovereign nation in the 1800s, with formal treaties with the U.S., Britain, France, and others.
- In 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom was overthrown with U.S. support. The U.S. annexed Hawaiʻi in 1898 without a treaty of annexation ratified by the Hawaiian people.
- In 1993, U.S. Congress passed Public Law 103-150 (the Apology Resolution) acknowledging the overthrow as illegal and without consent of the Native Hawaiian people.
- Because of this history, many international law scholars and Hawaiian sovereignty advocates argue that the U.S. does not hold lawful title to Hawaiʻi, and therefore Hawaiʻi is not legally part of the United States for purposes of international law.
- The United Nations has not explicitly recognized U.S. sovereignty over Hawaiʻi, and Hawaiʻi is not listed as a NATO signatory or partner territory.
What This Means Practically
- The U.S. military acts as if Hawaiʻi is under its defense umbrella — it has major bases there, like Pearl Harbor and Indo-Pacific Command.
- But under international law arguments raised by sovereignty advocates, if Hawaiʻi is not legally U.S. territory, then NATO’s Article 5 would not apply to an attack on Hawaiʻi, because NATO only covers attacks on recognized territories of member states.
- This is why the statement — “Without NATO protection, Hawaiʻi remains vulnerable to outside threats” — is conceptually accurate from the standpoint of sovereignty law.