The Akaka/OHA Process -

What it is; what it is not; and what it needs.

By Poka Laenui

86-226 Farrington Hwy.

Wai`anae, HI 96792

plaenui@pixi.com

http://www.opihi.com/sovereignty

Prepared for

Hawaiian Federal Recognition Forum

Where do you Stand?

Thursday, August 7, 2003

Jefferson Hall, East-West Center, UH Manoa

What it is	What it is not
Limited to Native Hawaiian as Native Americans, thus the name “Native Hawaiian Recognition Act” - Akaka/Stevens Bill. It Addresses only Indigenous Peoples’ Rights.	Fails to address Hawaiian Nationals and their rights (Historic and Immigrant rights) or the “inherent sovereignty” right of the native Hawaiian people as a descendant-right from the illegal overthrow,
Based within a colonial framework	Falls short of addressing Human Rights found within an international framework
Suggests protection of specific native Hawaiian benefit programs - Hawaiian Homes program, 5(f) lands entitlements, OHA, and 12 specific categories of services including health care, education, employment & training, economic development, . . . It would also impact upon challenges against private entities such as Kamehameha Schools and other Ali`i trusts as well as non-profit organizations focusing upon or limited to Native Hawaiian people.	Fails to address the opportunity to form or reemerge as an independent Hawaiian nation/state
Creates the opportunity to form a semi-autonomous government, currently with undefined powers, to relate directly to the Federal government without the intervention of the State of Hawaii -Creates i) in Hawaii, an interim governing council followed by ii) a Native Hawaiian Governing Entity, and iii) in the Federal bureaucracy, the U.S. “office” for Native Hawaiian Relations and. iv) an interagency coordinating group; - the “office” is to carry out the call under the Apology Resolution for reconciliation, with or without a Native Hawaiian governing entity; - the “office” to implement the government consultation provision of ILO Convention 169 regarding activities of the government which would have potential to significantly affect native Hawaiian resources, rights, or lands; - the interagency coordinating group pulls together Federal agencies for a cohesive program of activities relating to Hawaiian matters	Fails to incorporate an adequate ratification process by the Native Hawaiian people. In essence, this Federal Recognition process creates it’s own roll of those supportive of recognition and gives itself its own claim for legitimacy. It is no different from many other organizations, “nations”, governments, and ohana declaring themselves to represent the native Hawaiian people, the Hawaiian nation, the national government, etc. through a self-declaration process. Although much better financed, this process is on the same level of legitimacy as the many other self-proclaimed sovereignty governments, nations, reinstated state, or whatever other name they chose to cloth themselves. It falls short, in comparison with the plebiscite question placed by the Native Hawaiian Elections Commission asking the people if they supported the process of electing delegates to a Native Hawaiian Convention for the purpose of developing and proposing a form of Hawaiian governance.
Uses a very liberal native Hawaiian definition of those eligible to participate in this process, eliminating the U.S. citizenship requirement or the U.S. territorial residence requirement, employing a definition very similar to the Native Hawaiian Convention’s election. It calls for the development of a “roll” and after settlement by “publication” of the roll, it seals the eligible participants in all referenda and elections dealing with the “reorganization” of the governing entity.	No clear assurance that the entities created under this act will not participate in a sovereignty extinguishment process.
Uses good language for Native Hawaiian governance within the U.S. system which does not now exist.	No clear assurance that the Feds will not twist or misconstrue this process as consent to extinguishment of sovereignty.
“Claims - Nothing in the act serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States.”	Does not create an independence option.

What it needs -

1) Opportunity of the native Hawaiians to support independence; 2) Opportunity of non-native Hawaiian nationals to participate in the process of independence; 3) Security of an international umbrella if independence is also an option selected; 4) Assurance of equal financial resources for development/implementation of the independence model. 5) Ratification of a Federal Recognition process open to all native Hawaiians wanting to participate.

Conclusion:

There are numerous merits to be found in the Federal Recognition process. It is a historic document which would protect many of the native Hawaiian programs and may be used to support further programs. It is not only a strong philosophical statement of the rights of the native Hawaiian people, but it also creates a specific process for putting that statement into action, both on the side of the people and the Federal government. If it succeeds, it would eliminate, to a great extent, the threats of the anti-native Hawaiian attacks.

But the Federal Recognition process continues to leave a lot to be desired. It remains perceived as an integration process. A reading of the Akaka bill may not support such a conclusion, but there seems to be enough wiggle room within the document so as to create a reasonable fear, especially when linked to U.S. conduct against its already “protected” Native Americans. That fear factor is a major obstacle.

To alleviate such fears, and to truly address the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people who have suffered as a result of the U.S. complicity in the overthrow of the Hawaiian nation/state, there should be:

1) an opportunity of the native Hawaiians to support independence;

2) an opportunity of non-native Hawaiian nationals to participate in the process of independence;

3) security of an international umbrella if independence is also an option selected;

4) assurance of equal financial resources for development/implementation of the independence model;

5) a ratification procedure in which the broad native Hawaiian community may join in the approval/disapproval of the Federal Recognition process.

The creation of a parallel process should take an inclusive approach such that the native Hawaiians may support either the Federal Recognition process or the option for promoting Independence, or both.

The selection of both processes is not a contradictory choice. It is a statement that the voter does indeed support the positive statement contained in the Akaka/Stevens bill process. It also says, however, that the voter wants to be clear that he is not willing to forego his international rights and the rights of his fellow non-native Hawaiian nationals to forge an independent Hawaiian nation/state.

The Native Hawaiian Convention (Aha Hawaii `Oiwi - AHO) has already gone through those essential steps the Federal Recognition process proposes. It has gone through ratification by native Hawaiians to a convention process; delegate selection to propose a governmental form; and a convention proposing two governmental formats - independence (incorporating non-native people as well) & integration similar to the last stages of the Federal Recognition process. Adapting the AHO independence product to the Federal Recognition process would broaden the scope of Hawai`i’s self-determination and answer the concerns over the independence questions. It would broaden the opportunity for greater participation & support of Hawaiian self-determination.

Poka Laenui