Posted on: Tuesday, February 3, 2004
ISLAND VOICES
OHA is selling us down river
By J. Kehaulani Kauanui
Recently, The Honolulu Advertiser reported how the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was criticized in its voter sign-up for micromanaging the process of forming a Native Hawaiian government by co-opting the labor of a working group for its point-by-point plan to have a governing entity in place to help push the passage of the Akaka bill.
Sadly, OHA's actions clearly indicate that they are determined to co-opt Hawaiian self-determination. Annelle Amaral of the O'ahu Council of Hawaiian Clubs noted in a recent speech that since OHA is a state agency and works closely with the congressional delegation, its legitimacy in the process is questionable: "You can't let the Akaka bill drive the building of the nation ... you have to have some credibility in what you're doing with the process. All the voices have to be heard."
Certainly we need to hear from Hawaiians who oppose federal recognition and instead choose to protect Hawai'i's claims to independence under international law. OHA has smothered their voices of dissent and fair representation. That's not self-determination, it's pre-determination.
Recently, in a public e-mail message posted to the Kanaka Maoli Allies list, OHA trustee Oswald Stender defended the proposal for federal recognition and argued that it would do nothing to prohibit claims beyond the federal model — "no guarantees."
Yet, when one looks at the history of U.S. federal recognition for indigenous domestic dependent nations, it is clear that there are guarantees that would come along with the passage of the bill.
For one, it would set up a process to extinguish title to the national lands of the Hawaiian people — title that heretofore has not been relinquished, as acknowledged in the U.S. Apology Resolution. That is, once the bill sets up the process for the formation of a governing entity, approved by the U.S. federal government, the governing officials elected by Hawaiian people would be seen as already having waived the right to our national claims under international law.
In such a case, the will of the people will look to have been expressed — as a form of self-determination — in a way that would make international intervention impossible. The OHA trustees are intentionally creating and promoting a misleading appearance of consent, and it is simultaneously creating a land claims settlement between the Hawaiian people and the state.
At the very least, those supporting federal recognition should work to bring about a plebiscite for Hawaiian people — unhampered by any state agency — to vote on this or any model of sovereignty.
It is one thing for those against independence to opt out of that model of sovereignty and pursue federal recognition. But the answer to whether or not people are fully informed as they make their way toward federal recognition is evident in the way OHA is creating and controlling the process.
It is true that prioritizing the independence claim in lieu of federal recognition will not serve to protect the federal funding for Hawaiians now threatened by the lawsuits. But those worried about federal monies should consider what exactly they are willing to forfeit in exchange for merely attempting to protect those funds.
The Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement estimates that the federal funding stream to the state, for its agencies serving Hawaiians, is estimated at $70 million a year. In other words, the OHA trustees aim to sell us down the river to try to save less than 1 percent of the entire state's budget.
Don't fall for it.
J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of American studies and anthropology at Wesleyan University. She lives in Middleton, Conn.
