Ka Leo O Hawaii

Issue date: 1/17/08 Section: Mixed Plate

Media Credit: Trevor Atkins The Reinstated Hawaiian Nation's banner flying at 'Iolani Palace Wednesday expresses one side of the Akaka Bill debate.

[Click to enlarge]

Today, the 115th anniversary of the Hawaiian Kingdom's overthrow, Hawai‘i residents are as divided as ever on the political future of this land. But while specific opinions are innumerable, the anxiety building around a bill for Native Hawaiian federal recognition has corralled stakeholders into three distinct groups.

Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka's seventh draft of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, or the Akaka Bill, easily passed through the House for the second time in October 2007. The bill now moves to the Senate, where it fell just four votes shy of passing a year ago. While President Bush has made it clear that he will veto the bill, the potential for a democratic president in 2008, and possibly one with Hawai‘i ties, makes the Akaka Bill the focal point for many sovereignty advocates and opponents.

What is the Akaka Bill?

Formally known as the Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act, it seeks to obtain federal recognition of Native Hawaiians as a nation of people, rather than a race, to protect programs (Kamehameha Schools, Hawaiian Homelands, etc.) that are presently threatened for being race-based and thus unlawful under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. This is similar to how Native-American and Alaskan Native tribes are allowed limited sovereignty and special rights on reservation lands.

Of the three groups, the one with the most political power is in favor of the bill. This includes many of the state of Hawai'i's government institutions and officials, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Sens. Akaka and Daniel Inouye, Reps. Mazie Hirono and Neil Abercrombie, and Governor Linda Lingle.

Non-government institutions and officials whose existences are threatened by legal racial lawsuits are also outspoken proponents of the bill - most notably Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate. Members of this group have been called realists because they acknowledge that the United States is unlikely to give Hawai‘i full sovereignty. Rather, they believe the urgent thing to do is to immunize Native Hawaiian programs from current and future lawsuits.

A second group is critical of such a philosophy, viewing it as a shortsighted and weak compromise. This group includes advocates for full sovereignty, which the Hawaiian Kingdom is legally entitled to under international law, as acknowledged in the Apology Bill that President Clinton signed on the 100th anniversary of the overthrow. Opponents often regard the Akaka Bill as a dead end, claiming the U.S. will call it equal and use the wording of the bill to invalidate future claims for full sovereignty.

Further, some of these opponents argue that the reinstated nation should include non-Hawaiians, as it always did, while the Akaka Bill reduces what was once a kingdom to a racially exclusive, subordinate nation within a nation, thus isolating Hawaiians into the same sad predicament as Native Americans.

Finally, this group generally believes that it is ironic for the U.S. Constitution to apply to a nation it is forcefully occupying, and that it is ironic that federal and state officials who are paid by the nation of America are determining the fate of the nation of Hawai‘i.

The claim to full sovereignty

According to international law, a nation can only lose its sovereignty by treaty or by conquest. The Hawaiian Kingdom was not conquered, nor did Queen Lili‘uokalani sign a treaty of cession. Rather, the Republic of Hawai‘i, led by American businessmen and U.S. Foreign Minister John Stevens committed "an act of war," as described by President Cleveland, "without authority of Congress." When President McKinley came into office four years later, he signed a "joint resolution" with the insurgent government, for the purpose of military power and economic prosperity.

The United Nations recognized that the joint resolution did not represent rightful ownership in 1946 and placed Hawai‘i on the list of non-self governing territories eligible to vote for full sovereignty. The vote for statehood did not include this option, but the United States nevertheless proclaimed it the 50th state and removed Hawai‘i from the U.N. list in 1959.

In 1993, the U.S. apologized only to the Native Hawaiian people, rather than the citizenry of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Henceforth, part of the movement transformed from that of national sovereignty to that of indigenous survival, as evidenced in the Akaka Bill.

For more, read UH doctoral student Keanu Sai's "A Slippery Path Towards Hawaiian Indigeneity."

The third major group comprises those who have instigated the lawsuits against OHA and Kamehameha Schools on the basis of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. This group includes Freddy Rice, William Burgess, Earl Arakaki and others who oppose any form of racial affirmative action. They commonly believe African-Americans, European Americans, Native Hawaiians and anyone else living on American soil should have equal rights. They do not see cause for redress of past events.

The first and third philosophies receive considerable media attention because they represent viewpoints of the U.S. legislative majority and minority, respectively. Meanwhile, the philosophy of full sovereignty has been censored out of Hawai‘i's major television stations and newspapers, leaving its advocates to find publicity through grassroots organizations and alternative media outlets.

As the bill enters the Senate this legislative session, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights continues its investigation of whether the bill violates American civil rights via the Hawai‘i State Advisory Committee. In November, the commission was accused of stacking the 17-member advisory committee with the Akaka Bill's most outspoken opponents.

The role of Kau Inoa

As OHA continues lobbying for the Akaka Bill, it has begun a simultaneous campaign to produce a certified list of Native Hawaiians. The list will allegedly represent membership in "the single Native Hawaiian governing entity." Meanwhile, "additional Native Hawaiian groups shall not be eligible for acknowledgement," as stated in the Akaka Bill.

The Kau Inoa campaign has enlisted over 80,000 people since it started in 2004. However, many Native Hawaiians remain skeptical of whether a state agency should be controlling membership for the supposed Hawaiian nation, and those who do not support the Akaka Bill have been tactfully and conveniently written out of the decision-making process.

The author wrote a 100-page investigative report entitled, "Should the Akaka Bill, regarding Native Hawaiian federal recognition, be passed?" as a capstone project for a bachelor's degree in journalism in 2004.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools