Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 4, Number 7, 1 July 1987 — "An Outright Lie" Says Poka Laenui [ARTICLE]

"An Outright Lie" Says Poka Laenui

Former Trustee Responds to 'Cheap Shot'

"... Hayden Burgess, former trustee of OHA is driving a new Buick and has a new office on Bishop Street, all a gift from the primary mediator of this unusual agreement . . . So you see, the Japanese developers have been very busy spreading the kala around to get their project through." Article from KA WAI OLA O OHA, T rustee's Views, by Trustee Moani Akaka. Gossip is a feast of the tongue while the brain sleeps. It is a pleasure to again write to friends through KA WAI OLA O OHA, unfortunate as it may be to have to do so under circumstances of defending against character assassins. Yet, I find a response necessary in order to reprimand such abuse of power by those who moek truth and choose to entertain innuendos and outright lies. Not only should all of us fear such unrestrained libel because it intimidates individuals who may disagree with Trustees; but, because such conduct breeds dissension within our Hawaiian society, especially at a time when we should be putting dissension behind us. Since the expiration of my Office of Hawaiian Affairs term, I became even more involved in work for indigenous peoples at the international level. The mass murders in Bangladesh and East Timor, the spraying of people with chemicals in the forests of Burma, and the hunger in the children held in refugee camps of Mexico along the Guatemala border are examples of the eonstant cry I've had to address. As the international human rights leader for the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP), I have often been looked upon as responsible for pleading before international forums such as the United Nations and the International Labour Organization, the plights of indigenous peoples throughout the world.

As my international activities increased, my law practice in Hawaii decreased to a point of almost no ineome. (My international work is unpaid.) Two private enterprises in Hawaii, hearing of my work and that it was supported only by my dwindling law practice, offered their assistance. Apparently they, too, believe that Hawaii ean play a major role in addressing world wide humanitarian problems — a "Geneva of the Pacific". A loeal business offered the use of an office space in Honolulu and a car rental agency extended the rental of a used Chrysler for six months at a lease of $1 per month. Thus, the Hawaii office of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP-Hawaii) is now in operation, paying particular attention to the Pacific and Asia as well as supporting the international advocacy work. (By the time of this printing, it will have also organized the Pacific/Asia Empowerment Conference at the EastWest Center and the Richardson School of Law with guests from these regions as well as the United Nations.) Others have contributed paper, time and money to the WeiP-Hawaii. Not one word with either of these or any other eontributor has ever been said about the West Beach project. The office and automobile are used in my international work. I continue to maintain my beat-up Plymouth and law office in Waianae. The suggestion that

these contributions are bribes for a change in my opinion regarding a building project in Ewa is preposterous; a eheap shot at the integrity of a helping hand; an outright lie. I must admit, it is also unintended flattery— to insinuate my "favor" would amount to any consequence. Let's turn our attention now to this more loeal issue — West Beach. I don't support the project. I do support our people taking control, as mueh as possible, over our own lives and the future of our children. I don't want the Japanese, the Americans or any one else deciding our future for us. This agreement between the West Beach developers and our eommunity people is the first of its kind that has recognized our right to a voice in our futures. I support that. Campbell Estate invited investors to develop lands in Ewa. Investors from Japan accepted the invitation. (Curiously, we attack the guests and not the ones who extended the invitation?l) Community minded people from the Waianae coast tried to stop the development, fighting for years before commission hearings, at public meetings and in the courts. The developers moved slowly but certainly toward full approval. The active community defenders dwindled, many taking the sidelines. The battle was eventually brought before the Hawaii Supreme Court. On the eve of argument before the Court, an agreement between the two sides was reached. Ever since, garbled accounts of this agreement have made their way into our Hawaiian society by those who refuse to read the agreement, contact the parties they accuse, or eheek the facts. What are the facts? Fact 1: The judicial system would not and could not stop the West Beach project. The most courts ean do is require the law be followed. Courts support the sanctity of private property, not community interests. What the community defenders are fighting for isn't going to eome from the courts. Nor has it eome from the legislature. All the crying, grumbling and protesting will not achieve any better result. We have to find some other way. Fact 2: A new level of maturity was demonstrated when the Waianae litigants and the Japanese developers were willing to dream together of a preferred life quality in Hawaii. The result was beautiful. This is what was agreed to:

"the enhancement of the quality of life . . . must take into account the spiritual values, history and a sense of Aloha 'Aina (Kinship, Love and Respect for the Land) ingrained in the culture and heritage of the native people of Hawaii; . . . progress toward a higher life quality must incorporate a eoneem for the socio-economic, political, spiritual and cultural needs of the affected communities and that every effort should be made to mitigate any adverse change and to encourage positive changes." Fact 3: Specifically, the developers agreed: a) a special committee of people knowledgeable in the process of reinterment of Hawaiian ancestral bones and burial artifacts would be formed to develop guidelines and procedures to be followed. (Since the formation of that committee, Campbell Estate has eome forward to

assume full responsibility, as the traditional heir of that area's heritage, to assure the appropriate reinterment in a proper plaee of honor for these remains. Hopefully, others will follow this example and days of bulldozers exposing bones to the sun, then carted away for dumping, will be horrors of the past.) b) similarly, in dealing with artifacts, all conditions imposed by governmental agencies wouid be followed. But going beyond that, a committee of experts selected from both the community and the developers would work to secure and preserve the archaeological sites. e) provisions have been made to protect the shoreline and offshore marine resources by having marine experts selected from the community and from the developers to work together, constantly monitoring the project during construction. Plans are also being considered to avoid conflicts in the use of the oeean between visitors and traditional Hawaiian subsistence fishing and gathering. What we find here is not only talk and promises, but real progress — for the first time we are able to have our experts working with theirs, disagreeing on-the-spot if necessary, monitoring, advising and policing. The tired scenario where the government sets minimum standards, but no one to monitor or enforce it, is overcome in this case. d) community master planning for the coast lines reflecting community's aspirations of the futures, supported by a contribution of $125,000 (rather then only talk) to start the planning process; e) community owned and controlled eeonomie projects to build self-sufficiency within the community, supported by a contribution of $250,000 to that cause; In return, the litigants agreed to drop their lawsuit and promised to attempt mediation before bringing any further suits. To turn down such an agreement would result in seeing the project go up anyway but the community getting nowhere. The settlement was an excellent one. I've heard enough waha about eoneem for eommunity needs and community input in planning. This is the first time I've seen commitment. Fact 4: It is important to note that this resolution does not stop OHA, Ms. Akaka or a surfer off the beach from bringing their own lawsuit against this project. But has there been any lawsuits filed? No. Why not? Because its safer to criticize by writing articles. Finally, I note a prominent tone of racism in the writings of Ms. Akaka — a disdain for Japanese and a reference to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. We do not advance the cause of our people by casting contempt or destroying the respect and dignity of others. We advance only when we recognize the humanity of all people in all races. Races are never the culprits of crimes against humanity: racism is the culprit. OHA and its Trustees must step away from the advocacy of racial hatred if our native peoples are to advance. If not, not only will we make no progress but OHA will have detracted from the very soul of our people — Aloha. Poka Laenui, (Hayden F. Burgess)