Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 12, Number 9, 1 September 1995 — Claims of conscience: land claims [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Claims of conscience: land claims

by Kīna'u Boyd kamali'i Trustee-at-large Mueh public attention and most Hawaiian energy is now directed to achieving sovereignty. But long and heated discussions over whieh model of sovereignty lo choose are hollow if the result is a paper nation. Without a land ba.se the Hawaiian nalion wou!d function as a

virtual government īn extle. Perhaps carrying an impressive portfolio of powers, but unable to exerci.se or to enforce those powers over a defined territorial jurisdiction. As the citizens of that shadow nation, Hawaiians would continue to be homeless in our own homeland — oniy more fruslrated, angry and despairing than today because yet another promise had been broken, another trust betrayed. The Hawaiian people cannot sustain another disappointment. And the hope of the Hawaiian nation eannot be realized without a iand base. The ultimate success of sovereignty, then, is insepa-

rable from the comprehensive settlement of native Hawaiian land claims. Several years ago David Getches — then an attomey known for his work in Indian law, and an early and ardent advocate for Hawaiian claims — noted that any lands settlement must be "fitting and fair" if it were to be accepted as just by both the

Hawaiian and Ameiiean peoples. But what are the elements needed for a fitting land claims settlement? And what should and would a fair settlement include? Beginning in 1989 with the announcement of "Operation Blueprint," OHA has been seeking answers to those questions. After years of public meetings, ongoing research, and the drafting and revising of proposed legislation, OHA has developed an omnibus settlement and recognition measure. More discussion is

I needed, and no effort has been made to seek introduction of this draft bill. In broad overview, the proposed OHA land settlement would include two elements to assure "faimess." First, it must retain the spirit of a tmst doctrine whieh has always defined the Hawaiian re!ationship to these lands. In plainer Ianguage, OHA rejects any individual claims to the land or any settlement award to particular families as unfitting and contrary to Hawaiian practice.

Holding land in trust for eommon beneficial use has been practiced in Hawai'i for more than 2,000 years. The gods, chiefs and people shared a sacred bond with the 'āina and all things of the earth. This divine relationship between the people and the land has been transformed through time and the development of new laws into a western trust doctrine of fiduciary responsibilities. At the time of the overthrow, nearly half the land area of

Hawai'i or nearly two million acres out of a total 4.2 million acres — were intact as the national legacy of Hawai'i. These lands were surrendered, or ceded to the U.S. at annexation in 1898. It is fitting, then, that any land claims settlement must be made to the Hawaiian people. Any allowanee or compensation to traditional ali'i or former royalty would be the sole decision of the Hawaiian people and would be reflected in the constitution or govemance document of the nation. Second, the land claims settlement must be to all the Hawaiian people, regardless of blood quantum. The existing public Hawaiian tmsts serve on!y those of 50 percent or more Hawaiian b!ood. Those of less than half are ignored and wrongfully disinherited. Being divided by the very blood whieh joins us is the central tragedy of the modem Hawaiian experience and, 1 believe, the driving force of the soverreignty movement and moral imperative of the land claims settlement. Rebuilding the Hawaiian nation is, at heart, to seek the reunion of the Hawaiian family and to allow us to exist as a whole people. I'll address the components of a "fair" land settlement in my next eolumn.