Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 20, Number 11, 1 November 2003 — Economic impact of federal recognition uncertain [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Economic impact of federal recognition uncertain

'O ke kahua ma mua, ma hope ke kukulu. First ihe foundation , ihen ihe building.

What kinel of economy are we seeking? Questions about the eeonomie foundations of a Native Hawaiian domestic-dependent nation under the Akaka B i 1 1 By Randy Kekoa Quinones Akee Editor's note: Randy K. Quinones Akee, a former OHA eeonomie d.evelopment employee, is completing his doctoral program in political economy and government at Harvard University. Native Hawaiians have discussed the politieal and legal foundations of Native Hawaiian sovereignty for decades. Our history and identity are clear: Native Hawaiians are indigenous peoples, and the illegality of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i is an established fact acknowledged by Congress. What has been sorely missing is the discussion about the underlying eeonomie system we desire. Exactly what kind of economy do the people of Hawai'i, both native and non-native, envision for a Native Hawaiian government? What are the sources of revenue that will support the programs, services, and operations of a Native Hawaiian nation? Should a Native Hawaiian government be dependent on federal and state funding, generate its own revenues through government-owned businesses, or raise revenues through taxation and fees? How would citizens and members of a Hawaiian nation participate in the eeonomie structure of the domestic-depen-dent nation? Would they be entrepreneurs, workers, or merely beneficiaries? Onee the political foundations have been laid, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to change the eeonomie system. Rushing into a dependent-status relationship with the United States without a clear understanding of the inherent limitations on the eeonomie structure of that relationship is foolhardy. There are approximately 332 Native American tribes and 229 Alaska Native villages that are already federally recognized; their varied experiences serve as models of what Native Hawaiians ean expect for their government and economy.

While domestic-dependent status affirms the political relationship between indigenous peoples and the U.S. federal government, it also severely constrains the eeonomie possibilities. Land holdings under domestic-dependent nalion status There are primarily two ways in whieh federally recognized Native American and Alaska Native governments hold land in the United States: trust status and fee-simple status. Trust lands The lands of federally recognized Native American tribal nations in the 48 contiguous states are held in trust by the U.S. federal government. Title transfers of these lands are subject to the approval of the secretary of the Department of the Interior. This means that trust lands held by the U.S. federal government cannot

be mortgaged (mueh like Hawaiian Home Lands), creating significant impediments to investors looking to secure their investments. Fee simple lands An alternative to holding land in trust status would be the outright ownership of Native Hawaiian government land. For example, the Alaska Native villages hold fee simple title to the land that they were awarded in the 1971 Alaska

Native Claims and Settlement Act. The Alaskan Natives formed corporations and issued eligible village members equity shares. In this way, the Alaska Native villages were able to circumvent some of the difficulties arising from holding land in trust status. A drawback to fee simple land holding is that in a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (1998), the court concluded that fee simple lands are not considered "Indian Country" and that Alaska Village corporations cannot tax nonnatives doing business on these lands. Thus, a potentially large source of tax revenue may be lost from holding fee simple lands. The Akaka Bill (S.344, Native Hawaiian Recognition Act of 2003) does not specify how lands will be held for the Native Hawaiian government. This should be a significant eoneem to both supporters and opponents of federal recognition. Unanswered questions Will a new Native Hawaiian government that is federally recognized be subject to federal approvals on internal matters? Waiting for approvals from federal bureaucrats (officials who are appointed by the president and are not elected or appointed by the Native Hawaiian government or electorate) located in Washington, D.C., would entail a serious loss of eeonomie autonomy, efficiency and expediency. The Akaka Bill specifically prohibits certain types of eeonomie development such as gaming activities. Have Native Hawaiians as a group agreed to this arrangement, or has it been entered into the bill simply because it is politically advantageous? Next steps Looking to our past, we see that the average Native Hawaiian did not approve the overthrow, annexation, or statehood; it was imposed upon us. Are we repeating the same error today? In 1897, our kūpuna vehemently opposed any eonnection to the United States government in the Petition Protesting Annexation, Palapala Ho'opi'i Kū'ē Ho'ohui 'Āina. Perhaps we should consider their wisdom and examine all the options before we make an irreversible decision. The views expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. ■

Rushing into a dependent relationship with the United States without a clear understanding of the inherent limitations on the eeonomie structure of that relationship is foolhardy.

Kūkākūkā