Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 11, Number 6, 1 June 1994 — News from Washington D.C. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

News from Washington D.C.

ls Washington "listening" to native Hawaiians?

i • by Paul Alexander Mūl Wakinekona Mai Washington, D.C. Counsel for OHA

After a year of planning and many meetings, the leaders of more than 500 Indian tribes and Alaskan Native communities eame Washington to meet with President Clinton. Papers and

positions on the range of topics of eoneem in Indian country were presented to the administration by tribes organized by region and by the various national Indian organizations. Primary among the issues presented were the federal trust relationship to Indians,

and the government-to-govern-ment relationship desired between tribal governments and the govemment of the United States. Never before had a president received all the political leadership from lndian country. A select handful of Indian leaders spoke for Indian country. The president pledged his commitment and announced his intention to issue several presidential instructions on religious freedom and the fed-eral-Indian relationship. Following this event, the Clinton White House convened the first of what are to be several "listening conferences." These events will have key federal officials "listen" to presentations

front Indian leaders, receiving specific recommendations for action or policy changes that are within the officials' jurisdiction. The first conference was held May 5-6 in New Mexico.

Attorney General Janet Reno and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt were the "listening" officials. Tribes, organized by geographic area, made presentations on five broad topics. Their presentations were often

very detailed, even including requests for Department of Justice intervention in support of tribal positions in specific court cases. In general the spirit of these listening conferences was very positive. Time will tell whether these events will be translated into action supporting Indian interests. It was clear at the conference that although Indian leadership appreciated the effort and the few eoncrete items that had to date been delivered by Clinton admnistration, there has been substantial dissatisfaction with budget cuts, delay in appointments, and several policy decisions that are seen as being against Indian interests. Whatever the eventual useful

outcome might be for Indian people from these conferences, they ean only serve to highlight the failure of the United States to fully recognize its obligation to native Hawaiians. Completely absent from these events were native Hawaiians, the "other" Native American group to whom the United States owes a trust obligation. 1 have noted repeatedly in this eolumn the impact of the United States' reluctance to recognize its responsibilities. For example, when Congress tries to create a stmcture and a process to protect Native American religious freedom, it, in the absence of a native Hawaiian government, represents

native Hawaiian interests. In the absence of an executive branch acknowledgement of the trust responsibility, programs — whether a demonstration project for fishing rights or funds for homestead infrastructure — need to be continually defended against charges of unconstitutional discrimination and "unlawful racebased preferences." These "listening" conferences also highlight the need to proceed to organize a native Hawaiian governmental structure(s) that ean be recognized and deal with the United States on a government-to-govemment basis.