Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 17, Number 6, 1 June 2000 — Pros and cons of federal legislation for federal recognition [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Pros and cons of federal legislation for federal recognition

ĪHE HAWAI'I federal delegation is proposing a fast track for short-form legislation on this matter for summer 2000. The immediate eoneem is that in the aftermath of Rice vs. Cayetano there will be lawsuits filed challenging the private tmsts, 5(f) and Department of Hawaiian Home Lands trusts and federal and state program funding for Hawaiians. The federal Task Force has pubhshed and distributed a position paper setting forth three points to be covered in the legislation: 1) Native Hawaiians are indigenous peoples; 2) Native Hawaiians have a special relationship to the United States; and 3) Native Hawaiians should be given our right to self-determination under federal law. Pros 1 . Short form legislation ean estabhsh a federal relationship between the U.S. and Hawahan peoples quickly, while a longer bih for nationhood, land and reparations is being prepared and the Congress is being educated. 2. Program funding wih be protected as soon as passage is achieved.

3. Threatened htigation will be staUed or prevented. 4. The basic elements of the short form bUl are in the Kū'ē Petition whieh itself is a grassroots statement of the people. The Kū'ē Petition verifies this and ean interface with this strategy. 5. There appears to be consensus on the three points in the Hawaiian community. Some groups have been calhng for federal recognition for years.

Cons 1. This is just what the U.S. and Dan Inouye and the state want. It is a short form bill that creates a federal poliheal relationship between the U.S. and Hawaiians as individuals - leaving out the nation, land and aU of our entitlements. There never will be a longer bill for land or nationhood. Wardship is maintained, until a new nation is formed. 2. The bill threatens our right to achieve independence and total separation from the U.S. because it puts us under the U.S.

pohcy of self-determination, rather than under intemational law. 3. The biU doesn't guarantee federal program funding for Hawaiian programs. The Congress provides these funds to native nations. If no nation is formed, the funds for Hawaiians eonhnue to go to the few with poliheal connections to Dan Inouye. Even with a short form biU, the Congress could stiU decrease or terminate program funding. Federal recognition doesn't guarantee federal funds for federally recognized Indian nations. Considerations 1. The Apology BiU acknowledges th; f international law was violated and that our right to self-determination was lost. It did not qualify the right to self-determination as being "under federal law." This quahfication need not be in the legislation. 2. We cannot rely upon or trust the federal delegation to carry the baU on this issue. Self-determination requires that the indigenous peoples steer the ship. Our task is to build the momentum, form a consensus and do it. We wiU need an independent steering committee from the people to chart the course and create the nation. ■

"Self-determination requires that the indigenous peoples steer the ship. Our task is to build the momentum, form a consensus and do it."

[?]