Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 33, Number 3, 1 March 2016 — How can OHA better support progress in pur suit of self-determination for Kānāka Mooli? [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

How can OHA better support progress in pur suit of self-determination for Kānāka Mooli?

OHA has consistently taken a position to support the Kānaka Maoli right to self-determination, but what does this mean? It is clear that the United States has been slow to accept the growing movement for indigenous peoples' rights both domestically and internationally. However, in 2011, President Ohama finally signaled the U.S. support of the United Nations Declaration of

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) after President Bush and the Republican party stalled the U.S. acceptance of this important policy. What is the UNDRIP? It is intemahonal policy that carves out a distinct set of rights for indigenous people around the world. The concept began in the 1970's when Native Americans and other indigenous peoples started heavily advocating for greater rights and say in improving their conditions in response to the oppressive actions of powerful nations. In 2007, the United Nations adopted the policy and most of the world's nations signed on, while America and a few other "superpowers" held out. To get an idea of what the UNDRIP language provides we ean look to Articles 3 and 5 of the document. Article 3 states: "Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their eeonomie, social and cultural development." Article 5 states: "Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, eeonomie, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, eeonomie, social and cultural life of the State." While the United States has not accepted the UNDRIP or any other intemational policy as binding law, by supporting the UNDRIP it strengthens the position of indigenous advocacy in the United States. It also provides a

path for greater advocacy in the international arena that Kānaka Maoli must take advantage of. While there are questions about how this indigenous policy framework co-exists with claims regarding the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom because no such intemational policy existed at the time of the overthrow, it is critical that we begin to differentiate between the rights that indigenous Hawaiians hold versus the harms the Kingdom and its subjects suffered

as a result of the overthrow. Kānaka Maoli would fall into both classes, and it is important that we understand that. This is a complex issue that we as a community will have to navigate with great care. However, we should not be afraid of exercising rights that the international community and the U.S. currently support. We must gain greater control of cultural resources and assets, and we must have greater autonomy in exercising that control if we are going to llourish in our homeland. So what ean OHA do? Currently, OHA's policy withregard to self-deter-minahon only recognizes the pathway of federal recognition, the policy has not been revisited since the passage of UNDRIP and the U.S. expressing support of that important policy. It is time that OHA make the necessary adjustments to update its own selfdetermination policy to rellect the changes in international and domestic policy that provide for greater protections of our people and resources. We cannot rely solely on U.S. crafted processes such as the proposed Dept. of Interior rulemaking. OHA needs to begin to examine broadening its policy on self-determination to be inclusive of other pathways in pursuit of international diplomatic efforts to increase our standing and exercising our rights to self-determination in the international arena as the indigenous people of Hawai'i, while simultaneously preserving any and all claims relating to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. ■

Dan Ahuna VicE Chair, TrustEE, Kaua'i and Ni'ihau