mt: The response was overwhelming. Hawaiians came from all over. The
gathering occurred at Mälia Puka o Kalani church in Keaukaha in 1987.
The rules were simple—come, regardless of age, or what group you were
with, or if you were by yourself, just come. We really did it as a grassroots
effort. At the end of the constitutional convention, we had to name the
nation and the nation’s name was Ka Lähui Hawai‘i; that is how it was
born. It was an effort of the Native Hawaiian Land Trust Task Force.
nn: Tell me more about Ka Lähui Hawai‘i.
mt: Hawaiians drafted the first constitution; every few years there would
be a convention to consider constitutional amendments. The constitution
structured the government. We dealt with very basic concepts. What type
dialogue • wong-wilson 147
of structure would be culturally appropriate for Hawaiians and still allow
us to interface with the United States and other native nations? The idea
of a bicameral legislature didn’t make sense. When Hawaiians meet, every-
one sits in one circle. That concept emerged as a unicameral government.
For Hawaiians, the American notion of one-man, one-vote didn’t work. It
was culturally inappropriate. In Hawai‘i, governance was never one-man,
one-vote. It was the Ali‘i or chiefs of the islands who had certain powers.
But, in this modern day and age, you cannot govern by bloodline alone,
because you have Hawaiians with bloodlines from Kaua‘i, now living on
O‘ahu, for instance. Should these people decide what’s going to happen on
Kaua‘i when they don’t even live there? But bloodlines were important and
needed to be included in some appropriate way. The reason why Ka Lähui
Hawai‘i has such a good constitution is because the process was created
and implemented by Hawaiians to address their own concerns and rights.
In order for a constitution to reflect the people’s desires and political will,
it must be written by the broadest and most representative group of
Hawai‘i’s peoples. Representation based on “population” favors urban
centers and westernized values. When representation is based on “com-
munity,” the real value of Hawaiian cultural enclaves (such as the fishing
villages of Miloli‘i and Kaläpana or the taro growers of Waipi‘o) will be
included in the outcome. Ka Lähui Hawai‘i processes were created by
Hawaiians to enhance their right of self-determination. Its constitution
addresses marine resources and cultural, spiritual, and traditional prac-
tices, because Ka Lähui Hawai‘i processes ensured that Hawai‘i fishermen,
planters, spiritual leaders, and cultural practitioners were delegates to the
constitutional process. Self-determination is not only a human right but
also a process for empowerment, nation building, and conflict resolution.
nn: Is Ka Lähui a democratic nation?
mt: Yes, we thought that democracy was also an important concept. So,
Hawaiians put the purest example of Hawaiian self-determination and
self-governance into Ka Lähui Hawai‘i’s constitution. This is why, for
instance, in Ka Lähui, you have a unicameral, collective decision-making
process and not a one-man–one-vote system. In Ka Lähui Hawai‘i, power
is equalized. Each island—O‘ahu, Kaua‘i, Ni‘ihau, Maui, Moloka‘i,
Läna‘i and Hawai‘i Island—has eight votes. Regardless of the population,
each island should have a fair say. We also looked at conflict resolution.
In traditional times we practiced ho‘oponopono, a method of conflict res-
olution. Some Hawaiians said, “We want to have a judge.” So when we
148 the contemporary pacific • 17:1 (2005)
drafted the constitution, we included elected judges, or, if citizens prefer,
they can go to the Küpuna (Elders) Council for Ho‘oponopono. You can-
not choose both, but you have a choice, either the traditional or the mod-
ern. We considered issues such as burial rights, fishing, land rights, how
to protect our culture. That’s why Ka Lähui Hawai‘i has the Ali‘i branch
of government. The Ali‘i council is Ali‘i blood, and they look after cul-
ture and protocol. It’s not for the elected government to try to implement
cultural protocol, it’s the job of those who have been the cultural keepers
of protocol. These kinds of things were worked out in the constitution so
that the government structures would be reflections of culture, and would
protect and address tradition.
nn: How many citizens belong to Ka Lähui Hawai‘i?
mt: We eventually went from a handful, about 250, to over 20,000, with
adults and children in Hawai‘i and also on the continent. We struggled
with issues like blood quantum and incorporation of Hawaiian cultural
as well as western ideas. Many different sovereignty groups were emerg-
ing at the same time. Ka Lähui’s first step was to form a nation within
this political environment (nation-within-nation US structure), while
developing an international strategy. We knew there were limitations
under the US system that could never be addressed under US domestic
law. Because of our previous history with the United Nations, we decided
we had to go to the international arena.
nn: What is the relationship between Ka Lähui Hawai‘i and the United
Nations?
mt: A lot of people looked at Ka Lähui and said we were selling out, we
wanted to be under the US system. This was not quite accurate because
what we were saying was that the first priority was not a political rela-
tionship with the United States. The first priority was to protect the land
and protect the people; education, health, and cultural preservation. The
first priority was to create a Hawaiian nation to facilitate self-determi-
nation at home. The political strategy for dealing with the United States
was the second priority. Under the United States, indigenous people can
achieve only limited rights, but we could obtain land for our people’s
needs. And, we could at least get a share of our revenues to develop health,
education, and culture. Those were Ka Lähui’s priorities for the eight
years I served as kia‘äina of the nation.
dialogue • wong-wilson 149
nn: Was there widespread support for those priorities?
mt: There was consensus but not complete unity. The criticism that we
don’t march to the beat of a single drum, that we don’t stand in unity, is
out of political necessity. That criticism comes with a western bias and is
imposed on native people. We Hawaiians were never unified, we always
had different kuleana or responsibilities until the time of Kamehameha.
Kamehameha unified the islands, but how? It wasn’t through native prac-
tice—ho‘oponopono—but with the gun of the white man and through
war. What eventually became established was not just simply Hawaiian,
but rather, a monarchial structure. I don’t blame Kamehameha, and as far
as I’m concerned, I will always honor the Kamehameha monarchs. Our
people went from a traditional lifestyle to occupation by outsiders, and
haoles (foreigners) taking over, in one generation. Kamehameha looked
around; he was concerned about the survival of our peoples, and he saw
a monarchial structure in Europe. Hawaiians had many treaties with
Europe. Hawaiians knew that change was coming and they did the best
they could. It’s pointless to blame Hawaiians who lived during the
monarchy. If we had lived in their times what would we have done? I
don’t know if we would have done any better.
Nevertheless, we were trying to address sovereignty but the system cre-
ated the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. oha was moving ahead with their
state initiative, and we had the political realities of the state Democratic
Party, which controlled our assets. The party is heavily dominated by
Japanese Americans and they want to remain in power and in control of
the state’s land trusts. That’s where we are today. We are dealing with the
same old structure. Hawai‘i is the only state in the union that has never
really had a two-party system. So, the checks and balances of the US two-
party system—Democrat and Republican— are meaningless to us, mean-
ingless! Republicans are in power now because Democratic voters are
sick of what the Democratic Party has become, not because the people are
all Republicans. This is how my involvement with Ka Lähui developed.
When I stepped out of office in 1998 it was because I had served two
terms as kia‘äina and according to the Nation’s constitution, I couldn’t
run again for that position.
nn: One of the most important issues facing Hawaiians today is whether
or not to support the move for federal recognition. Can you share your
thoughts on the “Akaka Bill”?
150 the contemporary pacific • 17:1 (2005)
mt: We need to go back to the first draft of the “Akaka Bill” and deter-
mine its purpose. The purpose was to begin to address reconciliation and
the “Apology Resolution” and to restore to the native people the right of
self-determination.9 What is the purpose of the current “Akaka Bill,”
Senate bill 344? The purpose of the current “Akaka Bill” is to create a
process for federal recognition and to protect the pork-barrel funding for
a huge service agency structure.
As a by-product of this effort, you have to create a nation, because you
can’t “recognize” a nation that doesn’t exist. The purpose of this bill is not
to create a Hawaiian nation, but to create a process for “federal recogni-
tion.” We had sovereignty before the overthrow. The Apology Resolution
says that as a result of the overthrow, international law was violated,
Hawaiians lost their right to sovereignty, Hawaiians lost their right to self-
determination. However, Hawaiians never relinquished their claim to
lands or their rights to a plebiscite or referendum. Our government was
overthrown by armed US military forces.
What is the Apology Resolution talking about? It is talking about our
right as an independent native people to self-determination under inter-
national law. Under international law, it is the right of all peoples to
determine their own political status, and by virtue of that right, to freely
pursue their cultural, social, and economic development. The right of
economic development comes from the right to self-determination. The
right for cultural development, preservation, and social development
evolves from the right of self-determination, which begins with the right
to determine our own political status. If this bill is written properly, we
could get out of a wardship relationship with the US and begin our road
back to nationhood. This is based on the definition of human rights under
international law.
nn: So, why is the “Akaka Bill” so controversial among Hawaiians?
mt: In the current “Akaka Bill,” strangely, there begins to be manipula-
tion of the concept and right to self-determination. The bill says that
Native Hawaiians express their right to “self-determination” by getting
“government services.” For example, health funds go to Papa Ola Lökahi;
education monies go to the Center for Hawaiian Studies; language
immersion funds go to ‘Aha Pünana Leo; employment training monies go
to Alu Like, Inc; economic development goes to Alu Like, Inc, and the
Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement (cnha); 10 children’s services
go to the Queen Lili‘uokalani Trust; the list is exhaustive. These Hawai-
dialogue • wong-wilson 151
ians express their right of self-determination by securing a place on the
pork-barrel line. Today, all of these nonprofits control the Council for
Native Hawaiian Advancement, which controls and receives over 70 mil-
lion dollars a year for Hawaiians. They are also controlling the process on
the “Akaka Bill.”
The bill says that Hawaiians have the right to self-determination, but it
defines self-determination as dependency. The US policy limits indigenous
rights to internal control over certain matters. Indian nations, at best, are
autonomous. There are overlapping state, federal, and Indian jurisdic-
tions. There are some things Indians don’t have a say about, like military
bases. That would be very convenient here in Hawai‘i, because so much of
the ceded lands are militarized by the United States. With regard to
Hawaiian Home Lands, you have to go to the US Congress to make any
changes. So, in the current “Akaka Bill,” you can see US policy strongly
emerging. In addition to the policy issues, there is a redefining of the con-
cept of self-determination. Now, who drafted this? Not Hawaiians.
Many Hawaiians are confused because they don’t understand the
process and there has been little education. Hawaiians have not seen or
testified on the last four versions of the “Akaka Bill.” Some Hawaiians
understand full well what is happening, but they want the kälä, the
money. They want to advance their careers and they are getting older. I
have great disdain for such people. These are the kinds of questions to
ask when considering this bill. Did Hawaiians write it? No. Did Hawai-
ians testify? No. And they made damn sure there was no opportunity for
anybody to make the Congressional Record. Who supports the Hawaiian
bill, and who opposes it? It’s not just white racists who oppose it; there
are a lot of people who can’t support it because they don’t understand it.
There are a lot of people like myself who can’t really support the bill
because it offends the very principles of transparency and inclusiveness.
For god’s sake, if you don’t want to have an official congressional hear-
ing here, then launch an educational effort and have the people write tes-
timony and send it to Congress. But the few controlling the process have
insured that only cnha, the state governor, the state oha and the state
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands are involved.
In the international arena, the world is having elections. In the 1950s,
there were many dictators. There were no elections. Nowadays, all over
the world, we have democratic elections. This is why there are UN
observers for elections, because you don’t want power to manipulate the
election process.
152 the contemporary pacific • 17:1 (2005)
You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!
Replies
I was involved, but truly I was still a go-with-on-the-scene not really grasping what really was going on in the Hoala Kanawai principles.
This is real for me that parting from the formation of OHA was very real for the people of Hoala Kanawai.
"They said, “Let’s create the
‘Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ and make it a quasi-sovereign entity so it
could be part state, part nation. That way we don’t have to create a sep-
arate nation.”
nn: What was your reaction?
mt: I opposed the committee’s decision, left the Con-Con, and continued
to work with Ho‘äla Känäwai. It was then that we decided we really
needed to work with a larger group—it couldn’t be just Ho‘äla Känäwai,
a few Hawaiian Homesteaders, but we had to broaden the effort. There
were many other organizations looking at this concept of sovereignty:
grassroots groups and Hawaiian Civic Clubs were looking at self-gov-
ernance, Hawaiian Homesteaders were discussing sovereignty,8 Native
Americans were coming to Hawai‘i to talk about sovereignty, other
Hawaiians were going to the United Nations. We decided that we would
have a häläwai, a gathering, and it was decided that a new group should
form so that Ho‘äla Känäwai could remain intact.
nn: Who else was involved with this movement?"