Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 8, Number 4, 1 ʻApelila 1991 — Mai Wakinekona [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Mai Wakinekona

By Paul Alexander Washington, D.C. Counsel for OHA

Native Peoples and challenges to sovereignty

From time to time this eolumn has described different ways that Native People have organized to exercise sovereignty and practice selfgovernment. This month's eolumn will high!ight some differ-

ences gleaned from a recent International lndigenous Sovereignty Conference presented Feb. 28 and Mar. 1 by the Aboriginal Public Policy Institute (APPI). The institute, whieh is relatively new, seeks to train or prepare a "new generation of indigenous leaders analytically skilled, managerially competent and sensitive to ethical and social considerations in tribal public decisionmaking." The conference in San Rafael, California, was attended by government officials, elected and traditional Native leaders, self-styled Native leaders, and various individuals from Guam, the Soviet Union, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ecuador, and the U.S., including many persons from Hawai'i and Alaska. Moses K. Keale, Chairman of OHA, as well as Trustees Rowena Akana, Moanikeala Akaka, and Kamaki A. Kanahele, and land division offficer Linda Kawai'ono Delaney attended and participated in the conference. Others from Hawai'i included representatives from the PacificAsia Council of Indigenous People-Hawai'i, Alu Like. the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, and Ka Lahui Hawai'i. Chairman Keale, in two speeches to the assembly, stressed the critical nature of the current period in Hawaii's history as the Native communities debate and move forward to

determine how and what form(s) of sovereignty to reassert. He focused on the necessity of understanding Hawaiian culture and traditions in this reassertion process, and stressed that "spirituality" was a critical element of sovereignty. Many different views of sovereignty were expressed at the conference. The views of Native people in power were in marked contrast to those outside of the power structures. Although all generalizations are somewhat misleading, it seems that those on the "outside" had very personal almost mystical, views of sovereignty. For example, Dennis Banks, a fairly well-known Indian activist who, however, is not involved in tribal government, defined sovereignty as similar to an eagle soaring over its own territory. Those individuals serving in governmental capacities tended to focus their views on questions such as whether powers or Native rights were constitutionally based in the national governments that exercise power over the Native governments, or whether Native rights were recognized by judicial systems that had sufficient power to enforce those rights. Differences in the status of native rights and powers within the so-called national governments were significant. Several Maori representatives indicated that recent progress in social welfare and other areas of loeal eoneem were vulnerable to a new national government undertaking a "review" of Maori policy, whieh apparently ean be changed at the will of the national government. Native representatives from Canada spoke of their distress at their rights and unique status as native people having been omitted from Canada's recent constitutional revision. In fact, Native displeasure led highly skilled Native legislators to block the approval of the constitution. Natives

from Canada also pointed to recent Canadian judicial decisions affirming fundamental Native Rights. A fascinating presentation was made by the president of the Association of the Indigenous People of the Soviet Union. He tracked theefforts of his group, many of whom are related to Eskimos in Western Alaska, to gain any official recognition within the Soviet Union. The effort finally required the intervention of the president of the USSR, before the bureaucracy would take the Native People seriously. It, however, does not appear that Native people exercise any sovereignty or self-government within the USSR. Perhaps most depressing was the laek of any status or protection extended to Native people in Ecuador, South America. According to Ecuadorian officials, their constitution does not permit "discrimination" and special or Native rights would violate anti-discrimination provisions. No Native group at the conference indicated a problem-free mechanism for maintaing Native sovereignty. It did seem however, that those groups, such as lndian tribes in the United States, that had well-defined constitutional status as well as a judicially defined status, had a more extensive battery of weapons with whieh to protect their interests.