Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 13, Number 6, 1 Iune 1996 — HSEC responses to Native Hawaiian Vote criticisms [ARTICLE]

HSEC responses to Native Hawaiian Vote criticisms

• State monies mean state control. Therefore, this plebiscite process is not independent. Clarification Currently, monies eome from the state Legislature and OHA. There has been no case in whieh either side attempted to control this process. If we adopt the simplistic belief that money source means money control, then the U.H. Department of Hawaiian Studies, Ka Lāhui Hawai'i, and many other organizations whieh receive government dollars are not independent but controlled by the govemment. (U.H. is partly funded by state and federal funds. Ka Lāhui received funds from the federal government to carry out its education program.) • This process vjoiates international law. The state should have no part in aiding indigenous people's development of self-governance.

Clarification There is no basis in international law to support this allegation. In intemational law on decolonization, the U.S. govemment is charged with accepting as "a sacred tmst the obligation to promote to the utmost ... the well-being of the inhabitants and to this end to promote constmctive measures of development." The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, passed in furtherance of the U.N. Charter, calls upon governments to cease armed action or repressive measures in order to enable the people to exercise freely their right to complete independence. Subsequently, the U.N. adopted two fundamental covenants on human rights whieh reiterated the eall for govemment to promote the right of self-determi-nation. In 1907, the U.N. called on its members to specifically render all necessary moral and material assistance to the people in their stmggle to attain freedom and independence. Thus, according to intemational law, in both the area of decolonization and indigenous peoples' rights, governments are called upon to be active in the promotion of self-govemance and the protection of rights, even to the extent of providing the necessary resources in order to achieve such results.

• Nothing coming out of the Native Hawaiian Vote process or convention will change anything for Hawaiians because of the language in Section 14 of the Iegislation that created the Council. Clarification Section 14 of Act 200, SLH 1994, only provides that actions taken as a result of the Act do not automatically change the Hawai'i Constitution, state law, ordinances, mles or regulations. There is nothing in Section 14 that suggests in any way that the State will ignore the results of decisions made by Hawaiians. The repeal of Section 14 would be unwise as that section was enacted by the Legislature when the role of the Council changed from from advisory in nature to one of autonomy. The Legislature adopted Section 14 to ensure that the authority granted to the Council would not be deemed as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power within the state's constitutional framework. The whole purpose of the legislation that created the Council is to assist the Hawaiian people in their efforts toward self-determination, and no action should be taken by the Legislature to jeopardize the constitutionality of the process.