Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 32, Number 8, 1 August 2015 — The political roulette of nation building: Part one [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

The political roulette of nation building: Part one

There are three divergent political positions on Nation Building that have emerged as Hawai-

I ians seek to re-establish I some form of a Hawaiian Nahon. The first position is put forward by Hawaiian Nationals who seek independence from the United States. Their position is that Queen Lili'uokalani never relinquished her throne and the Kingdom of Hawai'i still exists as an illegally occupied sovereign nation. They cite breaches of international law

in their attempts to petition the United Nations to take up the case. The second position, supported by folks I would characterize as Hawaiian-Americans seeks a two-step process of reconciliation with the United States. First, they advocate for Native American status from the Congress, whieh would then allow Native Hawaiians to pursue a government-to-gov-ernment relationship with the U.S. as was done by Native American Indians and Native Alaskans. This is more commonly referred to as the nation-within-a-nation model. It's important to note that Native Ameriean status does not automatically confer nationhood. The recognized group must formally petition the federal government for a government-to-government relationship. The proposal then would have to be ratified by the Congress and approved by the Executive Branch. The third position advocated by those I refer to as Revisionists are largely eomposed of non-Hawaiians. They are accused

of revisionist history denying that Hawai'i was colonized against the will of the vast maiority of the Hawaiian popula-

tion. They do not acknowledge that the overthrow of Queen Lili'uokalani led by American businessmen was a eoup d'etat with the clandestine objective of annexation to the United States. Revisionists are adamant that Hawaiian claims of illegal overthrow and demands for political redress are without merit and that the process leading to annexation by the U.S. occurred legitimately.

Of the three poliheal positions, pursuit of the nation-within-a-nation position of the Hawaiian- Americans was what emerged from the activism of the 1970s as the mainstream expectation of most Hawaiian and state political leaders including Hawai'i's congressional delegation. The voices of Hawaiian Nationals and the Revisionists had not yet been manifested to the degree that their positions received any serious attention at that time in history. What is very clear now is that after 117 years since annexation the moment is upon us, the nationhood train has left the station, and the political eloek is ticking. There seems general agreement that if nationhood is to occur it has to happen while Ohama is President. My next Ka Wai Ola eolumn will take you through the next steps already in progress, whieh is moving quickly toward a Hawaiians-only eleehon of delegates to a constitutional convention that would be expected to emerge with a proposal for nationhood - or not. ■

i LEO 'ELELE v www.oha.org/kwo | kwo@OHA.org * TRUSTEE MESSSAGES f NATiVE HAWAiiAN » NEWS | FEATURES | EVENTS

PetEr Apo Trustee, O'ahu