Hawaiian Sovereignty, The Big Picture
Price of Paradise · Hawaii Public Radio · aired 1995-08-27
Guests: Norma Wong (former Director of State Planning); William Meheula (member, Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council); Quentin Kawananakoa (State Representative); Clayton Hee (Chairman, Office of Hawaiian Affairs); Kali Watson (Chairman, Hawaiian Homes Commission); Oz Stender (Bishop Estate trustee)
Duration: 1:05:10

[00:00:05] Randall Roth: Good morning. This is Randy Roth, host of the Price of Paradise radio show. We call it Pop Radio. We're broadcast live each Sunday morning from 8:00 to 9:00 on KHPR 88.1 FM and KKUA 90.7 FM. And then rebroadcast Sunday evenings at 8:00 on KIFO 1380 AM. Pop Radio is proud to be sponsored by the Hawaii Community Foundation, an important organization with a mission to provide community leadership, donor services, and grant making. Last year, it awarded over $9 million in grants to nonprofit charitable organizations throughout Hawaii and provided non-financial support and guidance to many others. Our show two weeks ago was the first installment in a three-part series on sovereignty. Our guests were Keikuni Blasedell, the convener of Kapahau KauKau, Blossom Fatera, the acting head of state of the Nation of Hawaii, and K'li Gorara, the Oaho Poo of Kalahui, Hawaii. They compared and contrasted their respective approaches to sovereignty and talked about the role of non-Hawaiians.
[00:01:10] Randall Roth: Our guests last week were attorneys Clinton Ashford and Jim Mee, plus historian Walter Judd. They described themselves as the Kanalua Gang. Kanalua is a word that used to be used in the Hawaii legislature when a person had not yet made up his mind. Ashford, Mee, and Judd voiced a number of questions and concerns that they felt had not yet been fully addressed by sovereignty proponents. We conclude our series this week with an impressive list of guests. Each of these folks is a major player in one or more aspects of Hawaiian affairs. Four of them are with us in the studio, and two others are hooked up by phone. The two who are by phone are Kali Watson, Chairman of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, and Oz Stender, a trustee of the Bishop Estate.
[00:01:56] Randall Roth: Kali is enjoying a family outing on the north shore, and Oz is on the campus of Kamehameha School getting ready to attend an 8:30 church service. We really appreciate their willingness to participate in today's show. With me in the studio is Clayton He, a former state senator who currently is chairman of OHA, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Quinton Kavana, a state representative who also is an attorney with the firm of Case, Mirdal, Bigalow and Lombardi. Norma Wong, a former director of the Office of State Planning, who currently is with the law firm of Berner, Lipert, Bernard, McPerson and Hand, and Bill Meheula, an attorney with the firm of Jervis, Winer and Meheula. Bill recently was given the State Bar Association's Justice Award for his pro bono legal services on behalf of the Hawaiian community. Kali, Oz, Clayton, Quinton, Norma, and Bill, good morning.
[00:02:51] Randall Roth: Obviously, there are going to be a lot of voices this morning. My primary job is to direct traffic, so listeners are going to know at any given time who's speaking. We're going to be talking about sovereignty for about 20 minutes or so, and then we're going to invite calls. I thought I might start by inviting each of our studio guests to briefly share their thoughts about one of the concerns or questions that were voiced by our guests last week. Um, Bill, maybe you could start.
[00:03:24] William Meheula: Well, one of the things that was said last week in one of the articles and on the channel last week was that the apology bill was an apology and it was a good thing by the United States. And it's really too bad that some of the Hawaiian activists are using it to try and create a claim for the seated lands. Okay.
[00:04:07] Randall Roth: Norma Wong, anything that was raised last week that you would like to address, uh, briefly.
[00:04:12] Norma Wong: Well, Randy, you know, obviously, one of the issues, uh, that both the Hawaiian community and non-Hawaiian community is wrestling with is the whole issue of racial divisiveness. Uh, personally, I think that's a red herring. It's a flag we raise up on the pole as a means of either gathering people in favor or against the whole issue of sovereignty. But it's definitely a red herring. There's no need for the movement to proceed and for the solution to, uh, to be racially divisive. Our geography works against it. And so does the fact that, uh, the that Native Hawaiians, uh, make up such a large percentage of the community here.
[00:05:23] Randall Roth: Okay. Quinton Kavana, anything from last week that you would like to address, briefly.
[00:05:29] Quinton Kavana: You know, this morning's editorial, I did note a concern I had with some of the statements with regard to the to the crown lands and to the government lands and the statement basically had uh, mentioned how the Hawaiian populace really didn't lose any title to land. They didn't lose anything by the change of government from the Kingdom of Hawaii over to the provisional government. And I took a look at that, and I thought about it, and I thought otherwise. Because if we look back, I believe that under the Kingdom of Hawaii and the government, and with Queen Lili'uokalani, certainly much of the beneficial use of those lands, such as the government lands, would be uh for the benefit of the native Hawaiian populace.
[00:06:12] Quinton Kavana: And so I think the, while perhaps legal title certainly wasn't lost, there certainly was beneficial use, a loss of that beneficial beneficial use. And I should also, I just noted uh the other day in a conversation that King Kalakaua actually proposed that the crown lands be leased on a long-term basis to Native Hawaiians at $1 a year. So something perhaps uh uh a beginning or an idea that was later incorporated with the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.
[00:06:40] Randall Roth: Okay. Clayton He, you're the head of of OHA and last week, one of our guests suggested that that maybe we already have sovereignty, that perhaps OHA is sovereignty. What what do you think about that?
[00:06:54] Clayton Hee: Well, that's not that's not accurate and uh anyone who would pr- uh suggest that OHA is a sovereign nation is off base. And uh simply simply put, we are uh whether we or other Hawaiians choose to uh uh admit it or not, a part of the state bureaucracy. We were created by state constitution. And uh until the Hawaiian people have that opportunity to uh determine themselves how their nation would would evolve uh it's a fair statement in my view to suggest that OHA is as close as sovereignty may be at this time. And that's primarily because in my view of the assets we have, which are used you know, primarily to assist Hawaiians, including those who would suggest and uh would be opposed to the uh Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
[00:07:55] Randall Roth: Okay, in in this morning's advertiser, there are three articles written by Norma Wong, Bill Meheula, and Quinton Kavana, and Bill, in yours, I think you said that even though OHA is out there fighting on behalf of the Hawaiian community, uh we really need a new entity because OHA is, after all, a state agency. Uh, could you elaborate a little bit more on that?
[00:08:19] William Meheula: Well, I think what Clayton He said was true, you know, it's a state created agency, but I think that the trustees of OHA have demonstrated their loyalty to Hawaiians, but that's not the point. I think the bottom line is that Hawaiians need an opportunity to get together by themselves and create an entity of their own choosing and of its own structure.
[00:08:38] Randall Roth: Okay, well participating by phone we have Oz Stender, who is a trustee of the Bishop Estate, and uh Oz, last week, or I guess it was two weeks ago, we had some of the proponents from specific sovereignty organizations, and two of those organizations, Kalahui, Hawaii and Kapahau KauKau had taken the position that eventually the lands of the Bishop Estate would be folded into the new sovereign Nation of Hawaii, wondering if you have any reaction to that. Oz, are you there? I think he's coming. Oz? Oz Stender. Okay, well we're going to try to to find Oz. We've lost him in the telephone system, but we'll get back to him in in just a bit. Um, anything else that was raised last week that any of you would like to address? We're just trying to get some of these issues out on the table, and then we're going to um to really get into our conversation.
[00:09:44] Clayton Hee: Yeah, let me let me jump in right there.
[00:09:46] Randall Roth: Okay, Clayton He. We've got so many voices. My job is to make sure people know who's talking. Go ahead, Clayton.
[00:09:51] Clayton Hee: I think it's it's important to understand that uh one of the things said last week uh in my view struck home, and that is that sovereignty is as important to non-Hawaiians as it is to Hawaiians. There's a propensity among uh several in the community to make it a Hawaiian only issue. It simply isn't true. And uh we uh as Hawaiians have benefited from non-Hawaiians, and uh will continue to benefit from non-Hawaiians and it it it probably is is is a fair statement that non-Hawaiians would be as impacted uh politically as Hawaiians. And so it's important to try to keep uh the thought that uh we're in it together, so to speak, and that it isn't us against them and it it should never have uh be portrayed like that.
[00:10:44] Randall Roth: Okay. And I think Quinton, in in your piece this morning, you said we really need for it to be win-win.
[00:10:50] Quinton Kavana: I think it absolutely must be a win-win situation for whatever to come about, uh the issue of sovereignty. And I agree wholeheartedly with Clayton that it is an issue for all of us to resolve here in the islands. It's important to note that uh some people have looked at it as a point upon sovereignty as a divisive issue, a racial issue, something to pull the communities apart. I think just the opposite. It's an opportunity for the communities to come together and find out the beneficial use that uh sovereignty could provide for both the native Hawaiian populace and the non-Hawaiian populace. And the an example I gave in the editorial was simply tourism. If we take a look at what's happening in the future with our islands, you know, that's our main industry, and there's no way to get around that.
[00:11:34] Quinton Kavana: And if we were to understand that in the next ensuing 10 years, people will be avoiding the sun, for instance, uh that's going to be a segment of our tourism that's going to start to decline. And so how can we replace that? What can be part of the formula and element to bring more tourists here or to actually make it a more uh enjoyable experience traveling to the islands. And I think the Hawaiian Nation and all of its cultural attributes would certainly be an attraction and and a benefit beneficial cultural interaction between tourists and and the sovereign Nation of Hawaii.
[00:12:10] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, I think we have Oz on the line. Oz, are you there?
[00:12:13] Oz Stender: Yes, good morning.
[00:12:16] Randall Roth: Good morning, Oz. I can hear you. Did you uh hear everything thus far?
[00:12:19] Oz Stender: Yes.
[00:12:20] Randall Roth: Okay, well, then you know I asked the question about uh Kalahui and Kapahau KauKau's positions that Bishop Estate land would be part of the sovereign Nation of of Hawaii's lands. What do you think?
[00:12:31] Oz Stender: Yes. Well, you know, before I answer that, I wanted to add a little bit if you don't mind uh to Clayton's and uh Quinton's comments on the uh, you know, the ethnicity issue. And Norma touched on a little bit. In, you know, I it's my hope that the Kalahui and the other uh entities that are uh discussing the sovereignty issue would address that more specifically. The fact that it's it's a concern that it's being mentioned time and time again, you know, tells me it needs to be addressed. But getting on to the uh uh the question, which we've heard from time to time as to the uh Kelly Hawaii lands being part of the uh sovereignty ownership. Well, to begin with, you know, as trustees of the estate, it's it's our responsibility to oppose any attempt by any sovereign wishing to take and place under its dominion, you know, these ancestral lands of Kelly Hawaii Bishop.
[00:13:33] Randall Roth: So so you're saying even if you personally might agree with what they're saying as a trustee with a fiduciary duty, you would be obliged to resist that.
[00:13:42] Oz Stender: Absolutely. Yeah, Kelly you know, Hawaii left a legacy to be governed by five trustees to manage the endowment. And, of course, more importantly, to educate children of Hawaiian ancestry, now and forever. And so, and you know, I could I need to add that, you know, interestingly enough, uh that the Bishop Estate, you know, rose uh during a monarchy, and it has survived and prospered through a provisional government, a Republic, territorial government, state government, and I hope and pray that it will continue to grow, you know, through any other governmental regime.
[00:14:24] Randall Roth: Okay, Oz, stay on the line. Uh Bill Meheula had something he wanted to say based on what you just said and then I'm going to come back to you.
[00:14:32] William Meheula: Well, I have to make a disclosure first. One of my uh law partners is a Bishop Estate trustee, Jerry Jervis, but that's not affecting my answer here at all. Um, you know, one of one of the things that uh Hawaiians want to get across to non-Hawaiians is that the sovereignty movement for the main part, is not trying to obtain the private lands. We're trying to get back a substantial portion of the seated lands, but not the private lands. The lands that Bishop Estate owns are private lands, and so for the same reason why I don't expect my condominium to be part of the Hawaiian Nation, it's the same rationale that Bishop Estate if it chooses to keep its land apart from the Hawaiian Nation has every right to do so just as every other American citizen who owns land here.
[00:15:14] Randall Roth: Okay. Oz, I know you've got a church service out there at Kamehameha schools to attend. Is there anything else that you'd like to add before you have to leave the conversation?
[00:15:22] Oz Stender: No, I'm glad that uh you know Bill mentioned that point because I think in the business community you know, there's a lot of concern as to what happens to properties and of course, the investments that they have. And it also affects, you know, their continuing uh I think uh concern as to what happens in the future as to the business entities that are around town. Right, and that needs to be addressed.
[00:15:49] Randall Roth: Okay. Oz, thank you. So with that, I need to go to services starting in uh in about 5 minutes, and uh I want to be there before it starts. Okay, thank you, Oz.
[00:15:59] Oz Stender: Thank you for having me on.
[00:16:00] Randall Roth: You bet. Also in the line we have Kali Watson, who's the Chairman of Hawaii Homelands Commission. Kali, can you hear me?
[00:16:07] Kali Watson: Yes, I can. Hello.
[00:16:08] Randall Roth: Good morning. Uh we've been talking about sovereignty and we just wanted to get uh and I know you're on your family outing and we appreciate you taking a few minutes out from that to join us. If you could share very briefly your thoughts on on sovereignty in general, but especially how Hawaiian Homelands fits into that equation.
[00:16:27] Kali Watson: Well, I think that uh it's clear that any type of entity or sovereign model that's followed, Hawaiian Homelands would be an integral part. Uh I I think though with with the idea of sovereignty, you know you have to look at the definition. And there you with the independence that's uh being proposed comes a certain amount of responsibility, a need to be self-sufficient. If you look at it from that standpoint, and you consider the fact that uh Hawaiian Homelands has substantial amount of trust revenues. It also has about $600 million in settlement money that's going to be coming to it over the next 20 years, as well as over 200,000 acres, you know, there's to a certain extent, it's already there.
[00:17:12] Kali Watson: The the I guess infrastructure as well as the lands, as well as uh the revenues that would make it somewhat uh conducive to this idea of sovereignty. What I think about it, though is I have a a lot of concerns in a sense that should sovereignty become a reality and I think it will eventually, uh we need to recognize as well as uh satisfy the existing waiting lists as well as uh not adversely impact on the existing homesteaders. concerning uh the private sector as well as uh non-Hawaiians being concerned about what's going to happen. I think we have to weigh that against uh we look at it from the standpoint of how we can work with the private sector as well as the non-native Hawaiians. And I think uh the department is a good example in the sense that, you know, we work with FHA, the Veterans Administration, uh the Department of Agriculture, as well as the state and county entities, to generate uh not only a lot of revenues, but you know, they guarantee our loans, uh they provide uh inspection services. Uh there's a lot of things that uh we can do to to work with the private as well as the existing government agencies which uh the bottom line is going to benefit a lot of our beneficiaries.
[00:19:49] Kali Watson: And so in in looking at this uh process of sovereignty, I I think we should not lose sight of the tremendous benefits that uh are there for our using. And with that in mind, I think that uh we can work together with the people out there to arrive at what we want to, but at the same time, also generate uh business, etcetera, that will benefit uh the people as well as other entities.
[00:20:16] Randall Roth: Okay. Kalei, thank you very much. We really appreciate your joining us by phone this morning.
[00:20:20] Kali Watson: Thank you.
[00:20:21] Randall Roth: I want to remind listeners that this is the Price of Paradise radio show. We call it Pop Radio. This is the third installment in our series on sovereignty. We've had with us by phone Kalei Watson, the Chairman of Hawaiian Homes Commission, and Oz Stender, who is a trustee of the Bishop Estate. With me in the studio is Bill Meheula. He's an attorney and winner of the Bar Association's Justice Award, Norma Wong, a former director of the Office of State Planning, who currently is with Werner, Lippert, Bernard, Mcpherson and Hand, a law firm, Quentin Kavana Nakoa, an attorney and state representative, uh, who also is the great grandson of Prince David Kavana Nakoa, who was a named heir to the throne, and Clayton Hee, who is a former state senator and currently is chair of the board of trustees of OHA. If you'd like to ask a question or make a brief comment, all you have to do is call us at 955-8821. Neighbor islanders are always invited to call collect. The number again, 955-8821. And if you joined us late but would like to hear the show in its entirety, it'll be repeated tonight at 8:00 on KIFO 1380 AM. And also, you might want to tune in the uh KHON TV2 news tonight at 6:00 or 10:00. We have Manolo Morales and Greg the cameraman in the studio with us this morning and we suspect that they'll do a report at 6:00 and perhaps uh at 10:00 as well on the show. As I've mentioned each of the last two weeks, we recognize that this is a very controversial topic. We know that emotions run high. All we uh demand of callers is that they keep all of their questions and comments respectful. Uh the number again, 955-8821. Well, our first caller is Tom from Kapahulu. Good morning, Tom.
[00:22:15] Tom: Good morning. I'm just kind of wondering, you know, um uh I read in the paper where they said that the the standard uh the uh Hawaiian organizations uh sovereignty whatever represent they have will have to uh deal with the state and the federal. Well, and and that the Hawaiians cannot sue. Well, you know, you you got to keep in mind that uh the the US acted illegally. So how can they oversee us or supersede us when they they themselves acted and propped up the state from an illegal act? Uh
[00:23:01] Norma Wong: I I believe that uh that Tom may be uh looking at both Bill Meheula's article as well as my article. And let let me make this very clear. Hawaiians can sue the state of Hawaii. They can sue the federal government and they have and they've won in some cases and they've lost in other cases. And but what they sue for are for things specific and they can also sue for breaches of trust under uh both the uh United States and and uh and state governments. However, what we're talking about is we're not talking about individual cases, individual issues, individual breaches of trust. What we're talking about are the native people of Hawaii regaining a means of sovereignty, a means of self-governance, a means of self-determination. And in this part of the world, whether we like it or not, uh we are part of the United States now and there are different means by which the native people can regain self-governance. It is true, we can deal directly with the United Nations and there is that means. There's also the means of dealing directly with the state of Hawaii and directly with the uh with the federal government. And if we are looking at the ceded lands as being part of what we want, then we must deal with the state of Hawaii because the state of Hawaii has most of the ceded lands that are left. Federal government has a very small portion of that. And so what I one of the one of the things that I think that both Bill and I were trying to do is this, we know that sovereignty is a very, very strong gut level emotional issue that have to do with wrongs that happened over a hundred years ago and have never been redressed. And we need we have some practical aspects of how we can get to the resolution of that. And one of them is to sit down at the table with the state of Hawaii and with the federal government and work it out.
[00:24:33] Randall Roth: Tom, Tom, let me get Norma Wong's reaction uh to to what you've said this far. Stay on the line. Okay. Norma, any thoughts? Okay. Um Tom, when I gave the phone number a few minutes ago, uh within seconds, our our phone lit up like a Christmas tree. We've got an awful lot of folks who are trying to get in. So I'm I'm going to move on, but I really appreciate your call. Thank you, Tom. Uh Bill, did you have a brief comment you wanted to make on that, or?
[00:25:24] Bill: Well, my comment is that the doctrine of sovereign immunity under the United States Constitution bars the Hawaiian people from suing the United States and the State of Hawaii for the return of the ceded lands, and I think that that has to be understood. That's why there's no such lawsuit and there never has been. So that's such a lawsuit.
[00:25:40] Randall Roth: So that's a different suit than the kinds of suits that Norman Norma was just referring to. Okay, okay, good. I think our listener I I was a little confused by that. Thank you. Our next caller is Walter from Honolulu. Good morning, Walter.
[00:25:52] Walter: Good morning. I I'm interested that uh Mr. Stender immediately recognizes that it would be a breach of trust for the trustees of the Bishop of state to um agree to a uh conveying their land over to the sovereign uh uh nation of Hawaii, whereas the officers of the State of Hawaii, who are trustees of the 5F trust and which includes the Hawaiian homelands which is in trust uh for the benefit of native Hawaiians, uh do not recognize that their duty as fiduciaries to oppose such a transfer. Um if uh if um one recognizes that these are beneficiaries, this is the same beneficiaries, which they are not, because the beneficiaries of the Hawaiian nation, of course, would be uh all native all all people of Hawaiian ancestry, and the 5F trust is of course, only for people of 50% um uh blood, but you with the Bishop of State, the beneficiaries are identical, of any of any Hawaiian ancestry. So, it would seem to me there's more less of a breach of trust for the the land that come from the Bishop of State than from the 5F trust.
[00:27:16] Randall Roth: Um Walter, you raise uh several really interesting points and what I'd like to to focus on briefly, um is blood quantum, uh which I think is a part of of what Walter is raising. Some of the existing programs for Hawaiians limit the beneficiary to those Hawaiians who are at least 50% Hawaiian by blood. And yet when we talk about uh a sovereign nation, I think most people are thinking someone with any amount of Hawaiian blood. Norma, uh our guest last week suggested that that's a very real practical problem that is a a hurdle of sorts that the sovereignty movement has to get over. What are your thoughts on on this blood quantum issue?
[00:28:02] Norma Wong: I believe it's a hurdle. It's an emotional one, but it's not insurmountable in this respect, that when you have a program like the Hawaiian Homelands program and you say that you have to have 50% blood quantum to be a beneficiary, what that means is that that is the priority that the native people that that that the Hawaiian people place in terms of where the programs ought to go, which is to say that those with the most blood quantum ought to benefit first. They the benefits ought to go to people before the blood is dispersed. That's not to say that the entire nation would not be people of who are not only Meheulas and Kavana Nakoas, but they would be Wongs and Hees as well. You know, so blood quantum is not an insurmountable hurdle.
[00:28:53] Bill: But but it is a breach of trust, just as much a breach of trust for trustees of the 5F trust to be supporting sovereignty or saying like Mr. um uh Watson said, he's he's all in favor of putting the Hawaiian Homelands into the into the sovereign nation, but Mr. Stender is opposed to it and he's and he says they has to oppose it as a trustee because of to do otherwise would be a breach of his fiduciary duty and that's Let's Let's get some thoughts on that. You've you've stated that very, very well. It's an interesting point. Uh Quentin, do you have a brief comment then we'll go to Bill and and then move on?
[00:29:26] Quentin Kawananakoa: Sure, I think we need to look at the basis of where these lands came from. The Bishop Estate was private lands. Uh the 5F lands are public lands. So I think it is appropriate for the State of Hawaii to use those lands as best as it can to resolve this issue, this long-standing issue of sovereignty. I'm a state legislator. I do not believe it's a it's a breach of my trust to be looking at ways to uh forward uh Hawaiian sovereignty uh the benefits and raising the conditions of native Hawaiians. If by transferring some of the lands from the ceded lands into control or under control of a sovereign entity, we're actually to raise the the incredibly poor and and abysmal uh health conditions and and otherwise of the native Hawaiian. So I think it's a benefit to the whole state. So it's not a breach of my state, of my trust as a representative.
[00:30:43] Randall Roth: Okay. Bill Meheula. You're welcome. Oh, good, I'm waiting. You get back.
[00:32:44] Walter: [unintelligible — audio glitch]
[00:33:25] Walter: [unintelligible — audio glitch]
[00:34:04] Walter: [unintelligible — audio glitch] Sovereign Nation of Hawaii
[00:34:33] Quentin Kawananakoa: I think you have to also look at it from a historical standpoint. The Bishop of Estate and all of the other private land owners received their title basically from the 1848 Mahele. What happened in 1893 is there was this illegal overthrow that is that is the basis of of um the creation of this right now for return of the seated lands. The Admission Act in 1959 is the one that created these trust rights on these seated lands. And so, if we're trying to reverse a wrong that occurred in 1893, basically, we're also trying to reverse out or trying to address the wrong that occurred at the time of statehood.
[00:35:13] Randall Roth: Walter, your question was was so provocative. Even though he's on vacation, Kalei Watson couldn't resist himself. He called back. Kalei, are you there? Kalei Watson, are you there?
[00:35:22] Kali Watson: Yes, I am.
[00:35:23] Randall Roth: Uh, what's your reaction to Walter's point?
[00:35:26] Kali Watson: Yeah, I wanted to uh uh make clear clear clear up what I uh said previously about misunderstood and the the fact is that uh what I think uh sovereignty is inevitable and something that is uh good. Uh with respect to Hawaiian Homelands, uh you know, while I'm supportive of it, I agree with them that we have uh certain trust responsibilities under the Hawaiian Home's Commission Act. Uh there's uh federal oversight and various other uh statutory language that makes it very difficult at this point to really just automatically uh fold it into any type of sovereign entity. Uh I would say that uh while I'm supportive, you know, it's something that I look at it as an individual. Before we can do anything like that, which is uh to uh transfer lands from Hawaiian Homelands into some kind of sovereign sovereign entity, that'd have to be something that would have to be addressed by the beneficiaries, to see whether or not they they collectively are in agreement with that action. I think that while you know, what I said earlier about uh the the monies that we're receiving as well as the lands are would be a integral part in any type of sovereign uh setup that uh it's clear that, you know, that isn't a decision for me individually. I think it's something that has to be done by the beneficiary decided collectively and voted on, and when and if they are ever agreeable to that, only then would it become a reality.
[00:36:36] Randall Roth: Okay. Kalei, and and for listeners out there who may not have been with us earlier in the show, that's Kalei Watson, who's chairman of Hawaiian Homes Commission. Kalei, get your surfboard and get out there.
[00:37:04] Kali Watson: Thanks a lot.
[00:37:05] Randall Roth: Thanks for calling back. Um Walter Walter, thank you for your call. You raised some really interesting points. May I make one short comment? It has to be short. Yes, I'm you know, uh you can make an argument that the Bishop of State lands were stolen as well. Uh you know, so I don't I think what should be done is that the legal technicalities and niceties should not be argued on ad infinitum, you know, if you want to get right down to the nut of it Okay. Uh then the Bishop of State lands should be just as available as the 5F lands. Okay, you made that point. You've made that point very, very well. I'm not sure that our guests agree with you, but you've made that point very well. Thank you very much. Thank you, Walter. Uh Masaru from Iia, you've been waiting patiently. Good morning.
[00:37:48] Masaru: Good morning.
[00:37:49] Randall Roth: What uh what do you have for our guest this morning?
[00:37:51] Masaru: A simple question. Why don't I hear any word about returning monarch land to either Lilio Kalani's heir or
[00:38:00] Randall Roth: or a trust. Well, let let me direct that question to Quentin Kawananakoa, who happens to be a member of a family that uh in theory is very much affected by um uh the transfer of crown lands to um to the territorial government and and now the state of Hawaii. And Quentin, I know you can't speak for all the members of of your family, uh but many people think of the Kawananakoa family as um as being in direct line for the crown if we were to go back to a monarchy. What's your reaction to Mesaru's question?
[00:38:32] Quentin Kawananakoa: You know, first, I have to uh simply mention that the the crown lands, there's still an outstanding case to be made whether or not the crown lands were illegally taken away from the benefit from the use of the crown or the of the Hawaiian nation. Uh so, perhaps if there was a reestablishment of a Hawaiian nation, those crown lands certainly wouldn't be uh open for uh litigation or perhaps uh being brought back underneath the the prerogative of the nation. Now, as far as the the use of those lands, I think they would continue in the same manner they were used to begin with for the benefit of native Hawaiians. So, I I'm confident that my family is wholeheartedly supportive of the notion of using those lands to help benefit the poor conditions of that Hawaiians are suffering from today. So, with that in mind, I I think that that answers the question with regard to legal claim to these lands by our family or any other. I think it needs to be used for the benefit of the native Hawaiian.
[00:39:33] Randall Roth: Okay. Mesaru, does that respond to your question?
[00:39:36] Mesaru: Yeah, good enough.
[00:39:37] Randall Roth: Okay, thank you. We have from Honolulu, I believe it's AGK. Good morning.
[00:39:42] AGK: Good morning. How are you?
[00:39:43] Randall Roth: Just fine. What do you have for us today?
[00:39:45] AGK: The uh sovereignty forum uh is addressing the issues uh emotional issues and legal issues. When are we going to start talking about the financial and economic issues? Who's going to pay the bills for a sovereign nation?
[00:40:02] Randall Roth: Good good question and that was raised two weeks ago and our representatives from Kapakaukau and Kaho'olawe Hawaii and the Nation of Hawaii each gave a a response. But obviously they're just three of what I think are over 40 organizations out there. Uh any of the guests in the studio want to take a crack at that? Clayton He, uh chair of OHA?
[00:40:22] Clayton Hee: Well, the uh the idea of uh reestablishing the sovereign nation uh uh uh fundamentally allows for Hawaiians to have that opportunity to self-determine their future. And that includes to to fail. We don't have to have the help of others to to teach us how to fail or do we need others to act in our behalf. Uh, and then suggest that Hawaiians are failures. Uh, in fact, uh uh the office uh that I work for, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in 1990, uh, had a portfolio of 19.5 million. Uh, in in uh July 1 of 1995, the portfolio is 197 million. Uh, we our dividends increased uh from uh July 1, 94 to June 30, 95 by 43 million dollars. The whole point of of of this is that given that opportunity to succeed and or fail or do both is an inherent right of the native Hawaiians. The suggestion that we might not be able to uh take care of ourselves is is uh is uh is nonsensical. Uh, in fact, our reliance on non-Hawaiians to advise us to counsel us in which way uh investments should be made or which way political decisions might be considered or economic concerns might be addressed are very important. And that again takes us back to why non-Hawaiians are as important to the sovereign movement as Hawaiians.
[00:42:04] Randall Roth: Okay. Uh AGK?
[00:42:05] AGK: Yes.
[00:42:06] Randall Roth: Does that respond to your question?
[00:42:08] AGK: Uh maybe partially, but I think uh You want to know what the economy would look like? Well, no, I think we uh we haven't really discussed um what plans might be made for the future economy of this sovereign nation. Okay, let's ask And where finances are coming from.
[00:42:26] Randall Roth: Let's ask Norma Wong and Bill Meheula to respond briefly to that.
[00:42:30] Norma Wong: When people talk about how much this will cost, I think they're looking at two different things. One is, if there are reparations to be paid, who would pay that? And the second is, how will the nation survive after it is created. So, if, you know, if I just make a quick comment on both. One is that, you know, with respect to reparations, that is a decision that the uh politicians of the time will need to negotiate. But I will say this is that the federal government has not yet put in a single dollar into the Hawaiian Homelands program, even though it was an act of Congress that created it in 1921. The other aspect is that whether we would you know it's a hidden cost within the state state um treasury today, which actually is coming to bear more and more um in this budget crisis. That there are many Hawaiian programs for which the state pays today, and that some sharing of that cost, I think, will end up both benefiting both the state government as well as the new nation. In terms of the second uh issue, which is uh which is how will the nation survive, I think it will survive very well. And if you look at some of the as- uh some of the economic development uh ventures that have been made by uh other native nations, uh by Indian nations in which surrounding communities have actually businesses and surrounding communities have actually petitioned to move on to reservations because of beneficial tax benefits, for example, or zoning benefits, uh that there have been uh benefits that have been accrued to both Hawaiians and Native Hawaiians, economic benefits as a result of sovereignty in those areas. So, uh for there are uh positive aspects uh to both the payments that have to be made uh in order for a sovereign nation to exist as well as the economic development that can accrue.
[00:44:37] William Meheula: Yes, I agree with Norma that you have to break it down into two questions. One is what are the Hawaiians going to get by way of restitution, land, and money? And then what are they going to use those economic resources for? I think one of the big questions that the delegation or the the convention is going to have to address is whether or not they want to create a separate sort of Hawaiian government structure that is going to replace some of the benefits that are provided by the State of Hawaii and the United States, or is this sovereign entity merely going to use the assets to further the interest of Hawaiians? Okay. Bill Meheula? Yes, I agree with Norma that you have to break it down into two questions. One is what are the Hawaiians going to get by way of restitution, land, and money? And then what are they going to use those economic resources for? I think one of the big questions that the delegation or the the convention is going to have to address is whether or not they want to create a separate sort of Hawaiian government structure that is going to replace some of the benefits that are provided by the State of Hawaii and the United States, or is this sovereign entity merely going to use the assets to further the interest of Hawaiians?
[00:45:17] Randall Roth: Okay. AGK, thank you very much for your call. We we appreciate it. I want to remind listeners that this is, oh, good morning. Uh, this is Pop Radio. Our topic is sovereignty. It's the third installment of our three-part series. With me in the studio is Bill Meheula, who is an attorney and winner of the Bar Association's Justice Award for his work on behalf of native Hawaiian groups and causes. Norma Wong, who's a former director of the Office of State Planning and currently with a law firm in Hawaii. Quentin Kawananakoa, who is an attorney and member of the State House of Representatives, and Clayton He, who is a former state senator who currently is chair of the Board of Trustees of OHA. If you'd like to ask a question or make a brief comment, give us a call. We do have some open lines now, and our number is 955-8821. Uh, let's see. Let's go to Jay on Maui. Good morning, Jay.
[00:46:12] Jay: Good morning, Randy. I'm uh I listened to to the programs thus far that I thought uh answer the most of my question, but I have a one fundamental question.
[00:46:23] Randall Roth: Okay.
[00:46:24] Jay: That uh most of the three program you are have scheduled including today's is mainly focusing from the people with the Hawaiian blood's interests regarding to sovereignty, but of course you are include how others feel and then the Hawaiian communities. But this is where exactly where I want to uh zero in. I am a naturalized citizens more than uh living in Hawaii more than 30 years and I feel I have a claim of Hawaii just as claims has Hawaiian people migrated in from uh to heating. It's a matter only a few years. That I believe that yes, something that in case Hawaiian is to be a sovereign nation based on legitimate legal claim land base, then I'm all for it. But in case the claim is say that whole state of Hawaii, that's totally ridiculous.
[00:47:33] Randall Roth: Okay. Jay, let me let me get a reaction to what you're saying, because I know Bill, in your piece, you suggested that maybe descendants of the citizens of Hawaii in 1893 who weren't Hawaiian should be a part of this. What about people like Jay, who have been here a long time but aren't descendants of people who were here at the time of the overthrow? How do they fit into this?
[00:47:56] William Meheula: Well, that's why I look at this question as a a claims resolution issue. The Hawaiians and the non-Hawaiian descendants, I mean, the non-Hawaiians who were members of the Hawaiian Kingdom back in 1893, they have a claim. They have a claim for this particular wrong. As far as what about the other Americans and residents of the State of Hawaii, who do not have that particular claim? Well, they are not entitled to benefit directly from that particular claim, but that doesn't mean that the way life is in Hawaii has to change. Some of the proponents of Hawaiian sovereignty claim that they want total independence, and you have to understand that that means that all of the residents or the majority of the residents of the state have to decide in favor of that. That's not solely a Hawaiian issue.
[00:48:43] Randall Roth: Norma Wong, any any thoughts about Jay's point?
[00:48:46] Norma Wong: I think we're making a a couple of very uh important distinctions here and that is that the claims that arise that have that arise as a result of the overthrow can be resolved without sovereignty. That is a possibility. And so, but that is not where most of the Native Hawaiian community is today. So that, in fact, you could have like a reparations package, for example, that would settle the claims and that might be separate from the question of whether Native Hawaiians wish to govern themselves, wish to have sovereignty um in addition to that. And so, you know, that is there are there are two um issues there. I think it's it's a good distinction. I also heard our our um our uh question uh the question that was asked, having to do with whether all the islands are going to be included. And there are very few in the movement who look at that as being the practical claim, which is to say that we're looking first of all at the public lands, not the private lands, and then a portion of the public lands and dealing with both the State of Hawaii and the federal government. So, as Bill said, life as it is for everyone in Hawaii might not look any different 10 years after sovereignty is achieved than it does today. And in fact, probably the tension we see now, uh, while sovereignty is being discussed, is probably going to be more intense than it will be after sovereignty's achieved.
[00:50:25] Randall Roth: Okay. Jay, as usual, you've asked an excellent question. We appreciate it. Thank you very much.
[00:50:29] Jay: Yeah, but I have a a very brief question.
[00:50:31] Randall Roth: Jay, we we have to move on. I've just got too many people waiting and we're running out of time. But thank thank you very much. James on Maui, good morning.
[00:50:39] James: Good morning.
[00:50:40] Randall Roth: You're on the air.
[00:50:41] James: Thank you. I'd like to address the a spiritual solution to the problem, as it has its roots in the official protest that Queen uh gave President McKinley, and the bottom line was, she says to the Almighty ruler of the universe, to him who judgeth righteously, I commit my cause. So, I mean a hundred years later now we've got the the cause of the Hawaiian people and the cause of all the rest of the people of the world um before the bar of human survival, and it takes a I think we should examine the spiritual potentials of the solution of our our problem and realize that uh this almighty ruler of the universe is the same creator that is referred to by the founding fathers in the declaration of Independence. We all exist in relation to this same person. Therefore, we all exist in relation to each other. We're all brothers and sisters on a spiritual level.
[00:51:31] Randall Roth: James, we appreciate your comment. Um, I've got a couple of people in the studio who are I'd like to talk about world government and Hawaii as the capital of world government. James, I appreciate it. We we've got to move on. We really do appreciate your comment, though. Thank you very much. Damon on Diamond Head, you've been waiting a long time. Uh, thank you for your patience. Good morning.
[00:51:51] Damon: Hi Randy. How are you this morning? Just fine. Good. I just wanted to uh I heard uh Clayton uh talk about how the Hawaiian nation should be allowed to succeed or fail on its own and and Quentin brought up how Hawaiians you know if we go to a sovereign nation, how Hawaiians uh should be better for that. And this is a question for all four of your uh your panelists, do any of them or would any of them advocate rather than the leasing of lands under a sovereign nation, the fee ownership for individual Hawaiians of their land, their kuleanas, and allowing them to succeed or fail on their own and putting the trust in them uh for the ownership of that land?
[00:52:34] Randall Roth: Good question. Uh, Clayton He, chairman of OHA. If we had Kali Watson here why we would uh direct that first to him. Or I see Any anyone else. uh, Clayton, do you have any thoughts on whether just land or whatever should be distributed to to Hawaiians? If I may, I'll I'll quickly respond to that and uh perhaps um Okay, I should add, we've got a little confusion in in the studio. We've got uh camera crew and uh and a whole bunch of things going on. So, uh please be patient with us. Quentin Kawananakoa.
[00:53:04] Quentin Kawananakoa: Yeah, I think it's very important for Hawaiians to have the opportunity, as Clayton mentioned earlier, to either fail or succeed. You know, and there's examples across the United States, and perhaps uh one of the more uh success, one of the greatest success stories is the is that of the Pequots in Connecticut and how they've truly turned dismal conditions around for their tribal members by actually giving them an opportunity to succeed and the whole position is either through education or by giving them uh certain assets. Again, it it has never been a handout situation uh where the Pequots have have just given title to land and handed it out to their tribal members. What they've done is provided ways for the tribal members to to succeed or to fail on their own. Uh, I think in Hawaii, we need to take a look at uh the notion as provocative to give Hawaiians the opportunity to own their own property and to do it as they please. Now, that's very viable if you have a sovereign nation that has the jurisdiction over from one end of Oahu to from Kailua to Nanakuli and they say, sure, Hawaiians, you can own your own property, but hey, we have overriding laws, like we do today in the State of Hawaii that say you can sell your land, you can do what you want with your land, you can manage it the way you please, you can fail or succeed, but we are going to have the last say on and on what happens within that jurisdiction.
[00:54:26] Randall Roth: Okay. Clayton He.
[00:54:27] Clayton Hee: Yeah. Okay, thanks. Um I'm presuming that the uh caller is asking whether Hawaiians should own in fee the the lands that become part of the the new nation. If that's the case, then uh my I would suggest that that decision would be left to the leaders of the political leaders and the people of that nation. Uh he's asking a question which really takes it's a step further down the road than most people have considered. My own personal uh view is that uh those lands which become part of the nation become part of the uh lands in trust for the Hawaiian people, and that the private lands that now exist, may uh Hawaiians may or may not wish to have them folded in privately as part of the new nation, that's their option. The suggestion, I think, by anyone that the private lands uh must be folded into part of the a new nation is it falls flat on its face. Private lands were established long before the overthrow, 50 years, nearly 50 years before the overthrow. Uh however, I've always viewed that the lands, uh ceded or not, that become part of the uh new nation shall be held in trust for all of the Hawaiian people and should be dealt uh uh with as they are public lands and in trust for those people. And any suggestion that they be given in fee uh would be made uh and any decisions would be made by the political leaders of the new nation as well as the people.
[00:55:59] Randall Roth: Okay. Um, Bill, or Norma, do you have a burning desire to answer that question because if not, we need to to keep moving. Okay. Damon, thank you very much for your call. We simply have to move on. Nalani from Niu'anu. Good morning, Nalani.
[00:56:11] Nalani: Nilani, are you there? Aloha, yes, I am.
[00:56:14] Randall Roth: Good morning.
[00:56:15] Nalani: Good morning. Uh, I have a question for Bill Meheula. Um, as far as the uh public Law 103-150 is concerned, um it does recognize the inherent sovereign rights of the indigenous Hawaiian people. And um there is an indigenous rights movement globally, which the United States is trying to control at the UN level to define self-determination as being limited to tribal governments and many of the uh Native Americans who experience some form of sovereignty on reservations or in agreements with the United States are trying to expand um on that that definition. Part of it is looking into the control of mechanisms such as constitutions and political western political styles, and they're realizing that um cultural survival and self governance governance, um their obstacles are created by only going by western government.
[00:57:02] Randall Roth: Nalani, you're going to have to get your question simply because we're running out of time, and I'm sorry to rush you, but.
[00:57:06] Nalani: So my question is, since the public law already recognizes our inherent sovereignty rights, doesn't this expand on the definition of what self determination is? And as Norma Wong was pointing out, since the public law also addresses that there are ramifications and there are only about 287,000 of us Kanaka Maoli now, couldn't instead of a plebiscite being held in a western political style, couldn't a process be created in our cultural style of representation um personally, of families and communities and and ahupua'a um on each island, come together and find out uh assess the damages done, what compensations need to be made in terms of money, return of land, cleaning up unexploded ordnance.
[00:58:15] Randall Roth: Nalani, that's a that's a great question and and I I'll just add so listeners know that that Bill also is a member of the Hawaii Sovereignty Elections Council, which has put together this plebiscite. Bill, what do you think about Nalani's question?
[00:58:30] Bill: Well, that kind of raises the issue of if you theoretically want the best result, then you know, what we are proposing now, or what some Hawaiians are proposing now, including myself, which is try and uh resolve the claim to the ceded lands by way of having a plebiscite vote, whereby the Hawaiians can create an entity that is supported by the majority of the Hawaiians so that that entity can represent the Hawaiians in these negotiations or litigation. The reason why we propose that and support that is because there are Hawaiians right now who are suffering, and that if you want to wait another 100 years for the best resolution, then there's going to be another 100 years of suffering by many Hawaiians.
[00:59:12] Bill: Now, that doesn't mean that in the end that the rights and the um the rights and the movement of the indigenous peoples around the world is going to be stagnated. I think what that means is that as that movement evolves, as those peoples are able to um get the United Nations to come around to their position, that native Hawaiians in Hawaii are going to benefit from that movement at that time.
[00:59:40] Nalani: But we could because our inherent sovereignty rights are greater than limited tribal rights and if everybody, such as they did in the tribunal, were able to come forward and speak for themselves, those who suffer most could speak first instead of creating a political entity which tries to speak for everybody, which isn't our cultural style. Ahupua'a comes from each ahupua'a and each family.
[01:00:02] Randall Roth: I know you've got a lot to share with us on this topic, but we simply have to move on. Thank you very much for your call.
[01:00:08] Nalani: Aloha.
[01:00:09] Randall Roth: Aloha. We have in Papaikou, Virginia. Good morning, Virginia.
[01:00:15] Virginia: Anu, I. Thank you so much for these very very informative programs. Thanks to the station, Aloha, Quentin.
[01:00:22] Randall Roth: Aloha.
[01:00:23] Virginia: He's my representative, and uh to a former caller who questioned your right to speak and that this was perhaps a conflict, uh Quentin, we Hawaiians all know in our Na'au that what is good for Hawaiians is ultimately the very best thing for the community. This is a feeling that is, I'm sure, throughout the Hawaiian community. Most people that I speak to, and I speak to a lot, want the Hawaiians to have exactly what they are entitled to. We Hawaiians are asking for justice before the law. The law says that we have a compact with the United States of America. We have a compact with the state of Hawaii, the sovereign state of Hawaii, and this is all that we're asking for.
[01:01:19] Randall Roth: Virginia, do you have a question to ask?
[01:01:21] Virginia: Yes, I I do have a question. Normal Wong says that the good news is that the uniqueness of Hawaii's compact of statehood will require our state government to be at the negotiation table. This is not the case in other states where the discussion is strictly Native Nation to United States Nation, and I think this is where the big problem lies. This is what Nalani from Nu'uanu was referring to. We feel that traditionally we should be
[01:01:53] Randall Roth: Virginia, I need I need a question.
[01:01:56] Virginia: I want to know why these are sometimes the ideas and the consensus of our leadership, that somehow we must always go before the state rather than the federal government.
[01:02:10] Randall Roth: Okay, that's okay, that's a good question. That's a very good question. Norma.
[01:02:14] Virginia: And and I want to know also, is Normal Wong an attorney?
[01:02:18] Norma Wong: No, I'm not.
[01:02:19] Virginia: Yes, you know, it is always implied, and I think that you should clarify this, Norma, because this leads again to the misinformation that is so rampant in the Hawaiian community. Mahalo.
[01:02:32] Randall Roth: Thank you, Virginia.
[01:02:34] Norma Wong: I have uh for for those attorneys who served I wrote the byline, by the way. Norma didn't write it, so if it's misleading, that's my fault, and I apologize. Norma, go ahead. No, I've I have uh been on many panels with attorneys and I've made it always very clear that I'm not an attorney, Randy. But let me let me say that, you're right, the State of Hawaii need not be at the table, but it must be at the table if Hawaiians want to have part of the ceded lands. Okay, which is to say that uh the United States of Hawaii, the United Nations, would not be able to convey by force or by any other means, or by political means, lands that are now under the jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii.
[01:03:17] Norma Wong: So if Native Hawaiians desire to have a portion of the ceded lands, which are most of the lands that are under question, and the Hawaiian homelands, then the State of Hawaii must be at the table. Not the only one at the table, but certainly at the table.
[01:03:32] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, I I want to thank all of our guests. We're we're rapidly running out of time. Uh we've had Colly Watson, the Chairman of Hawaiian Homes Commission by phone, Astender, a Bishop Estate trustee by phone, here in the studio. We've had had Bill Meheula, an attorney and member of the Hawaii Sovereignty Elections Council, Norma Wong, who's a former director of the office of state planning, Quentin Cabana Nakoa, an attorney and member of the state legislature, and Clayton Hee, who is chairman of the board of the office of Hawaiian Affairs. Our goal at Pop Radio has been to make available the very best information, questions and responses to those questions. We believe strongly in the importance of informed and balanced public dialogue, especially when the issue is as controversial and emotionally charged as is sovereignty.
[01:04:21] Randall Roth: We appreciate the participation of our 12 guests over the last three weeks, not to mention the many folks who called in to respectfully share their questions and comments. We didn't get to all of our callers this morning and I apologize to them. Uh we'll try to to do better in the future. Our producer is Susie Roth, Director of Operations Jeff Alardi, helpers Wally John and and and Tom Roth. Thank you. You've been listening to Hawaii Public Radio. Aloha.