Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Office of Hawaiian Affairs Trustee Mililani Trask was typically defiant after Gov. Ben Cayetano said he would remove and replace the OHA trustees in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling against the Hawaiians-only vote in OHA elections. "There is no damn way I am abdicating my office," she declared. Trask’s days with
OHA are numberedShe may not have to now that Cayetano has done the wise thing and asked for further guidance from the courts before removing the OHA trustees. But Trask is getting used to a new idea: There is no damn way she's going to keep her job when all voters get to select OHA trustees in the next election. It explains her continued calls for civil disobedience.
Her tasteless personal attack on Sen. Daniel Inouye alienated his many admirers, particularly Japanese-American voters. She's gone out of her way to antagonize Caucasian voters. Many non-Hawaiians who don't feel right about voting in OHA elections despite the Supreme Court ruling will cast ballots just for the pleasure of voting against Trask.
While giving Trask her bachi might be fun, it points up the fundamental problem in dealing with the court's ruling. It drastically changes OHA elections to the detriment of Hawaiians if OHA candidates must curry favor with the entire voting population to get elected. We must fix this.
The Supreme Court made clear that Hawaiians-only state elections are not an appropriate way to remedy the U.S. role in the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. This is now the law of the land, but we can find another way for Hawaiians to control their own resources and destiny. Likely, this means federal recognition of sovereign Hawaiian status similar to arrangements with American Indians and Alaskan natives.
That's where Trask and Inouye come in. Trask shouldn't have called Inouye a "one-armed bandit." It was a mean-spirited insult that foolishly distracted attention from the point she was trying to make.
But Inouye is a big boy who will survive the insult and Trask's point was a fair one that has not gotten the discussion it deserves.
Inouye has clearly been a good friend to Hawaiians, bringing home millions of dollars in federal programs to benefit them. But it's not nearly so clear that he's a friend of true sovereignty -- the kind that would put the destiny and resources of Hawaiians entirely under Hawaiian control and out of the control of Inouye and the state government.
We'll soon find out where he stands. As OHA chairman Clayton Hee noted this week, federal recognition of the sovereign status Hawaiians need to untangle the current mess goes straight through the Inouye's door.
Hee is right that Hawaiians must settle their differences and present Washington with one voice or their disunity will be used as an excuse to do nothing. Finding that one voice will be a daunting task.
Most Hawaiians appear to buy into the American Way and would be satisfied with a "nation within a nation" status similar to Indian tribes. A substantial number of Hawaiians, however, want the islands returned in their entirety to a restored Kingdom of Hawaii.
Reconciling these views, and the many in between, to something that can be sold in Washington is the only possible road to Hawaiian self-determination. It serves no purpose along the way for Trask to call Inouye names or to allow Trask's lousy choice of words to become the central issue.
U.S. Public Law 103-150
David Shapiro is managing editor of the Star-Bulletin.
He can be reached by e-mail at editor@starbulletin.com.
Previous Volcanic Ash columns
