Sept 26, 2015

In hopes of clarifying some ideas being widely circulated by Native

Hawaiians opposed to participating in the upcoming Nai Aupuni
Convention, the following should be noted:
Since many of our people are confused and considering boycotting
this process, heres an interesting paper, from the Brookings Institute,
on the efficacy of boycotts v threatened boycotts in national
elections. It uses what I think is an apt example for Hawaii, the deoccupation of Iraq by the US and the constitutional convention by
which Iraqis formed their new government.
Heres a sample:
"A comprehensive study of 171 threatened and actual election
boycotts at the national level between 1990 and 2009 demonstrates
conclusively that, other than a few rare exceptions, electoral boycotts
generally have disastrous consequences for the boycotting party,
rarely result in desired international attention or sanction, and many
times further entrench the ruling leader or party. On the flip side, the
track record is considerably better when a threatened boycott is used
as negotiating leverage to achieve key concessions; sometimes,
opposition parties that planned to boycott even find unexpected
benefits from participating in elections.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/2/electi
on%20boycotts%20frankel/02_election_boycotts_frankel.pdf
It is repeatedly stated that the Convention will result in a form of
Hawaiian governance that will be under the thumb and control of the
Department of Interior (DOI), as are the numerous Native American
Tribes in their forms of governance. THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT THE
CASE BECAUSE LAST YEAR (2014), Hawaiians around the state
expressed to the DOI, by over 85%, a rejection of such an idea.
Clearly, we do not want to repeat the error our Native American
brethren have experienced. If we do not vote in delegates strongly
opposed to the DOI, they will surely attempt to impose themselves
upon us. The purpose of Nai Aupuni is to investigate, express
various ideas, and further understand what form our future

Hawaiian Nation might take. As we know there are numerous

possibilities: total independence, nation within a nation, status quo,
being only three of the models being suggested.
Another point that needs to be clarified: It is not OHAs money that is
being used to
sponsor Nai Aupuni , nor is it OHAs nation to
be. This is our
Hawaiian Peoples money and future
government. We
must understand that this money does not
truly belong to
OHA. I, as OHA Trustee on behalf of the
Hawaiian people in
the late 80s and early 90s, helped to
negotiate these
Ceded Lands Revenues with the Waihee and
Cayetano
Administrations. When OHA dissolves, after
our new
government is formed, the money and aina it
now controls will transfer to this new entity. However, as I told the
OHA Trustees in no uncertain terms at their board meeting in
Waimea on Sept 10th OHA has a fiduciary responsibility to our
people to see that these contractees hired by OHA to facilitate Nation
building including Nai Aupuni, do a PONO job.
It does not help our people to not participate in this upcoming
election processnon-participation will contribute to the same old
shibai that has kept our people down. We can register to vote until
October 15th. I am running for Delegate from Hawaii Island. I have
worked 45 years for our poe and ainamy record speaks for itself.
Malama Pono.
E. Moanikeala Akaka