This is something that has been lingering on my mind for the past few days, as it has really gotten more attention than usual in the media and certainly isn’t something we usually think about often in U.S. politics. There was a piece just published in the Wall Street Journal, which prompted Rush Limbaugh to take up his opinion on the matter.

The reason that the issue is becoming big is because the Akaka Bill, which could grant native Hawaiians their own self-governing land, is to be voted on in the Senate in September. In effect, it would be creating a type of reservation of hundreds of thousands of acres for them to live on and create their own government. I don’t have a link to the text, but here is what it says under section 4, which is entitled, “United States Policy and Purpose.”

(a) POLICY- The United States reaffirms that–

(1) Native Hawaiians are a unique and distinct, indigenous, native people with whom the United States has a special political and legal relationship;

(2) the United States has a special political and legal relationship with the Native Hawaiian people which includes promoting the welfare of Native Hawaiians;

(3) Congress possesses the authority under the Constitution, including but not limited to Article I, section 8, clause 3, to enact legislation to address the conditions of Native Hawaiians and has exercised this authority through the enactment of–

(A) the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act , 1920 (42 Stat. 108, chapter 42);

(B) the Act entitled éAn Act to provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union’, approved March 18, 1959 (Public Law 86-3, 73 Stat. 4); and

(C) more than 150 other Federal laws addressing the conditions of Native Hawaiians;

(4) Native Hawaiians have–

(A) an inherent right to autonomy in their internal affairs;

(B) an inherent right of self-determination and self-governance;

(C) the right to reorganize a Native Hawaiian governing entity; and

(D) the right to become economically self-sufficient; and

(5) the United States shall continue to engage in a process of reconciliation and political relations with the Native Hawaiian people.

(b) PURPOSE- The purpose of this Act is to provide a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity and the reaffirmation of the political and legal relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian governing entity for purposes of continuing a government -to-government relationship.

Besides creating something to the effect of a reservation, it also seems to have made pro-independence groups more bolstered in their demands. The bill, sponsored by Senator Akaka who is himself a Hawaiian native, is being called by him the start to a possible move toward independence. He, along with opinions from those who oppose the bill and other who wants the bill to go further, appeared on NPR to discuss the issue. Here is part of the transcript:

Senator DANIEL AKAKA (Democrat, Hawaii): It creates a government-to-government relationship with the United States. KASTE: Democratic Senator Dan Akaka, himself a native, wants Congress to let Hawaiians re-establish their national identity. He says his bill would give them a kind of legal parity with tribal governments on the mainland, but he says this sovereignty could eventually go further, perhaps even leading to outright independence.

Sen. AKAKA: That could be. As far as what’s going to happen at the other end, I’m leaving it up to my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

KASTE: The native Hawaiian bill leaves many important details unresolved. Once established, the new governing entity is supposed to negotiate with the U.S. to settle major issues such as legal jurisdiction and land ownership. It even puts off defining who would qualify as a citizen of the native nation. The bill’s vagueness alarms some non-natives such as Dick Roland.

Mr. DICK ROWLAND (The Grassroot Institute): It’s empty, and it’s got an enormous sucking machine in it that is going to suck in there all these people and all this land and so forth.

KASTE: Rowland, who moved to Hawaii three decades ago, is the president of a local public policy group called The Grassroot Institute which has opposed the bill. One of his collaborators is attorney Bill Burgess, who’s argued in court against the preferences for natives.

Mr. BILL BURGESS (Attorney): Creating a new nation and giving the citizens of that nation political privilege that other citizens don’t have, not to mention assets and all kinds of other privileges, that’s all about inequality.

KASTE: But for some native Hawaiians, the Akaka Bill doesn’t go far enough.

Mr. BUMPY KANAHELE (Native Hawaiian): My Hawaiian name is U’u Koanoa(ph). Of course, the American name I’ve got, it’s Bumpy Kanahele.

KASTE: Kanahele is a burly man who calls himself the head of the Nation of Hawaii. At the moment, his domain consists of a small village nestled in the shadow of green mountains on Oahu. The village also flies the flag of Hawaii, but it flies upside down as a sign of distress over what residents see as the illegal occupation by the United States. Kanahele is a prominent figure in the independence movement, which received a boost in 1993 when Congress formally apologized for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Kanahele says that apology opened what he calls a can of worms for the United States.

Mr. KANAHELE: They never thought that Hawaiians would take the road to restoring their independence. Well, what do you expect? You just admitted to a crime — Right? — the crime of the overthrow.

KASTE: After the congressional apology, Kanahele says, native Hawaiians started to think seriously about independence, and he says the Akaka Bill is an attempt to divert natives toward more tribal-style sovereignty.

Personally, I feel that those pushing for outright independence of the islands from the United States are using simple ethnic warfare to push for their demands. They native citizens also ignore the wishes of other Hawaiian citizens, as natives make up only roughly 20% of the population. Their demand for a new referendum usually includes the provision that only native Hawaiians be allowed to vote on it, obviously creating the distinction of privilege since they know that they wouldn’t be able to win anywhere near a majority otherwise. The World History Blog has a really good post debunking most of the arguments for independence that the movement comes up with, including the issue that the original referendum was illegal according to international law.

Barring reality, the issue of self-determination is an important one, so I’m putting this question out there. Should Hawaiians be given their own tribal reservation by the federal government? Against the wishes of the rest of Hawaiian citizens? Is this creating a type of sponsored ethnic privilege that will only make things worse? And if, one day, a super majority of Hawaiians, both natives and everyday citizens, wanted to secede completely, should they be allowed to do so?

Secession movements and self-determination is a big issue all over the world, from the former Soviet Union to the Middle East to Africa. Most of the time, governments handle such movements very unsuccessfully. As the issue comes to the forefront here in the United States, how should we deal with a zealous minority who wants to secede from the rest of the country?