By David Shapiro

It's no wonder some Hawaiians are worried that the latest version of the Akaka bill in Congress would set a 20-year deadline for settling Hawaiian native claims with the federal and state governments.

Negotiating Hawaiian redress and sovereignty has never been a fast-moving process.

It wasn't until 80 years after the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy that a serious movement to collect redress began in the early 1970s.

In the 30 years since, there's been a remarkable Hawaiian cultural renaissance, but little progress on the political front to define Hawaiian sovereignty and form a leadership to negotiate it — or even agree on a process to make these things happen.

Perhaps it's time to light a fire under the proceedings by setting a deadline, which needn't be seen as a threat.

It could be an opportunity to finally create the urgency to get these issues settled to the benefit of the Hawaiian people and the state as a whole.

Let's face it, the demographics of the Hawaiian population and opinion within the Hawaiian community are becoming more splintered with each passing year.

If we can't achieve consensus to resolve native claims within 20 years, there's little reason to believe it can ever be done.

Time is not on the side of Hawaiians. The U.S. Supreme Court's Rice v. Cayetano ruling in 2000 put vital Hawaiian assets in legal jeopardy by defining Hawaiians as an ethnic minority rather than an indigenous people with political rights.

The Akaka bill is essentially a holding action — an attempt to formally recognize Hawaiian indigenous rights to protect existing Hawaiian resources while longer-term claims for redress and sovereignty are negotiated.

The stakes are high: In the absence of the Akaka legislation, there are fertile legal grounds for federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of key Hawaiian institutions such as the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and Kamehameha Schools.

Hawai'i's congressional delegation and the Lingle administration have fought for the Akaka bill with the understanding that most Hawaiians support it to safeguard existing programs and set a framework for future sovereignty.

But the legislation has been a hard sell in Congress, especially among conservative Republicans who oppose affirmative action.

Its passage becomes more difficult with intensifying local discord and calls for further hearings that leave officials in Washington wondering if Hawaiians want this bill or not.

Amendments to the Akaka bill that have caused friction were intended to satisfy the Bush administration and Congress that there is some end to the Hawaiian claims process in sight.

Their concern is reasonable, and we can't blame federal authorities for being leery of wading into the turbulent waters of Hawaiian rights without knowing who they're dealing with and what they want.

If Hawaiians hope to move the process forward, they must get behind a leadership with a clear agenda, a goal that has eluded them after decades of struggling with these issues.

This is why it makes sense to set deadlines. If Hawaiians can't start moving toward a leadership and agenda with broad-based support, settlement of native claims begins to look like a hopeless cause.

The basic question is whether there any longer exists a Hawaiian body politic with enough commonality of interest to warrant recognition as a distinctive indigenous entity.

Hawaiians must find that common ground for themselves. If they can, 20 years is plenty of time to settle native claims.

If Hawaiians can't find some basis for unity, no amount of time will be enough.

David Shapiro is a Hawai'i journalist who can be reached at dave@volcanicash.net.