Simply put, the bill establishes a process to do that. The bill authorizes the formation of a Native Hawaiian governmental entity that will, as a sovereign state, negotiate with the United States government the settlement of those issues of citizenship, governmental authority and ownership and control of governmental and natural resources, including ceded lands, and any other issues.

Those are the very governmental powers that were stripped by the minions of the United States from the Hawaiian government in 1893. Yes, the process probably will create enormous fundamental changes for all of Hawai'i's citizens. But further hearings on the bill will not fathom the depths of those changes because the changes will take place in the future in the process of negotiation.

In fact, any hearings will only add fuel to an already overheated issue.

The same editorial noted that missing from the discussion at the previous hearings was the voice of "non-Hawaiian residents." We believe that those non-Hawaiian residents harbor a fundamental belief that the wrongs inflicted on Native Hawaiians need atonement, and the Akaka bill process is at least one way of doing so. We predict that if further hearings were held, the same opponents, mostly Native Hawaiians striving for complete independence, would appear and dominate the discussion.

The "non-Hawaiian residents" would again be conspicuous by their absence. Nothing will be gained from further hearings, except further confusion, which will play right into the hands of the opponents, native and non-native.

It should be clear to all that the self-governance movement is multifaceted. On one hand, several groups of Native Hawaiians have opted for complete independence from the United States. They oppose the Akaka bill because it represents less than their ideal model of self-governance.

They would reinstitute a government existing independently of the United States or anyone else. These independence-seekers view the Akaka bill as a capitulation to the power of the very government that they are trying to replace. For them, the true solution is for the United States to cede absolute governmental powers to a "reformed" Hawaiian government. They have sought for years, without success, to develop a model of that reformed government that would receive some form of acceptance by their peers.

They will continue in their efforts, as well they should, because the Akaka bill does not represent a completely adequate restoration of Native Hawaiian sovereignty. However, other Native Hawaiians, including Na'A'ahuhiwa, recognize that the Akaka bill, with its formation of a sovereign entity and negotiation with the United States, is at least a means to begin addressing and resolving the iniquities that arose from the overthrow.

The Native Hawaiian opponents of the bill argue that complete independence is the only means of obtaining complete justice, and that the United Nations is a forum which can hear their case and afford them that justice. However, in the present circumstances of world order, the United Nations is a vehicle which the United States has chosen not to ride, or at least will not ride unless it is driving.

The United States recently refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the U.N. Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague in a case essentially challenging the United States' takeover of the Hawaiian kingdom. The ideal of justice is always tempered by political realities. The Akaka bill addresses those realities.

Another important aspect of the Akaka bill is that it can be a vehicle to protect federal funding of programs, similar to those benefiting Native Americans, designed to assist Native Hawaiians in the pursuit of education, healthcare and housing. Without the Akaka bill, that heavy financial load could well be transferred to the state.

Additionally, the bill's enactment can result in the protection of private programs that provide for the education and social growth of Native Hawaiian children. As has been the case elsewhere in the United State where programs such as affirmative action have come under heavy attack by reactionary groups, our Native Hawaiian children's benefit programs also are being challenged here.

The Akaka bill can provide an umbrella of protection for those programs. The result will be beneficial to the entire population of the Islands.

Native and non-Native Hawaiians must support the Akaka bill because it represents the means for all who love our fair Islands to begin a process of reconciliation and recompense for the illegal overthrow of Hawai'i's lawful government.

Na'A'ahuhiwa believes that non-Hawaiians recognize the wrongs that were committed by those who overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy, including the United States. We also believe that they stand willing to discuss and develop mechanisms for righting those wrongs.

The negotiation process outlined in the bill will provide a framework for true reconciliation as envisioned by University of Hawai'i law professor Eric Yamamoto in his book "Interracial Justice: Conflict and Reconciliation in Post Civil Rights America."

The real resolution to the conflict arising from the Native Hawaiian self-governance effort is for the two sides to engage in an interchange of concerns, ambitions, proposals and resolutions that will allow all of us to establish a long-range, long-lasting relationship in which each side will feel a larger degree of comfort than will be felt if the process is not begun through this important piece of legislation.