At the end of May 2020, one of the leaders of the small pacific territory of Tokelau announced his intention
to seek a referendum on the territory's future.
Controversially, as well as proposing an alternative relationship with New Zealand,
the current governing state,
it could include the option of outright independence.
In this video, I'll take a look at the case of Tokelau and ask whether, given its size and very small population,
full independent sovereign statehood really is a viable proposition.
[MUSIC]
Hello. My name is James Ker-Lindsay.
Welcome to 'Independent Thinking'.
A channel dedicated to International Relations, statehood, independence and the origins of countries.
Few people will have heard of the small Pacific territory of Tokelau.
However, it holds a potentially very interesting place in international politics.
In early May 2020, the leader of Atafu atoll, one of the three islands that makes up Tokelau, announced that he
had drafted the proposal for a referendum on the territory's future relationship with New Zealand.
Although, the proposal has yet to go before the territory's main legislative body, it envisages a vote before 2025.
Most importantly, it seems it would offer three possible options:
full integration into New Zealand, a free association between Tokelau and New Zealand and,
most controversially, full sovereign independence.
While integration into New Zealand is perfectly possible, as is some sort of free association,
the possibility of independence raises a very serious question about the nature of statehood
in the contemporary international system.
Simply put, is Tokelau just too small for statehood?
Tokelau lies in the South Pacific, approximately 3,700 kilometres or 2, 300 miles northeast of New Zealand
and about the same distance southwest of Hawaii.
One of the most remote places on the planet, it's only accessible by boat from neighboring Samoa.
In terms of territory, it is made up of just three small coral atolls that between them amount
to around 14 square kilometers or around five and a half square miles.
Moreover, it's one of the smallest territories in the world by population size.
At the moment, just 1,400 people live on the islands
- although an estimated 8,000 Tokelauns live in New Zealand.
While the Tokelau atolls are believed to have been settled around a thousand years ago,
they were first cited by the British Navy in 1765.
However, the story really starts in the 19th century.
Although the United States in fact claimed sovereignty over the three islands in 1845,
and indeed only officially gave up its claim to them in 1980 when it concluded
a maritime boundary treaty with New Zealand,
in real terms it never tried to enforce its claim.
Instead, in 1877, the islands were claimed by Britain.
Named the Union Islands, they became part of the British Western Pacific territories.
In February 1916, they then became a British crown colony and incorporated into the Gilbert & Ellice islands.
These islands eventually went on to become the independent states of Kiribati and Tuvalu, respectively.
However, 10 years later, in 1926,
Britain passed administrative control of the Union Islands to New Zealand.
Then, on 1 January 1949, the now renamed Tokelau Islands were formally transferred
to New Zealand's sovereignty.
Importantly, in the view of the United Nations, the Tokelau Islands were a colonial holding.
In 1946, they had been placed on the list of non-self-governing territories - the UN's list of colonies.
As a result, New Zealand came under growing pressure to decolonize the islands
under a formal process of self-determination.
In the years that followed, the UN continued to press its case
- even sending visiting missions to the Islands in 1976, 1981 and 1986.
In 1993, the now renamed Tokelau was formally given autonomy.
Although New Zealand continued to appoint an administrator, who oversees a range of functions
ranging from economic assistance and administrative support,
the islands now had the right to elect their own head of government.
In 2005, Tokelau and New Zealand took a major step towards meeting UN demands
by negotiating a treaty of free association.
This would parallel the relationship New Zealand enjoyed with two other territories
it had previously administered: The Cook Islands and Niue.
In February 2006, a UN supervised referendum was held on whether to change Tokelau's status
from unincorporated territory of New Zealand to a state in free association with New Zealand.
In total, 584 of the 615 eligible voters took part.
Of this number 349 voted in favor to 232 against.
A 60/40 split. Just short of the two-thirds majority required to pass.
Given the narrow margin of the result, a second referendum was held the following October.
This time 692 of an eligible 789 voters took part.
The result was even tighter.
446 supported the proposal for free association versus 246 for the status quo - 64.45% to 35.55%
Again, it failed to meet the threshold.
This time by fewer than 20 votes.
Following the second vote, New Zealand and Tokelau agreed to defer the process
of self-determination for the meanwhile.
Nevertheless, the UN continues to keep Tokelau on its list of non-self-governing territories.
Likewise, the General Assembly passes regular resolutions on Tokelau.
It's in this context that this new proposal for a referendum is so interesting.
Not only does it propose to address the question of Tokelau's status once again,
it aims to do so in a way that will definitively resolve the issue.
By taking the option of remaining a dependent territory off the table,
one way or another the islanders will be forced to make a choice on their future.
However, each of the options raises its own questions.
In terms of incorporation into New Zealand,
this is of course permitted as a way to address Tokelau's political status as a non-self-governing territory.
The United Nations accepts incorporation into an existing state
as a perfectly acceptable way to resolve the issue.
For example, this was the solution offered by the United States when Hawaii and Alaska
were placed on the UN's list of non-self-governing territories.
Although, as I explained in another video, Puerto Rico, another territory on the list,
has essentially remained a colonial territory.
The second option is free association.
Here again, this is a perfectly possible outcome, in theory.
The United Nations accept that this does amount to self-government
for the purposes of self-determination.
In essence, Tokelau would nominally become an independent country.
However, New Zealand would continue to oversee its foreign and defense policy,
albeit in consultation with the national authorities.
As already noted, this would put it alongside the Cook Islands and Niue,
which have been in free association with New Zealand since 1965 and 1974, respectively.
However, this option does impose important limitations.
New Zealand has already stated that Tokelau would be unable to join the United Nations
as this would amount to full independence.
That said, like the Cook Islands and Niue, it would presumably be able to join parts of the UN system,
such as the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization - UNESCO.
However, it's the third option - independence - that's most interesting.
Given the size of Tokelau, the obvious question is whether statehood is a really viable option.
As I explained in another video, there are four generally accepted criteria for independence
under terms of the Montevideo Convention.
These are a defined territory, a settled population, governance
and the ability to enter into relations with other states.
Tokelau clearly meets the first two conditions in formal terms.
There's no doubt that it has a defined territory.
Likewise, we can clearly argue that it has a settled population.
Significantly, on both these questions, international law doesn't lay down a minimum threshold for statehood.
For example, should it become independent,
Tokelau wouldn't in fact be the smallest UN member in terms of actual territory.
That accolade falls to Monaco, which is just two square kilometers, or three quarters of a square mile, in size.
Moreover, as UN General Assembly Resolution 3290 stated:
"questions of territorial size, geographic isolation and limited resources
should not be factors delaying decolonization."
But in many ways this is less significant than the question of its population.
While international law may not set down a required number of citizens for statehood,
the fact is that an independent Tokelau would have the smallest number of inhabitants of any UN member
- and by quite some margin.
At the moment, Tuvalu has the smallest population of any UN member at just over 10,200 people.
Even this is regarded by many as almost unrealistically small.
And yet Tokelau's population is a mere tenth of this.
Of course, many observers would argue that even under these terms Tokelau would still be larger
in both territory and population than the Vatican, which is widely cited as the smallest state in the world.
This is true.
The Vatican is just half a square kilometer or one fifth of a square mile in size
and its population , if we can really call it that, is around 900.
But it's also important to stress that while the Vatican is officially classed as a state,
few would think of it as a fully functioning country.
This is a crucial difference.
The Vatican represents a unique institution in modern international politics that's considered to be a state
for a variety of historical, political and cultural reasons.
However, in any realistic assessment of statehood,
it stands apart from the 193 members of the United Nations.
It's against this lineup that Tokelau would really need to be considered.
In many ways though, the real question is whether Tokelau could really fulfill the other two requirements.
Could it really be expected to operate a fully functioning and effective government with such a small population?
In theory, it could.
But it would be a government and a state that would be ill-suited to meet the demands of the modern world.
Interestingly, and perhaps uniquely in international politics,
Tokelau doesn't in fact even have a formal capital.
Instead, the effective capital rotates between the three atolls.
Indeed, the challenge its small population poses has already been recognized by New Zealand.
Speaking to the UN Special Committee on Decolonization, in 2001,
the then administrator of Tokelau noted that were very real questions about what it was that
the community of 1500 could realistically do.
What was it that they controlled? How many things could they do well and succeed?
How would Tokelau's economy be appropriately sustained from outside?
This last point is also crucial.
Could Tokelau really thrive economically without direct financial support from New Zealand?
Many observers are doubtful.
While it generates income off fishing licenses, there is little other economic activity.
Unlike Niue and the Cook Islands, it doesn't even have tourism.
Finally, there's the question of whether it could really be expected to enter into relations with other states.
Although few countries maintain a worldwide network of embassies,
it would be expected that it could fulfill some of the most basic functions of international diplomacy.
At the very least, one would expect that it would need to have an embassy in New Zealand
and a permanent mission to the United Nations.
But, even then, could it really participate fully in international debates?
It seems doubtful.
The tiny territory of Tokelau is a fascinating case study for anyone interested in statehood and independence.
Leaving aside the interesting question of whether the UN should in fact be forcing territories
to change their status against their previously expressed will,
there's a very real issue of what status it should actually pursue.
Having rejected a loose relationship with New Zealand based on nominal statehood in the past,
it's now been suggested that it could even consider the possibility of full independence.
But is this really viable?
While it would appear to meet the basic conditions for statehood under the Montevideo Convention,
it does so in ways that really do call into question the very spirit of the Convention.
Ultimately, if it does decide to pursue independence, Tokelau with its population of just 1400 people,
will inevitably push the boundaries of the concept of statehood to their very limits
and raise some very interesting questions about how small a country really can or should be.
I hope you found this video interesting and useful.
If so, here are some more videos that you might enjoy.
And don't forget to Subscribe and press the notifications for regular updates.
I post new videos every Friday.
Thanks so much for watching and see you in the next video.