KEY POINTS:
For the second time in less than two years, the residents of this country's last dependent territory are about to be asked whether they want to become self-governing in free association with New Zealand. This time, it seems likely the people of Tokelau will say yes. If so,
there will be applause in Wellington. Tokelau has long been considered a suitable subject for independence by the United Nations Committee on Colonialism, and the hesitation of its people has placed New Zealand in an invidious position. The Tokelauans, however, have had good reason to vacillate, a point reinforced by the very nature of the argument now being advanced to persuade them to opt for self-government.
Some UN template obviously determines that people are ready to throw off the colonial yoke. Apparently, it extends even to a group of three atolls with a population of 1400, no airstrip, no harbour and no capital. The people of Tokelau delivered their own verdict on this in a referendum in February last year, when they voted to remain a colonial outpost. Only 60 per cent of those registered to vote supported a change of status, short of the required two-thirds' majority.
Various explanations were given for this outcome. Some touched on personality clashes and a fundamental fear of change, but most centred on the Tokelauans' scepticism about the future if the apron strings tying them to New Zealand were severed. Would, for example, this country still proceed with its intention to provide new school buildings and health centres? These are crucial issues, given that the people of Tokelau are mainly subsistence farmers and fishers, and in no position to support themselves.
Hopes for a "yes" vote this time hinge partly on the fact that New Zealand has now given a commitment to deliver these services. There has also been far more consultation with the Tokelauan people and, therefore, less chance for scaremongering. Additionally, it has been stressed that by not being self-governing, Tokelau is missing out on other sources of funding. The European Union, especially, has become a generous donor of aid to the small independent nations of the Pacific.
This, of course, is a somewhat unusual message. In most such circumstances, the focus would be on the pride inherent in a people having the right to determine their own future, however constrained that might be, and to have their own voice in international affairs. Usually, a groundswell of opinion for change would be apparent, and independence leaders would be agitating for change. That is not the case in Tokelau. Worthy precepts seem to pale beside the people's everyday realities.
Tokelau, like several other micro-nations of the Pacific, is never likely to be in a position to support itself. Over the years, New Zealand aid has underpinned the people's wellbeing, while an administrative framework and public service have been developed. Essentially, Tokelau already runs itself in most respects. That is not about to change whatever the outcome of this month's referendum.
Now, however, Tokelauans seem ready to embrace change. A significant factor of the February 2006 poll was the number of people who signalled their opposition to self-government by declining even to register. This year, far more have signed up. They may well have been persuaded that self-government will lead to a greater flow of aid, not a turning off of the tap. It is not the most romantic of notions. Nor is economic dependence the ideal companion for administrative self-reliance. But, in terms of Tokelauan nationhood, it might just have to suffice.
