Microstate Sovereignty in the South Pacific: Is Small Practical?

National self-determination became a political principle for Europe from the end of World War I and for the rest of the world from the Atlantic Charter. While the resulting break-up of empires increased the number of small powers, the general effect of national self-determination was expected to enhance global security by ensuring that such states had strong internal authority. However, the advent of insular microstates such as Western Samoa created concern that these polities would not be able to cope with the demands of sovereignty and so could become a source of stress themselves. These fears were confirmed in 1983 with the intervention in Grenada. The South Pacific region, comprising almost entirely of insular microstates, has emerged as an arena for superpower rivalry since the Republic of Kiribati entered into a fishing agreement with the USSR in 1985. Two military coups in the pivotal state of Fiji during 1987 have added to extra-regional anxieties. Not only are the Pacific Island microstates very small powers internationally, it now appears that they may enjoy less authority domestically than once thought. The problem of microstate vulnerability has been placed on the global agenda by the events of Grenada. A variety of solutions ranging from global and regional reforms to strengthening individual states have been proposed. The experience of the South Pacific, however, suggests that these solutions may not be easily implemented. Indeed, in some cases, such as the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, the solution may well intensify external pressures on the region's microstates.