Given the large number of disparate archipelagoes and cultures across the Pacific Islands, it would be possible for a supra-national Pacific Federation to emerge as a reaction.
The obstacles to such a Federation are as following:
1) The different colonial powers and the arrangements by which possessions were (and in several cases, are administered)
The division of the Pacific between Britain, France, America, Japan and (briefly, Germany), and the retention of local rulers in Tonga's case certainly complicates any drives for unification.
2) Unwillingness to decolonize - in America's case in Hawaii and American Samoa, and the "associated state" relation between Micronesian states and the US, and the Cook Islands and NZ, not to mention the actual colonial (with continued settler immigration) in New Caledonia and French Polynesia
3) Lack of drive or rationale to unify - besides the small fish, big pond problem there are no geopolitical outside threats to force unification
So a scenario which favors unification would require
1) One colonial power grabbing the vast majority of the Pacific Islands (for example a stronger British Empire which monopolizes the colonial field while a longer-lasting Napoleon distracts mainland Europe)
2) Said power's defeat in conflict - and the lack of neighboring colonial powers to move in like how America moved into Japanese Nan'yо̄) after WW2 or how New Zealand seized western Samoa
3) A geopolitical threat with both the desire and the ability to annex the nation (America seems to be the only reasonable option - considering that they were able to base more men on New Caledonia than the native population during WW2 and its long Pacific Coastline)
Supposing the "later Napoleonic France focuses on Europe" and turns colonialism into an overwhelmingly British enterprise scenario, and the defeat and occupation of Britain by a *fascist-totalitarian America, something like a Pacific Federation is possible.
The government would have to be federal in order to deal with the vast distances between (and within) island groups, and might use consociational seating to avoid alienating , say the Micronesians whose population is ~500,000 compared to the ~2 million Melanesians and ~2 million Polynesians (counting Hawaii). Also traditional kings, chiefs, and cargo-lords would have to be included in the governing structure (if only due to the control of said figures over entire islands like Tonga, and possibly Samoa and Fiji if their monarchies chose to become protectorates) perhaps through a Rajpramukh structure of hereditary governance. Also, the question of what to do with European and Asian settler populations in a post-colonial environment might lead to again, reserved seats on the basis of race to avoid creating tensions between Native Pacific and settlers.
Creating a superstate on the map is easy- getting it to actually hold together with the consent of all parties involved is harder.
Perhaps with a relatively small population of 4 million (comparable to Moldova), the legislature could actually be nonpartisan and built around constituency groups instead.
The obstacles to such a Federation are as following:
1) The different colonial powers and the arrangements by which possessions were (and in several cases, are administered)
The division of the Pacific between Britain, France, America, Japan and (briefly, Germany), and the retention of local rulers in Tonga's case certainly complicates any drives for unification.
2) Unwillingness to decolonize - in America's case in Hawaii and American Samoa, and the "associated state" relation between Micronesian states and the US, and the Cook Islands and NZ, not to mention the actual colonial (with continued settler immigration) in New Caledonia and French Polynesia
3) Lack of drive or rationale to unify - besides the small fish, big pond problem there are no geopolitical outside threats to force unification
So a scenario which favors unification would require
1) One colonial power grabbing the vast majority of the Pacific Islands (for example a stronger British Empire which monopolizes the colonial field while a longer-lasting Napoleon distracts mainland Europe)
2) Said power's defeat in conflict - and the lack of neighboring colonial powers to move in like how America moved into Japanese Nan'yо̄) after WW2 or how New Zealand seized western Samoa
3) A geopolitical threat with both the desire and the ability to annex the nation (America seems to be the only reasonable option - considering that they were able to base more men on New Caledonia than the native population during WW2 and its long Pacific Coastline)
Supposing the "later Napoleonic France focuses on Europe" and turns colonialism into an overwhelmingly British enterprise scenario, and the defeat and occupation of Britain by a *fascist-totalitarian America, something like a Pacific Federation is possible.
The government would have to be federal in order to deal with the vast distances between (and within) island groups, and might use consociational seating to avoid alienating , say the Micronesians whose population is ~500,000 compared to the ~2 million Melanesians and ~2 million Polynesians (counting Hawaii). Also traditional kings, chiefs, and cargo-lords would have to be included in the governing structure (if only due to the control of said figures over entire islands like Tonga, and possibly Samoa and Fiji if their monarchies chose to become protectorates) perhaps through a Rajpramukh structure of hereditary governance. Also, the question of what to do with European and Asian settler populations in a post-colonial environment might lead to again, reserved seats on the basis of race to avoid creating tensions between Native Pacific and settlers.
Creating a superstate on the map is easy- getting it to actually hold together with the consent of all parties involved is harder.
Perhaps with a relatively small population of 4 million (comparable to Moldova), the legislature could actually be nonpartisan and built around constituency groups instead.
Last edited: