The commitment of indigenous Pacific Island governments to the concept of South Pacific regionalism is a relatively recent development. However the adherence to the concept by European-1- governments and
individuals has a much longer history. It is a history which is very relevant to an understanding of current regionalist thinking, for although the earlier proponents were European, their ideas and
institutions were to affect significantly the emergence and nature of the indigenous commitment that followed. The colonial powers with territorial interests in the area drew the boundaries of the region; they created the regional institutional machinery; and they created the opportunity for the inhabitants of the region to meet together for the first time. It is therefore important to view the indigenous support for regionalism in its historical setting - a setting determined by European goals and European values.
Central to regionalist thinking is a desire to promote co-operation or achieve some form of unity within the region. Such an attitude has formed a common thread connecting the otherwise quite diverse groups that have adhered to the concept over the last century. Whilst all supporters have shared this general attitude, their motives for support ing regionalism have varied enormously, as has the form of regional organisation they have proposed or initiated. For example, the motives
The term 'European' in this context includes people from Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America.
of missionaries and anthropologists proposing regional co-operation in the 1940s were quite different from those of the planters and traders who in preceding decades had supported regionalism, and quite distinct
again from the underlying reasons for colonial power involvement in the late 1940s and the development of later indigenous interest in the concept. A natural consequence of these differing motives was a wide variation in the type of co-operative venture desired, its geographical extent and its functional scope. Some, for example, have pressed for a political confederation and others for a trade association; some
proposals have only been concerned with co-operation among British territories, whilst others have been concerned to incorporate all the islands of the South Pacific.
The historical development of regional thinking can be usefully divided into three main periods, reflecting the main changes in motive and perspective of its proponents. In the first period, stretching from the nineteenth century to the early years of the Second World War, most regional thinking, with the exception of British government
initiatives, took the form of proposals put forward by Australians, New Zealanders and British settlers in the Islands. These proposals were concerned with the benefit that the European in the South Pacific could derive from regionalism. This period is here described as 1nascent regionalism1. The second period, from 1943-44 to the mid-1960s, was a period of extensive commitment by all colonial governments with interests
in the region. Although security was a prime motive, particularly in the case of Australia and New Zealand, the concept of 'native welfare' was also an important guiding principle in these years. The term 'colonial regionalism', here used to apply to this period, draws attention to the
concept; indigenous interest was all but absent. The Pacific Islanders did, however, begin to become involved in regionalism in the mid-1960s and this involvement has remained. In the third period, from 1964-65 to 1978, here referred to as 'indigenous regionalism', Islanders moved to a position of controlling the direction and nature of the developments in regionalism.
The breaking up of the development of regional thinking into three periods is not done merely for convenience. Each period is quite
distinct from the others. The first two periods are periods of European initiative and European control. There is therefore some justification in distinguishing them from the third period when indigenous interest emerges and becomes dominant. Although the first two periods are both periods of European initiative, it is also important to distinguish between them because of the dramatic impact of the War. The War created a completely new approach to regionalism - different adherents, new motives, and a new institution. It is the first two periods of regional
activity - 'nascent' and 'colonial' - with which this chapter is con cerned. The period of 'indigenous regionalism' is the subject of the following chapters.
1. NASCENT REGIONALISM
South Pacific regionalism has its origins in the penetration of 'the South Sea' by Europeans.1 In particular, it was the spread of British influence, following in the wake of Cook's Pacific voyages, that
set the stage for the subsequent appearance of regional proposals and
Some Island leaders have claimed that regionalism had its origins in the pre-colonial period and that the cultural links which existed between the Islands were actually 'interrupted by colonial expansion and rivalry'. This claim is examined in Chapter 5.
initiatives: 'the advent of a Power which was mistress of the sea and hence of the means of communication between the island groups gave the history of the Pacific Islands a unity it never previously had'.'*'
Although Britain did not begin to acquire an Island empire until 1874, she nevertheless enjoyed 'primacy of influence' in the area in the preceding century. The flow of British settlers to the area in the nineteenth century made the emergence of regional thinking inevitable. Those who came to the Australian and New Zealand colonies were quick to see the need for a secure region under one flag; the lawlessness of British labour recruiters and traders was to impel the British govern ment to attempt a regional solution; British administrators had to co ordinate policy toward the territories of a newly-acquired Pacific Island empire; and British planters and other settlers in the Islands were later to see the economic advantage of regional co-operation. Despite the penetration of the South Pacific by other European powers it was only the more extensive British settlement which led to any significant developments in regionalism.
The 'Australasian Monroe Doctrine'
British reluctance to formalise her dominant position in the region was of concern to the settlers in the new colonies of Australia and New Zealand who called throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century
2
for British annexation of the Western Pacific region. They wanted a
W.P. Morrell, Bvitain in the Pacific Islands (London: Oxford University Press, 1960), p.l.
2
Even to the point of angering Bismarck who found the "'grasping policy' of the English colonists as offensive and irritating as the original 'insolent' Monroe 'Dogma'". Merze Tate, 'The Australasian Monroe Doctrine', Political Science Quarterly, LXXVI, No.2 (June 1961), p.281.
united region under a British flag: 'Oceania for the Anglo-Saxons', as the demand was later to be described.'*' Although imperialistic in design and motive, the Australasian proposals were expressions of the first
2