In considering extra-regional migration for at-risk populations in Oceania, it is necessary to identify the states that are most likely to receive these populations. The existing immigration policies of these states as well as their domestic political scene will play a significant role in feasibility as host states to climate refugees.
Of the states that define Oceania, all were at one point under the dominion of the United Kingdom, France, the United Nations, New Zealand, or the United States. As such, these states present some of the most logical destinations for relocation. Australia, while lacking the imperial histories of the aforementioned states, also presents a likely destination for at-risk Oceanic peoples due to its size and proximity. All aforementioned states, except the US, are party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its accompanying 1967 protocol, but the definition of refugee in the Convention fails to extend to climate refugees.
Australia
We’ll begin with Australia as it is the largest state that is geographically near Oceania and thus presents the most likely extra-regional state for many of the region’s at-risk peoples. Australia has a cap of just over 25,500 annual refugees annually, with just under half being limited to Iraqis and Syrians. Of course, with the impending conclusion of the wars in both states, the 12,000 slots could be reallocated to climate refugees. This, however, would be nowhere near enough to resettle at-risk populations in significant numbers and Australians appear to have become less amenable to maintaining high levels of immigration (at around 160,000 per year).
In recent years a majority of Australians have viewed population growth through immigration negatively, and this perception of immigration is unlikely to change in favor of climate refugees from Oceania. The issues identified as problems with increasing immigration include housing affordability, water scarcity, and racism. This severely limits the ability of politicians to argue in favor of Australia as a last-resort destination for pacific islanders as few politicians can ignore two-thirds of their constituents and expect to be reelected.
New Zealand
New Zealand presents a particularly intriguing case, especially in regard to its open-border policy with Australia. New Zealand is generally more accepting of immigrants than other countries on this list as around 20% of the population is foreign-born. However, New Zealand still experiences significant opposition to immigration. It accepts around 45,000 immigrants annually and 1,500 refugees. Most importantly, New Zealand has a resettlement program for Oceania already in place. About 650 people from Fiji, Tuvalu, Kiribati, and Tonga are accepted annually and 1,100 people from Samoa, which was a colony of New Zealand from 1914-1962.
As such, New Zealand has the most significant existent infrastructure for migration from Oceania out of all states involved. However, with a population of just under 5 million, New Zealand may not be capable of absorbing a significant influx of people like Australia, the United States, or France. Additionally, the Christchurch Massacre, while directed at Muslim immigrants, and statements by a member of the governing coalition (New Zealand First leader Winston Peters) may be particularly foreboding for refugee populations. However, these incidents appear more as outliers than representative of the Kiwi people.
United States
The United States has a significant role in the region as the guarantor of defense and the main foreign actor for a number of Oceanic states and territories. Unlike other states discussed as possible host countries, the US is party only to the protocols of the Refugee Convention. However, within the US territories such as Guam and Wake, migration to the US is a right regardless of status. The US also signed the Compact of Free Association (COFA) with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau which allows most citizens of these states to move to the US at will.
However, for states outside of the COFA agreement, the US lacks a distinct immigration policy and minimal interest in developing such a policy appears to exist. Of course, the US has experienced increasing anti-immigrant rhetoric among its political leaders and many citizens have internalized such rhetoric. However, the US also has the unique ability to absorb a significant influx of pacific islanders. As such, it is rather difficult to pinpoint the sentiments of the American people on accepting Oceanic climate refugees. Yet, the apparent apathy of the American people may be the greatest signifier to the political risk of endorsing the United States as a host country for climate refugees from Oceania, especially as considerable chunks of the American population question the scientific data on climate change.
France & the UK
France and the United Kingdom represent the colonial era of Oceania. The majority of Oceania was under the dominion of one of the two states at some point in time and Vanuatu enjoys the distinction as one of only three Anglo-French condominiums in history (Egypt and Togoland represent the other two). However, neither state seems prepared to accept an influx of immigrants after the humanitarian crisis of the Arab Spring, regional unrest in North Africa, and intra-European migration. In response to the recent influx, both states have attempted to significantly limit immigration. Additionally, their location in Europe would severely complicate the logistical issue of relocation entire populations of islands and their valuables. Finally, both states have experienced a recent populist surge that rides racist coattails. The National Front in France represented the main opposition to Macron in the 2017 presidential election. In the UK, Brexit and the recent election of Boris Johnson epitomize the country’s rising nationalism and distaste for increased immigration.
China
China is also touted as a possible site for migration from Oceania, often in the context of its recent outreach in the region. However, this is unlikely for several reasons. First, China historically has very low immigration as a proportion of its population. Furthermore, most of that immigration comes from wealthy and educated people or via the return of Chinese expats. Second, China is unlikely to view global climate change as a problem of its doing. Rather, it will likely prefer other states to bear the burden of climate refugees in Oceania. Third, China has a long history of Hanization within its outlying territories. An influx of non-Han populations into China is unlikely to align with goals of the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. Finally, Chinese interest in the region likely stems more from interest in attracting votes against Taiwan at the United Nations than serious concern about Oceania.
Possible Solution to Extra-Regional Distaste for Immigration
Changing the Refugee Convention to define climate refugees with special attention to the people of Oceania may represent the most effective way to increase the chances of effective relocation of at-risk populations. Every country listed is party to the Convention and Protocols, with the exception of the US, which is only party to the Protocols. Redefining the convention to include climate refugees would allow litigation at the International Court of Justice by at-risk states in Oceania to force signatories to accept their populations. Admittedly, international law has weak enforcement mechanisms but democratic states may be particularly vulnerable to litigation at the ICJ and the consequences of public shaming among the nations and domestically. Furthermore, lawsuits to force other states to accept at-risk Oceanic populations may increase awareness of the situation in Oceania and lower domestic antagonism towards increased immigration.