Let’s get to the pith of the problem. Intrinsically, the human species is tribally based and to be viable, a tribe can only be a certain size or it outgrows its raison d'etre. The problem then exists as to how the cohesiveness of the extended tribal connections can be promoted and encouraged to allow a shared identity for all who want to belong.

‘Shared Identity’ is the key to being able to encompass ethnicity, culture and control. A shared language is also usually a given.

That’s the first factor that PNG has to face. An estimated 850 different languages doesn’t auger well for tribal unity. Unless Tok Pisin is a possibility.

Secondly, while PNG is a colonial collection of disparate elements, it does have some shared ethnicities that could be promoted to help form larger national groupings. Yet that aspect also raises problems when the historical and geographic boundaries with PNG are not always clearly defined. Attempts at carving the country up into four logical regions, Papua, Islands, Mamose or New Guinea mainland and Highlands then has to cope with who gets what in the shape of resources and benefits deriving from resources. Bougainville was always ethnically part of the Solomons.

But then we look at the exceptions of ethnicity. For example, Manus is reputedly Micronesian within a huge number of what is referred to as Melanesian people or Austronesian. Tolai people came reportedly from the Duke of York’s and pushed the Bainings people out of the Rabaul area. Where do you start and where do you stop?

A short while ago, I referred to the Anglo Saxon King Alfred who 1,000 years was the driving force behind forcing the nation of England from many different tribes, clans and ethnicities. This didn’t happen overnight nor without many years of bloodshed and hard work.

In a somewhat similar way, PNG was a construct of an external force that achieved a certain conformity and uniformity over a relative very short time. That time scale was so short that many people remembered what it may have been like before PNG was crunched together and wanted to return to those dream times without throwing out the benefits of modern life. Surprise! It can’t be done.

So where does that leave the over 50% of PNG young people under 25 who are ready to take over but are not being given any clear directions of where to go, who to emulate and what a better result might be?

Currently, the examples being presented of who to emulate are not very appealing to the many who don’t have any idea of what to do and how to do it?

The desire of Bougainvilleans for independence is not going to dissipate based on some deal concocted by Moresby to give the island autonomous status within PNG.

Surely this message has been delivered in clear and unequivocal terms?

I see a great opportunity for China to both further its own interests and cause a great deal of discomfort for the US and its various Pacific allies.

It could, for example, agree to underwrite an independent Bougainville in return for, say, being able to build 'commercial' infrastructure like ports and airports or, maybe, getting first option rights on the re-opening of Panguna.

Micro-states are desperately vulnerable to such wheeling and dealing and a new born Republic of Bougainville will be no different.

All in all, the next few years should be a very testing time for both Bougainville and PNG more broadly.

PNG as a country is entirely a colonial construct and, as the recent elections have demonstrated, tribalism still trumps democracy in many places and in many ways.

The Wan Tok system has retained much of its traditional potency, as has the tendency to defer to Big Men, especially those bearing gifts.

Thus the PNG Parliament operates like more like a collection of loosely affiliated Mafia Mob Bosses than a genuine democratic institution.

Not that we Australians have much to crow about given how our political parties operate, with Branch stacking, threats, bribery and 'jobs for the boys' all being deployed to win and retain office.

If only…..

If you look at history through a Bougainville lens, independence is both obvious and non-negotiable.

But the same sentiment applies to practically every other island group in the region. Prior to European colonisation every island was an independent entity unto itself.

And today. I would venture very few would opt for their current status if offered a choice to return to their pre-colonial lives and it seems to me that such a return is not entirely in the realm of fantasy.

Rather than the artificially cobbled together post-colonial nation states that bear little or no relationship to traditional genealogical, language or geographic fealty, what about a loose federation of self-governed mini states under an umbrella organisation not unlike the European parliament and the European central bank.

All this under a charter of strict non-alignment with the broader world and a iron clad resolve to control access and preserve their land, waters culture, language and way of life.

For those who seek the brighter lights, the rest of the world is open for them to pursue whatever dreams they may have.

Under current arrangements, what I fear most for the region is the slow and inexorable erosion of culture, the environment and the stripping away of resources we are witnessing now. This was never in the interest of Pacific peoples and it never will be.

The regional failure to provide basic services to burgeoning populations coupled with the gross inequity that is the result of the neo capitalist model is poison for Pacific communities and Pacific nations.

In my view they could all do much worse than take back their traditional independence and exclude much of what is toxic from the outside world in perpetuity.