So, as you may have noticed, I've been thinking about various random parts of the world to try to get an idea of how they could change ITTL.
So I've recently set my mind on New Zealand. As I understand it, the British didn't really care that much about colonizing/settling it (which is part of why it has such a large surviving indigenous population IOTL). The big reasons for colonizing it were preventing other powers from getting their hands on it, and stopping their whalers, who had to a limited extent settled the smaller islands and the coasts, from killing each other. Basically, the reasons boil down to prestige and law and order. IOTL, they actually granted the Maori sovereignty over New Zealand, effectively making it a country (the united tribes of Aotearoa), just so that there would be a legitimate government to hand over control to them (as getting land from every individual chief presumably would have been a pain in the butt). However, the Brits even then didn't really care whether they got all of the country as a direct possession. Their diplomats were instructed to "buy all or part of New Zealand". I think you now have an idea of where this is going.
The treaty that the Maori chiefs signed had 2 versions, an English and a Maori one, which were different. The Maori understood the treaty was making them a protectorate of Britain (as they were told when the UTA formed). The English version made them British citizens and gave all of their land to the king.
Now, the Maori chiefs, at least in a large chunk of North Island, were pretty pro-British, and willing to be a protectorate, and the diplomats and early governors of New Zealand were supportive of Maori culture, as long as they got to trade with the Maori and dock ships on New Zealand.
With the British distracted with a new and growing colony in South America, and maybe a war with neighboring Argentine states, possibly renewed war with Mysore, they would have less time, interest, and resources for a direct colonization of NZ.
So the idea is,
direct colonization of the South Island, along with smaller Islands like Rakiura and maybe the Northland region (the long peninsula on North Island). These were regions with more European settlement or lower Maori populations. On the other hand,
North Island would be a British dependency/protectorate under Maori rule, maybe called the Federation of Aotearoa or simply remaining the United Tribes.
Practically all of South Island was bought by Europeans by the time they managed to buy the Aukland, Northland, and Wellington regions of North Island, so it makes sense that it would be on the North Island where Maori autonomy survives.
IOTL, the settling and annexation of New Zealand happens around the 1850s and early 1860s.
There is also the matter of one French settlement on South Island (Akaroa), but I doubt that that would be different enough ITTL to actually be important beyond further motivating the British to take control of New Zealand, and may not even exist ITTL.
American whalers also frequently visited, New Zealand. While the US government is unlikely to have much interests in the islands, I can see some interesting dynamic developing between them and the British. They might be pretty aggressive towards the local British, and were IOTL noted to be disrespectful towards the Maori (but then, so were British whalers, and both had to tone it down to be able to trade with them). There is the possibility of an attempt at filibustering here, but it didn't happen IOTL, where the US was more expansionist than ITTL, so I kind of doubt it.
My thoughts on Japan might be coming soon if I get the chance to do a bit more research.
[edit: do you think any of this New Zealand stuff makes sense?]
