There are three interrelated levels through which culture can be made central to the Pacific Plan. The first level is that of guiding principles; the second is that of a governance framework for the region and the plan; and the third level is that of strategic objectives or practical initiatives.
As Crocombe points out, ‘basic to any culture is its value system’. He adds, however, that value systems vary within Pacific cultures (Crocombe 2005: 302). It is undeniable that there is real cultural diversity in the Pacific, but there are also many common values and similar practices. This is what Pacific leaders have been alluding to for many years in their references to the Pacific Way and to Pacific values. Although it is the role of the leaders and peoples of the region to agree on the predominant values together, we could suggest here, based on research already conducted by regional scholars and thinkers, that common values in the Pacific revolve around concepts of solidarity and reciprocity; the fostering and maintenance of kinship networks and relationships; attachment to land and sea; respect and care for others; the upholding of human dignity; and consultation and shared leadership.
These values (and perhaps others yet to be defined) should be made the basis for the guiding principles of regionalism: in other words, all initiatives and processes should be measured against these values. Guiding principles/norms would therefore seek to ensure that Pacific values were enhanced or promoted by regional initiatives. This is a step beyond framing a vision, which, although it provides an indication of how the region views itself (or what it aspires to), does not imply any commitment. A set of guiding principles, on the other hand, would clearly outline the values that the region seeks to uphold. It would be the responsibility of all those involved in regional decision-making to assess whether regional initiatives respect the guiding principles.
In order to facilitate this, culture should be incorporated at a second level, through the rethinking of a governance framework, or, as Grynberg and his co-authors refer to it, through the development of a ‘political track’ for the region (ADB 2005: xxvi). A political track that is cognisant of culture would seek not to create new ‘mega-institutions’, which further bureaucratise and centralise regional decision-making, but rather provide the means for enhancing dialogue between communities and the region (understood as regional institutions and regional leadership), and bringing regionalism to local communities.
How to do this was one of the questions raised in a report by William Sutherland and others entitled Strengthening Regional Cooperation through Enhanced Engagement with Civil Society. This report was based on a project that aimed to ‘seek community views on whether and how regional co-operation could be strengthened through enhanced community engagement’, in which two-day community dialogues were held in Suva, Lautoka, Apia and Honiara (Sutherland 2005: 6). Participants were asked to find strategies to increase community engagement in regionalism. Four forms of engagement were suggested: ‘direct engagement’ where ‘community representatives … engage directly with regional organizations’; ‘engagement through Regional Representatives’, that is, ‘through representatives of national associations of community groups or through regional umbrella organizations’; ‘engagement through Regional Liaison Units, i.e., ‘the formation of “regional liaison units” through which the community could work’; and ‘engagement through a Pacific parliament’ (Sutherland 2005: 26–7).
Although our focus here is not on strengthening regional cooperation but on encouraging the region and its institutions to better integrate cultural norms and practices, the suggestions listed above provide some ideas about implementing a ‘political track’. Which of these would be most likely to promote the valuing of cultural identity at the regional level? The simple answer for present purposes is: all or any of the above.
This is because the main objective would be that, whatever form of engagement is put forward, community voices, rather than solely those that are representative of the State, are heard directly. Any of the above suggestions can most likely help to achieve this if implemented with that objective in mind. If the purpose of regionalism is to enhance the lives of people, it must have the means to understand and connect directly with those people. In the Pacific, communities rather than the State are the regulatory agents of society. People are protected from the destructuring or disintegrating effects of the market in large part by their cultural values and practices, including emphasis on solidarity and reciprocity, attachment to land, and focus on obligations and duties to others. In many countries of the Pacific, the State has limited capacity to regulate the impact of globalisation and the market as well as limited legitimacy. The community is in large part responsible for making sure that economic imperatives do not overwhelm society, rather that they are framed within a social structure that moderates them. (This is not to deny that it is becoming increasingly difficult for communities to do this as demands for consumerism grow.)
Regionalism should also focus on developing state capacity. But if we agree that it is important for regionalism to promote cultural identity as well as a ‘focus on people’, as the EPG advocated, it is logical for regional institutions and processes to work directly with those who practice or live cultural identity. Regionalism should seek to work closely with the institutions that hold the most political legitimacy — and these are generally local communities. This concurs with one of the key findings in Sutherland’s report that ‘the community clearly wants regional organizations to be more engaged with them and not just through governments’, and might also address the real and perceived inequalities in the spread of the benefits of regionalism. As Crocombe states: ‘Despite a rhetoric of priority for the poor, and verbal commitment to the Millennium Development Goals, it appears that the benefits of regional activity have gone disproportionately to the urban privileged’ (2005: 299).
The suggestion for liaison offices reasserts the idea that a ‘physical presence’ is important for the effectiveness of regionalism and the ‘distribution of benefits’. It also ensures that regional institutions are more attuned to the range of contexts in the region. In Crocombe’s words, ‘A danger of too much centralization is that staff of regional organizations spend more time interacting with each other and less with people throughout the region they are intended to serve’ (2005: 299).
The recommendations put forward in the Sutherland report address the logistical aspects of improved interaction between communities and the region, including regionalism: ‘accord[ing] the community the same recognition given [to] the private sector’; ‘help[ing] communities to form regional associations’; ‘explor[ing] the establishment of Regional Liaison Units based in Forum Islands Countries’; and ‘work[ing] towards a Pacific Parliament with direct community representation’ (2005: 4). It remains to be seen which would be cost-effective in providing consistent and beneficial interaction between the ‘people’ and regionalism.
Apart from the ‘logistics’ of interaction there is also the question of modes of interaction. How regionalism engages with people at all levels is as important as the structures that are created. This concern was raised at the forum leaders’ level in their expressed desire to spend more time in discussion and ‘less in “ticking-off” large volumes of paperwork provided by ministers and officials’. As the EPG commented (based on experience), ‘[I]mpossibly long meeting agendas and an overload of paperwork militate against good decision-making’ (EPG 2004: 11). Not only should ‘the Pacific Islands Forum … continue its tradition of decisions through consensus based on a fluid agenda of discussion’ (Powell [2005] argues that ‘because this process is consistent with the cultural norms of Islanders, the execution of decisions by the Forum [carries] a needed level of legitimacy’), but regionalism should extend this mode of interaction to other levels. This relates directly to the concept of talanoa that Sitiveni Halapua has theorised about and advocated. Halapua organised a series of high-level talanoa dialogues between political leaders in Fiji after the 2000 coup, applying principles of reconciliation, inclusion and respect for cultural traditions. Even though it is important to be able to come to decisions so that actions are implemented, it is imperative for leaders and people, including bureaucrats, to have the opportunity to reflect on the purpose of regional action. It is not enough to leave this to academics. In addition, as pointed out by Powell, Halapua and others, talanoa is a process suited to reflection and decision-making in the region.
The third level at which cultural identity could be promoted is through regional initiatives or ‘strategic objectives’. Among the 15 strategic objectives listed in the final draft of the Pacific Plan, only one deals specifically with cultural identity: Strategic Objective 11 (under sustainable development), which is to ‘[r]ecognise and Protect cultural values, identities and traditional knowledge’ (Final Draft 2005: 16). The associated initiatives and milestones are not very clear so it is difficult to judge their potential efficacy at this point. But clearly the importance of preventing bio-piracy and protecting indigenous knowledge are urgent.
Another initiative to favour cultural identity (in this case, fomenting a greater appreciation and sharing of pan-Pacific cultural identity) is to foster greater exchanges between people of the region. The FSM emphasised this aspect in its national consultation plan submission under a section entitled ‘Building a regional identity’. In it, the FSM advocates free skilled labour movement in the region as well as the ‘establishment of a system of short-term secondment and exchange of officials’ among Pacific nations. Crocombe makes a similar suggestion: ‘If regional integration is to succeed in the long term, more attention needs to be given to human mobility.’ He goes on to make concrete suggestions about how to make this possible, including a ‘regional identity card’, ‘professional mobility’, ‘dual citizenship’, ‘teacher, student and media exchanges’, as well as a ‘Pacific volunteer service’. As Crocombe points out, in the case of exchanges, most of these occur ‘between countries of the Forum region and countries outside it, but do not exist [in the case of teacher, student and media exchanges] … within the Forum Islands region’. The plan lists including ‘temporary movement of labour’ in the Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement but this appears as a purely economic growth measure rather than as a wider initiative to foster cultural exchange, understanding and development.
Another area that requires more attention is acknowledgment of the role of cultural and social capital. The point here is not to instrumentalise culture but to consider it as a key component in the development of economic policy. In other words, the region should seriously consider how to adapt economic practices to cultural contexts rather than the reverse. The Pacific Plan Office briefly addresses this question in its Culture and the Pacific Plan Issues Paper, but it is difficult to understand what it is advocating:
In an environment focused on economic growth and trade, those interested in conserving culture attempt to justify support for the issue through analysis of the economic value it contributes to the economy. However, its real value may lie in the loss Pacific Islanders will face after it is gone, as the tangible aspects of culture that contribute to the economy [are] only a small part of the whole. On the other hand, the lack of concerted effort in the field of culture also means that commercialization and exploitation of traditional knowledge, flora and fauna is a missed opportunity to share in the income that can be derived from it.
Does this mean that addressing culture in economic terms should be limited to the area of ‘commercialisation and exploitation of traditional knowledge, flora and fauna’? To view the ‘tangible aspects of culture that contribute to the economy as only a small part of the whole’ is somewhat perplexing. Culture is a whole, it is civilisation embodied in thought and action; the economy is but a part of culture and of life. At least that is how it is viewed in the Pacific (and by many people throughout the world, including leading economists such as Amartya Sen).
Putting the economy at the service of culture and of life and society perhaps requires a shift in thinking, and it might be difficult to list this as a ‘strategic objective’. But an objective of the Pacific Plan should be to consider it as an all-encompassing, core issue, one that is at the heart and not the margins of governance, economic growth, sustainable development and security.