In conclusion, we might want to ask ourselves again: what is the final aim of Pacific regionalism? Should it be an expression of values or an expression of interests? The sensible answer is that it is about both, and yet in the Pacific Plan now adopted by the forum, interests clearly trump values. The interests the plan seeks to promote are those that serve primarily economic integration without considering the values of the people it represents.

This is in spite of the fact that leaders have traditionally viewed regionalism in a humane way, with the Pacific Way preserving a particular outlook on society and the world. The EPG reiterated this outlook in its assertion that ‘the real strength of the region lies in the character of its people, who have demonstrated throughout their history a high level of resourcefulness and resilience’. This positive outlook on the capacity of the peoples of the region to find the solutions to their problems is indicated by the additional statement that ‘[w]e are well used to surviving, and eventually prospering, in the face of hardship, invasions and natural disasters’ (EPG 2004: 18). The point here is not to advocate complacency but to indicate that regionalism plans must build on these strengths not attempt to replace or contravene them.

Pacific cultural values such as solidarity and reciprocity and respect for kinship networks need to become the guiding principles of Pacific regionalism; communities need to be given a direct voice in regional institutions, and human mobility among island states needs to be encouraged not only for economic reasons but as part of a project to enhance a sense of regional identity. Above all, moves towards regional economic integration need to be tested constantly against the criterion of whether or not they reflect Pacific cultural values, and whether they enhance community.