Moana tangentially connected those events to the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), the region’s most important annual gathering for its heads of state. It’s scheduled to be held in Honiara, Solomon Islands. This year’s event is already generating a firestorm. Dramatically cancelling all dialogue and development partners from attending, Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele announced that he would prevent full participation. The decision just leads to greater uncertainty about both the direction of that forum and the role that outside powers like China shouldn’t play.
That makes this year’s PIF more important than ever. Our leaders are keen to address the big challenges such as climate change, that is still a fundamental issue of concern in many Pacific countries. Manele’s decision has been met with furious condemnation. Senior politicians from Fiji, Australia, Papua New Guinea, and New Zealand joined other regional leaders to make public their worries. They have publicly expressed their disagreement with the Solomon Islands’ stance, emphasizing the need for unity among Pacific nations in confronting various challenges.
Solomon Islands’ Shift in Policy
The Solomon Islands has been the site of an extraordinary inversion of its geopolitical diplomatic outreach, most famously adopting a pro-China tilt. This includes one of the foundations of diplomacy with China—the so-called “One China” policy, that acknowledges Beijing’s claim to Taiwan. Southern Pacific The Solomon Islands has so far been the most supportive of Beijing’s campaign. This tactic furthers China’s longstanding ambition of “reunifying” Taiwan with the mainland.
This political pivot has great implications on domestic policy. It has deeper implications on regional dynamics among members of the Pacific Islands Forum. By siding with China, the Solomon Islands has distanced itself from traditional allies and raised concerns about the influence of Beijing in shaping the PIF agenda.
In his announcement, Prime Minister Manele said he would request all dialogue and development partners to refrain from attending the leaders’ gathering. This request specifically excludes China, Taiwan, US, UK, and other countries. This decision greatly constrains what could be a promising opportunity for constructive, policy-focused dialogue on many critical regional priorities.
Implications for Taiwan and Regional Relations
Taiwan has successfully cultivated its status at the Pacific Islands Forum since 1992. This was possible due to a pact signed in Honiara. Beijing is intensifying efforts on Pacific nations to abandon this deal. Consequently, Taiwan’s future role in PIF meetings is now unclear. Taiwanese officials were recently denied entry to the Solomon Islands earlier this year. Looking ahead, this decision has created uncertainty over a greater schism to come within the forum.
Through growing influence in the Pacific, China has been able to challenge these long-held agreements and remake political landscapes. With Manele’s recent actions, observers worry about Taiwan’s diminishing role in the PIF and what that means for its diplomatic relationships within the region.
“One China” – A policy embraced by the Solomon Islands.
Given increasing regional tensions, Taiwan’s potential exclusion from PIF would be indicative of a larger realignment of regional alliances and partnerships. Many Pacific leaders have made their opposition and fear for this move completely clear. They call for more inclusive conversations that reflect the interests of all member states, not just the most powerful.
Challenges Ahead for the Pacific Islands Forum
The next PIF will again provide leaders with an irreplaceable platform to have these important conversations. From the problem of climate change, to Regional Mobility, Fishing Rights and the problem of political oppression in New Caledonia and West Papua. Yet Manele’s choice to exclude major partners from the decision-making process risks overshadowing these conversations with a huge self-inflicted wound.
The establishment of “Tier 1” and “Tier 2” partners through the review of the PIF partnership system has also experienced significant delays. Consequently, it was ruled out from going into effect for this year’s Annual Meeting. This absence of clear structure hampers efforts to enforce and increase cooperation between member states. This uncertainty might further raise stakes in the already heated environment of the forum.
Even with these challenges, there is no question that many leaders are still dedicated to tackling their most pressing challenges together. In the PIF, Pacific leaders were convened. They set the agenda for all external actors seeking to win friends and influence people in the area. In a world increasingly battered by climate change impacts and geopolitical storms, it has never been more important that Pacific nations stand together.
