His prime minister Jeremiah Manele has publicly supported Beijing’s effort to prevent Taiwan from attending this year’s Pacific Islands Forum (PIF). This development raises alarms in Taipei, particularly in light of the Solomon Islands’ previous actions and declarations regarding its diplomatic stance towards Taiwan.
In 2019, the Solomon Islands changed its diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing, cutting all formal ties with Taipei. Since then, the Solomon Islands has repeatedly supported China’s stance on Taiwan, insisting that it continues to support the One China Policy. This commitment was recently reiterated by Manele, who stated that his government will “not engage in any official capacity with representatives or entities associated with ‘Taiwan’, China.”
The annual Pacific Islands Forum is always the most significant regional diplomatic event. Pacific regional leaders convene to develop solutions to urgent challenges. This year, the PACS forum will be held this September in Honiara, the capital of the neighbouring Solomon Islands. As recently as March, Taiwan’s representatives were denied visas. This has raised a lot of alarm about the possibility that they could be excluded from this vital meeting.
Taiwan’s Historical Role in the Forum
Taiwan has a considerable history of Forum participation as a development partner. According to Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Since 1993, Taiwan has participated as a development partner in various PIF mechanisms and events under the name Taiwan/Republic of China.” Taiwan’s exclusion would be incredibly disruptive to the balance of power inside the forum.
In 1992, all PIF leaders adopted as communique that unequivocally spells out recognition of Taiwan’s right to engage with Pacific countries. They noted this opportunity should take place “in the same location as the Forum.” Given the political environment today, it’s unclear if these commitments are fulfilled.
The consequences of leaving Taiwan out of the PIF are significant. Wu Chih-Chung, Taiwan’s Diplomatic Representative, articulated these concerns, stating that leaving Taiwan out of the meeting “certainly could cause fractures within the PIF.” The prospect of fracture and division between member countries has been an immediate worry sparking debate among Pacific leaders.
Reactions from Regional Leaders
The development has received mixed reactions from across the Pacific, with national governments, advocacy groups, and scientists voicing concern over the agreement. Australian government sources have indicated that Solomon Islands officials have reassured them that Taiwan’s representatives will not be barred from attending the leaders’ meeting in September. The Forum Secretariat and most Pacific leaders are keen to see Taiwan engaged.
Manele stressed the collaborative efforts of his government and the Forum Secretariat in ensuring Fiji was ready for the upcoming meeting. He said simply that they are “working very closely” on this vital priority. Worry lingers due to the lack of clarity over why Taiwanese officials were denied visit visas earlier this year. There’s widespread anticipation to see how things shake out.
Blake Johnson, a leading regional analyst, observed on the larger consequences of a broken PIF. “Without the PIF and other regional institutions functioning properly, some Pacific nations will find it more difficult to access support from and participate in valuable initiatives from policing to climate change adaptation funding,” he noted.
The Path Forward
As the time for the next Pacific Islands Forum draws near, debate and controversy over Taiwan’s participation grows hotter still. The Solomon Islands has not yet provided anything publicly binding assurances, shrouding the presence of Taiwan in public uncertainty with member nations and stakeholders.
Being caught up in a potential rupture within the forum may have long-term consequences on the prospects for regional cooperation and development. The PIF gives Pacific nations the tools to strengthen their collective voice on global topics. It assists them in protecting their sovereignty.
