logo
Visa refusal sparks fresh concerns Solomon Islands may block Taipei from Pacific forum

Visa refusal sparks fresh concerns Solomon Islands may block Taipei from Pacific forum

The Solomon Islands government blocked a group of Taiwanese officials from entering the Pacific country earlier this year, stirring fresh concerns in Taipei that it might be locked out of a key regional meeting in Honiara later this year.
Solomon Islands will host the Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting in September, and signalled last year that it might break with a long running precedent and refuse visas to Taiwanese officials who want to meet with their three remaining Pacific diplomatic allies on the sidelines.
Both Australian and Pacific officials insist that the Solomon Islands government has given them private assurances this year that it will not take that step.
But the ABC has been told that when a small group of officials from Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs applied to enter Solomon Islands in March — largely to begin planning the logistics for its PIF delegation — their visa applications were rejected.
Australian government sources have said Solomon Islands has since reassured them again that Taiwan's representatives will not be blocked in September, but that this directive was still "working its way through the system", suggesting the decision was an error.
A spokesperson from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) told the ABC it was "working closely" with Solomon Islands on preparations for the leaders meeting, "as we do with every host".
"There has been no change to arrangements regarding Taiwan's engagement with the Pacific Islands Forum, which have been in place since agreed by leaders in 1992," they said.
"The (meeting) is an opportunity for all Forum members to come together to ensure our region is well placed to pursue our shared interests, deepen regional cooperation and strengthen PIF unity."
One Pacific island government source also told the ABC that the Forum Secretariat and Pacific leaders were confident Taiwan would be able to participate in the Honiara meeting without any issues.
But the March incident has still stirred anxiety in Taipei, which has been fighting a losing battle with Beijing to maintain diplomatic allies in the Pacific, and which fears China is succeeding in its efforts to marginalise it in the region.
Solomon Islands has cut off all official contact with Taiwan in the wake of its decision to switch diplomatic ties to Beijing in 2019, and last year threw its weight behind China's declaration that it will "reunify" the self-ruled island with the mainland.
Solomon Islands last year also backed Beijing's push to strip Taiwan of its status as a development partner for the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).
That frustrated leaders from the three Pacific nations which retain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, with Palau's President Surangel Whipps even warning that if Taiwan is locked out it could ignite a dispute like the "PIF split" which plunged the organisation into chaos in 2021.
Mr Whipps said earlier this week that he had heard Taiwan was having "some difficulty gaining access" to the meeting, and stressed that it was critical Palau be able to hold meetings with its diplomatic partner in Honiara.
Solomon Islands has not yet explained why the Taiwanese officials were refused visas in March.
The Director of Immigration in Solomon Islands, Chris Akosawa, pointed out that Solomon Islands has recently tightened entry restrictions on Taiwan passport holders, but referred the ABC to the Solomon Islands Foreign Ministry for comment.
The ABC sent questions to the Foreign Ministry, but didn't receive a response.
So far, Solomon Islands has not given any public assurances that Taiwan will be able to attend the leaders meeting.
In May, Solomon Islands Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele issued a forceful statement reaffirming his government's commitment to the One China Policy and ordering officials "not to engage in any official capacity with representatives or entities associated with 'Taiwan', China".
"This includes official visits, communications, commitments, or participation in events involving 'Taiwan', China," he said.
On Monday Mr Manele also declined to say whether his government had made a final decision on Taiwan's participation, although he said he was "working very closely with the Forum Secretariat in terms of these arrangements".
"We are fully aware of that situation. So we are looking into that, it's a regional meeting and of course countries also have their national interest as well," he said.
A second Pacific island government source said Mr Manele's acknowledgement that the PIF leaders meeting is a "regional" gathering was a good sign that "commonsense would prevail" and that Solomon Islands wouldn't upset the status quo.
Invitations to PIF leaders and dialogue partners are expected to be issued shortly.
Analysts warn that if Taiwan is excluded it would undermine the authority of the PIF Secretariat and set a dangerous precedent which could undermine Pacific unity and see further splintering — particularly with Palau due to host the leaders meeting next year.
A third Pacific government source said it also was not clear if the United States would attend the meeting as a dialogue partner if Taiwan was excluded.
A spokesperson for Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs declined to comment on its officials being denied entry but pointed to a 1992 communique endorsed by all PIF leaders which specifically says Taiwan should be able to hold a meeting with Pacific nations "at the same venue as the Forum".
"Taiwan will continue to broaden collaboration with the PIF, diplomatic allies in the Pacific, and other like-minded countries, especially in such areas as climate change, food security, clean energy, and talent cultivation, jointly making contributions to the peace, stability, development, and prosperity of the Pacific region."
Blake Johnson from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute said while it wasn't yet clear what Solomon Islands would do, it "may be more willing to upset the status quo than people expect".
He also said excluding Taiwan from the meeting "certainly could cause fractures within the 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."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Coalition sticks to defence spending pledge but won't say how it'll pay for it
Coalition sticks to defence spending pledge but won't say how it'll pay for it

ABC News

time2 hours ago

  • ABC News

Coalition sticks to defence spending pledge but won't say how it'll pay for it

The Coalition remains committed to lifting defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP but won't detail where the money will come from, as the shadow finance minister suggested the opposition would be open to considering broader tax reform. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is expected to meet with Donald Trump on the sidelines of G7 summit next week, amid pressure from the United States to increase defence spending from the current level of 2.04 per cent to to 3.5. Trade Minister Don Farrell on Sunday said the government was committed to a "significant uplift in the amount of defence spending". "We're focused on what Australia needs to do and we'll make our decisions based on what's in our national interest," he told Sky News. The Coalition went to the election promising to earmark an additional $21 billion for the military between now and 2030, almost double what Labor had pledged. Appearing on Insiders on Sunday, Shadow Finance Minister James Paterson said the Coalition's target of 3 per cent of GDP in a decade had not changed since the party's devastating election loss last month. "The exact profiling of that increase is something that we'll determine through the policy process and closer to the next election. We'll be completely up front and transparent about that," he said. "But yes, we have an objective of reaching the 3 per cent of GDP because we think it is in our national interest." Senator Paterson said the Coalition had three years to outline where that additional funding would go, but listed some potential areas for investment as recruitment and retention, a munitions stockpile, northern military bases, air and missile defence and drones. "There is no shortage of good things we could spend on that would increase our ability to defend ourselves and safeguard our sovereignty," he said. But he would not be drawn on where the money to pay for the increase would come from, saying that work would occur over the coming years. Senator Paterson did suggest the opposition was open to a discussion about the way superannuation is taxed, despite its rejection of the government's plan to double the tax on super balances above $3 million from 15 to 30 per cent. "We're happy to contemplate tax reform. We're happy to talk to the government about tax reform. But we are not interested in increasing taxes, because I don't think that that is what the Australian economy needs right now," he said. "If the government was genuinely serious about a broad-based tax reform process, then we'd be up for that conversation. Now, the government has to take the first steps there." US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asked Defence Minister Richard Marles to increase spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP "as soon as possible" on the sidelines of a dialogue in Singapore this week, according to a statement from the US Department of Defense. Mr Hegseth had previously made similar requests, but it was the first time the administration nominated an exact figure. Negotiations with the United States over Mr Trump's 10 per cent tariffs on Australian exports continue, with the subject likely to dominate the anticipated meeting between Mr Albanese and Mr Trump. Access to Australia's critical minerals has been put forward as a potential bargaining chip as Australia continues to push for an exemption. The Coalition had previously said they would oppose Labor's plan to acquire stockpiles of critical minerals from commercial projects, to be held in a national reserve and made available to domestic industry and international partners. But Senator Paterson told Insiders it "might be necessary" for the government to support the mining and processing of critical minerals. "We're very happy to see what the government is proposing here. I can't commit to it in principle without having seen the details, but we're certainly open to it," Senator Paterson said. "Any sensible steps that represent an economic opportunity for Australia and an opportunity for us to demonstrate that we are a good alliance partner of the United States is something that we would offer bipartisan support to." Mr Farrell said Australia had offered the United States "an expanded arrangement in regards to critical minerals" as part of efforts to secure an exemption from the tariffs, which came into force in April. The trade minister met with his American counterpart, trade representative Jamieson Greer, in Paris last week, where he said he made clear that Australia wanted "all of the tariffs removed, not just some of them". "The position I put to Jamieson Greer is that the tariffs the United States has imposed on Australia are unjustified."

A feeling of calm before the storm descends on Tasmanian politics following motion of no-confidence in Jeremy Rockliff
A feeling of calm before the storm descends on Tasmanian politics following motion of no-confidence in Jeremy Rockliff

ABC News

timea day ago

  • ABC News

A feeling of calm before the storm descends on Tasmanian politics following motion of no-confidence in Jeremy Rockliff

After a wild few days in the crazy world that is Tasmanian politics, Friday felt eerily quiet. For some, it was a reprieve, a day to breathe and reflect on what had just happened and what might happen next. For others, it was more like the kind of silence before a jump scare. If the past few days were a horror movie with the final act being the toppling of the state's leader, then the weekend is a thriller. An uncomfortable wait in suspense with the knowledge that something unknown is just around the corner. But there are so many scenarios that can play out. What Tasmanians know is that by the end of next week something will have changed in the state's political landscape. The Liberals will still be in charge but with a different leader at the helm — someone like Eric Abetz or Michael Ferguson. Or the world will have turned upside down and Labor Leader Dean Winter would have figured out a way to govern with just 10 MPs, leaning on the support of the crossbench and the Greens. The last option is we're in election mode for the second time within 18 months. Tuesday is D-Day. If things are still at status quo and the supply bills — necessary for public servants to continue to be paid — pass, then Jeremy Rockliff will take a trip to see the Governor. The Governor will consider all of the above options. At this stage, it appears most politicians are resigned to an election being called. But three days is a long time in Tasmanian politics, and a lot can happen. For example, the Liberals — whose war chests are no doubt unprepared for an election or who are worried about losing their seats — could roll Mr Rockliff. Labor, and some members of the crossbench, say that should happen, or Mr Rockliff should fall on his sword and resign. Even fellow Liberal Senator Jonathon Duniam suggested as much on Friday morning. But how likely is that to happen? It is understood some, like Mr Abetz, have already done the numbers and come up short. There's also an understanding in the party that while Mr Abetz certainly has his supporters, he's not everyone's cup of tea. Some worry he'll struggle to get support from the crossbench needed to continue governing, and fear he's too polarising to lead the party to a state election. The other two real contenders are Treasurer Guy Barnett, the architect of last week's budget paper which inspired the motion of no-confidence, and Michael Ferguson who was already banished to the backbench over the Spirit of Tasmania fiasco. There doesn't seem to be a stand-out candidate amongst them. And there's something Jeremy Rockliff's opponents may have underestimated: people really like him. Because if there was one thing everyone could agree on during the motion of no-confidence, Mr Rockliff is a nice guy. Of course. the motion wasn't about his personality — after all nice is great, but it's not enough to lead a state. Nice doesn't pay off the almost $11 billion in debt that Tasmania is expected to rack up in four years' time and it hasn't helped build the berth for the new Spirit of Tasmania ships on time. Then there's the stadium cap. It is unlikely that the average Tasmanian heard "$375 million" — on capital when it was mentioned — "and not a red cent more" and realised it included hundreds of millions of dollars in borrowings. It might not technically be able to be called a broken promise yet, but, for the general public it's the vibe of the thing and the vibe is off. Not to mention Mr Rockliff's plans to cut the public service and sell off public assets were decidedly controversial. There are many valid reasons that Labor and the crossbench had when they spoke about why they were supporting the motion of no-confidence in Mr Rockliff. And that should not be forgotten. But that niceness, and loyalty, means fellow Liberals have decided that they'll back Mr Rockliff's leadership to the hilt. Even if it means an early election. The other aspect is that the party seems to believe that Mr Rockliff leaving won't be the fix. There is a view that Labor and the crossbench will eventually come after whoever is next. If Tasmanians do head to the polls, some of it is because Labor won't explore the third option: forming a minority government. Greens Leader Rosalie Woodruff was out on Friday, once again offering Mr Winter a quick path to the premiership, or at the very least a conversation. But Mr Winter can't say it enough (apparently) that there is no world in which he leans on the Greens for any kind of support. While Dr Woodruff may argue that the parties' values are more aligned, Mr Winter sees the Greens as toxic for Labor. So if Labor doesn't want to govern, why did it raise the no-confidence motion? Some have suggested (tablespoon of salt because it's mostly Liberals) that Mr Winter simply wanted to knock off a more popular opponent. Whatever the motivation, it's done now and there is a very real chance Mr Winter will be heading to his first election as leader. It's unlikely to be an easy one. While Labor is blaming the Liberals for the election and the Liberals are blaming Labor, the public is blaming all politicians, in particular the major parties. Labor's copping blame for starting the whole mess in the first place. It was playing with fire when it challenged the crossbench MPs, who swiftly rose to the occasion. Mr Winter may have been hoping the premier would backdown and resign, but he would've known that an election was a serious possibility. They went through something similar back in November, when the Greens raised a no-confidence motion and Mr Rockliff declared that he'd ask for an election to be called if it passed. Turns out he wasn't bluffing. Labor's also going to have to face up to the stadium issue. The anti-stadium crowd knows Labor is pro-stadium and team, and won't trust it. While the pro-stadium crowd is enraged that Labor is putting it all in jeopardy — the Liberals are somehow escaping this criticism. Meanwhile, the Liberals are getting the blame because yes — as Labor has pointed out — they are choosing to seek an election instead of a new leader, backed into a corner or not. The fact is, the blood was in the water. People were getting frustrated with the Liberal government. But as angry as people were with a government that's been in power for 11 years, the general sentiment seems to be that it is just too soon for another election Mr Winter's got five weeks to convince Tasmanians he made the right move in toppling the premier, rather than letting the government bleed out a little longer.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store