Chinese pressure is a part of Solomon Islands’ politics. Other Pacific countries should take note
The Chinese embassy in Solomon Islands has reportedly pressured newly appointed Minister of Rural Development Daniel Waneoroa to quit an international group that challenges China’s authoritarian regime. This incident highlights Beijing’s increased tendency to pressure foreign elites, despite rhetoric around non-interference in domestic affairs. Pacific leaders and their foreign partners should be watching.
Waneoroa said he made the decision to resign from the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) last week ‘in the interest of fostering stability and aligning with a collective national vision’. That national vision is likely one that strongly adheres to the ‘One-China principle’ in exchange for financial benefits from Beijing.
Waneoroa’s decision should not reflect poorly on him as a politician or a leader. He was brave enough to be part of a group that many others wouldn’t join, despite potential personal beliefs; he is now choosing to be part of the governing coalition for domestic stability and economic opportunities.
Instead, this affair should highlight the depth of Chinese influence in Pacific politics and an increasing trend of self-censorship by countries when it comes to China.
IPAC aims to unite global lawmakers to promote democracy and address the threats China’s rise poses to human rights and the rules-based system. Individuals from more than 40 countries are part of the alliance, including more than 20 Australian parliamentarians from both major parties after the 2022 election. After Waneoroa’s resignation, opposition member Peter Kenilorea Jr is the only representative from Solomon Islands listed on IPAC’s website.
IPAC’s partners are mostly Taiwanese and US institutions, so membership is a highly sensitive issue for Beijing, which views it and similar pro-democracy groupings as tools of US foreign policy. Kenilorea Jr reportedly said that Waneoroa ‘had been pressured by the Chinese embassy here in Solomon Islands to quit IPAC for some time now.’ But Waneoroa’s actual decision point was his appointment as a minister in the governing coalition.
In April, several ministers resigned from Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele’s Government for National Unity and Transformation (GNUT) coalition and joined the opposition in a looming motion of no confidence. Manele worked quickly to stave off the motion—which was ultimately withdrawn—by coaxing Waneoroa and others into the GNUT with offers of better positions. It was a savvy move seen many times before in Pacific politics. The remaining point of contention was Waneoroa’s IPAC ties.
Once the dust had settled, Waneoroa had little choice but to align himself fully with GNUT’s position. Ministers are highly replaceable in the Solomon Islands system and the coalition is large enough to survive losing one uncooperative member. So, Waneoroa made the decision to cut ties with IPAC, allowing him to keep his government position and deliver more for his own constituents in North Malaita. Even without direct pressure from the Chinese embassy, there are logical reasons for Waneoroa’s decision that prioritise domestic politics and stability over his broader international affiliations. Again, Waneoroa shouldn’t be blamed for his decision when the problem of political pressure is built into the system.
With so much dependence on and desire for Chinese funding and support, countries such as Solomon Islands are in a tough position, and government members have little choice but to toe the line. We can expect Waneoroa to now align with the GNUT and Manele’s stance on all China issues going forward. Publicly opposing that position would only generate internal tensions and potentially additional harassment and pressure from China.
Other Pacific leaders have spoken about attempts by Chinese officials to harass, bribe and undermine them, including former president of the Federated States of Micronesia David Panuelo, who said Chinese officials had directly threatened his personal safety. Self-censorship on issues likely to trigger Beijing is a rational choice for local politicians who are trying to represent their constituents’ best interests. But cumulatively, such decisions narrow the space for domestic political debate.
The attraction of China’s partnership has been financial support with no strings attached. But leaders need to start thinking about what the real cost is in terms of free speech and affiliation. It may seem easy and harmless to make a statement in support of the ‘One-China principle’, but how far can China push those statements? Clearly it leads to a change in behaviour in politicians, whether the pressure comes directly from China or from peers. Pacific media outlets also face pressure from Chinese embassies, which has led to greater self-censorship and less transparent reporting on Chinese activities in their countries.
For Solomon Islands, all eyes will be on any efforts to disrupt Taiwan’s participation in the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting in early September. It’s unlikely Taiwan will be shut out completely, but we may well see the next stage of Chinese pressure on the political elite, upsetting the region’s core institution.