From Palau to New York: A Pacific perspective on meaningful participation
At the 55th Pacific Islands Forum in Palau this year, discussions about regional participation and representation once again highlighted a fundamental principle of Pacific regionalism: those affected by regional challenges should have meaningful opportunities to be heard and to contribute to regional cooperation.
Guam’s engagement with the Pacific Islands Forum provides an example of how communities with different political and institutional circumstances can remain connected to regional dialogue.
At this year’s PIF, Guam Gov. Lourdes Leon Guerrero called for Guam to move from associate membership to full membership, emphasizing the importance of having a meaningful voice in regional decision-making. As a U.S. territory in the Western Pacific, Guam has longstanding ties to the Pacific island region and continues to engage in regional affairs.
Guam’s experience should not, however, be viewed as a political or legal analogy for Taiwan. Guam’s status as a U.S. territory and Taiwan’s international status arise from distinct historical, political and legal circumstances. Nor does Guam’s pursuit of full PIF membership establish a precedent for Taiwan’s participation in the United Nations. Guam’s experience shows the broader value of giving communities affected by regional challenges a meaningful opportunity to participate in regional conversations.
Having spent many years working in the Pacific, I have come to appreciate that the region is defined not only by geography, but also the diverse political, legal, and institutional circumstances of its communities. Pacific regionalism has developed practical ways for governments, communities, and partners with different circumstances to engage, cooperate, and address shared challenges.
It is from this Pacific perspective, while recognizing that these political situations are different, that I would like to pose another question before the international community: Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the United Nations system.
At this year’s Forum in Palau, Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung led Taiwan’s delegation in PIF-related activities, including the 30th Taiwan/ROC-Forum Countries Dialogue hosted by the PIF Secretariat. Taiwan has participated in the PIF framework as a Development Partner since 1993. During this year’s Forum-related activities, Taiwan and its Pacific partners highlighted cooperation in areas including digital resilience, renewable energy, infrastructure, climate-change adaptation, smart health care, and social empowerment.
The participation of Guam and Taiwan in PIF-related activities reflects different circumstances and should be understood on their own terms. Bringing them into the same discussion does not make them equivalent cases or establish a precedent for Taiwan’s participation in the United Nations. Rather, it highlights a broader question: how can regional organizations create appropriate avenues for people, communities, governments and partners to contribute when they face common challenges.
That question matters to Guam because its identity as a Pacific island community is closely connected to the practical challenges facing the region. Guam is part of the United States and an important strategic hub in the Western Pacific, while also being a Pacific island community that experiences many of the challenges shared by neighboring communities. Typhoons, earthquakes, climate change, public-health emergencies, food and energy security, ocean sustainability and disaster preparedness do not stop at political boundaries. Addressing them requires resilient communities, scientific cooperation, and practical relationships among the societies that share the Pacific.
The same principle applies to Taiwan’s international participation.
Taiwan is an island society with extensive experience in dealing with typhoons, earthquakes, public-health emergencies, and other natural hazards. It has developed capabilities in disaster preparedness, emergency medicine, agriculture, climate resilience, digital technology and infrastructure. Its high-tech and semiconductor industries are also deeply integrated into global supply chains. These capabilities have practical relevance to the wider international community, including Pacific island societies confronting similar challenges.
Taiwan’s longstanding cooperation with Pacific partners illustrates this practical dimension. Taiwan maintains diplomatic relations with Palau, the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu, and has worked with Pacific partners in areas ranging from agriculture and health care to education, climate resilience, and disaster preparedness. At this year’s PIF-related activities, Taiwan and its Pacific partners also highlighted cooperation in low-carbon energy, smart agriculture, smart health care, digital resilience, and infrastructure.
The discussion in Palau therefore provides a natural bridge to a broader discussion now taking place in New York. The question is not whether the PIF and the United Nations are the same institution. They are not. The question is whether international and regional institutions are best able to address shared challenges when relevant expertise and affected communities have meaningful opportunities to contribute.
The 81st session of the UN General Assembly opened on Sept. 8, 2026, under the theme “Restoring Trust, Managing Transformation: A United Nations That Delivers for All.” Its priorities include leaving no country behind, climate resilience and environmental sustainability, rights and protection, innovation with inclusion, and renewed multilateralism and inclusive global governance. These priorities speak directly to many of the challenges facing Pacific communities.
The emphasis on inclusion is particularly relevant. At the opening of the 81st session, General Assembly President Khalilur Rahman observed that the United Nations is larger than the member states represented in the assembly. He highlighted the importance of civil society, media, industry leaders, innovation communities, and academia, while acknowledging that the UN has yet to find sufficient ways to integrate their voices into its work.
This observation invites a broader consideration of what meaningful participation means in practice.
ADVERTISEMENT
Taiwan has continued to call for meaningful participation in the UN system, particularly in areas where its expertise and experience can contribute to international cooperation. This is not simply a question of representation in the general assembly. It also concerns whether Taiwanese professionals, experts and institutions can participate meaningfully in international mechanisms addressing public health, climate change, disaster preparedness, sustainable development, digital technology and other issues of common concern.
The debate inevitably touches upon UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, adopted in 1971. Taiwan maintains that the resolution addressed the representation of China at the United Nations and does not mention Taiwan or determine Taiwan’s political status. Beijing maintains a different interpretation. The U.S. government has stated that Resolution 2758 does not preclude Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the UN system or other international forums, while distinguishing that position from the broader question of Taiwan’s political status.
The longstanding debate over Resolution 2758 should not, however, obscure a more practical question: how can international organizations make better use of relevant expertise and experience to address common challenges? Whether a Taiwanese scientist can contribute expertise on disaster preparedness, whether a public-health professional can share experience on disease prevention, or whether a technology specialist can participate in discussions on digital resilience are practical questions that can be considered independently from the broader political debate.
This distinction is particularly relevant to Pacific island communities. A typhoon does not distinguish between societies based on diplomatic relationships and neither does a pandemic or the effects of climate change. When disaster-management officials exchange information, public-health professionals share experience, or communities seek better ways to strengthen climate resilience, the value of cooperation lies in the knowledge and capabilities being shared. Limiting access to relevant expertise does not remove the challenges themselves. It can instead reduce the resources and perspectives available to address them.
ADVERTISEMENT
Meaningful participation also involves reasonable professional access to international organizations. Taiwan has raised concerns about restrictions affecting Taiwanese passport holders, including journalists seeking access to UN premises and activities. The UN’s media-accreditation rules require applicants to meet established professional requirements and to hold a valid passport from a state recognized by the general assembly. These questions of professional access, journalism and technical participation are separate from formal political representation. International organizations seeking to strengthen public trust should ensure that their practices allow all relevant expertise, information, and professional perspectives to be heard.
Taiwan’s experience as a democratic society also offers perspectives relevant to the international community. Its experience with democratic governance, civil society, technological innovation and the protection of fundamental freedoms are part of the broader range of knowledge and experience that Taiwan can contribute to international discussions. These contributions need not depend on resolving every aspect of the political debate surrounding Taiwan.
For those of us who work in the Pacific, the importance of practical cooperation is readily apparent. The region is confronting increasingly interconnected challenges involving climate change, natural disasters, public health, economic resilience, food and energy security, connectivity and technological transformation. Addressing them requires cooperation among governments, communities, experts, businesses, and international organizations. No single country or territory possesses all the knowledge and resources required.
This is the perspective that connects the discussions in Palau and the UN debate in New York. The PIF and the United Nations are different organizations addressing different questions and neither Guam’s political status nor its pursuit of PIF membership should be treated as a precedent for Taiwan’s participation in the United Nations. Their relevance lies instead in a broader Pacific experience: regional and international cooperation is strengthened when organizations create appropriate channels for people, communities, and partners to contribute according to their capabilities and circumstances.
As the United Nations considers how to truly “deliver for all,” the international community can also consider practical ways to provide Taiwan with greater opportunities to contribute where its expertise can serve the common good. Political differences may remain unresolved, but they should not become a reason to exclude knowledge, expertise, and practical cooperation from the organizations created to address the challenges we share.
Chia-ping Liu is the director general of Taipei Economic and Cultural Office on Guam.
Subscribe to
our digital
monthly issue
