The China-Solomon Islands Security Pact: Sovereignty or Subjection?

By Lauren Forrester

The China-Solomon Islands security deal represents a significant development for the Indo-Pacific region. The new relationship has been thoroughly criticised by regional actors globally with concerns that the agreement provides China with an opportunity to physically expand its military power in an unprecedented way. This is encapsulated in the commentary from the President of the Federated States of Micronesia, David W. Panuelo, who discouraged such unprecedented agreements with disproportionately powerful actors. Panuelo argued the area would become ‘tools for these larger countries' spheres of power and influence’. Leaked drafts of the agreement highlight allowances for large-scale Chinese military and intelligence manoeuvres in the Solomon Islands, leading commentators to wonder if the Solomon Islands is to become a military island to a state with the resources to treat them as such. The danger of a fragmented Indo-Pacific begs the question of the international law implications of such deals.

The basis of counter-criticism to the agreement is that the Solomon Islands is a sovereign state, and can act as such. Existing unrest in the state is a key component of the agreement. The leaked draft describes Chinese protection of Solomon Island sovereignty through ‘consent for Chinese naval visits being retained’ by the local government, as well as each party acting ‘according to its own needs’. The question remains; at what point does an exercise of sovereignty allows the overexertion of influence by a much more powerful state? It can be argued that the lack of transparency involved in the agreement leans towards the latter. It must be acknowledged that the Solomon Islands may be well aware of the regional advantage China gains from this ‘assistance’ role and that their own benefit gained is worth the trade-off. However, the wider international implications are highly relevant as to what precedent is being set. The development of the Gwadar Port in Pakistan is an example of what ‘could be’ in the Solomon Islands. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) relationship now sees the port utilised by China for military purposes. Initially a commercial venture, this represents a precedent for past Chinese bilateral security agreements and their outcomes. Similarly to the Solomon Islands, this port has caused international concern; yet little is able to be done. 

The relationship between international law, sovereignty and influence is a difficult one. The freedom of a state to act with individual autonomy is paramount to the function of the existing international system; yet what occurs, or should occur, when agreements import heavy influence of one state over the other is a difficult question. If both parties enter freely into a bilateral agreement, however uneven, it seems international law is satisfied in the sufficient exercise of sovereignty. However, the question remains; should there be intervention in such cases? One may suggest a domestic understanding of undue influence, unfair bargaining power and outcomes may inform a different approach. However, at this point, it is clear that unless the sovereignty of another nation is eroded by such agreements, no response will be sufficient.