The other Chinese threat in the Solomon Islands

The April 2022 agreement between China and the Solomon Islands is causing alarm, and has rightly been called by Senator Rex Patrick “Australia’s worst intelligence failure” in more than two decades. Alarmist talk has begun about Chinese naval bases interdicting Australia’s sea lines of communication in the south-west Pacific.

But there is another aspect to the agreement that isn’t being discussed: the potential for it to materially improve the lives of Solomon Islanders, and the lessons other Pacific Islands people will learn as a result.

Although China recognises it is a major power, it also sees itself as first among a group of large developing countries.

It is setting up a network of technical training colleges around the world to train foreign students in industrial sensors, control and robotics technologies, machinery equipment manufacturing and high-speed rail technologies.

Students at the Luban Workshops (named after Lu Ban, a mythical figure revered as an inventor) will be trained on Chinese technology with Chinese standards as part of a push to globalise Chinese technology and tighten economic linkages with the Global South.

According to foreign policy scholars Niva Yau and Dirk van der Kley, “the Chinese government has been willing to listen to host countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative” and help them transfer industrial skills to their own economies and develop their own societies, within the Chinese orbit and using Chinese technology.

It says its relationships with the developing world must go beyond profits to include a “sense of justice” — a sentiment that many developing countries find attractive. This stance gives it a set of common interests with developing states on many issues. Even India, its South Asia rival, aligns its votes in the UN General Assembly more with Beijing than with Washington.

The Solomon Islands has considerable challenges. It ranked 151^st in the 2020 Human Development Report, placing it in the category for low human development. It is a very youthful country, with seven out of 10 people aged under 30.

The danger of large numbers of young people who lack income-generating activities or other outlets for their energy and ambition is well known. The neoliberal framework within which Australia has engaged with it has not delivered good social outcomes. Why would it, given its track record?

In this context, development along the Chinese infrastructure-based model might offer improvements in the standard of living. That could send a message to Australia’s traditional vassals in the region — what the prime minister calls “our Pacific family”. They would not necessarily fear closer integration with the Chinese economy.

Australia’s current foreign policy program will require a fundamental rethink.