Editor's note: Daryl Guppy is an international financial technical analysis expert. He is also a national board member of the Australia China Business Council. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

The Australian media headlines, labeling the Solomon Islands' security agreement with China as an example of Beijing's "audacity" that has "embarrassed" Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, say it all. Note the colonial hangover inherent in the charge of "audacity." The subtext of much of the commentary in Australia is how these ungrateful islands dare work with China.

If this is a Pacific family, then it's one that has been sorely neglected in terms of meaningful discussions around climate policy, development and security where the Australian perspective prevails. Australia has forfeited the right to advise the Pacific at a policy level because its advice is seen as merely an extension of U.S. policy rather than a genuinely independent assessment of the region's needs. 

Morrison is struggling to accept that sovereignty is a concept that applies equally to countries other than those in the West. He would not tolerate ministers and former military commanders from China coming to Australia to "advise" the government what to do, and what treaty agreements to enter into. In fact, he and his ministers have spent the past three years railing against alleged China influence in Australian politics.

Now Morrison finds himself hoisted by his own petard. The sovereignty weapon he is so fond of using to attack China cannot now be denied to the Solomon Islands. So he has no choice but to support this idea of Solomon sovereignty, albeit through gritted teeth.

The core issue here is the arrogant colonial assumption that Australia still carries in relation to the so-called Pacific family - that if a country that enjoys support from Australia has the "audacity" to even consider exploring other avenues in its own interest, it is an affront to Australia's idea of its role and importance in the Pacific. There is much hysteria generated by the future potential for Chinese ships to use port facilities some 2,000 kilometers from Australia's shoreline. There is not a mention of the port facilities offered to U.S. navy ships by Japan and China's Taiwan region that are within 500 kilometers of China's coastline.

This is very much an "all about me" reaction. It's "how dare China" work in this region. The reaction is so self-centered that the media would have Australians believe the announcement was deliberately timed to inflict damage during the Australian election campaign. This simply ignores the many months of negotiation required for this type of agreement; the earlier leaking of a draft agreement; and the fact that the Australian election was announced less than two weeks ago.

If anything, the timing of the Solomon Islands announcement favors Morrison's China fear strategy, with security experts warning to expect Chinese fleets arriving within the month.

This self-centered narrative is perhaps a more accurate reflection of Australian attitudes towards the region and provides a hint as to how Australia is viewed by the Pacific family and why the Solomon Islands and others are looking more broadly at respectful development partners.

The Australian reaction is all about the supposed threat that this poses to Australia rather than the benefits the agreement may bring to the Solomon Islands. China's tsunami aid to Tonga "served as a warning about China's ambitions" and was treated as a "security" threat, according to Australian media.

The American delegation that arrived in the Solomon Islands Friday to discuss the security deal, led by National Security Council Indo-Pacific coordinator Kurt Campbell, made little pretense of respecting a Pacific family. A State Department spokesperson belittled the agreement as a "shadowy deal" that "could increase destabilization within the Solomon Islands. "

Given the past record of the United States, when the exercise of sovereignty doesn't go its way, we are likely to see a combination of inducements followed by threats and covert interference in the domestic politics of the Solomons.

The Solomon Islands decision is consistent with the concept of a free and open Pacific. The archipelago has exercised its right to freely enter into agreements with multiple partners. They have confirmed freedom of navigation and port access is open to Australia, America and China. A free and open Pacific does not mean free and open only for Western vessels. It means a Pacific that is free and open to vessels from all countries.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion section.)