Editor's note: Daryl Guppy, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is an international financial technical analysis expert. He has provided weekly Shanghai Index analyses for media in the Chinese mainland for more than a decade. Guppy appears regularly on CNBC Asia and is known as "The Chart Man." He is a former national board member of the Australia China Business Council. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

Pacific Island leaders are taking full advantage of their location in a contested area where major powers like the United States, Australia and China all seek to extend their influence. The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Leaders Meeting in Tonga is the new locus of realpolitik and the island leaders who have been largely ignored for decades now find themselves at the center of attention.

It is a time of change and of resistance to change led by the old pre-war and post-war imperial empires. The unresolved quest for independence in New Caledonia reflects France's desire to preserve the last remnants of its pre-World War II empire. Some would like to see PIF leaders use the meeting to issue a clear statement which calls on Paris to sketch out a new pathway for decolonization in the wake of the contentious third independence referendum.

Having embarked on an imperial-style empire after World War II, the U.S. preserved its conquests, including the application of the so-called Compact of Free Association imposed on the Marshall Islands. The compact is not about free association because they specifically define what activities the Marshall Islands can undertake. It defines who they can talk to and gives the U.S. effective control over many aspects of the Marshall Islands' governance and policy.

The Compact of Free Association has relevance beyond the Marshall Islands because this is the model the U.S. is trying to push in its relations with other Pacific islands.

Australia has adopted a similar model in its agreement with Tuvalu, requiring Tuvalu to mutually agree with Australia in any "engagement with any other State or entity" on security and defense. Australia describes the area as Pacific island friends although this is not always evident in its inconsistent approach to the region where the attention given waxes and wanes depending on the character of the Australian government.

Australia tends to react in ways that benefit its own sub-imperial interests that offer passing benefits to the islands. Australia interacts in the region in a largely paternalistic fashion that carries more than a whiff of colonialism and the white man's burden.

The most recent iteration of the Pacific labor scheme is weighted heavily in favor of Australia and remains subject to labor abuses. It is an advance on the 19th century blackbirding and kanaka schemes of the indentured slavery of Pacific islands people, but aspects of colonial labor exploitation remain. Restrictions on permanent immigration, regulatory delays in accessing retained funds and repeated cases of labor exploitation remain challenging problems for the program.

Self-serving interventions include the Australian government intervention to block Chinese banking services after Australian banks pulled out of the region. They include the Australian government "encouraging" Australian telecom provider Telstra to take-over mobile phone services from Digicel. These interventions include acting along with the U.S. to block choices in subsea internet cable options.

Currently Australia, under the guise of bolstering Pacific policing, is attempting to lock out China from Pacific policing. China's involvement in the region does not have an imperial basis. Unlike France, China has no historical imperial or colonial presence in the region. Unlike the U.S., China has no post-war empire protectorate to preserve with a duplicitous Compact of Free Association.

China's involvement rests on the policies underpinning its relationship with the Global South which support harmonious working relationships with a wide variety of countries and governance systems.

The most significant difference is that unlike other countries seeking a role in the region, China does not harbor imperial or empire ambitions. Driven by their own history, European countries, the U.S. and Australia are unable to conceive of anything other than exploitative relationships with the Pacific islands. As a result, they attribute the same motivations to China. This means that Fiji's Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka's proposal for an "Ocean of Peace" is supported by China but by all indications, opposed by Australia and the U.S.

Effectively ignored for decades and surviving on scraps from the imperial and colonial tables, the Pacific islands now find themselves to be a new geo-political focus. The embrace provides the PIF with increased leverage to have these suitors seriously address the issues of climate change and to genuinely explore ways to mitigate the impacts on the islands.

Pacific leaders have been working to set up the Pacific Resilience Facility which is meant to provide relatively quick and easy access to climate finance which can help Pacific nations withstand climate shocks and natural disasters. Despite Australia's commitment of $100 million and a further $50 million promised by Saudi Arabia, the funding falls short of the $500 million target.

Pacific islands' leaders welcome these foreign interventions because, after years of neglect, they retain or improve services in the region but at the same time this sudden interest is viewed with a high level of cynicism. The challenge of the PIF is to thread a path between these competing offers in a way that preserves the sovereignty of the islands whilst maximizing the benefits that comes from the renewed interest in this contested area.

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