PNG, prior to independence, had prospered as an Australian Territory. Literacy, health care, infrastructure and law and order were progressing and government was organised.

My father, Brian O’Neill, was an Australian government officer and met my mother when establishing the government station at Pangia in the Southern Highlands in the early 1950s.

Many Australians in PNG, like my father, were adventurous, purpose driven, capable and committed to carrying out their duties. They were courageous and, overall, very well-liked, and respected by the people.

My father stayed on after independence and became a magistrate in Goroka. He is buried in Goroka like many Australians who fell in love with PNG.

PNG has a population estimated at 17 million - more than three times the population of New Zealand, or Queensland, and with the added advantage of sharing a boundary with Asian powerhouse, Indonesia.

In the age of increased geopolitical tensions, PNG’s problematic foreign policy has led to a weakening of our own sovereignty and has probably led to increased tensions as it attempted to trade-off between foreign powers.

Stating the obvious, PNG’s geographic sweet spot and its substantial underdeveloped resources make it very attractive for those who wish to have the upper hand in regional security.

We must cast our minds back to World War II for a reminder of just how strategically important PNG is to Australia. Papua New Guineans and Australians working together in PNG changed the course of the war for our region.

Until five years ago, PNG had only one security partner, Australia. No other nation, despite size or might was able to come alongside or between our two countries.

The multiple agreements and juggling for power disappointingly facilitated by the current PNG government have been unnecessary.

Today, PNG has four significant security partnerships in place - all of them opaque.

The United States, China, Indonesia, and Australia have over the past three years, inked security arrangements with PNG.

The facts are that Indo-Pacific tensions are high, PNG and Australia, as the two largest democracies in the southwest Pacific region, need to do more to provide leadership and dial down tensions, not ramp them up.

But geopolitical tensions are ramping up and PNG is in the crosshairs again of unwanted and unnecessary global attention. These attentions are damaging and demoralising for Papua New Guineans who feel we are watching a feeding frenzy in our waters between superpowers who are increasingly focused on security rather than the welfare of our citizens.

The proliferation of security agreements has coincided with a decrease in good governance and a worsening quality of life for Papua New Guineans.

Despite the billions being poured into PNG by foreign powers to gain the upper hand in the geopolitical manoeuvres, our people are significantly worse off and not benefiting from the unnecessary attention.

And it seems, at least to me, that the foreign interested parties, including Australia, are not securing substantial advantage.

The US achieved a security arrangement. Shortly after China secured a security arrangement. It’s tit-for-tat. And despite the chest beating at the signing of each security agreement, I do not believe the agreements will be honoured when push comes to shove.

Throwing money at PNG’s political elites does not shore up certainty of allegiance between nations and it is doing absolutely nothing for the lives of Papua New Guineans who are genuinely struggling.

To make matters worse, tensions are increasing not decreasing with every new security or policing arrangement.

The recent example of the A$400 million regional policing initiative announced at last month’s Pacific Island Forum is a clear example of how tensions ramp up, not down, as the posturing for control and influence continues.

Media, no doubt carefully primed, described it as a strategic win for Australia. While details of what the A$400 million initiative would achieve were scarce, the announcement was enough to illicit a strong response from China.

A response that will no doubt lead to another initiative by China to ensure their influence in the Pacific continues.

Unlike the Australian or AUKUS-led initiatives, China’s response may not come with the same media fanfare but is likely to be just as if not more effective in influencing the Pacific political elite.

In this polarising and divisive contest, to be PNG’s and the Pacific Islands’ best friend, the policing initiative, at least immediately, managed to ramp up tensions with Australia as the ‘winner’ and therefore China must be the ‘loser’.

There are no winners, only losers, in a strategy where foreign powers seek to control and influence, initiative by initiative.

To the wealthier, larger, nervous foreign powers, PNG and the Pacific are becoming properties on a Monopoly board for wealthier, stronger nations to land on, only to be edged out weeks or months later as a new deal is done by the other side.

This approach is doing more harm than good.

Perhaps, a more successful approach, would be to look to our Melanesian Way, where the tradition, is not about winning but about resolving conflicts for all.

I remember growing up in the village. If there was a conflict, every Sunday after Church everyone in the community would gather and everyone would be given a turn to have their say until the conflict was resolved. This might take weeks or months.

There was never a winner or a loser but always the end result of a peaceful community.

Today for Papua New Guinea as tensions tick up. The political elite are becoming more corrupt with each passing year of geopolitical tensions and sadly, our people, worse off.