Australia’s northernmost maritime gateway has become a lightning rod for the fragile relationship between the US and China — but while national security concerns are warranted for many of the ports that Beijing controls or owns, this is hardly the one to worry about.
US President Donald Trump’s trade war has meant that almost everything to do with China is now viewed through the lens of geopolitics.
In 2015, the privately held Shandong-based Landbridge Group — a Chinese logistics, infrastructure and petrochemical firm — secured a 99-year lease for the strategically significant Port of Darwin, just off the coast of the Indonesian border and near military bases that routinely host rotations of US Marines in Australia.
Beijing’s ownership of critical infrastructure has been growing steadily over the years, but Trump’s new administration is paying more attention.
China operates or has ownership of at least one port on every continent except Antarctica, according to the Council on Foreign Relations tracker. Of the 129 projects, 115 are active. Beijing is also outpacing Washington in investments in global port infrastructure, which the US deems critical to economic and military security.
Key concerns include intelligence gathering, sabotage and the pre-positioning of weapons and ammunition via critical infrastructure, said Thomas Hammes, a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council.
In theory, the world’s second-largest economy could exploit this network to challenge the sea control essential to US success in an armed conflict, he said.
China has consistently denied these claims, saying that they are yet another example of the US trying to contain its legitimate commercial ambitions.
Amid Beijing’s expanding influence, reclaiming control of Darwin has taken on renewed urgency in Australia, emerging as a rare point of bipartisan consensus.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government is working to find a new operator and to revoke the Chinese firm’s lease. The port is a major export hub for live cattle, and the import and export of petroleum products. Discussions have intensified, with a US firm linked to the Trump administration reportedly encouraged to step in.
Still, despite the controversy, Darwin has yet to be flagged as a national security problem. Successive governments, two federal reviews, a parliamentary inquiry and public statements found no cause for concern.
Bilateral relations between Canberra and Beijing collapsed during the COVID-19 pandemic, when China imposed tariffs and trade barriers on Australian goods. Ties have been repaired, but are being tested since Chinese warships entered Australian waters earlier this year.
The Albanese government has downplayed the incidents, but skepticism lingers over the true intention of the live-fire drills.
Beijing has not done itself any favors, David Andrews, senior policy adviser with the National Security College of Australian National University, said, adding that even when Landbridge secured the lease, Australia was aware of the challenges that a rising China would pose.
“It’s unlikely that a port with this strategic location would be leased or sold today,” Andrews said.
China has previously bristled at foreign interference in its overseas port stakes. It reacted sharply to US pressure over control of Panama Canal terminals, prompting Hong Kong-owned CK Hutchison Holdings Ltd to consider selling its two operations there.
Beijing has fiercely opposed the sale over worries it could affect its global shipping and trade ambitions.
A similar backlash could loom for Albanese if the Chinese view moves to reclaim Darwin as politically motivated.
Australia’s balancing act needs to be delicate. The US is its top source of foreign investment and closest security ally, but China remains its dominant export destination. Avoiding knee-jerk reactions based on perceptions would help the Albanese government build goodwill, and strengthen its credibility for when there are legitimate worries and it needs to negotiate with its trading partner.
Canberra should return to the deftness in managing Beijing it demonstrated in the post-pandemic environment. It has displayed maturity and has been nimble in handling relationships with both the US and China. Abandoning that approach now over a political furor would be unwise.
As the rivalry between Washington and Beijing deepens, the debate over national security in critical infrastructure should be grounded in fact, not fiction.
Karishma Vaswani is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia politics with a special focus on China. Previously, she was the BBC’s lead Asia presenter, and worked for the BBC across Asia and South Asia for two decades. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
In a meeting with Haitian Minister of Foreign Affairs Jean-Victor Harvel Jean-Baptiste on Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) vowed to continue providing aid to Haiti. Taiwan supports Haiti with development in areas such as agriculture, healthcare and education through initiatives run by the Taiwan International Cooperation and Development Fund (ICDF). The nation it has established itself as a responsible, peaceful and innovative actor committed to global cooperation, Jean-Baptiste said. Testimonies such as this give Taiwan a voice in the global community, where it often goes unheard. Taiwan’s reception in Haiti also contrasts with how China has been perceived in countries in the region
On April 13, I stood in Nanan (南安), a Bunun village in southern Hualien County’s Jhuosi Township (卓溪), absorbing lessons from elders who spoke of the forest not as backdrop, but as living presence — relational, sacred and full of spirit. I was there with fellow international students from National Dong Hwa University (NDHU) participating in a field trip that would become one of the most powerful educational experiences of my life. Ten days later, a news report in the Taipei Times shattered the spell: “Formosan black bear shot and euthanized in Hualien” (April 23, page 2). A tagged bear, previously released
The world has become less predictable, less rules-based, and more shaped by the impulses of strongmen and short-term dealmaking. Nowhere is this more consequential than in East Asia, where the fate of democratic Taiwan hinges on how global powers manage — or mismanage — tensions with an increasingly assertive China. The return of Donald Trump to the White House has deepened the global uncertainty, with his erratic, highly personalized foreign-policy approach unsettling allies and adversaries alike. Trump appears to treat foreign policy like a reality show. Yet, paradoxically, the global unpredictability may offer Taiwan unexpected deterrence. For China, the risk of provoking the
Starting this month, young women in Denmark would be subject to conscription on the same terms as men. All Danes, regardless of gender, would be required to register for military assessment, and eligible individuals would be selected through a lottery-based draft. In addition, service time would be increased to 11 months, and conscript numbers would grow to meet national defense targets. Denmark is not alone. In the past few years, several European countries, most notably Sweden and Norway, have adopted gender-neutral conscription systems. Latvia is moving in the same direction. The war in Ukraine has accelerated this trend. Faced with the
RSS