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 summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
RSS