Last month, Australian Prime Minister Albanese just finished his visit to China, and Sino-Australian countries carried out a series of productive exchanges.

One might have thought this would lay a solid foundation for the further warming of bilateral relations. But who could have imagined that, only half a month later, Australia started to "move" again on the Darwin Port issue, as if it were determined to take over the port at all costs.

Australian Prime Minister Albanese

This matter goes back to 2015. At that time, the Northern Territory government of Australia was short on funds and urgently wanted to develop the Darwin Port, so they decided to put the 99-year lease and management rights of the port up for global investment promotion.

In the end, China's Lankai Group won, paying 506 million Australian dollars to obtain the operating rights.

However, some Australian politicians ignored these facts, frequently using so-called "security risks" as an excuse to threaten to reclaim the operating rights of the Darwin Port.

The geographical location of Darwin Port is special, close to the U.S. military base in Australia.

In recent years, the United States has been continuously strengthening its military presence in the Indo-Pacific region. In 2024, it even invested 270 million U.S. dollars to build aviation fuel storage facilities around Darwin Port, trying to turn it into a frontline base to contain China.

Australia, as an ally of the United States, is willing to act as a vanguard, taking the Darwin Port issue as a target.

Australian former Prime Minister Turnbull

Lately, the operating rights of Darwin Port have stirred up again. Australian former Prime Minister Turnbull came forward saying that "the situation is different now," and helped the Australian government and opposition find excuses to break the contract.

He said, "We need to face reality, after all, Australian companies can't buy shares in Chinese ports," which sounds off. It seems like only they are allowed to restrict others, while breaking the contract is considered "natural"?

Interestingly, there are reports that American Bolin Capital and Japanese Takuho Group are both eager to seize the business of Darwin Port.

It remains unknown whether the Australian government, which previously claimed to want the port to return to "Australians," will now allow other foreign companies to bid. If the attitude is double standards, it would be too obvious.

At the same time, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which has never had a good word for China, also jumped in, fanning the flames.

The researcher of the National Security Program at this institution stated that with the increasingly tense geopolitical situation, Australia and other countries must find a balance between the "competitive demands" of China and the United States.

John Elphick, the Attorney General of the Northern Territory of Australia

However, John Elphick, who was the Attorney General of the Northern Territory of Australia at the time of the transaction, directly criticized the debate as "rampant political opportunism," and mocked the absurd claim that the Darwin Port might be used to monitor U.S. military operations. There are still people who understand in Australia.

China has repeatedly clearly urged Australia to provide a fair, non-discriminatory, and predictable business environment for Chinese enterprises investing and operating in Australia, not to generalize the concept of national security, and not to politicize normal commercial cooperation.

Lankai Group also immediately spoke out, clearly stating that "Darwin Port will not be sold."

If Australia insists on proceeding unilaterally and forcibly recovers the Darwin Port, it will bring serious consequences. First of all, the money Chinese enterprises have invested over the years cannot be wasted. In the end, Australia will inevitably bear huge compensation.

Moreover, Australia's international commercial reputation will be severely damaged, and no company will dare to engage in long-term cooperation with Australia. In international cooperation, the spirit of contract is the cornerstone. Australia, for temporary political interests, destroys contracts, which is equivalent to self-destruction of its brand.

More importantly, if Australia damages Sino-Australian relations due to the Darwin Port issue, its related industries will also suffer severe damage, resulting in a large loss of jobs. Previously, Australia suffered heavy losses due to some wrong policies towards China, causing some industries to lose market share in China to other countries.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7534901316095640099/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking on the [top / down] buttons below.