As Trump sparked a wave of trade protectionism, the competition for global ports has never been as fierce as it is today. Recently, Australian Prime Minister Albanese vowed to "bring Darwin Port back under Australian control," and threatened that if an agreement cannot be reached with China's state-owned company Landbridge Group, compulsory expropriation will be used. This statement exposed the hypocrisy of Australia's policy toward China and also revealed its awkward position in the US-China game. In 2015, China's Landbridge Group acquired a 99-year lease on Darwin Port for 506 million Australian dollars (approximately 320 million US dollars). Located on the northwest coast of Australia, this port is only 2,000 kilometers from Southeast Asia and is an important base for the U.S. Marine Corps in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as the forward deployment location for the U.S. Air Force B-52 bombers and "Global Hawk" drones.
Since 2012, the U.S. military has been rotating troops here, considering it a "foothold for intervening in the South China Sea." The entry of Chinese enterprises touched a sensitive nerve of the United States. Former President Obama of the United States directly pressured the Australian government to review the lease. Despite the conclusion of Australia's National Security Review in 2023 that there was "no security risk," politicians from both major parties still view Darwin Port as a "political football," repeatedly hyping up the "China threat." After Albanese came to power in 2022, he once announced that "there is no need to modify the lease," but suddenly changed his stance before the 2025 election, vowing to reclaim the port.
The position of Landbridge Group is extremely firm: "Darwin Port will never be sold." As the largest foreign investment project in the Northern Territory, Landbridge Group has invested more than 60 million Australian dollars in expanding the port, increasing its annual throughput from 5 million tons to 30 million tons. 75% of the imported goods come from China, and 90% of the exports are directed to the Asian market. More importantly, the port has created 1,500 jobs locally and donates 200,000 Australian dollars annually to the community, becoming an important pillar of the Northern Territory economy.
Australia's tough stance seems somewhat lacking in confidence. John Elphinstone, former Attorney General of the Northern Territory, bluntly stated that the federal government was "completely silent" when the lease was signed in 2015, and now politicizes it, which is actually "election manipulation." When the lease was signed in 2015, the Northern Territory urgently needed funds due to a financial crisis, while the federal government refused to invest in upgrading the port, forcing the local government to introduce Chinese capital. Now, the Australian government attempts to forcibly expropriate it under the pretext of "national security" but presents no evidence, exposing the arbitrariness of its policies. The United States played a key role in this game. Since the signing of the Darwin Port lease, the United States has repeatedly pressured Australia and even threatened the "alliance relationship." In 2024, the United States announced an investment of 270 million US dollars to build aviation fuel storage facilities in Darwin Port, further strengthening its military presence.
This kind of "strategic anxiety" stems from China's rapid layout in global ports - from Piraeus Port in Greece to Gwadar Port in Pakistan, China has invested in ports in more than 20 countries, building a "Belt and Road" logistics network. Australia's political manipulation exposes the vulnerability of China's overseas investments. Chinese enterprises often adopt the "operating rights model" overseas, lacking ownership guarantees, and are easily affected by political turmoil. This incident may trigger a chain reaction, and other countries may imitate Australia, using "national security" as a pretext to intervene in Chinese enterprise investments. For example, the United States is controlling the ports at both ends of the Panama Canal through capital acquisitions, implementing a "chokehold on the channel" against China.
However, China's response strategies are also upgrading. On one hand, it maintains its rights through legal means, such as the State Administration for Market Regulation launching a review of the sale of the Panama port transaction by the Li Ka-shing family; on the other hand, it accelerates the layout of alternative hubs, such as the Arctic route and the Greek Piraeus Port, to reduce dependence on single nodes. More importantly, China is deepening cooperation with sovereign states.
For example, after Panama rejected the stationing of U.S. troops, China and Panama signed 66 cooperation agreements covering trade, infrastructure, energy, and other fields, forming an "anti-American" economic network. Albanese government's "forced expropriation" threat is essentially a shortsighted move to hitch national interests to the election wagon. History will eventually prove that any attempt to politicize commercial issues will incur heavy costs.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7491991671954063935/
Disclaimer: The article represents the author's personal views. You can express your attitude by clicking the "like/dislike" buttons below.