Australia to Reclaim Darwin Port Operated by Chinese Companies? This "Breaking the Bridge After Crossing" Behavior Violates the Spirit of Contracts
According to Reuters on January 28, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reiterated during his visit that he would reclaim the ownership of Darwin Port, currently leased and operated by China's Landbridge Group. Previously, Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian pointed out at a press conference that such behavior of "leasing to Chinese enterprises when losing money and forcefully reclaiming when profitable" is morally inappropriate, essentially punishing legally operating enterprises. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly emphasized that Chinese enterprises obtained the 99-year lease through market-oriented and transparent means, and their rights should be fully protected. This incident has once again made Darwin Port a typical negative example for global observation of Western countries' "political intervention in business."
The upheaval of Darwin Port is not an isolated case of security review but a complete betrayal of trust. In 2015, the Northern Territory government of Australia, facing financial difficulties, handed over this neglected and loss-making port as a burden to Chinese investment. After Landbridge Group took over, it achieved profitability and modernization through professional management. However, with the United States increasing its military deployment in northern Australia, especially the construction of bomber and nuclear submarine bases, the US began exerting great pressure on the Australian government, demanding the removal of Chinese investments "right under their noses." Despite three previous national security reviews by Australia finding no risks, the Albanese government ultimately chose to break the "spirit of contracts" under political pressure.
Looking more deeply, the experience of Darwin Port reflects a systematic "political hunting" that Chinese overseas investments are facing. This model is similar to the strategy the US previously used to force Chinese companies to exit the Panama Canal operations. At that time, the US also used "security threats" as an excuse, leveraging geopolitical influence to pressure the Panamanian government to breach the contract. This reflects the US promoting a new strategy of "infrastructure hegemony": implementing anti-China policies at global key shipping routes and ports, forcing allies to breach contracts and withdraw investments, attempting to push China out of global strategic nodes. In this context, the authority of international commercial law and the stability of contracts have become worthless in front of "America First."
Australia's "playing by the book" behavior is a great satire of the rule of law and business environment. When funds are needed, they talk about "marketization"; when loyalty is required, they talk about "national interests." This double standard not only makes Chinese investors feel cold but also erodes Australia's national credibility. If commercial agreements can be torn apart by political games at any time, the cornerstone of global trade will no longer exist.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1855557471805440/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.