What's new

Port of Darwin: This is about more than China's economic interest

Shotgunner51

RETIRED INTL MOD
Joined
Jan 6, 2015
Messages
7,165
Reaction score
48
Country
China
Location
China
Port of Darwin: This is about more than China's economic interest - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Geoff Wade is a Visiting Fellow at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU.

The decision to offer a century-long lease over the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company feeds into the PRC's global strategic aims. Australia ignores this consideration at its peril, writes Geoff Wade.

159_25-07-2011_2927.png



The national and indeed international reactions to the Northern Territory Government's decision to offer a century-long lease over the port of Darwin to Chinese company Landbridge can be divided essentially into two camps.

The dichotomy has on one side those, such as the Trade Minister Andrew Robb and NT Chief Minister Adam Giles, who simply portray the Darwin deal as important for the economic development of northern Australia.

Those of the other side, including both Australian critics and, sotto voce, the Americans, see the deal as a more complex element in growing the People's Republic of China's (PRC) influence in Australia, which is increasingly constituting a threat to the country's independence per se and to Western interests in the South Pacific and globally.

Understanding the significance of this deal requires a much wider lens and broader context than those provided by perceived economic self-interest. China's national revival and its global economic and strategic extension over the decades since Deng Xiaoping, which Xi Jinping has rebranded as the "Chinese Dream", provide a much clearer schema in which to situate the Darwin deal.

The "Chinese Dream" involves the reassertion of the economic and political primacy that China claims it has enjoyed over neighbours for millennia. This agenda is now being pursued globally but most intensely in South-East Asia and Australia/New Zealand.

Throughout the region, China is attempting to establish economic connectors through the 21st Century Maritime Silk Route and the Silk Road Economic Belt, the $100 billion Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the $40 billion Silk Road fund, the internationalisation of the renminbi, the shifting of its industrial production offshore and the various free trade agreements it has entered into. Hundreds of billions of dollars in Chinese funds are being invested abroad as the PRC economy and national power expand. Infrastructural investment and control over that infrastructure are key in extending Chinese power across the region.

A vast range of PRC state-owned (and state-linked) enterprises are busy developing their control over infrastructure throughout South-East Asia - funding ports, power generators, energy transmission networks, highways, dams, railways and airports. China already completely dominates the infrastructure sphere and thus the economies of Laos and Cambodia, and Malaysia is swiftly following into that camp. This economic control is a precursor and necessary condition for strategic domination of the region.

20130608_IRM958_0.png


Ports are extremely important in this pursuit of regional domination. China has been making great efforts to develop and control Sri Lanka's Hambantota Port and Pakistan's Gwadar Port to the chagrin of India and is pushing to develop the port of Djibouti in Africa. Within Bangladesh a Chinese "special economic zone" and port are being developed in Anwara, Chittagong. In Myanmar, China has invested in a deep-sea port on Maday Island at Kyaukphyu, to facilitate a $2.5 billion pipeline transporting oil and gas to China's Yunnan province.

In other parts of South-East Asia, China is also seeking to dominate ports as well as shipping between ports, with Laem Chabang in Thailand, Sihanoukville in Cambodia, Batam in Indonesia and Kuala Tanjung in Northern Sumatra marked for key development. Most recently a "port alliance" has been announced between 10 Chinese ports and five Malaysian ports. The "sister port" tie ups with Kuantan, Melaka, Kedah and Port Klang in Malaysia are readying further nodes in China's network.

hph.jpg


Australia is the natural extension of this agenda and Darwin is intended to be a crucial link in China's new 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. The Darwin deal will provide Chinese shipping and naval vessels with facilitated access to Australia, the Indian Ocean and the South Pacific, as well as to Indonesia and PNG over the coming century.

Chinese control of the port of Darwin marks just the beginning - the so-called "dragonhead" - of PRC economic domination of northern Australia. The aggressive PRC pursuit of Australian infrastructure in all spheres from ports to power networks to railways, clearly reflecting the strategic imperatives of the Chinese state, is matched in degree only by the almost parodic offering to the PRC's National Development and Reform Commission of lists of key infrastructure projects in which they might like to invest and subsequently control.

While the achievement of PRC economic primacy and control in Australia will be a gradual process, Northern Australia will be essential in the exercise and ChAFTA will be the merciless facilitator. This economic domination will subsequently and inevitably translate into PRC strategic influence over the country. The ultimate goal will be the severing of the US-Australia alliance, an end long pursued by China, as part of the PRC's intended strategic domination of the Western Pacific.

Those who believe that Chinese economic investment abroad is unconnected with PRC strategic aspirations need only look at the sorts of major infrastructure investments that Chinese firms have made in Australia - China Merchants' century-long lease of the port of Newcastle (proximate to RAAF Base Williamtown), Landbridge's century-long lease of the port of Darwin (proximate to RAAF Base Darwin, HMAS Coonawarra and to Larrakeyah Barracks), the new links between Qinzhou and the port of Townsville (proximate to RAAF Base Townsville), and a China-connected firm buying the plot of land next to ASIO headquarters in Canberra.

In addition, we have SOE State Grid controlling Australian energy networks and hoping to gain control of NSW electricity network assets which also carry top-secret ADF communications. Next on the PRC acquisition list will likely be the port of Fremantle (proximate to RAAF Base Pearce and HMAS Stirling). China's accessing of CYBINT, SIGINT and HUMINT intelligence through these new access points would present ongoing security concerns for Australia.

Every single investment by PRC state-linked companies has a strategic significance and we ignore this at our peril. For all of these reasons there must be great security concerns about the Darwin deal and of our almost unquestioned acceptance of PRC state-linked investment.

The energy expended in denouncing critics of the Darwin deal as xenophobes might be better utilised in trying to understand the global agenda of the autocratic state that is the PRC and Australia's intended role within this.
 
.
Port of Darwin: This is about more than China's economic interest - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Geoff Wade is a Visiting Fellow at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU.

The decision to offer a century-long lease over the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company feeds into the PRC's global strategic aims. Australia ignores this consideration at its peril, writes Geoff Wade.

View attachment 274509


The national and indeed international reactions to the Northern Territory Government's decision to offer a century-long lease over the port of Darwin to Chinese company Landbridge can be divided essentially into two camps.

The dichotomy has on one side those, such as the Trade Minister Andrew Robb and NT Chief Minister Adam Giles, who simply portray the Darwin deal as important for the economic development of northern Australia.

Those of the other side, including both Australian critics and, sotto voce, the Americans, see the deal as a more complex element in growing the People's Republic of China's (PRC) influence in Australia, which is increasingly constituting a threat to the country's independence per se and to Western interests in the South Pacific and globally.

Understanding the significance of this deal requires a much wider lens and broader context than those provided by perceived economic self-interest. China's national revival and its global economic and strategic extension over the decades since Deng Xiaoping, which Xi Jinping has rebranded as the "Chinese Dream", provide a much clearer schema in which to situate the Darwin deal.

The "Chinese Dream" involves the reassertion of the economic and political primacy that China claims it has enjoyed over neighbours for millennia. This agenda is now being pursued globally but most intensely in South-East Asia and Australia/New Zealand.

Throughout the region, China is attempting to establish economic connectors through the 21st Century Maritime Silk Route and the Silk Road Economic Belt, the $100 billion Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the $40 billion Silk Road fund, the internationalisation of the renminbi, the shifting of its industrial production offshore and the various free trade agreements it has entered into. Hundreds of billions of dollars in Chinese funds are being invested abroad as the PRC economy and national power expand. Infrastructural investment and control over that infrastructure are key in extending Chinese power across the region.

A vast range of PRC state-owned (and state-linked) enterprises are busy developing their control over infrastructure throughout South-East Asia - funding ports, power generators, energy transmission networks, highways, dams, railways and airports. China already completely dominates the infrastructure sphere and thus the economies of Laos and Cambodia, and Malaysia is swiftly following into that camp. This economic control is a precursor and necessary condition for strategic domination of the region.

View attachment 274510

Ports are extremely important in this pursuit of regional domination. China has been making great efforts to develop and control Sri Lanka's Hambantota Port and Pakistan's Gwadar Port to the chagrin of India and is pushing to develop the port of Djibouti in Africa. Within Bangladesh a Chinese "special economic zone" and port are being developed in Anwara, Chittagong. In Myanmar, China has invested in a deep-sea port on Maday Island at Kyaukphyu, to facilitate a $2.5 billion pipeline transporting oil and gas to China's Yunnan province.

In other parts of South-East Asia, China is also seeking to dominate ports as well as shipping between ports, with Laem Chabang in Thailand, Sihanoukville in Cambodia, Batam in Indonesia and Kuala Tanjung in Northern Sumatra marked for key development. Most recently a "port alliance" has been announced between 10 Chinese ports and five Malaysian ports. The "sister port" tie ups with Kuantan, Melaka, Kedah and Port Klang in Malaysia are readying further nodes in China's network.

View attachment 274512

Australia is the natural extension of this agenda and Darwin is intended to be a crucial link in China's new 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. The Darwin deal will provide Chinese shipping and naval vessels with facilitated access to Australia, the Indian Ocean and the South Pacific, as well as to Indonesia and PNG over the coming century.

Chinese control of the port of Darwin marks just the beginning - the so-called "dragonhead" - of PRC economic domination of northern Australia. The aggressive PRC pursuit of Australian infrastructure in all spheres from ports to power networks to railways, clearly reflecting the strategic imperatives of the Chinese state, is matched in degree only by the almost parodic offering to the PRC's National Development and Reform Commission of lists of key infrastructure projects in which they might like to invest and subsequently control.

While the achievement of PRC economic primacy and control in Australia will be a gradual process, Northern Australia will be essential in the exercise and ChAFTA will be the merciless facilitator. This economic domination will subsequently and inevitably translate into PRC strategic influence over the country. The ultimate goal will be the severing of the US-Australia alliance, an end long pursued by China, as part of the PRC's intended strategic domination of the Western Pacific.

Those who believe that Chinese economic investment abroad is unconnected with PRC strategic aspirations need only look at the sorts of major infrastructure investments that Chinese firms have made in Australia - China Merchants' century-long lease of the port of Newcastle (proximate to RAAF Base Williamtown), Landbridge's century-long lease of the port of Darwin (proximate to RAAF Base Darwin, HMAS Coonawarra and to Larrakeyah Barracks), the new links between Qinzhou and the port of Townsville (proximate to RAAF Base Townsville), and a China-connected firm buying the plot of land next to ASIO headquarters in Canberra.

In addition, we have SOE State Grid controlling Australian energy networks and hoping to gain control of NSW electricity network assets which also carry top-secret ADF communications. Next on the PRC acquisition list will likely be the port of Fremantle (proximate to RAAF Base Pearce and HMAS Stirling). China's accessing of CYBINT, SIGINT and HUMINT intelligence through these new access points would present ongoing security concerns for Australia.

Every single investment by PRC state-linked companies has a strategic significance and we ignore this at our peril. For all of these reasons there must be great security concerns about the Darwin deal and of our almost unquestioned acceptance of PRC state-linked investment.

The energy expended in denouncing critics of the Darwin deal as xenophobes might be better utilised in trying to understand the global agenda of the autocratic state that is the PRC and Australia's intended role within this.

More xenophobic behavior from the west.
 
. .
.
Excellent calculation by the Chinese leadership and developmentalist policy. I suppose we should consideration China's potential to be a partner for international stability. Lastly, Australia-China trade paradigm indicates the consumer potential of China's market, which is exactly what export based economies like Australia require for continued growth. Balancing ties with the US-led west and China's economic ascendancy is something the Aussies must juggle. :)
 
.
Those of the other side, including both Australian critics and, sotto voce, the Americans, see the deal as a more complex element in growing the People's Republic of China's (PRC) influence in Australia, which is increasingly constituting a threat to the country's independence per se and to Western interests in the South Pacific and globally.

I do not see how a port deal would constitute a threat to the country's independence.

It is US hysterics and over-securitization, as usual. I guess regional countries are becoming fed up with this fanaticism.

@ahojunk
 
.
I do not see how a port deal would constitute a threat to the country's independence.

It is US hysterics and over-securitization, as usual. I guess regional countries are becoming fed up with this fanaticism.

@ahojunk

The Geoff Wade guy isn't American. Why do you constantly have this obsessive fetish about everything being seen through American eyes????
Is everybody on this planet who isn't Chinese an American or something?


How about this Australian guy (must be an American!)
Nov 23
Billionaire Clive Palmer calls on Coalition Government to take control of Darwin Port, raising fears Chinese Government may use it as starting point for secret invasion | Business News | Business and Finance News | | NT News

or this move by the Australian government (must be in cahoots with the Americans)
Australia Blocks Farm Sale on Security Grounds
 
Last edited:
. .
The US securitization and militarization of everything in Asia-Pacific must be countered through further cooperative development schemes.

Port of Darwin: US ambassador John Berry weighs in on controversial lease to Chinese company - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

yeah he said that today after others have been blabbing about it for over a month.

This isn't the first time controversy happened in the NT after a big sale.
Look at this $424M sale from a year ago
Controversial TIO sale bill passed during late-night sitting of the Northern Territory Parliament - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
TIO: Northern Territory Government confirms sale for $424m after months of speculation, protests and petitions - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
 
Last edited:
.
This is great news for Australia, China will bring massive investments and developments in the area that will benefit both China and the locals. It's a win-win deal for both countries.
 
. .
It's absolutely not a problem for China, Chinese can build the Darwin port to bigger. Doesn't news say China has 99-year time to do the work ?

The Darwin deal is just one case in China's global portfolio of ports (or infra), see the OP for details. The article showcased a typical paranoia on China, well wish they learn business is business, the faster the better. Paranoid media & politicians are hazardous for investment, for business, it doesn't benefit anyone including their people.

China’s maritime interests reflect its status as the world’s largest trader. Most of the world’s biggest container ports are in China. It controls a quarter of the world’s container fleet. By weight, 41% of ships built in 2012 were made in China.

Japanese and Korean firms built a presence in Californian ports in the 1980s and 1990s, now China’s muscle in trade and shipping is being mirrored in ports too. At first this was about building, in year 2012, just China Harbour Engineering Company alone has constructed projects around the world worth $12 billion. Naturally the next move is to own and run ports. Hutchison Whampoa (HPH), a privately owned Hong Kong conglomerate, has long had a global network of ports. The pioneer among mainland firms was Cosco Pacific (e.g. Antwerp-Belgium, Suez, Singapore, Piraeus), China Merchants Holdings International (e.g. Nigeria, Colombo, Togo, Djibouti, Tanzania; 49% of Terminal Link, a global portfolio of terminals run by CMA CGM France), China Shipping Terminal (e.g. Zeebrugge-Belgium, Seattle, Los Angeles), and a long list of others.​

In Australia, there are many other infra with Chinese investment e.g. Curtis LNG base of CNNOC (China National Offshore Oil Corporation) in Queensland:​

1432555547442-jpg.267974

Yes brother, there is already an expansion plan on the table, to be performed by Landbridge Group.

China Inc is just about business.
 
Last edited:
.
It's absolutely not a problem for China, Chinese can build the Darwin port to bigger. Doesn't news say China has 99-year time to do the work ?

You cannot build the Darwin port.......NT government rented out the Administrative right to the company, the land right remained NT government. Beside as said before, the deal is under investigation by FIRB at the moment as NT government failed to disclose the deal also included fisherman wharf, which can be used to dock Military traffic, so the deal could be back tracked.

I do not see how a port deal would constitute a threat to the country's independence.

It is US hysterics and over-securitization, as usual. I guess regional countries are becoming fed up with this fanaticism.

@ahojunk

as usual, you know nothing about the topic and blabbing here.

The deal was not done properly, as the NT government did not notice the federal government the detail of the deal. The Deal of Darwin Port were also included Fort Hill and East Arm Wharf (Fisherman Wharf) which was used by Royal Australian Navy and International Navy docking in Darwin fro strategic supply.

The deal did not went thru FIRB due to NT government exempt it by saying LandBridge is not state own (Non-State Owned company can be exempted by FIRB).

So, exactly how about you renting out your PLAN naval asset to Australia by intentionally left out the detail of the deal and tell me this is not a big deal?
 
Last edited:
. .
The Darwin deal is just one case in China's global portfolio of ports (or infra), see the OP for details. The article showcased a typical paranoia on China, well wish they learn business is business, the faster the better. Paranoid media & politicians are hazardous for investment, for business, it doesn't benefit anyone including their people.

China’s maritime interests reflect its status as the world’s largest trader. Most of the world’s biggest container ports are in China. It controls a quarter of the world’s container fleet. By weight, 41% of ships built in 2012 were made in China.

Japanese and Korean firms built a presence in Californian ports in the 1980s and 1990s, now China’s muscle in trade and shipping is being mirrored in ports too. At first this was about building, in year 2012, just China Harbour Engineering Company alone has constructed projects around the world worth $12 billion. Naturally the next move is to own and run ports. Hutchison Whampoa (HPH), a privately owned Hong Kong conglomerate, has long had a global network of ports. The pioneer among mainland firms was Cosco Pacific (e.g. Antwerp-Belgium, Suez, Singapore, Piraeus), China Merchants Holdings International (e.g. Nigeria, Colombo, Togo, Djibouti, Tanzania; 49% of Terminal Link, a global portfolio of terminals run by CMA CGM France), China Shipping Terminal (e.g. Zeebrugge-Belgium, Seattle, Los Angeles), and a long list of others.​

In Australia, there are many other infra with Chinese investment e.g. Curtis LNG base of CNNOC (China National Offshore Oil Corporation) in Queensland:​

1432555547442-jpg.267974

Yes brother, there is already an expansion plan on the table, to be performed by Landbridge Group.

China Inc is just about business.

As I said, I have no problem Australian renting out ports to Chinese, if the deal is solely business. Problem is, this particular deal is about Military asset as well as Civilian asset. And by all account, the deal should have been reviewed by FIRB.

As said by the parliament of Australia, the Federal have the say on Defence/Foreign Policy and all strategic asset within Australia is controlled by Commonwealth Government.

The reason behind this dealing is the reason why people suspected this deal, not because of China or the Port itself.

If port Darwin lies in South Australia, the chinese would never get the okay. our Viet people there will throw the proposal into the next trash bin. because HIEU Van Le is the Governor of Southern Australia.

Former refugee Hieu Van Le sworn in as South Australia's governor during official ceremony - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Hieu%20Le%20vo.JPG





28b1d76434490b3ba6358de4ae30d326

The thing is, the deal should not be lie in state jurisdiction from the get go. No State of Australia can preside on commonwealth affair when defence issue is linked

The deal should have been reviewed by FIRB, but the fact that NT government by-passed it just smell fishy....
 
.
Back
Top Bottom