Australia aims to avoid Panama repeat in China port showdown
[CANBERRA] Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is confronting a fresh diplomatic dilemma with China: How to fulfil a pledge to regain control of a strategic port without jeopardising improved relations with his country's largest trading partner.
Ahead of an election earlier this month, Albanese promised to return to Australian control the Port of Darwin from Chinese company Landbridge Group. It was awarded a 99-year lease in 2015 by the Northern Territory government in a move that sparked criticism from an array of politicians in Australia and in the US, which uses a nearby military training facility.
China is Australia's biggest trading partner by far and previously expressed anger over pressure from the Trump administration concerning the Panama Canal, which resulted in a potential sale by a Hong Kong-based conglomerate of its two Panama port operations – a deal Beijing has said it will review.
Albanese potentially faces a similar backlash from the Chinese government if Beijing perceives it's being treated unfairly at the Port of Darwin.
'The key is whether it's a commercial or ostensibly a commercial transaction or not,' said Richard McGregor, a senior fellow at Sydney-based Lowy Institute, who serves on the board of a government body advising on relations with China.
A simple buyout of Landbridge by an Australian company would be significantly less controversial than a sale to a US business or an attempt to cancel the lease and nationalise it, he said.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
Speaking on Wednesday, Albanese appeared to pour some cold water on the idea of an acquisition by a US company while restating his desire to get the port back under Australian control.
'It's in the national interest for it to be in Australian hands,' Albanese said at a press conference in Darwin. 'But if there are other proposals, we'll work those through. But we'll work those through on a commercial basis.'
Terry O'Connor, a non-executive director for Landbridge in Australia, said on Wednesday there's been interest among investors in Australia and abroad on whether the port is for sale. They have also received calls from international investors, some of whom are in talks with the local administration, about whether the national government's plan to acquire the port is real, he said.
Like many countries in the Asia-Pacific region, Australia is caught in a bind. The US is the largest single investor in Australia and the country's main security ally, but China is by far its biggest export market.
High stakes
China's government would like for its firms to be able to invest more into Australia, especially in the minerals sector, but Canberra has blocked a series of investment proposals since the two signed a free-trade agreement more than a decade ago.
That raises the stakes for how Albanese manages the port dispute. Bilateral relations collapsed during the pandemic, when China imposed tariffs and trade barriers on Australian goods, but have gradually improved since Albanese first took power in 2022.
Xiao Qian, China's ambassador to Australia, has warned Canberra to proceed cautiously in its handling of the lease, which he said was awarded to Landbridge 'through an open and transparent bidding process'. He made the point of personally visiting Darwin in the past week to press Beijing's request for Landbridge to be treated fairly.
While Landbridge has been reported to be having financial difficulties, Chinese state media also cautioned against forcing Landbridge to give up the lease.
A Global Times editorial this week said the Australian government should 'prioritise the broader picture, uphold the spirit of contract, return to the rule of law, and stop distorting economic cooperation with political bias.'
The port is Australia's northernmost maritime facility, positioned close to South-east Asia.
During the election campaign, Albanese raised the possibility of nationalising the facility in case a private owner couldn't be found. US private equity company Cerberus held an initial meeting with the Port of Darwin to discuss taking over the lease, while other Australian entities including large pension funds are also running a ruler over the numbers.
'Far from ideal'
Since 2001, Chinese firms have increasingly invested in overseas ports. That's often been portrayed as part of President Xi Jinping's 'Belt and Road Initiative' to build up trade links between China and the rest of the world, according to Zongyuan Zoe Liu at the Council at Foreign Relations, who tracks such investments.
Some of those investments have become controversial or been criticised as a vehicle for greater Chinese influence, although some, such as the purchase of Piraeus Port in Greece by Chinese shipping giant Cosco Shipping Holdings, can be seen as a success, she said in a recent interview.
While the Port of Darwin has not attracted the same level of attention from Washington as the Panama Canal, that does not mean that the US is not watching closely
'For many of our allies and partners, the current status quo is far from ideal,' said Luke Gosling, a military veteran and lawmaker for Darwin in Albanese's Labor government. 'That has fed into obviously our decision-making around making that commitment that the Port of Darwin come back into Australian hands.' BLOOMBERG
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Shangri-La Dialogue 2025: Did China really take a back seat by not sending its defence minister?
Major General Hu Gangfeng (C), Vice President of National Defense University of Chinese People's Liberation Army attends the Shangri-La Dialogue Summit in Singapore on May 31, 2025. (Photo by MOHD RASFAN / AFP) AFP Shangri-La Dialogue 2025 Did China take a back seat by not having its defence minister attend top security meet? SINGAPORE - Almost everyone was talking about China at the Shangri-La Dialogue this weekend. The main question: Why did Beijing opt not to send its defence minister? For the large part of the three-day security forum held at the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore, China was not around to push back against the criticisms levied against it. But it appears that this was a calculated loss that Beijing is prepared to accept. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth mentioned China about 20 times in his speech on May 31, as he urged other countries in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defence expenditure, buy more American arms and buffer themselves against the 'threat' posed by China. French President Emmanuel Macron on May 30 invited the security policymakers and military chiefs attending the forum to think of Russia's aggression in Ukraine as what China might do to Taiwan or the Philippines. The role of the Chinese defence minister is to conduct defence diplomacy and explain China's security positions to other countries. Had he been at this weekend's top security gathering in Singapore, Beijing would have had the podium for over an hour to respond to Washington and address the concerns raised by other delegates. Not this year. For the first time since 2019, China's defence minister did not attend. This meant the platform set aside for China had to be downsized accordingly. Its delegation chief – a military scholar with the rank of a one-star general – spoke in a smaller room to a smaller audience for a shorter time than the minister would have had. He was one of five panellists at one of the three concurrent sessions at the end of the day on May 31. As the vice-president of the People's Liberation Army National Defence University, Rear-Admiral Hu Gangfeng is not involved in combat operations or policymaking. He gave a brief response to Mr Hegseth's speech, dismissing his criticisms as 'unfounded accusations' and going against the spirit of the forum, to reduce and not magnify differences. The Chinese embassy in Singapore, which belongs to the ministry of foreign affairs and usually remains backstage at the defence ministry-driven Shangri-La Dialogue, made the unusual move of posting a response to Mr Hegseth's speech on its Facebook page, describing it as 'steeped in provocations and instigation' and a relentless hyping of the China threat. But China's overall response to its critics at the forum this year was markedly low-key compared with the year before. In 2024, the Chinese defence ministry officials briefed reporters hours after then US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin gave his speech; Minister Dong Jun held court at a plenary session the next day; and just before the forum ended, four or five military experts stood in different corners of a hotel room to answer journalists' questions almost in a speed-dating format. Did China shoot itself in the foot by ceding the space at the annual forum for the US to run with its narrative of rallying allies and partners in the region against Beijing? Not necessarily. A Chinese security expert explained that while the delivery style may differ, whoever represents China at the forum is expected to deliver the same talking points that have been pre-cleared by the senior leadership, at the apex of which is President Xi Jinping, the de facto commander-in-chief. He declined to be named as he was not cleared to speak to the media. Rear-Adm Hu alluded to this on May 31 when pressed to explain the absence of the defence minister: 'Objectively speaking, I'm the appointed person today to convey our thinking and exchange views with you all. I suppose you would've heard clearly our true thinking.' He argued that China's representation at the forum changes over the years, and this variance should be seen as a 'perfectly normal work arrangement that does not impact the actual efficacy of our sharing of defence policy thinking'. But this does not mean that China has given up on the Shangri-La Dialogue and will never send its defence minister again. Rear-Adm Hu reaffirmed that China still values and sees the forum as a 'very good platform to engage and discuss with all parties about regional cooperation in Asia-Pacific'. This raises the question – if so, why didn't Beijing send its top defence diplomat here? Observers have proffered a number of theories for Admiral Dong's no-show. A likely explanation is that since the leaders of China and the US have not talked and decided at the highest level on how to manage the bilateral relations, which are fractious across trade, politics and security, there is not much that their defence ministers can meet and talk about, in practical terms. Having bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the forum in the third-party ground of Singapore is the other main purpose of being here, besides to speak at the forum. For example, when Adm Dong attended the forum in 2024 for the first time as defence minister, his bilateral meetings with the then Defence Secretary was crucial for a reset of China-US military ties, which had stalled after then US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi angered China by visiting Taiwan in 2022. Given the uncertainty and unpredictability of bilateral ties, China may have opted for a conservative, wait-and-see approach this year by sending a lower-level representation. Another supplementary consideration is: While Adm Dong appeared to have been in the clear after reportedly being questioned for corruption last year, rumours of other generals being investigated for corruption continue to surface . The absence of high-level military officials would forestall awkward questions, even in casual conversation . As with many things related to the Communist Party of China, the full picture may never emerge. Two scholars in the official Chinese delegation confessed to The Straits Times that they simply did not know the reason Adm Dong did not attend this year's forum. For this year, Mr Hegseth gets the spotlight all to himself. Yew Lun Tian is a senior foreign correspondent who covers China for The Straits Times. Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.

Straits Times
6 hours ago
- Straits Times
Scope of each country's defence no longer so neatly defined: Chan Chun Sing
While the business of security has become more complex, it also opens up new opportunities for Singapore to work with more partners, said Defence Minister Chan Chun Sing. PHOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO SINGAPORE – Technological and geopolitical changes to the world have intensified security challenges and prompted countries to redefine how they think of their defence in three crucial ways, said Defence Minister Chan Chun Sing. While this means the business of security has become more complex, it also opens up new opportunities for Singapore to work with more partners, Mr Chan told reporters on May 31. Speaking to the media after he hosted visiting ministers and representatives to a closed-door ministerial roundtable discussion, Mr Chan said a key topic of discussion was how 'defence and security can no longer be cut up so neatly based on geography, as per the past'. Instead, there was a strong sense that a geographic concept of security has become inadequate, with European ministers talking about their security being intertwined with that of the Asia Pacific, and vice versa. A more networked world and greater awareness of threats from the information and cyber domains has also prompted new conversations about securing critical infrastructure, such as the underwater cables that link nations to the Internet, said Mr Chan. And whereas defence ministers used to be more concerned about kinetic warfare - the deployment of armed forces in combat - they are today equally concerned about the security and resilience of their supply chains and economies, he added. Mr Chan said a point made at the roundtable discussions was that meeting these challenges would be a long-term endeavour, requiring countries to work together. Ministerial roundtables are a regular feature of the Shangri-La Dialogue, where ministers engage in informal conversations over lunch. 'If we are really serious about building capabilities for the long haul, it must be a commitment across different political cycles,' he said. It also opens up new avenues for Singapore to work with countries that are further away but who have shared interests in developing capabilities, such as to secure supply chains and to counter disinformation, he added. During the 20-minute interview, Mr Chan was also asked about US defense secretary Pete Hegseth's remarks earlier in the day, which included a call for Asian countries to raise their defence spending and to not become economically dependent on China. Mr Chan said ministers at lunch were 'appreciative of (Mr Hegseth's) candor'. But while the ministers were 'cheered' by the US' commitment to the Indo-Pacific region, they were also keen to see how this would translate into tangible action. On the Chinese defence minister's absence at this year's forum, Mr Chan said most, if not all ministers at the roundtable, would have hoped for the presence of the Chinese delegation. This is as participation at the forum has continued to grow, and many countries find it a useful platform to exchange views, he added. For the first time since 2019, China sent a delegation not led by its defence minister, which meant it could not hold bilateral meetings at the ministerial level with other countries, such as the United States. The Shangri-la Dialogue allows countries to have side meetings with each other, which helps minimise the chances of miscalculation or the misreading of another country's intentions, said Mr Chan. 'I encourage all my fellow counterparts, all my fellow defense ministers, that notwithstanding China's absence, we should continue to reach out to China,' he said. 'And I'm sure China, in its own time, will also want to reach out to the rest of the that we minimise the chances of misunderstanding.' To a question by a Chinese media outlet that mentioned Singapore's 'balancing act' between China and the US, Mr Chan said that is not the Republic's approach. 'Singapore is not trying to balance anybody, and we are also not the interlocutor (between other countries),' he said. Instead, Mr Chan said it sees itself as an open and inclusive platform that allows people to come together for frank and honest conversations. 'Where it's appreciated, we will also share with our partners our perspectives, our interpretations, and likewise we appreciate our partners sharing with us their perspectives and their interpretations of events,' he added. Mr Chan said one point that came up during the lunch was the importance of trust, without which it will be difficult for countries to work together on matters of defence. Building trust has to be done at multiple levels: from those in high political office meeting and talking, to soldiers, airmen and sailors having the opportunity to train together and understand each other's concerns, he said. The more such opportunities exist, the greater the chances that the next generation will work together to overcome new challenges, and Singapore will play its part, he added. 'We will always be an open and inclusive platform for people to come together and exchange notes, to have frank conversations with one another,' he said. Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.

Straits Times
10 hours ago
- Straits Times
China bristles at France's Macron linking Ukraine defence to Taiwan threats
French President Emmanuel Macron had delivered the keynote address at the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue security summit on May 30. ST PHOTO: JASON QUAH SINGAPORE - China on May 31 criticised as a "double standard" attempts to link the defence of Ukraine with the need to protect Taiwan from a Chinese invasion - a thinly veiled reference to a speech by French Emmanuel Macron in Singapore on May 30 night. As part of a broader address on the risks of division between China and the United States, Mr Macron told the Shangri-La Dialogue defence meeting that if Russia was allowed to take any part of Ukraine without constraint then 'what could happen in Taiwan?'. In a Facebook post, China's embassy in Singapore said that comparing the Taiwan issue with the Ukraine issue is 'unacceptable'. 'The two are different in nature and not comparable at all,' the post said, saying that Taiwan was entirely an internal affair for China. 'If one tries to denounce a 'double standard' with a double standard, the only result we can get is still a double standard,' the post said. The embassy post did not mention Mr Macron directly but it was accompanied by a photo of him talking at the event. Beijing has previously dispatched defence ministers and other senior military officials to the annual meeting, which ends June 1, but this year sent a relatively low-level delegation of military academics. China views democratically-governed Taiwan as its own territory and has stepped up military and political pressure to assert those claims, including increasing the intensity of war games, saying the island is one of its provinces with no right to be called a state. Taiwan's government rejects Beijing's sovereignty claims, saying only the island's people can decide their future. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told the gathering on May 31 that China posed an 'imminent' threat and any attempt to conquer Taiwan 'would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world'. Regional diplomats said that Mr Macron's comments were far from isolated during the freewheeling, informal meeting and risks of a Russian victory emboldening a Chinese invasion of Taiwan had at times surfaced in sideline discussions. 'The message from many backing Ukraine is that the line must be held if a message is to be sent to China,' said one East Asian envoy. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.