Darwin port dispute shows not all Chinese stakes pose security threat

Business Standard

18-06-2025

Australia's northernmost maritime gateway has become a lightning rod for the fragile relationship between the US and China — but while national security concerns are warranted for many of the ports that Beijing controls or owns, this is hardly the one to worry about.
President Donald Trump's trade war has meant that almost everything to do with China is now viewed through the lens of geopolitics. In 2015, the privately held Shandong-based Landbridge Group — a Chinese logistics, infrastructure, and petrochemical firm — secured a 99-year lease for the strategically significant Port of Darwin, located just off the coast of the Indonesian border and near military bases that routinely host rotations of US Marines in Australia.
Beijing's ownership of critical infrastructure has been growing steadily over the years, but Trump's new administration is paying more attention. China operates or has ownership in at least one port on every continent except Antarctica, according to the Council on Foreign Relations tracker. Of the 129 projects, 115 are active. Beijing is also outpacing Washington in investments in global port infrastructure, which America deems critical to economic and military security.
Key concerns include intelligence gathering, sabotage, and the pre-positioning of weapons and ammunition via critical infrastructure, notes Thomas X. Hammes, a non-resident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council. In theory, the world's second-largest economy could exploit this network to challenge the sea control essential to American success in an armed conflict, he adds. China has consistently denied these claims, saying they are yet another example of the US trying to contain its legitimate commercial ambitions.
Amid Beijing's expanding influence, reclaiming control of Darwin has taken on renewed urgency in Australia, emerging as a rare point of bipartisan consensus. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government is working to find a new operator and to revoke the Chinese firm's lease. The port is a major export hub for live cattle, and the import and export of petroleum products. Discussions have intensified in recent months, with an American firm linked to the Trump administration reportedly encouraged to step in.
Bilateral relations between Canberra and Beijing collapsed during the pandemic, when China imposed tariffs and trade barriers on Australian goods. Ties have been repaired, but are being tested since Chinese warships entered Australian waters earlier this year. The Albanese government has downplayed the incidents, but skepticism lingers over the true intention of the live-fire drills.
Beijing hasn't done itself any favors, David Andrews, senior policy adviser with the National Security College of the Australian National University, told me, adding that even when Landbridge secured the lease, Australia was aware of the challenges that a rising China would pose. 'It's unlikely that a port with this strategic location would be leased or sold today,' he said.
China has previously bristled at foreign interference in its overseas port stakes. It reacted sharply to US pressure over control of Panama Canal terminals, prompting Hong Kong-owned CK Hutchison Holdings Ltd. to consider selling its two operations there. Beijing has fiercely opposed the sale over worries it could affect its global shipping and trade ambitions. A similar backlash could loom for Albanese if the Chinese view moves to reclaim Darwin as politically motivated.
Australia's balancing act needs to be delicate. The US is its top source of foreign investment and closest security ally, but China remains its dominant export destination. Avoiding knee-jerk reactions based on perceptions would help the Albanese government build goodwill and strengthen its credibility for when there are legitimate worries and it needs to negotiate with its trading partner.
As the rivalry between Washington and Beijing deepens, the debate over national security in critical infrastructure should be grounded in fact, not fiction.