Latest news with #Cerberus
Time of India
3 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Shapoorji Pallonji Group secures $3.4 billion in private credit deal
MUMBAI: Indian real estate and construction conglomerate Shapoorji Pallonji Group has completed a $3.4 billion financing in the country's biggest ever private credit deal, according to people familiar with the matter. About a dozen large investors - some using multiple funds - bought zero-coupon rupee bonds that offer a yield of 19.75%, the people said, asking not to be identified because the information is private. The debt matures in three years. Top investors include Ares Management Corp , Cerberus Capital Management , Davidson Kempner Capital Management and Farallon Capital Management, people said. Deutsche Bank acted as the sole arranger of the deal and also invested in it. Deutsche invested about $900 million and will down-sell a portion of the debt, the people said, adding that Cerberus and Davidson bought about $475 million and $425 million worth of bonds, respectively. Indian investors also participated in the deal, with ASK Wealth Advisors and some family offices buying a portion of the offering, the people said. EAAA India Alternatives Ltd., one of the country's largest domestic private credit funds, bought about $85 million of the bonds, said one of the people. The financing is a landmark in India's growing private credit industry, which is getting a boost as Prime Minister Narendra Modi's infrastructure push increases funding demands for everything from solar power to roads. A representative for Shapoorji didn't immediately respond to requests for comment outside of normal business hours. Davidson Kempner declined to comment. Ares, Cerberus, Farallon, EAAA and ASK did not immediately reply to Bloomberg's requests seeking comments.
Economic Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Economic Times
Shapoorji Pallonji Group secures $3.4 billion in private credit deal
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel Mumbai: Indian real estate and construction conglomerate Shapoorji Pallonji Group has completed a $3.4 billion financing in the country's biggest ever private credit deal , according to people familiar with the a dozen large investors - some using multiple funds - bought zero-coupon rupee bonds that offer a yield of 19.75%, the people said, asking not to be identified because the information is private. The debt matures in three investors include Ares Management Corp , Cerberus Capital Management, Davidson Kempner Capital Management and Farallon Capital Management, people said. Deutsche Bank acted as the sole arranger of the deal and also invested in invested about $900 million and will down-sell a portion of the debt, the people said, adding that Cerberus and Davidson bought about $475 million and $425 million worth of bonds, investors also participated in the deal, with ASK Wealth Advisors and some family offices buying a portion of the offering, the people said. EAAA India Alternatives Ltd., one of the country's largest domestic private credit funds, bought about $85 million of the bonds, said one of the financing is a landmark in India's growing private credit industry, which is getting a boost as Prime Minister Narendra Modi's infrastructure push increases funding demands for everything from solar power to roads.A representative for Shapoorji didn't immediately respond to requests for comment outside of normal business hours. Davidson Kempner declined to comment. Ares, Cerberus, Farallon, EAAA and ASK did not immediately reply to Bloomberg's requests seeking comments.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Shapoorji Pallonji Group secures $3.4 billion in private credit deal
Shapoorji Pallonji Group has secured $3.4 billion in financing through a private credit deal, marking the largest of its kind in India. The zero-coupon rupee bonds, yielding 19.75% and maturing in three years, attracted major investors like Ares Management, Cerberus Capital, and Deutsche Bank. This deal highlights the growth of India's private credit sector, driven by increased infrastructure demands. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Mumbai: Indian real estate and construction conglomerate Shapoorji Pallonji Group has completed a $3.4 billion financing in the country's biggest ever private credit deal , according to people familiar with the a dozen large investors - some using multiple funds - bought zero-coupon rupee bonds that offer a yield of 19.75%, the people said, asking not to be identified because the information is private. The debt matures in three investors include Ares Management Corp , Cerberus Capital Management, Davidson Kempner Capital Management and Farallon Capital Management, people said. Deutsche Bank acted as the sole arranger of the deal and also invested in invested about $900 million and will down-sell a portion of the debt, the people said, adding that Cerberus and Davidson bought about $475 million and $425 million worth of bonds, investors also participated in the deal, with ASK Wealth Advisors and some family offices buying a portion of the offering, the people said. EAAA India Alternatives Ltd., one of the country's largest domestic private credit funds, bought about $85 million of the bonds, said one of the financing is a landmark in India's growing private credit industry, which is getting a boost as Prime Minister Narendra Modi's infrastructure push increases funding demands for everything from solar power to roads.A representative for Shapoorji didn't immediately respond to requests for comment outside of normal business hours. Davidson Kempner declined to comment. Ares, Cerberus, Farallon, EAAA and ASK did not immediately reply to Bloomberg's requests seeking comments.
The Advertiser
4 days ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
Trump, tariffs and the Middle East are looming challenges for Albanese
Australia these days receives invitations to big-league international conferences. And so Anthony Albanese will be off soon to the G7 meeting in Alberta, Canada, on June 15-17. For the Prime Minister, what's most important about this trip is not so much the conference itself, but his expected first meeting with US President Donald Trump, either on the sidelines of the G7 or in a visit to Washington while he's in North America. Nothing is locked in. But it's impossible to think such a meeting won't take place. The Australian PM certainly needs to have his first face-to-face talks with the US President sooner rather than later. During the election, there was much argument over whether Albanese or Peter Dutton would be better at dealing with the difficult and unpredictable Trump, in particular, in trying to extract some concessions on his tariffs Australia has been hit by Trump's 25 per cent tariff on aluminium and steel, as well as by his general 10 per cent tariff. The Trump tariff regime has been a chaotic story of decisions, pauses and changes of mind. In the latest drama, the United States Court of International Trade on Wednesday blocked Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs (as far as Australia goes, this relates to the 10 per cent general tariff but not that on aluminium and steel). The court found the President had exceeded his powers. The administration immediately appealed the decision. We can't know how this imbroglio will play out. But assuming Australia will still be confronting some tariffs, Albanese's pitch for special treatment will be made around what we can do for the Americans with our large deposits of critical minerals and rare earths. These are vital for the production of a huge range of items, including for defence purposes. Australia's ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd, speaking at a conference in Detroit this week, pointed out that the two countries already had a draft accord on these minerals. "What we need to work out [...] is how do we collaborate both on the mining, the extraction, the transportation and the processing and the stockpiling to make our economies resilient, including what you'll need for future battery manufacture," Rudd said. When Albanese does get together with Trump, he will have the advantage of meeting him as the big winner of the recent election. Trump said of him post-election, "He's been very, very nice to me, very respectful to me". But that's no iron-clad guarantee of success. With the US President, there are always multiple "known unknowns". For Albanese, success on the tariff front would be important, but not, of course, as important politically as it would have been pre-election. A range of other issues will also be on the agenda when the two meet: including progress on AUKUS. The President would no doubt be pleased the government is in the process of booting the Chinese lessee out of the Port of Darwin (with American investment firm Cerberus expressing an interest in taking over, although the government's preference is for the port to be in Australian hands). Trump might not think, however, that the government's commitment to defence spending, due to reach 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product by 2033-34, is enough. The Americans would prefer a level of 3 per cent of GDP. No doubt the Middle East would also be canvassed in such talks. While Middle East policy is not a frontline issue in the Australian-American relationship, the Albanese government struggles at home to strike the right stance. Since the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, Australia has seen a deterioration in local social cohesion. AntiSemitism spiked to a degree not anticipated; pro-Palestinian demonstrations became a regular and controversial feature. The government found itself under political fire from the Jewish community and pro-Palestinian critics alike. With the Israeli government disregarding international criticism, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza growing more dire, Albanese this week toughened his rhetoric. On Monday he said: "It is outrageous that there be a blockade of food and supplies to people who are in need in Gaza. We have made that very clear by signing up to international statements". He described Israel's actions as "completely unacceptable". Within Labor, the pressure to go further has been mounting. It is on two fronts. Some want sanctions against Israel (beyond the existing sanctions in relation to settlers on the West Bank). There is also the issue of whether Australia should recognise a Palestinian state ahead of a two-state solution. Ed Husic, a Muslim, was relatively outspoken even while he was in cabinet. Since being dumped from the ministry, he is much freer to put forth his view. This week, he was calling for imposing sanctions if other nations were to do so. "I think we should be actively considering [...] drawing up a list of targeted sanctions where we can join with others". Significantly, former Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans was another advocate, saying sanctions "would send a powerful message". But when the question of sanctions was put to Albanese, he was dismissive, raising the issue of substantive outcomes. At the Labor party's grassroots level, there is strong pressure for a more pro-Palestinian approach. It is not unreasonable to think that would strike a sympathetic chord with both Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, but they are very cognisant of the politics - both international and local. Wong a year ago raised the possibility of recognising Palestine statehood as a step along a peace process, ahead of a two-state solution. Australia's ambassador to the United Nations, James Larson, last week delivered an Australian statement to a preparatory meeting for a June conference in New York on "the question of Palestine and the implementation of the two-state solution". Echoing Wong's earlier position, he said: "A two-state solution - a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel - is the only hope of breaking the endless cycle of violence, and the only hope of a just and enduring peace, for Israelis and Palestinians alike." "Like other partners, Australia no longer sees recognition of a Palestinian state as only occurring at the end of negotiations, but rather as a way of building momentum towards a two-state solution." MORE GRATTAN: Evans, in an article for Pearls and Irritations this week, says the "strongest and most constructive contribution" Australia could make on the issue would be to announce at the conference "that we are immediately recognising Palestinian statehood: not just as the final outcome of a political settlement but as a way of kickstarting it". The government is tight-lipped about what stand it will take for the June 17-20 conference, saying it doesn't have details yet and is unable to say who will attend for Australia. It says it is not being framed as a conference where countries are expected to make pledges. Nevertheless, many within Labor will be watching closely whether the coming weeks will see any change in Australia's Middle East policy. But that, in turn, would depend on whether others make any moves, because Australia wants to have company from like-minded countries. Australia these days receives invitations to big-league international conferences. And so Anthony Albanese will be off soon to the G7 meeting in Alberta, Canada, on June 15-17. For the Prime Minister, what's most important about this trip is not so much the conference itself, but his expected first meeting with US President Donald Trump, either on the sidelines of the G7 or in a visit to Washington while he's in North America. Nothing is locked in. But it's impossible to think such a meeting won't take place. The Australian PM certainly needs to have his first face-to-face talks with the US President sooner rather than later. During the election, there was much argument over whether Albanese or Peter Dutton would be better at dealing with the difficult and unpredictable Trump, in particular, in trying to extract some concessions on his tariffs Australia has been hit by Trump's 25 per cent tariff on aluminium and steel, as well as by his general 10 per cent tariff. The Trump tariff regime has been a chaotic story of decisions, pauses and changes of mind. In the latest drama, the United States Court of International Trade on Wednesday blocked Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs (as far as Australia goes, this relates to the 10 per cent general tariff but not that on aluminium and steel). The court found the President had exceeded his powers. The administration immediately appealed the decision. We can't know how this imbroglio will play out. But assuming Australia will still be confronting some tariffs, Albanese's pitch for special treatment will be made around what we can do for the Americans with our large deposits of critical minerals and rare earths. These are vital for the production of a huge range of items, including for defence purposes. Australia's ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd, speaking at a conference in Detroit this week, pointed out that the two countries already had a draft accord on these minerals. "What we need to work out [...] is how do we collaborate both on the mining, the extraction, the transportation and the processing and the stockpiling to make our economies resilient, including what you'll need for future battery manufacture," Rudd said. When Albanese does get together with Trump, he will have the advantage of meeting him as the big winner of the recent election. Trump said of him post-election, "He's been very, very nice to me, very respectful to me". But that's no iron-clad guarantee of success. With the US President, there are always multiple "known unknowns". For Albanese, success on the tariff front would be important, but not, of course, as important politically as it would have been pre-election. A range of other issues will also be on the agenda when the two meet: including progress on AUKUS. The President would no doubt be pleased the government is in the process of booting the Chinese lessee out of the Port of Darwin (with American investment firm Cerberus expressing an interest in taking over, although the government's preference is for the port to be in Australian hands). Trump might not think, however, that the government's commitment to defence spending, due to reach 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product by 2033-34, is enough. The Americans would prefer a level of 3 per cent of GDP. No doubt the Middle East would also be canvassed in such talks. While Middle East policy is not a frontline issue in the Australian-American relationship, the Albanese government struggles at home to strike the right stance. Since the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, Australia has seen a deterioration in local social cohesion. AntiSemitism spiked to a degree not anticipated; pro-Palestinian demonstrations became a regular and controversial feature. The government found itself under political fire from the Jewish community and pro-Palestinian critics alike. With the Israeli government disregarding international criticism, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza growing more dire, Albanese this week toughened his rhetoric. On Monday he said: "It is outrageous that there be a blockade of food and supplies to people who are in need in Gaza. We have made that very clear by signing up to international statements". He described Israel's actions as "completely unacceptable". Within Labor, the pressure to go further has been mounting. It is on two fronts. Some want sanctions against Israel (beyond the existing sanctions in relation to settlers on the West Bank). There is also the issue of whether Australia should recognise a Palestinian state ahead of a two-state solution. Ed Husic, a Muslim, was relatively outspoken even while he was in cabinet. Since being dumped from the ministry, he is much freer to put forth his view. This week, he was calling for imposing sanctions if other nations were to do so. "I think we should be actively considering [...] drawing up a list of targeted sanctions where we can join with others". Significantly, former Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans was another advocate, saying sanctions "would send a powerful message". But when the question of sanctions was put to Albanese, he was dismissive, raising the issue of substantive outcomes. At the Labor party's grassroots level, there is strong pressure for a more pro-Palestinian approach. It is not unreasonable to think that would strike a sympathetic chord with both Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, but they are very cognisant of the politics - both international and local. Wong a year ago raised the possibility of recognising Palestine statehood as a step along a peace process, ahead of a two-state solution. Australia's ambassador to the United Nations, James Larson, last week delivered an Australian statement to a preparatory meeting for a June conference in New York on "the question of Palestine and the implementation of the two-state solution". Echoing Wong's earlier position, he said: "A two-state solution - a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel - is the only hope of breaking the endless cycle of violence, and the only hope of a just and enduring peace, for Israelis and Palestinians alike." "Like other partners, Australia no longer sees recognition of a Palestinian state as only occurring at the end of negotiations, but rather as a way of building momentum towards a two-state solution." MORE GRATTAN: Evans, in an article for Pearls and Irritations this week, says the "strongest and most constructive contribution" Australia could make on the issue would be to announce at the conference "that we are immediately recognising Palestinian statehood: not just as the final outcome of a political settlement but as a way of kickstarting it". The government is tight-lipped about what stand it will take for the June 17-20 conference, saying it doesn't have details yet and is unable to say who will attend for Australia. It says it is not being framed as a conference where countries are expected to make pledges. Nevertheless, many within Labor will be watching closely whether the coming weeks will see any change in Australia's Middle East policy. But that, in turn, would depend on whether others make any moves, because Australia wants to have company from like-minded countries. Australia these days receives invitations to big-league international conferences. And so Anthony Albanese will be off soon to the G7 meeting in Alberta, Canada, on June 15-17. For the Prime Minister, what's most important about this trip is not so much the conference itself, but his expected first meeting with US President Donald Trump, either on the sidelines of the G7 or in a visit to Washington while he's in North America. Nothing is locked in. But it's impossible to think such a meeting won't take place. The Australian PM certainly needs to have his first face-to-face talks with the US President sooner rather than later. During the election, there was much argument over whether Albanese or Peter Dutton would be better at dealing with the difficult and unpredictable Trump, in particular, in trying to extract some concessions on his tariffs Australia has been hit by Trump's 25 per cent tariff on aluminium and steel, as well as by his general 10 per cent tariff. The Trump tariff regime has been a chaotic story of decisions, pauses and changes of mind. In the latest drama, the United States Court of International Trade on Wednesday blocked Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs (as far as Australia goes, this relates to the 10 per cent general tariff but not that on aluminium and steel). The court found the President had exceeded his powers. The administration immediately appealed the decision. We can't know how this imbroglio will play out. But assuming Australia will still be confronting some tariffs, Albanese's pitch for special treatment will be made around what we can do for the Americans with our large deposits of critical minerals and rare earths. These are vital for the production of a huge range of items, including for defence purposes. Australia's ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd, speaking at a conference in Detroit this week, pointed out that the two countries already had a draft accord on these minerals. "What we need to work out [...] is how do we collaborate both on the mining, the extraction, the transportation and the processing and the stockpiling to make our economies resilient, including what you'll need for future battery manufacture," Rudd said. When Albanese does get together with Trump, he will have the advantage of meeting him as the big winner of the recent election. Trump said of him post-election, "He's been very, very nice to me, very respectful to me". But that's no iron-clad guarantee of success. With the US President, there are always multiple "known unknowns". For Albanese, success on the tariff front would be important, but not, of course, as important politically as it would have been pre-election. A range of other issues will also be on the agenda when the two meet: including progress on AUKUS. The President would no doubt be pleased the government is in the process of booting the Chinese lessee out of the Port of Darwin (with American investment firm Cerberus expressing an interest in taking over, although the government's preference is for the port to be in Australian hands). Trump might not think, however, that the government's commitment to defence spending, due to reach 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product by 2033-34, is enough. The Americans would prefer a level of 3 per cent of GDP. No doubt the Middle East would also be canvassed in such talks. While Middle East policy is not a frontline issue in the Australian-American relationship, the Albanese government struggles at home to strike the right stance. Since the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, Australia has seen a deterioration in local social cohesion. AntiSemitism spiked to a degree not anticipated; pro-Palestinian demonstrations became a regular and controversial feature. The government found itself under political fire from the Jewish community and pro-Palestinian critics alike. With the Israeli government disregarding international criticism, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza growing more dire, Albanese this week toughened his rhetoric. On Monday he said: "It is outrageous that there be a blockade of food and supplies to people who are in need in Gaza. We have made that very clear by signing up to international statements". He described Israel's actions as "completely unacceptable". Within Labor, the pressure to go further has been mounting. It is on two fronts. Some want sanctions against Israel (beyond the existing sanctions in relation to settlers on the West Bank). There is also the issue of whether Australia should recognise a Palestinian state ahead of a two-state solution. Ed Husic, a Muslim, was relatively outspoken even while he was in cabinet. Since being dumped from the ministry, he is much freer to put forth his view. This week, he was calling for imposing sanctions if other nations were to do so. "I think we should be actively considering [...] drawing up a list of targeted sanctions where we can join with others". Significantly, former Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans was another advocate, saying sanctions "would send a powerful message". But when the question of sanctions was put to Albanese, he was dismissive, raising the issue of substantive outcomes. At the Labor party's grassroots level, there is strong pressure for a more pro-Palestinian approach. It is not unreasonable to think that would strike a sympathetic chord with both Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, but they are very cognisant of the politics - both international and local. Wong a year ago raised the possibility of recognising Palestine statehood as a step along a peace process, ahead of a two-state solution. Australia's ambassador to the United Nations, James Larson, last week delivered an Australian statement to a preparatory meeting for a June conference in New York on "the question of Palestine and the implementation of the two-state solution". Echoing Wong's earlier position, he said: "A two-state solution - a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel - is the only hope of breaking the endless cycle of violence, and the only hope of a just and enduring peace, for Israelis and Palestinians alike." "Like other partners, Australia no longer sees recognition of a Palestinian state as only occurring at the end of negotiations, but rather as a way of building momentum towards a two-state solution." MORE GRATTAN: Evans, in an article for Pearls and Irritations this week, says the "strongest and most constructive contribution" Australia could make on the issue would be to announce at the conference "that we are immediately recognising Palestinian statehood: not just as the final outcome of a political settlement but as a way of kickstarting it". The government is tight-lipped about what stand it will take for the June 17-20 conference, saying it doesn't have details yet and is unable to say who will attend for Australia. It says it is not being framed as a conference where countries are expected to make pledges. Nevertheless, many within Labor will be watching closely whether the coming weeks will see any change in Australia's Middle East policy. But that, in turn, would depend on whether others make any moves, because Australia wants to have company from like-minded countries. Australia these days receives invitations to big-league international conferences. And so Anthony Albanese will be off soon to the G7 meeting in Alberta, Canada, on June 15-17. For the Prime Minister, what's most important about this trip is not so much the conference itself, but his expected first meeting with US President Donald Trump, either on the sidelines of the G7 or in a visit to Washington while he's in North America. Nothing is locked in. But it's impossible to think such a meeting won't take place. The Australian PM certainly needs to have his first face-to-face talks with the US President sooner rather than later. During the election, there was much argument over whether Albanese or Peter Dutton would be better at dealing with the difficult and unpredictable Trump, in particular, in trying to extract some concessions on his tariffs Australia has been hit by Trump's 25 per cent tariff on aluminium and steel, as well as by his general 10 per cent tariff. The Trump tariff regime has been a chaotic story of decisions, pauses and changes of mind. In the latest drama, the United States Court of International Trade on Wednesday blocked Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs (as far as Australia goes, this relates to the 10 per cent general tariff but not that on aluminium and steel). The court found the President had exceeded his powers. The administration immediately appealed the decision. We can't know how this imbroglio will play out. But assuming Australia will still be confronting some tariffs, Albanese's pitch for special treatment will be made around what we can do for the Americans with our large deposits of critical minerals and rare earths. These are vital for the production of a huge range of items, including for defence purposes. Australia's ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd, speaking at a conference in Detroit this week, pointed out that the two countries already had a draft accord on these minerals. "What we need to work out [...] is how do we collaborate both on the mining, the extraction, the transportation and the processing and the stockpiling to make our economies resilient, including what you'll need for future battery manufacture," Rudd said. When Albanese does get together with Trump, he will have the advantage of meeting him as the big winner of the recent election. Trump said of him post-election, "He's been very, very nice to me, very respectful to me". But that's no iron-clad guarantee of success. With the US President, there are always multiple "known unknowns". For Albanese, success on the tariff front would be important, but not, of course, as important politically as it would have been pre-election. A range of other issues will also be on the agenda when the two meet: including progress on AUKUS. The President would no doubt be pleased the government is in the process of booting the Chinese lessee out of the Port of Darwin (with American investment firm Cerberus expressing an interest in taking over, although the government's preference is for the port to be in Australian hands). Trump might not think, however, that the government's commitment to defence spending, due to reach 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product by 2033-34, is enough. The Americans would prefer a level of 3 per cent of GDP. No doubt the Middle East would also be canvassed in such talks. While Middle East policy is not a frontline issue in the Australian-American relationship, the Albanese government struggles at home to strike the right stance. Since the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, Australia has seen a deterioration in local social cohesion. AntiSemitism spiked to a degree not anticipated; pro-Palestinian demonstrations became a regular and controversial feature. The government found itself under political fire from the Jewish community and pro-Palestinian critics alike. With the Israeli government disregarding international criticism, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza growing more dire, Albanese this week toughened his rhetoric. On Monday he said: "It is outrageous that there be a blockade of food and supplies to people who are in need in Gaza. We have made that very clear by signing up to international statements". He described Israel's actions as "completely unacceptable". Within Labor, the pressure to go further has been mounting. It is on two fronts. Some want sanctions against Israel (beyond the existing sanctions in relation to settlers on the West Bank). There is also the issue of whether Australia should recognise a Palestinian state ahead of a two-state solution. Ed Husic, a Muslim, was relatively outspoken even while he was in cabinet. Since being dumped from the ministry, he is much freer to put forth his view. This week, he was calling for imposing sanctions if other nations were to do so. "I think we should be actively considering [...] drawing up a list of targeted sanctions where we can join with others". Significantly, former Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans was another advocate, saying sanctions "would send a powerful message". But when the question of sanctions was put to Albanese, he was dismissive, raising the issue of substantive outcomes. At the Labor party's grassroots level, there is strong pressure for a more pro-Palestinian approach. It is not unreasonable to think that would strike a sympathetic chord with both Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, but they are very cognisant of the politics - both international and local. Wong a year ago raised the possibility of recognising Palestine statehood as a step along a peace process, ahead of a two-state solution. Australia's ambassador to the United Nations, James Larson, last week delivered an Australian statement to a preparatory meeting for a June conference in New York on "the question of Palestine and the implementation of the two-state solution". Echoing Wong's earlier position, he said: "A two-state solution - a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel - is the only hope of breaking the endless cycle of violence, and the only hope of a just and enduring peace, for Israelis and Palestinians alike." "Like other partners, Australia no longer sees recognition of a Palestinian state as only occurring at the end of negotiations, but rather as a way of building momentum towards a two-state solution." MORE GRATTAN: Evans, in an article for Pearls and Irritations this week, says the "strongest and most constructive contribution" Australia could make on the issue would be to announce at the conference "that we are immediately recognising Palestinian statehood: not just as the final outcome of a political settlement but as a way of kickstarting it". The government is tight-lipped about what stand it will take for the June 17-20 conference, saying it doesn't have details yet and is unable to say who will attend for Australia. It says it is not being framed as a conference where countries are expected to make pledges. Nevertheless, many within Labor will be watching closely whether the coming weeks will see any change in Australia's Middle East policy. But that, in turn, would depend on whether others make any moves, because Australia wants to have company from like-minded countries.
The Independent
5 days ago
- Business
- The Independent
The Australian port at the centre of a tug-of-war between Beijing and Canberra
China and Australia are sparring for control of an Australian port as concern grows over Beijing's exponentially growing influence in the Indo-Pacific. China is vehemently opposing Australia's plan to take back the controversial decades-long lease of the port in the northern city of Darwin. The row deepened this week after reports suggested that American private equity firm Cerberus had shown interest to acquire the lease. The ruling coalition parties of Australia had vowed during the recent election campaign to revoke Landbridge's lease for the port. Landbridge, a private multinational group of companies with interests in ports and logistics, is headquartered in China. Last month, prime minister Anthony Albanese declared that the port should be 'in Australian hands' and vowed to regain control of the "strategic asset". He even reportedly suggested a willingness to nationalise the port if a new buyer could not be found. The port of Darwin, located strategically opposite the Darwin defence base, is one of Australia's crucial gateways for trade, connecting the nation to the Asia-Pacific region. The deepwater port reportedly records a throughput of 4.5 million cargoes and is essential as a supply centre for Australia's oil and gas projects. The Northern Territory state government sold the port's 99-year lease to Landbridge for £374m in 2015, a move criticised by then US president Barack Obama. Around 2,000 US marines conduct exercises for six months of the year in Darwin and air bases in the area are being expanded to host American bombers. The Northern Territory awarded the contract to Landbridge a few years after the US posted the first of a rotating group of marines in Darwin. Australia has lately been building up its northern military bases after signing a security partnership with the US and the UK. The Chinese leaseholder has been adamant in refusing to give up control of the port and Beijing has called the American bid to take over as 'ethically questionable". China's ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, has urged Canberra to honour its contract with Landbridge, pointing out that the company has made "significant investments" in the facility. 'Such an enterprise and project deserves encouragement, not punishment,' the ambassador said in a statement on Sunday. 'It's ethically questionable to lease the port when it was unprofitable and then seek to reclaim it once it becomes profitable.' The port of Darwin has become the latest sticking point in relations between Australia and China which have dramatically improved in the three years since Mr Albanese was first elected in May 2022. The nations have been at loggerheads over China's exertion of dominance in the waters between them, not least Beijing's live-fire exercises off Australia's heavily populated east coast earlier this year. The Chinese foreign ministry said this week that Landbridge had obtained the lease on the open market and so its legitimate rights and interests should be fully protected. The Communist Party of China mouthpiece Global Times warned in an editorial that if Australia forcibly took away the lease from Landbridge, it would create 'major enduring pitfalls for the country'. It claimed that Landbridge had invested about £40 in upgrading port facilities, resulting in a 95.7 per cent increase in the total gross tonnage of arriving vessels. In the meantime, Cerberus Capital Management, founded by billionaire investor Stephen Feinberg who was appointed US deputy secretary of defence in March, is preparing a formal proposal to buy the port, The Australian reported. Cerberus has even partnered with Australian freight company Toll to ease concerns about foreign ownership of the strategic port, according to The Australian Financial Review. If the company were to succeed in securing the lease for the port, it would be a major strategic victory for Donald Trump 's administration amid the ongoing trade war with China over high tariffs. The Albanese government said it was running a separate process to identify potential domestic buyers and investors for the port. "There have been numerous meetings with potential proponents for the Port of Darwin," federal lawmaker Luke Gosling, the special envoy for defence and Northern Australia, told Reuters. "We'll work through that process methodically.' The Northern Territory's treasurer, Bill Yan, told the parliament last week that the port must be ready for "heavier defence logistics, the surge in critical mineral exports and the growing LNG cargoes", and operate in "Australian interests". Australian Strategic Policy Institute director of national security programs, John Coyne, said Landbridge agreeing to sell the lease for profit would be an easier pathway for the Albanese government than if it were compelled to intervene to break the lease on national security grounds, which would draw a backlash from China. "Beijing would not be happy with a divestment of an asset like this," he said, adding that it could discourage other foreign investment in Australia. Landbridge insisted that it had no intention of ending its lease. 'Landbridge has not yet received any offers or engagement from the government at any level,' non-executive director Terry O'Connor said. 'It is business as usual at Darwin port as we continue to focus on the growth of our operations.' Darwin is the second major port to get caught in the US-China trade war. China has been trying to block Hong Kong conglomerate CK Hutchison from selling its ports on the Panama Canal to US investment firm BlackRock for £14bn. The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter, reported last month that the MSC shipping company, a part of the BlackRock consortium, had held discussions on moving ahead with the bulk of the deal while disputes over the two ports were resolved. Tycoon Li Ka Shing announced in March that CK Hutchison would sell its 80 per cent holding in the ports business covering 43 ports in 23 countries.
