China’s Darwin Port Control: Trump’s ‘New Appointee’ Fuels Australia’s Plan To End Landbridge‘s 99-Year Lease?
Is the appointment of Stephen Andrew Feinberg, an American businessman and investor, as the 36th United States deputy secretary of defense by President Donald Trump, the prime reason for Australia considering terminating the Chinese-owned company Landbridge‘s 99-year lease for the strategically important Darwin port?
“Not exactly” could be the answer, though Feinberg’s private equity group Cerberus (he is the founder and co-CEO, but had to resign from the post for joining the Pentagon) is reported to be one of the bidders, along with the Japanese logistics company Toll Group, to buy back the lease from Landbridge.
If done, it will be on the pattern of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison’s proposed sale of Panama Canal ports to Swiss-Italian Mediterranean Shipping Co and BlackRock, following pressure from the Trump Administration over alleged Chinese influence at the vital waterway.
There is also the possibility of Australia not leasing the port to any other country after taking it back from the Landbridge, based on recent statements by Australian politicians. The country will manage the port itself.
Landbridge’s lease has been a controversial issue in Australian politics ever since it was signed on November 15, 2015.
In fact, the debate surrounding the port predates the Trump Presidency. The lease was opposed by even President Barack Obama. But the then Liberal government led by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull gave the go-ahead for the lease. The Labor Party, then in opposition, had opposed the move.
Now in power, Labor has not changed its position, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanes, who got reelected in May this year, asserting during his election-campaign, “ “Obviously we live in an uncertain world at the moment, the idea that you would have the major port in northern Australia owned by any foreign interest is not in Australia’s national interest”.
The Liberals, now in opposition, have also changed their position. They are now against the lease. Thus, there is now a more or less political consensus in Australia against the Darwin port remaining in Chinese hands.
It may be noted that Darwin Port, located in Australia’s Northern Territories (NT), was leased for $506 million by the Landbridge, which is controlled by Chinese billionaire Ye Cheng, who was a member of the national committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a political advisory body, from 2013 to 2018.
The Labor Party, then, had alleged that Landbridge had “extensive connections” to the Chinese Communist Party and People’s Liberation Army, warning that the lease “compromised Australia’s long-term strategic security”.
However, it is also noteworthy that Australia’s Defence Department had in 2015 reviewed the strategic and operational risks of the deal, including cyberattacks, intellectual property theft, infrastructure degradation, and port shutdowns, and okayed it. Likewise, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) was equally satisfied with the level of due diligence conducted before the lease was approved.
Reconsideration Of The Lease
So, why is security a factor now in the demands behind the reconsideration of the lease?
It is because the geopolitical considerations in 2015 of the Australian security elites have changed. The optimistic perception of China in Australia in 2014 seems to be no longer there today, thanks to Beijing’s increasing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region in recent years.
After all, so runs the argument, every civilian Chinese farm, state-owned or not, and the Landbridge being no exception, has to comply with the ruling Communist Party’s mandates on matters relating to national security. Businesses do constitute a geopolitical cudgel for Beijing.
And that being the case, Darwin’s strategic location is significant as it is Australia’s northernmost maritime facility, situated on the edge of Southeast Asia and the South China Sea.
Maritime forces stationed there can always enjoy a central position just outside the southerly arc of Asia’s first island chain, which runs from Japan through Taiwan, the Philippines, and the Indonesian archipelago before terminating at the Strait of Malacca.
The Sunda and Lombok straits, key alternatives to the Malacca Strait, are within Darwin’s reach. Amid China’s growing assertiveness in the South China Sea, U.S. Marine forces, allies of Australia, have direct access from Darwin, with approximately 2,500 Marines from the I Marine Expeditionary Force rotating through the port annually.
Among other functions, these Marines are also said to be honing tactics for “access denial” while helping beleaguered allies and partners like the Philippines and Taiwan.
In other words, with Darwin occupying such a strategic position, it is argued that Australia and its allies cannot afford to leave the port in Chinese hands.
As James Holmes of the U.S. Naval War College fears, Chinese observers at the port could gather intelligence on the Australian Defense Force and allied comings and goings while abetting net assessment of allied capabilities, tactics, techniques, and procedures.
“In so doing, they help acquaint the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) with potential foes, the first step toward defeating them. Nor is it far-fetched to imagine Chinese port operators slow-rolling—or, more likely, actively hampering—allied military movements and resupply in wartime”.
All these apprehensions, when fitted in the overall framework of China outpacing the developed Western countries in general and the United States in particular in investing in “the port infrastructure around the world”, have further sharpened the geopolitical focus on Darwin.
Incidentally, as per the latest available data, China operates or has ownership in at least one port on every continent except Antarctica. Of the 129 projects, 115 are active, whereas the remaining 14 port projects have become inactive due to cancellation or suspension over environmental concerns, souring of political relations, financial problems, and security issues raised domestically and internationally.
It is said that China has ownership of 91 active port projects across the globe, where military use is a possibility, providing it with a foothold on every continent except Antarctica.
These projects are part of its Maritime Silk Road (MSR). If the American military analysts are to be believed, China’s position of control and influence over the majority of port infrastructure globally poses a significant economic and military security threat to the United States and its allies.
It is feared that China could always use its power to interfere with operations that rely on port access—including military and economic operations that are vital to American interests and those of its allies and partners.
In fact, according to a study, out of the 70 commercial port projects that China has in the “Global South,” which includes Australia, an estimated 55 projects have the potential for naval use as well.
In addition to commercial and military use, China is believed to be using port infrastructure for spying and intelligence gathering. Apparently, a U.S. Congressional probe in 2024 showed communications equipment in Chinese-made cranes at U.S. ports, suggesting vulnerabilities to supply chains, trade data, and other sensitive information.
It is also said that China has secured a commanding position through Logink (also known as the National Transportation and Logistics Public Information Platform), a Chinese state-owned digital logistics platform.
At least 24 ports worldwide reportedly have adopted the Logink system, which could allow China to access significant amounts of confidential information related to transportation, pricing, and management of goods (including military equipment), threatening its rivals’ security.
Given all this, the United States would obviously like Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to keep up his election promise of taking back Darwin from the Chinese hands. But then, it is easier said than done.
Albanese had avoided giving a definite answer when questioned on this during his six-day trip to China, one of Australia’s “strategic partners”, last month.
In any case, China is speaking out vehemently opposing the termination of the lease, terming the move as “ethically questionable.”
Chinese Premier Li Qiang has called for his country’s companies to be treated properly, saying, “We hope that the Australian side can provide a fair, open, and non-discriminatory business environment for Chinese enterprises in Australia”.
But the point is that gone are the days when China was seen in Australia as a benign trade partner. China’s lease of the port is no longer an issue limited to trade; it has become the battleground over Beijing’s overall geopolitical ambitions, something Australia’s ally, the United States, is trying to keep limited.
Is the appointment of Stephen Andrew Feinberg, an American businessman and investor, as the 36th United States deputy secretary of defense by President Donald Trump, the prime reason for Australia considering terminating the Chinese-owned company Landbridge‘s 99-year lease for the strategically important Darwin port?
“Not exactly” could be the answer, though Feinberg’s private equity group Cerberus (he is the founder and co-CEO, but had to resign from the post for joining the Pentagon) is reported to be one of the bidders, along with the Japanese logistics company Toll Group, to buy back the lease from Landbridge.
If done, it will be on the pattern of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison’s proposed sale of Panama Canal ports to Swiss-Italian Mediterranean Shipping Co and BlackRock, following pressure from the Trump Administration over alleged Chinese influence at the vital waterway.
There is also the possibility of Australia not leasing the port to any other country after taking it back from the Landbridge, based on recent statements by Australian politicians. The country will manage the port itself.
Landbridge’s lease has been a controversial issue in Australian politics ever since it was signed on November 15, 2015.
In fact, the debate surrounding the port predates the Trump Presidency. The lease was opposed by even President Barack Obama. But the then Liberal government led by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull gave the go-ahead for the lease. The Labor Party, then in opposition, had opposed the move.
Now in power, Labor has not changed its position, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanes, who got reelected in May this year, asserting during his election-campaign, “ “Obviously we live in an uncertain world at the moment, the idea that you would have the major port in northern Australia owned by any foreign interest is not in Australia’s national interest”.
The Liberals, now in opposition, have also changed their position. They are now against the lease. Thus, there is now a more or less political consensus in Australia against the Darwin port remaining in Chinese hands.
It may be noted that Darwin Port, located in Australia’s Northern Territories (NT), was leased for $506 million by the Landbridge, which is controlled by Chinese billionaire Ye Cheng, who was a member of the national committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a political advisory body, from 2013 to 2018.
The Labor Party, then, had alleged that Landbridge had “extensive connections” to the Chinese Communist Party and People’s Liberation Army, warning that the lease “compromised Australia’s long-term strategic security”.
However, it is also noteworthy that Australia’s Defence Department had in 2015 reviewed the strategic and operational risks of the deal, including cyberattacks, intellectual property theft, infrastructure degradation, and port shutdowns, and okayed it. Likewise, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) was equally satisfied with the level of due diligence conducted before the lease was approved.
Reconsideration Of The Lease
So, why is security a factor now in the demands behind the reconsideration of the lease?
It is because the geopolitical considerations in 2015 of the Australian security elites have changed. The optimistic perception of China in Australia in 2014 seems to be no longer there today, thanks to Beijing’s increasing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region in recent years.
After all, so runs the argument, every civilian Chinese farm, state-owned or not, and the Landbridge being no exception, has to comply with the ruling Communist Party’s mandates on matters relating to national security. Businesses do constitute a geopolitical cudgel for Beijing.
And that being the case, Darwin’s strategic location is significant as it is Australia’s northernmost maritime facility, situated on the edge of Southeast Asia and the South China Sea.
Maritime forces stationed there can always enjoy a central position just outside the southerly arc of Asia’s first island chain, which runs from Japan through Taiwan, the Philippines, and the Indonesian archipelago before terminating at the Strait of Malacca.
The Sunda and Lombok straits, key alternatives to the Malacca Strait, are within Darwin’s reach. Amid China’s growing assertiveness in the South China Sea, U.S. Marine forces, allies of Australia, have direct access from Darwin, with approximately 2,500 Marines from the I Marine Expeditionary Force rotating through the port annually.
Among other functions, these Marines are also said to be honing tactics for “access denial” while helping beleaguered allies and partners like the Philippines and Taiwan.
In other words, with Darwin occupying such a strategic position, it is argued that Australia and its allies cannot afford to leave the port in Chinese hands.
As James Holmes of the U.S. Naval War College fears, Chinese observers at the port could gather intelligence on the Australian Defense Force and allied comings and goings while abetting net assessment of allied capabilities, tactics, techniques, and procedures.
“In so doing, they help acquaint the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) with potential foes, the first step toward defeating them. Nor is it far-fetched to imagine Chinese port operators slow-rolling—or, more likely, actively hampering—allied military movements and resupply in wartime”.
All these apprehensions, when fitted in the overall framework of China outpacing the developed Western countries in general and the United States in particular in investing in “the port infrastructure around the world”, have further sharpened the geopolitical focus on Darwin.
Incidentally, as per the latest available data, China operates or has ownership in at least one port on every continent except Antarctica. Of the 129 projects, 115 are active, whereas the remaining 14 port projects have become inactive due to cancellation or suspension over environmental concerns, souring of political relations, financial problems, and security issues raised domestically and internationally.
It is said that China has ownership of 91 active port projects across the globe, where military use is a possibility, providing it with a foothold on every continent except Antarctica.
These projects are part of its Maritime Silk Road (MSR). If the American military analysts are to be believed, China’s position of control and influence over the majority of port infrastructure globally poses a significant economic and military security threat to the United States and its allies.
It is feared that China could always use its power to interfere with operations that rely on port access—including military and economic operations that are vital to American interests and those of its allies and partners.
In fact, according to a study, out of the 70 commercial port projects that China has in the “Global South,” which includes Australia, an estimated 55 projects have the potential for naval use as well.
In addition to commercial and military use, China is believed to be using port infrastructure for spying and intelligence gathering. Apparently, a U.S. Congressional probe in 2024 showed communications equipment in Chinese-made cranes at U.S. ports, suggesting vulnerabilities to supply chains, trade data, and other sensitive information.
It is also said that China has secured a commanding position through Logink (also known as the National Transportation and Logistics Public Information Platform), a Chinese state-owned digital logistics platform.
At least 24 ports worldwide reportedly have adopted the Logink system, which could allow China to access significant amounts of confidential information related to transportation, pricing, and management of goods (including military equipment), threatening its rivals’ security.
Given all this, the United States would obviously like Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to keep up his election promise of taking back Darwin from the Chinese hands. But then, it is easier said than done.
Albanese had avoided giving a definite answer when questioned on this during his six-day trip to China, one of Australia’s “strategic partners”, last month.
In any case, China is speaking out vehemently opposing the termination of the lease, terming the move as “ethically questionable.”
Chinese Premier Li Qiang has called for his country’s companies to be treated properly, saying, “We hope that the Australian side can provide a fair, open, and non-discriminatory business environment for Chinese enterprises in Australia”.
But the point is that gone are the days when China was seen in Australia as a benign trade partner. China’s lease of the port is no longer an issue limited to trade; it has become the battleground over Beijing’s overall geopolitical ambitions, something Australia’s ally, the United States, is trying to keep limited.
5 days ago
