China Warns Australia Over Darwin Port Takeback in Diplomatic Row

China has issued a strong diplomatic warning to Australia over its intention to reclaim control of the strategically important Port of Darwin, currently leased to a Chinese-owned company. China's ambassador criticized the move, framing it as a breach of contract and warning of measures to protect the Chinese firm's interests. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has reaffirmed the government's commitment to bringing the port back under national control, citing the national interest. The dispute highlights broader geopolitical tensions in the Indo-Pacific, balancing economic ties with security concerns.

Key Points: China-Australia Diplomatic Row Over Darwin Port Control

  • China issues diplomatic warning
  • Port leased to Chinese firm in 2015
  • Australia cites national security for repossession
  • Row reflects wider Indo-Pacific tensions
3 min read

China escalates diplomatic row with Australia over Darwin port control

China warns Australia against reclaiming Port of Darwin from Chinese firm, threatening measures to protect its interests and economic ties.

"When you're losing money, you want to lease it to a foreign company, and when it's making money, you want to take it back? - Xiao Qian"

Beijing, January 29

China has issued a strong diplomatic warning to Australia over the latter's intention to take back control of the strategically important Port of Darwin, a key northern facility currently leased to a Chinese-owned company under a long-term agreement, reported Al Jazeera.

The dispute further strains relations between Canberra and Beijing, already challenged by broader tensions on security and trade.

China's ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, told reporters this week that Beijing views Australia's push to reclaim the port as "no way to do business" and warned Canberra against altering the status of the lease, which has been in place since 2015. He complained that Australia wanted to reverse the arrangement: "When you're losing money, you want to lease it to a foreign company, and when it's making money, you want to take it back?"- a comment that encapsulates Beijing's ire at the policy shift.

The Port of Darwin, located in Australia's Northern Territory, was leased for 99 years to the Landbridge Group, a company owned by Chinese billionaire Ye Cheng, with the aim of boosting local economic activity through expanded trade operations. However, the lease has been controversial in Australia due to concerns over national security and foreign influence, particularly given the port's proximity to Asia and its use for allied military logistics.

Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has reiterated his government's commitment to bringing the port back under Australian ownership, arguing that control of such critical infrastructure is in the "national interest." He reaffirmed this stance during a visit to East Timor, saying Australia was determined to ensure the port "goes back into Australian hands."

In response, Ambassador Xiao warned that Beijing would "take measures to protect the Chinese company's interests" if Canberra pursued forced changes to the lease, without specifying what actions might be taken. He also suggested that such a move could have broader implications for Chinese investment, cooperation and trade with the region, framing the potential repossession as detrimental to economic ties.

Official statements from Beijing's foreign ministry have underscored that Landbridge acquired the lease through market mechanisms and that its legitimate rights and interests should be protected. China has called for Australia to honour the contractual arrangement, emphasising the importance of a transparent and stable business environment for foreign enterprises.

The row over Darwin Port reflects wider geopolitical tensions in the Indo-Pacific, where issues of sovereignty, economic influence and strategic positioning are increasingly defining relations between China and regional partners like Australia. As discussions continue, both sides face pressure to balance economic interests with national security considerations and diplomatic engagement.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

S
Sarah B
The Chinese ambassador's point about the lease being profitable now is interesting. It does seem like a business risk the Australian government took. But security concerns in today's world are very real. Tough situation.
P
Priyanka N
This is a classic case of economic leverage vs. national security. Australia is right to be cautious. We've seen similar patterns in our region. A 99-year lease on a strategic port near military bases? That's a huge commitment to reverse. 🤔
A
Aman W
Respectfully, I think Australia is sending mixed signals. If the contract was signed in good faith, they should honour it. Changing rules mid-way sets a bad precedent for global business. Stability is key for investment.
K
Karthik V
The world has changed a lot since 2015. Geopolitical realities evolve. What seemed like a purely commercial deal then might be a security threat now. Australia is just adapting, like all nations must. Full support to PM Albanese on this.
M
Michael C
Watching this from India, it's a stark reminder. We must be extremely careful with long-term leases of strategic assets to foreign entities, especially state-linked ones. Sovereignty isn't negotiable. 🇮🇳

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50