摘要：Despite criticisms, the Australian government is working to end Chinese firm Landbridge Group's control over Darwin Port, insistin

The Darwin Port in the Northern Territory, Australia. [Photo/Xinhua]

Editor's note:CGTN's First Voice provides instant commentary on breaking stories. The column clarifies emerging issues and better defines the news agenda, offering a Chinese perspective on the latest global events.

Despite criticisms, the Australian government is working to end Chinese firm Landbridge Group's control over Darwin Port, insisting the port needed to be "in Australian hands."

While framed by Canberra as a necessary step to safeguard national interests, this decision is more politically motivated than grounded in sound economic or legal principles. It is ethically questionable, economically counterproductive and damaging to the bilateral relationship between China and Australia.

The 99-year lease of Darwin Port to Landbridge Group was secured in 2015 through an open and transparent bidding process approved by the Northern Territory government. The lease was not a covert or suspicious transaction but a legitimate commercial agreement that complied with Australian laws and procedures.

Landbridge has since made substantial investments in maintaining and expanding the port's capabilities, contributing positively to the local economy and employment.

"Such an enterprise and project deserves encouragement, not punishment. It is ethically questionable to lease the port when it was unprofitable and then seek to reclaim it once it becomes profitable," China's ambassador to Canberra, Xiao Qian, denounced Australia's decision on the port.

The Australian government's justification for reclaiming the port centers on national security concerns, citing the port's strategic location as a northern gateway and a base for U.S. marines. However, this narrative overlooks the fact that the port has operated under Chinese management for nearly a decade without reported security breaches or operational issues.

The port's importance to Australia's economy and security is undeniable, but the assumption that Chinese ownership inherently threatens these interests is a politically charged assertion rather than an evidence-based conclusion.

A bird's eye view of Darwin Port's cargo wharf in Australia. [Photo/Xinhua]

This shift in framing – from economic opportunity to national security threat – reflects broader geopolitical tensions. The decision to forcibly reclaim the port is apparently influenced more by external pressures, particularly from the United States and domestic political considerations.

Indeed, when it was signed, Washington expressed dissatisfaction about the original lease in 2015. In recent years, the United States has steadily escalated its Military presence in Darwin, maintaining a permanent and rotating deployment of marine forces, while upgrading and expanding military bases.

For Washington, the aim is to advance its military posture in northern Australia and transform the region into a strategic frontline of the Indo-Pacific.

Forcibly terminating a 99-year lease agreement poses significant legal and financial risks for Australia. It is worth noting that Landbridge paid A$506 million ($328 million) for the lease and may seek compensation if the contract is broken prematurely. The company has indicated openness to offers around A$1 billion ($650 million), reflecting the port's increased value.

Such a forced buyback would not only be costly but could also damage Australia's reputation as a reliable destination for foreign investment. The principle of honoring contracts is a cornerstone of international business and diplomacy. Undermining this principle raises the risks of creating a climate of uncertainty that deters future foreign investment in Australia.

The move could set a dangerous precedent for international business dealings in Australia. If contracts can be overturned due to shifting political winds, foreign investors will face heightened risks, reducing foreign direct investment and economic isolation. This is particularly detrimental given China's role as Australia's key economic partner.

Worse still, once the port is partially or fully converted for military purposes, the local economy will be subordinated to military strategy. Military exercises, fleet resupply and strategic stockpiling will displace routine port operations and logistics. As a result, local industries and livelihoods will face significant disruption.

Instead of politicizing the project, the Australian government needs to view it objectively. As comprehensive strategic partners, China and Australia should foster mutual trust, as Xiao stressed, as mutually beneficial cooperation aligns with shared interests. Politicizing economic agreements is not in the interest of Australia in the long run.

来源：中国网一点号