Inside the Australian port at the heart of China-US power struggle
Written in large letters high above the entrance are the words 'Landbridge Darwin Port' in Chinese.
One part of the harbour here – the largest in Australia's largely uninhabited northern coast – hosts the key naval base HMAS Coonawarra, where some of the world's largest warships have docked, including, most recently, the UK's HMS Prince of Wales.
The other part, however, is occupied under a 99-year lease by Landbridge Group, a Chinese company whose billionaire owner, Ye Chang, has close ties to the ruling communist party.
The Australian government has been working behind the scenes to bring the port under domestic control amid growing fears of a war in the Indo-Pacific. It would be central to any future conflict between China and Taiwan.
And as one UK defence source told The Telegraph this week, threat levels in the Indo-Pacific are the 'highest in the world'.
A Telegraph request to visit the commercial port was denied by the Chinese owners. When we approached the gates and asked to enter, we were turned away.
The ownership of the commercial port has been embroiled in controversy since the lease was signed in 2015.
Successive Australian governments have highlighted the risks of a Chinese company controlling such a strategically important military asset, and have vowed to bring it back under Australian control, but to little avail.
The presence of a Chinese company with prying eyes stationed so close to the naval base has meant the US and Australia have been concerned about expanding their military operations at Darwin. They don't want to run the risk of classified intelligence or military assets – such as fighter jet parts - being handled by a Chinese-owned port operator.
For now, China, maintains the upper hand over the port through Landbridge. That, however, hasn't stopped the US and its allies from building up their presence elsewhere in Darwin as part of a greater strategy to spread out and reinforce troops across the Indo-Pacific.
'Darwin is the front door for Australia and our military into the region,' Michael Shorbridge, a former Australian intelligence officer, said.
Location key to preventing war
Darwin's strategic role in the Indo-Pacific has long been on display during Australia's annual military exercises known as Talisman Sabre. This year, the drills were the largest yet, with tens of thousands of troops involved from 19 countries, including the US and the UK.
Vice Admiral Justin Jones, the chief of joint operations with the Australian Defence Force, said over the weekend that one of the objectives of the exercises was to 'test our posture' by 'force flowing all of those 42,000 people and assets into the country and out again'.
Darwin's significance isn't only hypothetical – building up capabilities in Darwin and elsewhere in the region could be key to preventing a war over Taiwan altogether. China, which claims sovereignty over Taiwan, has threatened to use force to 'reunify the motherland'.
The government in Taipei strongly rejects Beijing's claims, but persistent threats and increasing use of coercion by Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, have turned the Indo-Pacific into one of the world's most highly anticipated flashpoints.
'A key part of the foreign policy… is to stop a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan in the first place by deterring it and all the bases throughout the Pacific are a means of providing that deterrent effect,' said Neil James, the executive director of the watchdog organisation Australia Defence Association.
However, if deterrence doesn't work, Darwin's strategic location would make it invaluable to the US and its allies in a potential conflict.
While US bases in Japan, the Philippines and Guam would be closer to any such conflict, it would not be advantageous to have all assets stationed close to the front line.
'Darwin is one of a string of pearls for the US and allies to use…There isn't one magical answer. The strategy of dispersal is to complicate China's planning by having multiple ports and bases to operate from,' said Mr Shoebridge, who now works as director of Strategic Analysis Australia, a think tank.
While Darwin is closer to the Indo-Pacific than the continental US or Europe, at close to 3,000 miles from the Taiwan Strait, it is still far enough away to remain protected in a conflict.
It would also provide an optimal base from which the US and allies could resupply and refuel.
'If you think about a protracted war, the United States needs military assets and supplies that are further away from north-east Asia, and Australia would be the centre of the depth and strategy that the US and allies need to have,' said John Lee, a senior fellow at the US-based Hudson Institute and a former Australian national security adviser.
US marines prepare for escalation
With its location at the southern tip of the Indo-Pacific, The US has long recognised the strategic value in Darwin's location at the southern tip of the Indo-Pacific.
Since 2012, the US military has partnered with Australia's military to host a programme known as Marine Rotational Force-Darwin (MRF-D). US marines are deployed to Darwin for half the year to train in the Pacific alongside Australian counterparts and better prepare for any conflict.
At a static training session at Robertson Barracks, about a 30-minute drive from central Darwin, The Telegraph watched as the marines learned how to use different guns, including mortars, machine guns and Sabre missile systems, that can fire as far as 4,500 metres.
It's a rare opportunity for marines from different platoons to learn how to use weapon systems that they wouldn't normally employ.
Normally, platoons are only taught how to operate one type of weapon until much later on in their service. This training – being taught for the first time this year – is unique to MRF-D and a testament to the US military's investment in Darwin.
'It's about making sure that all the facilities, the customs and port and government arrangements that allow US forces to operate easily through Australia are in place and smooth and practised,' said Mr Shoebridge. 'So that they're not doing it for the first time during a conflict or crisis.'
MRF-D started with the deployment of only 200 marines but it has grown to a deployment of 2,500 personnel with a full command element, which is indicative of the 'shift towards the Pacific', said Capt Johnny Fischer, MRF-D's director of communication strategy and operations.
While Capt Fischer isn't able to speak about specific scenarios or conflicts, he told The Telegraph that this year was the first time that the marines had a 'persistent presence in the Philippines', further evidence of the pivot to the Indo-Pacific.
MRF-D participated in both Balikatan and Kamandag, two joint US-Philippines major military drills held annually in the Philippines, and has also been expanding its joint training with Philippine Marine Corps as well as Japan's Ground Defence Forces.
'This is the most dynamic, complex and forward-postured MRF-D in the 14 years that the rotation has been coming out here,' said Capt Fischer.
China watching closely
While efforts are being made by the US, Australia and allies to build up Darwin's capacity and capabilities, experts say that it remains inherently limited by China's involvement in the critically important port.
However, there have been several government-led reviews into the risk level and so far all have determined that the 'there is a robust regulatory system in place to manage risks' and it is therefore 'not necessary to vary or cancel the lease'.
Terry O'Connor, the non-executive director for Landbridge in Australia, told The Telegraph that these reviews 'reaffirm our position that there is no basis for security concerns given the port is operated as a commercial enterprise in accordance with Australian law and the port transaction documents'.
Military veterans stress, though, that these investigations tend to only look at factors such as espionage and surveillance, and don't account for the ability to develop the port as well as its use in a potential conflict.
'This is not about sneaky, nefarious people crawling around the port in Darwin. This is about the opportunity cost to Australia's military and our military partners and allies in not being able to use this piece of prime port real estate in the middle of Darwin harbour,' explained Mr Shoebridge.
While Darwin harbour is not as large as other ports in Australia, it's the largest on the north coast and the commercial portion that is operated by Landbridge is in deeper waters and therefore more strategically valuable.
'Our partners and allies don't want to risk classified items being subject to handling by a Chinese-owned port operator, so we're not able to use the best port facility in Darwin to maximum effect,' said Mr Shoebridge.
'If you've got parts for an F-35 that are coming in via ship and you're going to move them through the port, you've got a chain of custody problem with who handles these highly controlled, top secret items. The last thing you want to do is give potential insights to a potential adversary like the Chinese military.'
Those in favour of Landbridge's management, have also pointed out that Australian law stipulates that in the event of a war, the government is able to take back control of the port, but Mr James notes that this would be too little, too late.
'If we decide that Chinese control of the port is not a good idea and we try to rescind the lease, that is going to be escalatory,' he said.
'We're better off taking the port back as soon as we can to avoid that future escalatory risk.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
Summer riots could happen again, says police watchdog
There is 'every possibility' of a repeat of the 2024 summer riots, the police watchdog has warned, as a poll exposed ongoing deep divisions in society. Writing for The Telegraph, Sir Andy Cooke, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, warned that factors which fuelled last summer's riots remained including community tensions, online misinformation and social media platforms that allowed hatred to be 'amplified'. He said this meant police forces had to be prepared and must not 'be caught off-guard' as they were last year when his inspectorate found that they failed to mobilise fast enough nationally, missed intelligence that would have enabled them to predict the rising threat and not got to grips with the powerful role of social media. His warning comes as an Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults revealed more than four in five (81 per cent) believe Britain is a divided society. Asked to identify the biggest source of tensions, more than six in 10 (61 per cent) cited divisions between 'immigrants and people born in Britain'. This was up from 52 per cent last year before the Southport attacks and summer riots. Eight in 10 also said they were concerned about people 'resorting to violence' to solve disagreements. That was an increase from 71 per cent in July 2024 before Axel Rudakubana murdered three girls attending a dance class in Southport. This summer has already seen violence break out at a protest over asylum seekers being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, after the arrest and charging of an asylum seeker at the hotel with allegedly attempting to kiss a 14-year-old girl. Protests against asylum hotels have since extended to locations across the country. Sir Andy said his inspectorate's investigations into last year's riots found no evidence of 'deliberate premeditation by organised groups'. Instead it was mostly disaffected people, influencers or groups that incited people to act violently and take part in the disorder, rather than criminal factions or extremists. 'But social media and online platforms amplified false narratives and incited participation at a pace that traditional policing approaches simply could not match,' he said, adding that police had not kept pace with the 'fast-developing nature of online communications' which meant they were unprepared. This, combined with a delay in mobilising nationally and intelligence failings, weakened forces' responses. 'The police service should not be caught off-guard again,' said Sir Andy. 'There is every possibility that similar violence could reoccur, and this fact should not be shied away from. Online misinformation continues to spread. Community tensions persist. 'The tools that amplified hatred during the summer of 2024 remain largely unchanged and largely unregulated. While not every tragedy can be prevented, forces must be better prepared for what follows. The police service must modernise its understanding of how disorder develops and spreads in the digital age. 'Forces must strengthen their connections with the communities they serve, and focus on building the trust and understanding that can help prevent tensions from escalating into violence. 'The loss of these three young lives was a tragedy beyond comprehension. As we remember them, let us make sure that the lessons are learned and changes implemented. The safety of our communities depends on it.' The poll found older people are more likely to believe Britain is divided. Nine in 10 (91 per cent) of those aged 55 to 75 think British society is split, versus 69 per cent of 16 to 34-year-olds. Reform UK voters (90 per cent) are the most likely to see society as divided versus 78 per cent for Labour and 82 per cent Tory. The 61 per cent who now believe the biggest source of tension is between immigrants and British people is a marked increase from 2019, the year of Boris Johnson's election victory. Then it was just 40 per cent before rising to 52 per cent last year before the riots. Four in 10 (40 per cent) cited tensions between ethnicities as the next biggest source of tensions, followed by 38 per cent saying the differences between rich and poor and 37 per cent referenced religions. More than three-quarters of Britons (78 per cent) were concerned about acts of violence throwing the country into chaos, suggesting that the murders of the three young girls by Rudakubana, for which he received a life sentence, has left an indelible scar on the nation. The public is critical of the role of political leaders in healing the divides that they perceive in society. A clear majority (58 per cent) believe that 'politicians in general' are doing a bad job at encouraging people from different backgrounds and with different beliefs to get on well together. Social media companies are also viewed negatively, with half (50 per cent) stating they are doing a bad job. Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, is seen as doing a bad job by 47 per cent of the public, while 45 per cent say the same of Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader. The most pressing worries for the public remain the state of the British economy (85 per cent are concerned) and the state of British public services (83 per cent concerned). Three-quarters (76 per cent) said that the rise of religious extremism was a concern, similar to August 2024 just after the Southport attacks and riots. Just under three-quarters (72 per cent) were concerned about the rise of small boat crossings and illegal immigration. Gideon Skinner, senior director of UK politics at Ipsos, said: 'There is a clear and growing anxiety about the potential for violence to replace peaceful debate. 'The challenge for political leaders, who the public feel are currently failing to bridge these gaps, is to address these fears and find a way to foster greater social cohesion.' 'We must not be caught off-guard again' By Sir Andy Cooke A year has passed since violent widespread disorder erupted in towns and cities across the UK. It was sparked by the murders of three young girls in Southport: Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Alice da Silva Aguiar. As we remember their lives and the profound grief their families continue to endure, we also reflect on the violence that broke out in the days that followed. Many of the people who took to the streets participated in unlawful and serious violence and disorder, not peaceful protests. Those who took part in the disorder put communities in fear by damaging property, targeting religious buildings and attacking people's homes. This put the emergency services under significant pressure, including the police whom offenders targeted deliberately. Officers displayed bravery in the face of extreme violence that was utterly shameful and unacceptable. Many police officers sustained injuries, and some were hospitalised. It is to their enormous credit that they kept the public safe. Over the past year, the inspectorate has conducted a comprehensive review of the police response to this disorder. Our findings, published in two tranches, reveal both the unrelenting courage of police officers who kept the public safe under immense pressure, and the critical gaps that left forces unprepared for the scale and nature of the violence they faced. We found no evidence of deliberate premeditation by organised groups. It was mostly disaffected people, influencers or groups that incited people to act violently and take part in disorder, rather than criminal factions or extremists. But social media and online platforms amplified false narratives and incited participation at a pace that traditional policing approaches simply could not match. The causes of the disorder were complex, but the overwhelming speed and volume of online content further fuelled its spread. The police service, despite the dedication and professionalism of individual officers, simply hasn't kept pace with the fast-developing nature of online communications. And forces were not equipped to deal with the repercussions as the disorder rapidly unfolded. The national mobilisation plan was activated too late. Intelligence systems failed to adequately predict the rising threat. Most concerning of all, forces had not learned sufficiently from previous instances of disorder, including the need to react to changing public sentiment. At a time of national emergency, the police intelligence strategy – necessary for forces to respond effectively – should be clear and obvious to all. 'Vital that we learn from these events' The recommendations in my reports are a starting point. But it is vital that forces learn from these events, and strengthen their response to future instances of disorder to make sure the public are kept safe. In my review, I urged the police service to improve its disorder-related intelligence systems and processes. It is positive to see that the police have worked with others to improve the provision of intelligence to national and local commanders. The National Police Chiefs Council have set up three new central teams that will allow them to better identify and quantify threats and provide support to local forces to target those intent on disorder. Nationally, the police are now better able to analyse data and deliver information quickly and accurately to seize the narrative from those that spread mis and disinformation. And just recently, we saw what can be achieved when forces adapt their approach. In Liverpool, when faced with tensions after a car drove through crowds of football supporters, Merseyside Police immediately acted on one of our recommendations from our rapid review. It quickly and proactively took the decision to provide information about the suspect involved. This early communication helped prevent the spread of false narratives and likely prevented further disorder. And the way Merseyside Police handled the release of information shows just how effective, when used in the right circumstances, this approach can be. I am also encouraged by the work done by the police, the Government and other law enforcement agencies to develop a joint national approach to disorder-related intelligence. These arrangements help to make sure mobilisation happens quickly and provides national police commanders with the intelligence they need. In turn, this helps them to make good and timely decisions that protect the public. The police service should not be caught off-guard again. There is every possibility that similar violence could reoccur, and this fact should not be shied away from. Online misinformation continues to spread. Community tensions persist. The tools that amplified hatred during the summer of 2024 remain largely unchanged and largely unregulated. While not every tragedy can be prevented, forces must be better prepared for what follows. The police service must modernise its understanding of how disorder develops and spreads in the digital age. Forces must strengthen their connections with the communities they serve, and focus on building the trust and understanding that can help prevent tensions from escalating into violence. The loss of these three young lives was a tragedy beyond comprehension. As we remember them, let us make sure that the lessons are learned and changes implemented. The safety of our communities depends on it.
Daily Mirror
10 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
'I'm 38 and live in a retirement village - I can't believe how cheap the rent is'
These days, the cost of living is much worse for Gen Zers and Millennials than it was for their parents or grandparents, so it's perhaps no surprise that some people are turning to unusual ways to cut costs. Rising rents, soaring bills and food inflation are leaving many people with a lot less money in their pockets, but one woman has found a way to save money by moving into her local retirement village. 'I get mixed reactions every time I tell people I live in a retirement village,' Alice Amayu writes in Business Insider. "Some people just laugh it off because they don't understand how I came to that decision." It comes as an estate agent issu es five warnings signs to look out for when buying a house' Alice continues: "Some ask, 'Isn't that depressing?' while some family members initially thought I was way too young to live around seniors. I get it — it's not typical to find a 30-something in a retirement village. But every Wednesday morning when I join my silver-haired neighbours for a game of bingo, I realize it's the best decision I've ever made.' Before she took the plunge and moved into a retirement village, Alice had moved out of the home she shared with her ex-partner and had been living in an Airbnb, which was proving costly. Then one weekend, she mentioned she was househunting while visiting her aunt at her retirement village, who told her there was a home available just around the corner. 'I didn't see how I could get into the retirement village when there was an age stipulation, but she assured me they had made exceptions before,' she continues. 'She was confident, and told me the village's homeowners' association reviewed applications on a case-by-case basis.' That was over a year ago and although she initially saw it as a stepping stone she says she's so happy she'll be staying put. And not only has Alice learnt how to be a better friend and neighbour, but she is also saving a fortune - because rent for her two-bedroom apartment is 500 Australian dollars, inclusive of the service fee. That's much less than the going rate for most apartments of the same size in Melbourne, where a two-bedroom typically goes for AU$2800 to AU$3200. 'My days often start the same way,' she added. 'I'm woken up by the faint sound of my neighbour's golden oldies. I drink coffee while reading the newspaper, enjoy a walk, and watch the occasional cat sunbathing. "As members of the village strive to stay fit and have fun, I've joined chair yoga classes, cycled now and then, attended bingo at the clubhouse every Wednesday, and spent my afternoons freelancing. 'Evenings are also simple. I walk to the nearby grocery store or diner, bake, or sit on the porch and go down memory lane in unending conversations. I've been living in the retirement village for a little over a year. I've stopped considering it a stepping stone to a better place, and I now see it as my home. "I've never felt out of place, and living around people who are not in a rush to live life or consumed by tech has been great for my mental health. It's a kind of haven. "My neighbours talk about their life experiences, the books they've read, the jobs they miss, and offer unsolicited yet meaningful advice. My new home has reshaped my life ambitions and the way I view aging. "I've found immense peace here, and it's my definition of a wonderful life. It's comforting to know that the 70s and 80s aren't so bad after all. As I've learned from those around me, you can still have agency, volunteer, make friends, and start new hobbies, no matter your age."
Scotsman
11 hours ago
- Scotsman
Why Labour's Ed Miliband is moving too quickly towards end of North Sea oil and gas
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... In the days before he was Secretary of State for Energy, Ed Miliband once described me to a group of people as his 'lift buddy'. As his office was then directly above mine, it was where we bumped into each other. Our conversations were generally about energy, and while we agreed on the need for change, we tended to differ on how, and how quickly. For me, energy security and employment, never mind keeping the lights on, are key. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I think it's fair to describe the Energy Secretary as favouring a speedier end to all oil production. In recent days, the topic has begun to dominate the airwaves as golf course entrepreneur and US President Donald Trump, and then environment charities, threw scorn on developments of offshore wind farms. Unlikely bedfellows, and although their reasons are very different, they reflect a growing unease. READ MORE: Chancellor Rachel Reeves defends windfall tax on oil and gas giants on visit to Scotland Ed Miliband tours Balltech Engineering Solutions, which specialises in offshore wind as well as oil and gas engineering, in Morecambe (Picture: Christopher Furlong) | Getty Images For Trump there is the dual scourge of spoiling the view from his controversial golf developments on a previous Site of Special Scientific Interest on the Aberdeenshire coast, and going against his 'drill baby drill' philosophy. For his former environmental opponents, it is about protecting wildlife. While I have a lot of sympathy with the latter, I also agree with those pointing to the irony of our growing dependence on gas imports rather than using our own. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Add that to the concerns that Chinese involvement in, and control of, windfarm facilities might threaten our energy security and it seems the future picture is far from universally agreed. Oil and gas supporters have long warned that premature shutdown of the North Sea would mean importing carbon fuels from countries with fewer safeguards and damaging our carbon footprint in the process. This week their argument has been given fresh impetus as government figures show UK gas imports grew by 20 per cent between January and March this year. With damaging price increases caused by our dependence on Russian gas supplies at the outbreak of war in Ukraine still fresh in the public memory, reliance on any foreign source feels risky and even unnecessary. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Will this autumn's Budget signal a change of direction from Downing Street? The Climate Change Committee has estimated that between 13 and 15 billion barrels of oil and gas could still be needed while we work towards net zero. Experts reckon that our domestic production could only fulfil about one third of that. If it could be doubled, it would not only reduce our foreign dependence, but industry lobby group Offshore Energy UK claim it could raise more than £160 billion of useful revenue. There is no simple or cheap solution. Shutting down the North Sea now might seem on the surface like the best way to ensure net zero, but it brings a host of other obstacles to overcome. Conversely, continuing to depend too heavily on a naturally declining basin would not only delay net zero but wouldn't guarantee cheaper energy. Getting the balance right will be the key and right now I am not sure that we have it right, either to protect the climate or help the Exchequer stabilise our economy and create growth. Once the UK Parliament returns, I will be looking to my lift buddy to navigate the best route forward.
