Darwin port’s sale is a blueprint for China’s future economic expansion



File 20181206 186085 1rjr608.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Darwin Port, leased to Landbridge Industry Australia, a subsidiary of Shandong Landbridge, for 99 years.
John Garrick, CC BY-SA

John Garrick, Charles Darwin University

An agreement between Darwin’s city council and an overseas municipal counterpart normally wouldn’t attract much attention. Local government officials love signing such deals. Darwin already has no less than six “sister city” arrangements, including with the Chinese city of Haikou.

But attention has been drawn to Darwin’s newly minted “friendship” deal with Yuexiu District, in Guangzhou, due to Chinese media describing it as part of President Xi Jinping’s signature Belt and Road Initiative.

This suggests Chinese authorities regard Darwin as having strategic significance.

It invites reflection on the wisdom, three years ago, of the Northern Territory government deciding to lease the Port of Darwin (now known as Darwin Port) to a Chinese company for 99 years – and of the federal government going along with it.

At the time the new owner, billionaire Ye Cheng, claimed the Darwin port deal was “our involvement in One Belt, One Road”. This was discounted by some commentators as hyperbole, an attempt to curry favour with the Chinese government.

But now, by design or not, the Darwin port deal increasingly looks like a blueprint for how Chinese interests can take control of foreign ports – as it is doing by various means around the world – without arousing local opposition. Quite the reverse. All levels of Australian government have encouraged it.

It makes Darwin an interesting case study – a point of contest between the strategies of the US and China. Darwin’s port is under Chinese control, while thousands of US marines are based in the city, as part of the US “Pacific pivot” seen by many as an effort to contain China’s influence in the region.


CC BY-ND

How the port deal was done

The deal to lease parts of the port followed successive federal governments refusing to fund necessary upgrading of the port’s infrastructure to meet growing demand.

Infrastucture Australia advised privatisation. Rather than sell outright, the territory government decided to lease the port, and sell a controlling stake in the port’s operator.

Landbridge Australia, a subsidiary of Shandong Landbridge, won the 99-year lease with its bid of A$506 million in November 2015.

Shandong Landbridge has substantial and varied interests including port logistics and petrochemicals. Though privately owned, like many Chinese companies it has strong ties to the ruling Chinese Communist Party.

The company knows how to cultivate political connections. In Australia it gave influential Liberal Party figure and former trade minister Andrew Robb an $880,000 job just months after he retired from parliament.




Read more:
Chinese influence compromises the integrity of our politics


The bid for the port was examined and approved by the Foreign Investments Review Board, the Defence Department and ASIO.

Strategic importance

But the deal put Darwin directly in the crossfire between US and Chinese interests. Then US president Barack Obama expressed concern about the lack of consultation. Former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage said he was “stunned” that Australia had “blind-sided” its ally.

While the centre of US-Chinese tensions is the South China Sea – where China has militarised reefs in disputed waters – Darwin is important because it is the southern flank of US operations in the Pacific.

Managing the tensions

Zhang Jie, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, wrote in 2015 about the concept of “first civilian, later military” – in which commercial ports are to be built with the goal of slowly being developed into “strategic support points” – to assist China defending maritime channel security and control key waterways.

Military-civilian integration was among the goals China set in its 13th five-year plan for 2016-20. President Xi subsequently established an integration committee to oversee civilian and military investment in technology.

As with other Chinese port acquisitions, such as in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Greece and Djibouti, Landbridge is interested in acquiring and developing not only Darwin’s port facilities but nearby waterfront property.

But the Darwin port deal differs in significant ways to other port acquisitions.

It is a far cry from the “debt-trap colonialism” China stands accused of using to gain leverage over other foreign governments, such as Sri Lanka and Nepal.




Read more:
Soft power goes hard: China’s economic interest in the Pacific comes with strings attached


Landbridge has bought the lease, rather than a Chinese bank lending funds to the Northern Territory government to develop the port. If Landbridge was to default, it would lose its money. Any attempt by Landbridge to use the port as security to borrow money from a Chinese bank would trigger renegotiation of the lease.

The territory government retains a 20% stake in the port operator and has a say in key appointments such as the chief executive and chief financial officer. But it will not share any profit that Landbridge may eventually make.

That potential is a long way off. Landbridge Australia reported a loss of A$31 million for the 2017 financial year, with its total borrowings rising to A$463 million. If the deal falls over, the government will need to seek new equity partners. But its immediate commercial risks are relatively contained.

Other risks

Yet risk exposure may take other forms. China’s strategy is very long-term. Darwin is now on the front line in managing tensions between Australia’s most important strategic ally and partner and its major trading partner. Balancing between powerful friends with competing interests may not prove easy.




Read more:
The risks of a new Cold War between the US and China are real: here’s why


There are indications of some recognition of this at the federal level. Australia’s foreign investment review processes have been tightened. A Critical Infrastructure Centre has been created to give extra national security advice. There has been some tweaking of rules about political parties accepting foreign donations.

But others may have learnt valuable lessons too.

Weaknesses in Australian governments at all levels have been revealed. They have been reactive, readily accepting the lure of pearls cast on our shores without considering longer-term currents. Foreign and strategic policy has effectively been left to the local level. While the federal government now seeks to shore up its interests in the Pacific with cash for infrastructure, similar commitments to investing in local infrastructure are essential.

Clumsiness and indecision do not serve Australian interests well.The Conversation

John Garrick, Senior Lecturer, Business Law, Charles Darwin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisements

Clowns in the Church – A Growing Problem!


The link that follows this post is to a story in the Edmonton Journal about a ‘church’ service held at the McClure United Church. The article relates how the service was run by clowns (it could be argued – in more ways than one), including the minister as a clown, the Lord’s Supper being mimed and a so-called ‘liturgical dance,’ whatever that means. In short, this is an example of another ‘church’ that has lost its way.

The article seems to suggest that there was another great event in the church as well – at another service children bounced balloons around the building as the minister read about the place of balloons in worship from a very ‘authorative’ book on Christian worship by Ann Weems, called ‘Balloons Belong in Church.’ It would seem that the true blueprint for Christian worship has been put aside at McClure United Church. Then there was the Wednesday Worship Hour that was spiced up by the Hawaii Night theme, complete with dress up and limbo contest – all very sad and tragic.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/religion/story.html?id=ee99d69a-dcdd-49f1-8fa4-5d8dce943270&k=38899

LORD’S SUPPER SERIES: 1. THE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER – 1 Corinthians 11:23-26


Please Read 1 Corinthians 11

This morning we turn our attention to the Lord’s Supper, this being the day on which we come together as a church to actually celebrate the Lord’s Supper together.

I do not know what your experience of past Lord’s Supper’s has been, but I do know what mine have been like, and I have been far from satisfied with what has been practiced on most occasions.

Often times the Supper is tacked onto the end of a service, as though it were a necessary evil that we have to go through in order to do things right. Generally speaking it seems to be celebrated as an empty ritual, with many people just going through the motions, even relieved when it is over.

As a reforming church, it is important for us to consider the Lord’s Supper and to see whether our approach to it is in need of a change. Are we measuring up to the Biblical Lord’s Supper, or are we pursuing something that is merely a traditional way of doing things?

John Calvin in his commentary on this portion of Scripture says,

‘This passage ought to be carefully studied, for it shows that the only remedy for removing and correcting corruptions is to get back to the unadulterated institution of God.’

And this is our aim here in this place, to reform after the pattern of scripture, and so over the course of this year we will devote ourselves to this passage which is so full of instruction concerning the Lord’s Supper. May the Lord be our Teacher, and His Word our textbook.

 

1. The Importance of Proper Form

When we come together for the Lord’s Supper are our meetings doing more harm than good? This is a question that we need to ask ourselves in all seriousness. This is something which was actually the case with the Corinthian church, ‘Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. (11:17).’

What a terrible indictment for a church! We need to be sure that this is not the case with us, so we need to examine this passage this morning to see what it has to tell us as regards the way we ought to observe this Supper.

The first thing that strikes the reader of this passage is the importance of proper form. Today we find ourselves in a religious climate in which the form of the Lord’s Supper can be anything, as long as the name is kept on it. It is as though it doesn’t matter what is done as long as it has a Scriptural tag, then its going to be OK.

The Supper has become an institution open to all manner of abuses, and the one which sticks out from all the rest is of course the Roman Catholic Mass, and all its idolatrous and ungodly rite.

But even the more subtle corruptions need to be addressed, for all such separations from the God-given form are sin, and a deviation from the form given by the Lord Jesus Christ.

And what about what was going on in Corinth, for ‘For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep (11:30).’ Do you see the importance in getting this right? People were getting sick, and even being killed as punishment for their abuse of the Lord’s Supper. so you see, this is no light matter, it needs to be taken seriously.

Is there then a proper form to follow, a blueprint that we must carefully observe and stick to? The answer is yes there is, ‘For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you (11:23).’

Continued at: http://particularbaptist.com/sermons/sermonscor1.html