According to the “Sydney Morning Herald” report on May 2, the Morrison government has asked the Australian Department of Defense to review China’s Landbridge Group’s 99-year lease of Darwin Port, and consider whether to force Chinese companies to give up their lease rights. .

Reuters reported on the 3rd that Australia’s review of Darwin Port may further strain China-Australia relations.

Last month, Australia “reversed history” and publicly announced the tearing up of the “Belt and Road” agreement. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin stated on April 22 that Australia’s political manipulation and unreasonable actions completely violated the spirit of the China-Australia comprehensive strategic partnership. They are a historical reversal and are of a bad nature, and have created confidence in local and business cooperation between the two countries. The severe negative impact has also damaged Australia’s own image and credibility.

How do you view the Australian Morrison government’s review of the 99-year Darwin Port lease agreement for Chinese companies? Why does Australia dare to break the contract repeatedly?

“Are we really thinking about going to war with China?” Australia’s “Canberra Times” website published an article entitled “Dangerous speech to war against China is not in the national interest” on April 29. The author is Australian National University Crawford Public Policy John Hewson, a college professor and former leader of the Australian Liberal Party, said in an article that the situation in the Taiwan Strait has nothing to do with Australia’s national interests. In the past, Australia has participated in wars for politics, not for national interests. On this issue, the Australian government should become more mature and more responsible. The full text is excerpted as follows: How many times have you heard political leaders claim that the most important decision the government can make is to throw the army into war? However, too many war decisions are made for politics, not national interests. In World War I, Australia, which was legally part of the British Empire, entered the war immediately after the British government issued a declaration. The same was true in World War II. The Australian government felt that it really had no choice-Britain joined the war, so Australia joined the war. During the Korean War, Australia handed over its navy and air force assets to the United States, which represented the United Nations Security Council. Australia was also involved in the Vietnam War and supported the “U Tingyan Regime” due to the “domino theory” and at the same time supported the United States. During the Gulf War, the Australian army participated in the multinational force approved by the United Nations. The participation of the Australian military in Afghanistan and Iraq was mainly driven by the emotions of the “9.11” incident, and more driven by the political interests of the then Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, rather than our national interests. Howard wanted to act as the “deputy” of then US President George W. Bush. On the issue of Afghanistan, Howard expressed support for the US military response before the United States made a request. He also promoted and supported the U.S.-led mission to send troops to Iraq without the approval of the United Nations, with the purpose of “destroying weapons of mass destruction” and realizing the change of Saddam’s regime. The Australian opposition party opposed it at the time because it had never found such weapons in Iraq. Today, Australian Minister of Defense Peter Dutton and Minister of the Interior Mike Pezullo have begun to manipulate politics again-hoping to put us in a “state of war”, hear the “beating drum of war”, and admit that “China may Taking military action against the Taiwan region”-should be particularly worrying. Is this the beginning of another involvement in a war that may not be in our (Australia) national interest? Are they serious, or is it just Prime Minister Morrison trying to distract everyone again? This raises important questions with serious consequences. Should we really consider going to war with China? What is the relationship between the situation in the Taiwan Strait and our national interests? Isn’t this an internal affair of the Chinese? How does the Australian government expect China to react to these statements? As we obeyed Trump, boycotted Huawei’s 5G plan, blocked Victoria’s participation in the “Belt and Road” initiative, and reviewed China’s commercial and asset procurement actions in Australia, China has already lashed out at us. On this issue, we need to become more mature and more responsible.

zhiwo

By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
helpmekim
8 months ago

Bottom line thinking, bottom line thinking, we have repeatedly emphasized that we must have bottom line thinking. The worst result of this breach of contract is equivalent to Australia confiscating the legal assets invested by Chinese companies in Australia! This is a naked robbery! If this matter is really hammered out, the focus of China’s future foreign investment will no longer be how to respect local laws and regulations, but how to still have the strength to ensure the safety of overseas assets even when the local government ignores the law. . The impact of this incident is extremely serious for the world. It is a major challenge to global asset security and a devastating blow to economic globalization. When a country can embezzle the legal assets of foreign investment through so-called “censorship,” overseas investment is tantamount to sending sheep into the mouth of a tiger. So don’t talk about the mess. If Australia does this, China’s only reciprocal countermeasure can only be to “review” the legality of the assets invested by Australian companies in China. If it is legal, then legislate to make it illegal. To deal with hooligans, China needs to learn from its opponents.

heloword
8 months ago

1. The general election is coming soon. The Labor Party has control of 5 states, and the ruling Liberal Party has only 3 continents. 60% of the population is in the continents where the Labor Party is in power. The election is coming in the second half of the year. Make things happen. At this time, Scotty from marketing is about to learn from Nanako on the ghost island, and he wants to play the anti-travel card. 2. In fact, it’s okay if you break the contract. Landbridge has not made any money in Darwin Port, especially starting in 2019. In the next few years, under the situation of tensions in the diplomatic and trade war between the two countries, it is estimated that Landbridge will still lose money. It is better to let the other party break the contract. Landbridge will take a sum of money for breach of contract and exchange for local investment, which is also a good choice.

helpyme
8 months ago

Economic interests are subordinate to political interests. The majority of Australian government and opposition voters in Australia are determined to oppose China politically, and they must work closely with the United States to contain China. Australia firmly believes that only in this way can it win an ideal future for Australia. As for the short-term economic benefits, if you can cheat, you can cheat, and if you can blackmail you, you can’t give up. Therefore, Australia will go further and further on the road of anti-China, and it will go more and more extreme. Moreover, Australia feels that it is backed by the United Kingdom and the United States, and it has a lot of confidence and confidence. As for Australia’s anti-China measures, it will become more and more shameless. Anyway, the United Kingdom and the United States will clean him up. His crimes against humanity such as the massacre of civilians in Afghanistan will not cause waves, let alone others. Unless Sino-US relations substantially improve in the future, Australia will die. Otherwise, don’t expect Australia to turn back. The primary goal of our country’s economic blow to Australia should not be to make Australia regret it, but to deter other countries, especially New Zealand, to prevent them from being politically anti-China. The second is to make up for losses, export bad anger, and finally to make Australia abandon its current policy through an economic blow.

sina156
8 months ago

Now it is the Labor Party, the opposition party, that is not with Morrison, especially Kevin Rudd, the Chinese-speaking “pro-China prime minister” who signed the agreement with the NT government (Northern Territory). At that time, the Liberal Party was in power, that is, the Morrison faction. If you want to understand what happened, the following link contains news reports about this in Australia. If you don’t want to read the content, it roughly talks about 1. This port was in the area at that time. Part of the road plan 2. The leasing company has very close ties with the Chinese military 3. There were actually three companies with the same price, but they chose a Chinese company. (It is not mentioned in the news, but it is very likely that the reason for choosing a Chinese company is that the Chinese market is bigger, the money is more, and the port can have higher profits) 4. It was passed during the review that year 5. This matter was not obtained. The fifth point of the Federal Government’s (national government) agreement is also why the power of the Australian Foreign Investment Commission has been enlarged in recent years. It covers all investments directly related to foreign ZF and must pass the review. Australia will not tear it up in the short term. This news When Australia is torn up, it is too early to do a lot of compensation with 500 million Australian dollars in compensation. For Australia, China is not a big threat in the short term. It is necessary to wait for free money to recover the port. The economic problems caused by the recent epidemic have not yet been completely resolved, and the relationship with China is only possible as it is now. There is only a small conflict on both sides. If you are in a hurry to recover, there is only one possibility, that is, the United States/Biden has issued an order. Sino-US conflict is very likely. Will upgrade.

yahoo898
8 months ago

I feel very strange about Australia-China relations in recent years. China is not repeating the Soviet Union’s practices, exporting ideology, revolutions, wars, riots, and so on. We are just taking care of our own affairs, and all the rumors and hostilities directed against us have not stopped…especially from Australia. We did not extend a finger to them, and they hated us deeply, and for years they tried to prove that China was destroying Australia. The accusation of Chinese espionage is a farce. Or the Huawei equipment backdoor case does not exist at all, but they always pretend that they have discovered it. There is also the new crown. It was first discovered in China, but in the request of the Australian government at the WHO meeting, it looks like it was made in China or spread deliberately…Today, it tore up Victoria again. State and China’s “One Belt, One Road” agreement… and then they have to re-examine the 99-year Darwin Port lease agreement of Chinese companies and want to break the contract… It is like the Australian government believes that if China disappears today, Australia will become a utopia tomorrow.. …. This is delusional persecution, and we have nothing to do with your problem. China rarely tries to “punish” other countries. In most cases, those who really cause problems will not get any real punishment. Only innocent Chinese people will be harmed. All we can get is hatred. The punishment imposed on Australia some time ago is a good start. We must continue to increase punishment. The only reason we take this action is that we are in real danger. The United States is now a bit repeating the same things as Britain and France did to Germany after World War I. Regarding the current deteriorating relationship between China and Australia, there are also many comments from foreign netizens. Let me extract one: Philip Yap, a construction professional who has settled in Europe since 2009; former construction manager, 2008-2009; MBA from the University of Hull Business School, graduated in 1994; Lives in Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK Construction Professional settled in Europe since 2009; Former Construction Manager 2008–2009; MBA from Hull University Business School Graduated 1994; Lives in Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK Yes, Australia has shown a serious attitude towards China Obsession. But behind it, she was only fulfilling the mission of a vassal state. No country with a rational, independent decision-making position would take such actions and behaviors against her biggest client. In the challenging period of economic recession, its cost is huge and disastrous. This is the consequence of being a vassal state, a bound puppet, you do not have the freedom to do the best behavior for the country and the people, every priority will be given to complete your vassal role, from an aggressive and demanding Hegemony. I only hope that Australians can enjoy being a stubborn citizen of a vassal state, seeing their national interests being sacrificed, and fully acting as a vassal state. Australia has repeatedly wanted to break through China’s bottom line, and there are even Chinese Australians who are waving the flag. I also posted it here: Barry did not find the background information of the netizen, but from the comments it is Australian Chinese. I am the first generation of Australian Chinese here. I am very happy that Australia can stand up. In the final analysis, it is the work and facilities in this country that allow me to thrive and enjoy life. I don’t want this free way of life to be stifled by China. Although I sympathize with my home country, in the final analysis, I was born in China, but I have a civic responsibility to support my home country (Australia), because the farmers, doctors, teachers and many others in my home country are Australians and they help me develop And grow as a person. As a former pro-China person, I understand the nationalist rhetoric of the era of oppression and the Opium War. It was a terrible era for our people. However, such remarks will only inspire xenophobia and division in China and Western countries. If China does not put aside the past and look forward, it will only be doomed to repeat the cycle of superiority and violence brought about by colonialism. Those who use the era of oppression to justify China’s actions, deep down in their hearts, hope to see China oppress the world in order to retaliate against that era. Australia has stood up to defend its sovereignty and there is no inherent racism, just as the deterioration of relations will not bring any racism. There will be a few idiots who are ignorant and will raise it to the level of race, but you will find that most Australians don’t value race. The blue-collar and hardworking classical “Australians” I associate with are all behaviors. Look at a person, not look at it by skin or name. We always make fun of our differences, just like my friends squinted and said “ching chong”, but I just forcibly opened my eyes and said “Hey, bitch, give us a lighter”.

leexin
8 months ago

This time, the Australian Department of Defense reviewed Landbridge’s lease at Darwin Port 99 and the previous Australian Department of Foreign Affairs reviewed the Belt and Road Memorandum and Framework Agreement signed by Victoria and China. From the perspective of Australian domestic law, they are still different. Regarding the domestic legal basis of the Australian Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ review of the Belt and Road Memorandum and Framework Agreement signed between Victoria and China, I have already analyzed it in my previous answer. The Department of Defense’s review of lease agreements is obviously not based on Australia’s new Australian Foreign Relations (State and Territory Agreement) Act 2020, because this law only authorizes the Minister of Foreign Affairs to conduct related reviews. Moreover, due to the structure and nature of the Landbridge Group, the lease signed by it and the Northern Territory Government is not under the review of the Foreign Relations Act at all. The review of investments of this nature is generally the responsibility of the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) (subordinate to the Federal Ministry of Finance). Probably because the port is close to the US military base in Australia, FIRB and the Department of Defense both reviewed this investment before the lease was signed in 2015. Neither department objected, and the lease was officially signed (to be honest, I was surprised to know that the approval was passed, after all, the US military base was nearby). In short, the legal basis for the Ministry of Defense to review the lease is very unclear. It can only be said that this review is basically a political review. If the result of the review of this lease is to force Landbridge to abandon the lease, there will be considerable economic losses for both parties. From the Australian perspective, the Australian media estimates that the liquidated damages are about 500 million Australian dollars; from the Landbridge perspective, as there are provisions on infrastructure construction in the lease, if it is forced to give up, even if the financial compensation may make up for a part of the manpower And material loss, but the time cost is difficult to estimate. In addition to economic accounts, it is also political accounts. Politically, the nature of this incident is extremely bad. This lease is actually very different from the nature of the Belt and Road Memorandum and Framework Agreement. The Belt and Road Memorandum and Framework Agreement are more of a cooperative intention. Even the framework agreement does not have very specific and operational details (but even so, the memorandum and framework agreement have also been declared invalid). This lease is different. It is a very formal commercial legal document with many detailed clauses that needs to be registered with the land department. Contract law can be said to be the basic existence of common law. Now such a lease agreement without any legal problems can be cancelled if it is approved first and there is no clear legal basis. This is an insult to China, and even more an insult to themselves. As for the expression “reversing history”, it really doesn’t make much sense to Australia, who has no knowledge of the theory of historical advancement.

greatword
8 months ago

I remember when we were playing in Melbourne that year, the tour guide and the driver told us that the alliance between Australia and the United States is a relationship in which one side sends troops and the other side must send troops to support it. To put it bluntly, it is the American licking dog. Now that the U.S. has “fighted with us”, Tuao will definitely have to toss and show loyalty. Turkey and Australia have always liked to use China to divert domestic conflicts, and will never get tired of it, especially the Morrison government. Morrison used immigration tightening policies as soon as he took office. On the contrary, he didn’t care about the fires in his country. He had to be cast aside for this virtue. There are also those things that the epidemic has just started. If he dares not, he wants to leave an infamous name forever. Some respondents mentioned iron ore. The price of iron ore in Q1Q2 has skyrocketed, and life in the manufacturing industry is really difficult. The total price increase of our company’s Q1Q2 iron ore is directly equivalent to making a half-month’s production in vain. I’m still in a US company, and I feel that the US is going crazy and doesn’t even want his own industry. Crazy dog ​​biting people is suitable for use in the United States, and more suitable for use in Turkey and Australia. Didn’t Tu and Australia always condemn our country during the epidemic last year? A country that relies on resources to export its education industry, no one buys its minerals, and the future will not be easy. This wave tore up what I would like to call the enemy 1,000 and self-damaged 800.

loveyou
8 months ago

I turned over the comments on the Internet and thought that most of the netizens would express their support like the previous Australian government tore up the “Belt and Road” agreement. Unexpectedly, the comments this time were half and half. Add tariffs? This time it’s our turn! Some people say that it shouldn’t have been rented to China long ago, and it’s fine to recover! It is also said that people act according to the contract, there is no breach of the contract, there is no reason to terminate the agreement, and they still take national security as a matter? They only operate a port. They use Australians and abide by Australian laws. What’s wrong? Let’s listen to the opinions of some foreign netizens. ——Mark Harris has been a voter for many years and now lives in New South Wales, Australia. This decision is nonsense. There are several reasons: Landbridge has not violated any laws and regulations. Landbridge only leased this port, not completely owning it, only managing Darwin Port. Why didn’t the government raise any questions when signing the contract? Let’s talk about it now? Some special circumstances have been indicated on the lease, such as national emergency, security and naval use. No matter how “evil” Landbridge is, they can’t pack the port away. China may already know any secrets related to national security in Darwin Port and its surrounding areas. If they are not clear, it means that they are not qualified for their work. If the government wants to drive the Landbridge Group out, they will make people laugh like clowns. ——Edward Mahoney, a professional geologist, currently living in Salt Lake City, USA, graduated from the University of Calgary, Canada, majoring in geological sciences. Australia leased the operating rights of the largest port on the northern coast to a Chinese company. This is definitely a problem! Especially when the Australian Navy is also using the port, it would be a huge mistake to transfer control of such a port to a company that has links with the Chinese government. During the 99-year lease period, China can use its control of the port to gradually control northern Australia. In fact, no company should have so much control over such a strategic port. ——Wayne Yu, a technology innovator, a father, graduated from the University of Sydney, and now living in Australia. What a stupid Morrison government, it is a group of Cold War elements to please the United States! If the port is leased to a Chinese company that employs Australian employees and has the expertise to operate the port efficiently, wouldn’t it be bad? The commercial operation of this company is only to operate the port, and will not favor Chinese ships or allow the Chinese navy to enter. In an emergency, the Australian government has sufficient power to take over the operation of the port to meet wartime needs. It is foolish to talk about national security. The Port of Darwin is still Australia’s sovereign land and port and is subject to all Australian laws and regulations. China paid a lot of money for lease rights, and it also brought more economic benefits to Australia. This is too stupid. Well, if Australia doesn’t want it, then customers don’t complain when they go elsewhere. Oh, by the way, despite the protests in society, the previous federal government forcibly leased the port to a Chinese company. What a waste and an untrustworthy country!

strongman
8 months ago

The relationship between countries is purely mutual use. We used our good relationship with Australia to import iron ore. Didn’t Australia deliberately use our good relationship with China to seek benefits from the United States? The Australian bag method is very similar to a small trick in a relationship: A wants to chase B, but B doesn’t pay much attention to A, so A finds a spare tire and pretends to be very close to B’s competitor C, so that B will produce Small emotions such as jealousy or a sense of threat attract B’s attention, and then A and B successfully hold hands. As for the spare tire C, it was used from the beginning. China is the C, the United States is the B, and the Australian bag is the A. I don’t think that China is not aware of the small tricks of the Australian bag, but development is the last word. The two evils are the lesser one. Knowing that people treat themselves as a spare tire, they have to endure nausea. The overall situation is important. Only iron ore can have the world’s largest steel production capacity, infrastructure madness, and today’s great situation. So should China suffer this loss for nothing? of course not. International contacts, credibility first. There has never been a country that can stand against the world without perishing. The larger the country, the more it needs the support of its allies and various partners. Therefore, big powers will never break the contract easily. It is difficult to establish credibility. Sometimes it takes a long time to negotiate, trade, and transfer profits…but it is easy to destroy it, as long as it breaks the trust once. Once there is no credibility support, the strategic structure of the major powers will also fall apart. Although Australia is not a big country, the principle of credibility is common to all countries. Your reputation in international exchanges will definitely affect your investment and trade in Australia. But now is a world of great controversy, especially China’s deployment of iron ore in Africa, and in the case of stepping up intelligent production, offending China for temporary gains will inevitably lead to marginalization in the future world structure in the long run.化. But after all, the people of Aobag were born in exile from the British Empire. They don’t care about the future pattern. They just want to abide by their traditional artistic skills—the bowl of decapitated rice in front of them. Then take it slowly. Twenty-five years ago, some people still said that it would take at least 50 years for China’s GDP to surpass that of Japan. A dozen years ago, some people said that the power gap between China and the United States was more than a hundred years. Today, some people say that China has nothing to do with Australian bags. . Is there any way, just walk and see.

stockin
8 months ago

The Japanese government has recently stepped up to turn to the United States because Japan wants to discharge nuclear sewage into the sea to pollute the world. India has stepped up to turn to the United States, because its own policies have led to a large number of farmers protesting. The recent new crown epidemic has gone out of control and is a catastrophic human rights disaster. I found that these countries will accelerate their refuge in the United States when they encounter crises. Then I went to CNN, the fake news network of the United States, and found that there are two types of American news reports on Australia. The first category is about Australia’s provocation against China. Such as “Australia’s military expenditure is only 27 billion U.S. dollars a year, and it does not have nuclear weapons. It actually hints that it is going to war against China!” “Australia is preparing to invest 600 million U.S. dollars this year to unite the US military to interfere in Asia.” “Australia pays close attention to the situation in the Taiwan Strait!” An attitude of “appreciation” encourages this small country to attack China. Then another category is the scandal in Australia. Yes, it’s all scandals in Australia. There is no good news at all. Even the fake news network in the United States is desperately reporting the scandal in Australia. For example, “Australia treats aboriginal people in extinction” and “Australia broke out a sexist march against government agencies.” I can’t help but think of Mr. Biden’s judgment on China and the United States. A democratic and just country, and an evil dictatorship, the final result will definitely be the victory of a democratic and just country. The United States has madly absorbed some evil countries as its allies, which is probably the last madness. Seriously. Whether it’s India, Japan, or Australia. From a national perspective, they are considered relatively powerful countries. But as far as the ruling party is concerned, they are not really elected governments. It’s just the little X who steals the high position. For a while, he may be the leader of the country, but he cannot really represent the country’s interests, and he has never thought of working for the country’s interests. Behind them are foreign chaebols and politicians. In the face of surging domestic opposition, they can only choose to step up their refuge in foreign countries to gain a sense of security. For example, Australia, from the perspective of national interests, of course, cooperation with China is the first. Even maintaining neutrality between China and the United States would be better for Australia. But the interests of the ruling party are different from the interests of the country. The ruling party needs the support of the United States to maintain its evil rule, and naturally it can only rely on the United States at the expense of national interests.

11
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x