China Projecting Power in South and East China Seas

[fredymac]

The issue remains whether you should have foreign entities in control of significant areas and activities that are part of your sovereign borders. This is a question which merits consideration by the voters. If the issue was not brought forward to the voters and simply implemented by bureaucratic fiat, then redress of grievances is the process to correct the error. And it is always the right of the people to continue opposition for as long as they wish.

Port management is a hazy term. However, we can logically deduce it will involve:

-loading and unloading ships based on internal priorities of which ship has preference
-determination of areas and methods to store materials in transit (Tianjin)
-contracting with additional firms for secondary services
-hiring and management of a work force
-coordination with other tenants and organizations of the port
-assuring compliance with state and national laws in executing all the above

As a Chinese company is inherently state influenced (or flatly state owned), the opportunities that naturally present themselves are bountiful in each of the activities listed above. As an exercise in pure speculation, if I wanted to smuggle in the components of a suitcase nuke, would managing a port be helpful? Naturally, this will be a third party who won’t mind claiming the ownership of the crime. Having the authority to schedule when, how, and where the components are brought in and by whom would certainly make success much more probable.

Some people would be offended at the nature of the speculation I described. Most would find it unlikely in most situations but not impossible if the chance for success was assured. The distinction will be political and as a rule will split along the traditional left wing/right wing divide. Which brings us back to where I started. Declarations that opinions contrary to your own constitute “mob” rule and are illegitimate and founded on uneducated thinking have become standard practice at most if not all colleges and universities under the guise of political correctness. Arguments by assertion backed by pejoratives seems to have replaced logical discourse.

 

[Grey Havoc]

In other words, handing an increasingly aggressive foreign power what effectively amounts to direct access to your SLOC and by extension your resource processing/extraction areas, without even token safeguards, is a very bad idea indeed.

In other news: Japan opens SDF radar station on Yonaguni, near disputed islands (The Asahi Shimbun)

 

[NeilChapman]

In other words, handing an increasingly aggressive foreign power what effectively amounts to direct access to your SLOC and by extension your resource processing/extraction areas, without even token safeguards, is a very bad idea indeed.

In other news: Japan opens SDF radar station on Yonaguni, near disputed islands (The Asahi Shimbun)

Great points. Perhaps this is one example of concern for China's behavior?

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-hacked-f22-f35-jet-secrets/

We haven't seen this behavior from Venezuela, Singapore or the UAE.

 

[Rickshaw]

As I keep pointing out, Port Darwin is a minor commercial port. Management of it does not amount to control of the "SLOC" for anybody. You all seem to be completely missing the point, this is about management of a commercial port, not a Naval port. Our Department of Defence is not concerned about the Chinese managing the commercial port of Darwin, as I pointed out with the quote from the Secretary of the Department of Defence. All of you appear to believe that this amounts to an attack by the PRC on Australia's sovereignty when it isn't. It is a purely a commercial transaction between the Government of the Northern Territory and the Chinese company. :

 

[sferrin]

http://news.usni.org/2016/03/28/opinion-dont-miss-the-boat-on-australian-and-u-s-policy-in-the-south-china-sea

"Australia’s 2016 Defense White Paper expresses concern over “friction” in the South China Sea (SCS) arising from U.S.-Chinese naval interactions, and it worries that territorial disputes have created “uncertainty and tension.” Those statements, which show Canberra (like the rest of the states in the Indo-Pacific region) is slowly coming around to the gathering threat posed by China to freedom of the seas.

Predictably, the Mandarins in Beijing harshly criticized Australia, as did reliably pro-Chinese scholars such as Sam Bateman in an article in East Asia Forum. Those antagonists view Australia’s new White Paper as a move by Canberra to support U.S. naval operations in the region and a deepening of the Australia-U.S. Alliance."

 

[kaiserd]

The issue remains whether you should have foreign entities in control of significant areas and activities that are part of your sovereign borders. This is a question which merits consideration by the voters. If the issue was not brought forward to the voters and simply implemented by bureaucratic fiat, then redress of grievances is the process to correct the error. And it is always the right of the people to continue opposition for as long as they wish.

Port management is a hazy term. However, we can logically deduce it will involve:

-loading and unloading ships based on internal priorities of which ship has preference
-determination of areas and methods to store materials in transit (Tianjin)
-contracting with additional firms for secondary services
-hiring and management of a work force
-coordination with other tenants and organizations of the port
-assuring compliance with state and national laws in executing all the above

As a Chinese company is inherently state influenced (or flatly state owned), the opportunities that naturally present themselves are bountiful in each of the activities listed above. As an exercise in pure speculation, if I wanted to smuggle in the components of a suitcase nuke, would managing a port be helpful? Naturally, this will be a third party who won’t mind claiming the ownership of the crime. Having the authority to schedule when, how, and where the components are brought in and by whom would certainly make success much more probable.

Some people would be offended at the nature of the speculation I described. Most would find it unlikely in most situations but not impossible if the chance for success was assured. The distinction will be political and as a rule will split along the traditional left wing/right wing divide. Which brings us back to where I started. Declarations that opinions contrary to your own constitute “mob” rule and are illegitimate and founded on uneducated thinking have become standard practice at most if not all colleges and universities under the guise of political correctness. Arguments by assertion backed by pejoratives seems to have replaced logical discourse.

As a general comment would note this discussion appears to be going widely off topic.

Comment above a classical example of a slanted biased non-argument that intentionaly attempts to make rational fact based discussion impossible.
Is it a coincidence that most arguments that emphasise the "evils" of "political correctness" are put forward by zealots and/or racists of various types?
From weighing the quality of the arguments above from various sources it doesn't sound like Australia actually has too much to worry about, unless you think every Chinese person is issued with a suitcase nuke and plans for global domination at birth

 

[sferrin]

Comment above a classical example of a slanted biased non-argument that intentionaly attempts to make rational fact based discussion impossible.
Is it a coincidence that most arguments that emphasise the "evils" of "political correctness" are put forward by zealots and/or racists of various types?

Name-calling. How mature.

 

[kaiserd]

Comment above a classical example of a slanted biased non-argument that intentionaly attempts to make rational fact based discussion impossible.
Is it a coincidence that most arguments that emphasise the "evils" of "political correctness" are put forward by zealots and/or racists of various types?

Wow, there's some irony.

Irony is embracing the moral high ground in the context of the quality and tenor of your preceding contributions to this particular discussion.
Blind ultra-nationalism that wilfully and intentionaly ignores the facts in favour of its own "emotional truth" is ugly and harmful, and is ultimately a stain on the country it purports to defend/ support.

 

[sferrin]

Comment above a classical example of a slanted biased non-argument that intentionaly attempts to make rational fact based discussion impossible.
Is it a coincidence that most arguments that emphasise the "evils" of "political correctness" are put forward by zealots and/or racists of various types?

Wow, there's some irony.

Irony is embracing the moral high ground in the context of the quality and tenor of your preceding contributions to this particular discussion.
Blind ultra-nationalism that wilfully and intentionaly ignores the facts in favour of its own "emotional truth" is ugly and harmful, and is ultimately a stain on the country it purports to defend/ support.

"Facts", hmmm. What exactly did I say? I said turning operation of a strategic asset over to a potential enemy is a stupid idea. Do you disagree? Do you think it's a wise idea? (And do try to respond without hurling insults. Doubting the wisdom of the topic at hand is hardly racist or nationalist, nor is it a cause for tantrums.)

 

[kaiserd]

The well argued case from other contributors above;
- This particular (civilian port, not naval base) is not particularly strategically significant.
- That the winning bidder to administer/ manage the port may be Chinese is, given the actual factual context laid out by the contributors above, a million miles from "turning it over to a potential enemy"

The counter argument to this case from other contributors has been weak and poorly argued, largely relied on quasi-emotional nationalistic arguments that have at their worst descended into conspiracy theory hokum (I was directly responding to a contribution that raised a suitcase nuke red-herring).
You yourself brought Donald Trump into the discussion, for some reason.

 

[sferrin]

The well argued case from other contributors above;
- This particular (civilian port, not naval base) is not particularly strategically significant.

Civilian port / naval base is a red-herring as nobody has ever suggested it was a Chinese naval base. : As for "strategically significant" that is (yet another) red-herring. It's on the Australian continent. That alone MAKES it significant.

That the winning bidder to administer/ manage the port may be Chinese is, given the actual factual context laid out by the contributors above, a million miles from "turning it over to a potential enemy"

Take off the rose-colored glasses, and you'll see posts by people other than A or KJ.

The counter argument to this case from other contributors has been weak and poorly argued, largely relied on quasi-emotional nationalistic arguments that have at their worst descended into conspiracy theory hokum (I was directly responding to a contribution that raised a suitcase nuke red-herring).

It's pretty much accepted by anybody paying attention that the easiest way to get a nuke into the US would be through a shipping terminal. Why would that be different for Australia? (It's a rhetorical question- it wouldn't be.) Furthermore, as several have pointed out, a suitcase nuke would be the LEAST of concerns.

You yourself brought Donald Trump into the discussion, for some reason.

Really? Show me where.

 

[NeilChapman]

The issue remains whether you should have foreign entities in control of significant areas and activities that are part of your sovereign borders. This is a question which merits consideration by the voters. If the issue was not brought forward to the voters and simply implemented by bureaucratic fiat, then redress of grievances is the process to correct the error. And it is always the right of the people to continue opposition for as long as they wish.

Port management is a hazy term. However, we can logically deduce it will involve:

-loading and unloading ships based on internal priorities of which ship has preference
-determination of areas and methods to store materials in transit (Tianjin)
-contracting with additional firms for secondary services
-hiring and management of a work force
-coordination with other tenants and organizations of the port
-assuring compliance with state and national laws in executing all the above

As a Chinese company is inherently state influenced (or flatly state owned), the opportunities that naturally present themselves are bountiful in each of the activities listed above. As an exercise in pure speculation, if I wanted to smuggle in the components of a suitcase nuke, would managing a port be helpful? Naturally, this will be a third party who won’t mind claiming the ownership of the crime. Having the authority to schedule when, how, and where the components are brought in and by whom would certainly make success much more probable.

Some people would be offended at the nature of the speculation I described. Most would find it unlikely in most situations but not impossible if the chance for success was assured. The distinction will be political and as a rule will split along the traditional left wing/right wing divide. Which brings us back to where I started. Declarations that opinions contrary to your own constitute “mob” rule and are illegitimate and founded on uneducated thinking have become standard practice at most if not all colleges and universities under the guise of political correctness. Arguments by assertion backed by pejoratives seems to have replaced logical discourse.

As a general comment would note this discussion appears to be going widely off topic.

No, the discussion is not off topic.

The reason it is not off topic is that China's behavior in declaring an expanded air defense zone...
- sending poorly trained pilots to fly too close to aircraft
- behaving outside the norm with respect to established protocols
etc
etc
is concerning to other sovereign nations in the area who have security relationships with the United States. Should the United States be forced to defend those sovereign nations then it is likely that Northern Australia will factor into those plans.

Comment above a classical example of a slanted biased non-argument that intentionaly attempts to make rational fact based discussion impossible.

emphasis above mine

slanted, biased, non-argument?

Let's review my understanding of an argument based on fredymac's post. Please help me understand what elements you feel are necessary for an argument to be made. It seems to me that we have a differing understanding of an argument.

fredymac made an assertion or conclusion that if foreign entities are managing or controlling significant national assets that voters should be allowed to weigh in.

fredymac followed this up with the evidence to support this conclusion that Chinese companies can be influenced by the state for nefarious purposes. (The article I posted later supports the claim that workers for Chinese companies have been found guilty of espionage of US military secrets.)

I'd say he made a well reasoned, reasonable argument. You may disagree with the point but you offered no response to the point. Well...other than name calling.

Is it a coincidence that most arguments that emphasise the "evils" of "political correctness" are put forward by zealots and/or racists of various types?

You offer a conclusion but no premise. This is not an argument or a rebuttal to an argument.

From weighing the quality of the arguments above from various sources it doesn't sound like Australia actually has too much to worry about, unless you think every Chinese person is issued with a suitcase nuke and plans for global domination at birth

You offer a conclusion but no premise. This is not an argument or a rebuttal to an argument.

---

This is a respected forum with technically astute, well read and experienced people. I believe you should have a well reasoned argument for declaring fredymac is racist. Otherwise I would suggest you apologize.

You can question someones facts by making a relevant argument. Please don't question their motives.

 

[NeilChapman]

We don't know what they problem is, let alone how to counter it, if it is judged to exist.

Correction. You don't know what the problem is. Critical infrastructure management and strategic relations are a little bit more complex than you assume from your knowledge poor viewpoint.

This might bring you up to speed:

https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/chinese-investment-in-the-port-of-darwin-a-strategic-risk-for-australia/SI101_Chinese_investment_Darwin.pdf

In short the management of this port by a Chinese company enables easy and reasonably high level intelligence gathering about port movements in what is a strategically vital port to not only Australia but also the USA. This is the kind of intelligence some dude working in the port or taking photos from a car parked outside doesn't have access to. Things like advance warning of arrivals, value added personal details of crews and logistics, etc. It also gives the Chinese leadership the opportunity to disrupt the triangular relationship if they wish to. They could for example refuse to service an American ship at the port and therefore require the Australian government to intervene in port operations. At a tender time this could be an effective political tool. There are many more things they can do with the port that they couldn't without it.

Then of course there was the actions of the NT Government in trying to avoid federal scrutiny and making the announcement the day the USA and Australia were jointly expressing concern over China's actions in the Spratley Islands. This was the political effect of kicking in the head our most important strategic relationship and giving the Chinese a much needed strategic morale boost. That they can do whatever illegal things they want but their stash of dollars will count more than their undermining of international law.

As to the issue of other countries managaing other ports there is a difference between say China and Dubai. China is not keyed into the important western lead international security network and the CPC has no problems expressing complete control over Chinese commerical interests when they need to. Even if the Sultan of Dubai suddenly decided to sign up with Iran (so unlikely its very difficult to write) and tried to disrupt western security interests its unlikely their P&O managers would follow the corporate orders from this fictional Dubai to supply intel or disrupt operations.

Its one thing to buy cheap crap from China to save 20% on our overheads than to actually place them in a position of power over key operations of our economies and defences. The day of course China truly steps into the international community, accepts its borders and the CPC morphs into something more like the PAP (Singapore) then we won't have to worry about all this. But that day has not yet come.

Well written AG.

 

[fredymac]

Comment above a classical example of a slanted biased non-argument that intentionaly attempts to make rational fact based discussion impossible.
Is it a coincidence that most arguments that emphasise the "evils" of "political correctness" are put forward by zealots and/or racists of various types?
From weighing the quality of the arguments above from various sources it doesn't sound like Australia actually has too much to worry about, unless you think every Chinese person is issued with a suitcase nuke and plans for global domination at birth

And

Irony is embracing the moral high ground in the context of the quality and tenor of your preceding contributions to this particular discussion.
Blind ultra-nationalism that wilfully and intentionaly ignores the facts in favour of its own "emotional truth" is ugly and harmful, and is ultimately a stain on the country it purports to defend/ support.

From what I gather from your comments, my explanations into the legal and operational aspects involved in port management and how they can be readily used to permit acts hostile to the host country are dismissed as racist and ultra-nationalistic. Let us examine this in detail.

Are my descriptions of port management racist or slanted or technically neutral? Let us look for ethnic slurs or jingoistic nationalism in each item below:

-loading and unloading ships based on internal priorities of which ship has preference
-determination of areas and methods to store materials in transit
-contracting with additional firms for secondary services
-hiring and management of a work force
-coordination with other tenants and organizations of the port
-assuring compliance with state and national laws in executing all the above

I’m sorry. I don’t see it. The above holds true for everyone who performs this function. Are the items listed irrational? How? Do they pertain to the discussion of what constitutes port management and the benefits that accrue from the authority of running a port? Mind you, this is irrespective of the port itself. As long as the port serves to bring in items from abroad the vulnerabilities inherent in allowing a 3rd party to provide these services exist. Perhaps you were offended that I mentioned Tianjin again in the context of the storage of materials in transit. If so, you have been offended by truth. It wasn’t made up and there has been no exaggeration.

Perhaps it was this sentence:
As a Chinese company is inherently state influenced (or flatly state owned), the opportunities that naturally present themselves are bountiful in each of the activities listed above.

I see “Chinese” in the context of state control over industry. A slur or a simple observation of the role and power of the communist party in China? I then bring up a scenario for a suitcase nuke. This is indeed a nightmare and has been a topic of terrorist scenarios for decades which is why I used it. If suitcase nukes are a real concern, is having your ports run by a 3rd party a valid inquiry to the added risks or an appeal to racism?

Now let us look for blind ultra-nationalism. Usually that means excessive promotion of your country’s virtues over all else. You will notice a singular lack of any Americanism throughout so it can’t be that. If anything, I am making an appeal for Australian self-sufficiency. Moreover, I do so on the basis of Australian participation in their political process.

“Emotional truth”? I am afraid I don’t even know what that is. I suppose you mean I have a fragile belief system and lash out at anything that might threaten it?

To sum up, you dismiss all the above because:

-Racism
-Ultra-nationalism
-Emotional insecurity


And then you say I engage in non-arguments. Well, it has been entertaining.

 

[NeilChapman]

As I keep pointing out, Port Darwin is a minor commercial port. Management of it does not amount to control of the "SLOC" for anybody. You all seem to be completely missing the point, this is about management of a commercial port, not a Naval port. Our Department of Defence is not concerned about the Chinese managing the commercial port of Darwin, as I pointed out with the quote from the Secretary of the Department of Defence. All of you appear to believe that this amounts to an attack by the PRC on Australia's sovereignty when it isn't. It is a purely a commercial transaction between the Government of the Northern Territory and the Chinese company. :

I understand what your stating. NT government wants the money. No issues for defense dept. Have you asked yourself why this minor commercial port is worth over 500 million dollars? Why is this company suggesting they expand capacity 65X to over 200million tonnes per annum? I understand why it's good for the local economy to get expansion money. I'm asking if you think the business case makes sense.

It would be helpful to understand how this lease price fits with other, minor commercial ports. I understand the NT government will not be releasing the top three bids. How unfortunate. It would be helpful to see (in $) how important it was for this company to win the bid.

I've read that the primary exports from Darwin are bulk minerals, livestock feed and livestock and that ~85% of Darwin exports go to China. Is it likely that China will grow to need 65X the minerals etc that they use today? Does the NT have the resources to expand their production that much to meet that level of demand? Perhaps they do? I'm asking because I'd like to know.

But based on the levels of spying that is documented against Chinese companies and for whom they are spying, don't suggest that Chinese companies are the same as companies from UAE or Singapore. Perhaps it's just happenstance that the occurred after the US based ~4500 Marines in Darwin and is working on plans to make this a US Pacific Command location and there is a sound business case for this expenditure.

 

[kaiserd]

Sferrin - you reference to Donald Trump in comment 319 (not quoting here for succinctness).

More generally my opinion (which may be wrong) is that the port in question is not strategically significant and the arrangement in question leaves Australian authorities ultimately undertaking and responsible for security and customs in that port.

Specifically re: this suitcase nuke aspect I think the critical factor is that there a thousand and one ways for a sophisticated state player like China to get such a device into Australia (or the US) if it ever wanted to, the issue of a Chinese company re: Darwin port is really neither here or there.
The uncomfortable truth is that such devices would be easily smuggled in very easily (how much illegal drugs, weapons, sex slaves etc smuggled into Australia or any random country each year?
And that's before we ask why China would choose to attack Austraila, and why in this manner.
Hence you haven't thought this through or you aren't been genuine; in this argument you risk been seen as foolish or dishonest.

 

[sferrin]

Sferrin - you reference to Donald Trump in comment 319 (not quoting here for succinctness).

"You yourself brought Donald Trump into the discussion, for some reason."

That "some reason" is post 317:

"This sorry state of understanding of international business is what leads to things like Donald Trump. It takes some perverse Hugo Chavez-esqe level of thinking to think that ports are "national assets", when in reality most ports around the world"

Classy isn't it?

 

[Arjen]

...in this argument you risk been seen as foolish or dishonest.

Or both. I should be taken aback by the identity of parties here playing the discussion etiquette card, but find I am not. Kaiserd, you have my sympathy.

If I may weigh in. I have some professional experience in the comings and goings in seaports and airports in my native country. What slips through in various illegal ways is very much determined by government agencies which, thankfully, are way beyond foreign control, even when ports themselves are commercially controlled entities. Frankly, I don't expect this to be any different in Australia - and I honestly don't see what the fuss is all about.

 

[kaiserd]

...in this argument you risk been seen as foolish or dishonest.

Or both. I should be taken aback by the identity of parties here playing the discussion etiquette card, but find I am not. Kaiserd, you have my sympathy.

If I may weigh in. I have some professional experience in the comings and goings in seaports and airports in my native country. What slips through in various illegal ways is very much determined by government agencies which, thankfully, are way beyond foreign control, even when ports themselves are commercially controlled entities. Frankly. I don't expect this to be any different in Australia - and I honestly don't see what the fuss is all about.

Thanks I think I'd be doubly foolish to continue arguing with them

 

[Arian]

The issue remains whether you should have foreign entities in control of significant areas and activities that are part of your sovereign borders.

That's not the issue. This statement doesn't even make any sense. This is the classic Third Wold argument of lets expropriate foreign company's assets because they are ours. Ours defined as the nation. The nation implying, Hugo Chavez.

If the issue was not brought forward to the voters and simply implemented by bureaucratic fiat

We have laws in this country, and in most developed capitalist countries. The activities of a firm are not subject to voters preferences. We are not Venezuela.

In other words, handing an increasingly aggressive foreign power what effectively amounts to direct access to your SLOC and by extension your resource processing/extraction areas, without even token safeguards, is a very bad idea indeed.

The king of straw-man arguments.

"Facts", hmmm. What exactly did I say? I said turning operation of a strategic asset over to a potential enemy is a stupid idea. Do you disagree? Do you think it's a wise idea?

Your comment is the equivalent of when did you stop beating your wife?

Repeating the same nonsensical statements of "but they are potential enemies" doesn't excuse you from ignoring all the facts of the real world. Again, here are the facts:

1) Most ports around the world are managed by foreign companies. Whether it is in Australia, US, or China. This is a fact of life not because it is some conspiracy to take over the world, but because port management is a specialized industry in which only a few companies specialize in. Ignoring this fact, and yet somehow complaining about this instance, is the problem here.

2) Port management has nothing to do with security, or law enforcement, or sneaking nukes into anything. The exact same law enforcement considerations apply to a COSCO operated terminal in Seattle, as they do for US company operated terminals in Seattle (well there's none of those actually). Tom Clancy-level of hypotheticals don't change the fact that it makes no difference as to whether the asset is operated by COSCO or some other company. The law enforcement on the docks is still done by the same US government entity.

3) The arguments about "strategic assets" are not just irrelevant, being that foreign companies in every country operate lots of "strategic assets", but also because there is no such thing as "strategic assets" unless one thinks like Hugo Chavez. BP operating refineries in the Gulf is the furthest thing to a threat to our sovereignty as it gets. Just because you call something a strategic asset, doesn't make it so. There's nothing but benefits we get by allowing and encouraging foreign companies to invest in our countries. That's what we want them to do.

There are reasonable arguments to be made if, indeed, this was some sort of asset that is operated for the purposes of national security. This case, however, is not one of those. If you had simply limited your arguments to "this is a military base, we shouldn't lease this to foreign companies", then yes you'd have some reasonable point (and the same case would apply to leasing it to any company, foreign or domestic). But of course, you didn't. And this case isn't anyway.

The moment you said that "letting a foreign company operate ports is as stupid as letting them operate airports", you not only lost credibility but you also demonstrated that this is not a fact-based argument. Plenty of airports operated by foreign companies. US airport operators are some of the largest operators around the world. So you're butting heads with reality here.

 

[Rickshaw]

http://news.usni.org/2016/03/28/opinion-dont-miss-the-boat-on-australian-and-u-s-policy-in-the-south-china-sea

"Australia’s 2016 Defense White Paper expresses concern over “friction” in the South China Sea (SCS) arising from U.S.-Chinese naval interactions, and it worries that territorial disputes have created “uncertainty and tension.” Those statements, which show Canberra (like the rest of the states in the Indo-Pacific region) is slowly coming around to the gathering threat posed by China to freedom of the seas.

Predictably, the Mandarins in Beijing harshly criticized Australia, as did reliably pro-Chinese scholars such as Sam Bateman in an article in East Asia Forum. Those antagonists view Australia’s new White Paper as a move by Canberra to support U.S. naval operations in the region and a deepening of the Australia-U.S. Alliance."

The world will discover that their "threat posed by China to the freedom of the seas" is a two edged sword. China is highly reliant on the importation of cheap raw materials from overseas which it then transforms into exports for markets, overseas. If the PRC decides to decrease the "freedom of the seas" around it's coasts, then trade becomes more difficult and more bothersome and it's trading partners will decrease trade with the PRC. Who will suffer? The PRC or it's trading partners? It's trading partners can find plenty of other sinkholes of cheap labour, be they in the USA or India or Africa or Southern America. China has nowhere to go. The Chinese are interested in what is under the ocean, not what traverses the surface of the ocean.

The US is concerned that it's population won't be able to get the latest iPhone. Who cares? I don't, 90% of the world's population won't either. The US will start to manufacture the iPhone itself, it'll cost the consumer a few dollars more, that's all ('cause of course Apple will pass the added costs on).

As t o the Mandarins harshly criticising Australia's Defence White Paper, who cares? :

 

[Rickshaw]

The well argued case from other contributors above;
- This particular (civilian port, not naval base) is not particularly strategically significant.

Civilian port / naval base is a red-herring as nobody has ever suggested it was a Chinese naval base. : As for "strategically significant" that is (yet another) red-herring. It's on the Australian continent. That alone MAKES it significant.

How? I have repeatedly asked you to define HOW this makes it strategically important. To Whom? Until you tell us the reasons why it is "strategically important", you're just whistling in the dark.

 

[Rickshaw]

As I keep pointing out, Port Darwin is a minor commercial port. Management of it does not amount to control of the "SLOC" for anybody. You all seem to be completely missing the point, this is about management of a commercial port, not a Naval port. Our Department of Defence is not concerned about the Chinese managing the commercial port of Darwin, as I pointed out with the quote from the Secretary of the Department of Defence. All of you appear to believe that this amounts to an attack by the PRC on Australia's sovereignty when it isn't. It is a purely a commercial transaction between the Government of the Northern Territory and the Chinese company. :

I understand what your stating. NT government wants the money. No issues for defense dept. Have you asked yourself why this minor commercial port is worth over 500 million dollars? Why is this company suggesting they expand capacity 65X to over 200million tonnes per annum? I understand why it's good for the local economy to get expansion money. I'm asking if you think the business case makes sense.

Port Darwin has been angling for some time to become a larger port for the importation of goods into Australia from overseas. The theory runs that now that the Ghan rail line runs all the way from Adelaide to Darwin, it makes sense to unload at Darwn and run the goods down the railway to Melbourne or Sydney, rather than merely leaving it onboard the ship and running the ship to Melbourne or Sydney. Of course, that ignores the economics of unloading and reloading of the containers. It makes more economic sense to leave it on the ship and just run it around the coast to where it is wanted.

The Business case makes sense, if you take into account the time the contract runs and the likely growth of exports from Darwin, which is due to become a major resource loading hub in the next 25 years. There is to be an LNG terminal there, shipping LNG to the PRC and Japan. Iron ore will more than likely be loaded there, along with livestock and meat. Of course, this assumes that the PRC will continue to grow and that the Top End will match it.

It would be helpful to understand how this lease price fits with other, minor commercial ports. I understand the NT government will not be releasing the top three bids. How unfortunate. It would be helpful to see (in $) how important it was for this company to win the bid.

I note the undertone of sinisterness. Why might it not have been important for the company to win the bid to continue it's plans for expansion? Not everything is about geo-politics nor is everything ordered by the Politburo in Beijing.

I've read that the primary exports from Darwin are bulk minerals, livestock feed and livestock and that ~85% of Darwin exports go to China. Is it likely that China will grow to need 65X the minerals etc that they use today? Does the NT have the resources to expand their production that much to meet that level of demand? Perhaps they do? I'm asking because I'd like to know.

All depends upon what investment they attract from the main stream of Australian society and from overseas. Sounds like a good investment to me. Are you interested?

But based on the levels of spying that is documented against Chinese companies and for whom they are spying, don't suggest that Chinese companies are the same as companies from UAE or Singapore. Perhaps it's just happenstance that the occurred after the US based ~4500 Marines in Darwin and is working on plans to make this a US Pacific Command location and there is a sound business case for this expenditure.

*SIGH*. As far as I am concerned, the US military can stay out of Australia. We are not a suitable piece of real estate for your geo-political games. The Chinese are not all spies. Anymore than all Americans work for The Company. :

 

[NeilChapman]

Port Darwin has been angling for some time to become a larger port for the importation of goods into Australia from overseas. The theory runs that now that the Ghan rail line runs all the way from Adelaide to Darwin, it makes sense to unload at Darwn and run the goods down the railway to Melbourne or Sydney, rather than merely leaving it onboard the ship and running the ship to Melbourne or Sydney. Of course, that ignores the economics of unloading and reloading of the containers. It makes more economic sense to leave it on the ship and just run it around the coast to where it is wanted.

The Business case makes sense, if you take into account the time the contract runs and the likely growth of exports from Darwin, which is due to become a major resource loading hub in the next 25 years. There is to be an LNG terminal there, shipping LNG to the PRC and Japan. Iron ore will more than likely be loaded there, along with livestock and meat. Of course, this assumes that the PRC will continue to grow and that the Top End will match it.

Good explanation. Thanks

I note the undertone of sinisterness. Why might it not have been important for the company to win the bid to continue it's plans for expansion? Not everything is about geo-politics nor is everything ordered by the Politburo in Beijing.

No undertones. When assessing a situation it is beneficial to have all the relevant information.

All depends upon what investment they attract from the main stream of Australian society and from overseas. Sounds like a good investment to me. Are you interested?

Perhaps the wording of my question wasn't clear. I'm questioning whether the NT have the capacity to grow to 65X current exports. Do you have the natural resources to generate that amount of livestock, iron ore, feed etc. A level of investment will not necessarily generate the water, fields, deposits etc for 65X growth. Are there not physical and political constraints? Will the people of NT allow this level of extraction? Are there fresh water deposits that will allow this level of growth sustainably?

*SIGH*. As far as I am concerned, the US military can stay out of Australia. We are not a suitable piece of real estate for your geo-political games. The Chinese are not all spies. Anymore than all Americans work for The Company. :

Games?

You think we like sending our sons and daughters around the world to provide security? You think we like spending US$600B annually on defense? The US is in Darwin because your government wanted it to be so. Evidently your leadership do not share your point of view.

Perhaps the issue is that you think it's a game and don't give it the level of serious analysis that it deserves. Perhaps you feel that Australia is far enough away and there is no risk to you.

It seems pretty obvious that there is a high level of "anything goes" w/respect to industrial espionage and IP theft for Chinese companies.
It seems pretty obvious that China's government encourages industrial espionage and IP theft.
It seems pretty obvious that China is militarizing the South China Sea.
It seems pretty obvious that China is willing to promote physical confrontation with it's neighbors, ship pushing, water cannons etc, to escalate the likelihood of military confrontation.

It is a fact that China will go to war to prove that a country cannot protect its ally. As such, it is trivial to wield all its leverage to deny or slow delivery of natural resources, such as LPG, iron ore, feed and livestock, to its perceived political competitors.

It seems pretty obvious that China wants to be the "big brother" to its family of neighbors. The sad fact is that China has squandered that opportunity by making poor decisions. Nobody wants to listen to or be protected by the big brother that has dishonored the family.

No - the Chinese are not all spies. But having China managing Port Darwin carries risk - especially if becomes a larger more critical port. You seem not to acknowledge any risk.

 

[sferrin]

Games?

You think we like sending our sons and daughters around the world to provide security? You think we like spending US$600B annually on defense? The US is in Darwin because your government wanted it to be so. Evidently your leadership do not share your point of view.

It's amusing how fast his viewpoint would change as soon as things went south. He'd expect the US to come riding to the rescue. :

 

[bobbymike]

Games?

You think we like sending our sons and daughters around the world to provide security? You think we like spending US$600B annually on defense? The US is in Darwin because your government wanted it to be so. Evidently your leadership do not share your point of view.

It's amusing how fast his viewpoint would change as soon as things went south. He'd expect the US to come riding to the rescue. :

SFerrin I have to disagree he'd be unfurling the Chinese flag and be waiting with Mao's Little Red Book in one hand and a list of his imperialist capitalist neighbours that should be reeducated in camps in the other

 

[Arian]

Games?

You think we like sending our sons and daughters around the world to provide security? You think we like spending US$600B annually on defense? The US is in Darwin because your government wanted it to be so. Evidently your leadership do not share your point of view.

Perhaps the issue is that you think it's a game and don't give it the level of serious analysis that it deserves. Perhaps you feel that Australia is far enough away and there is no risk to you.

It seems pretty obvious that there is a high level of "anything goes" w/respect to industrial espionage and IP theft for Chinese companies.
It seems pretty obvious that China's government encourages industrial espionage and IP theft.
It seems pretty obvious that China is militarizing the South China Sea.
It seems pretty obvious that China is willing to promote physical confrontation with it's neighbors, ship pushing, water cannons etc, to escalate the likelihood of military confrontation.

It is a fact that China will go to war to prove that a country cannot protect its ally. As such, it is trivial to wield all its leverage to deny or slow delivery of natural resources, such as LPG, iron ore, feed and livestock, to its perceived political competitors.

It seems pretty obvious that China wants to be the "big brother" to its family of neighbors. The sad fact is that China has squandered that opportunity by making poor decisions. Nobody wants to listen to or be protected by the big brother that has dishonored the family.

No - the Chinese are not all spies. But having China managing Port Darwin carries risk - especially if becomes a larger more critical port. You seem not to acknowledge any risk.

First off, combing a bunch of completely unrelated issues and topics, with this one, is not a good idea.What do these things have to do with port management? Nothing. Second, there still hasn't been any reasonable objection to be made by anyone on here about this company managing the port at Darwin. None has been provided, other than hypotheticals, or bringing in unrelated issues as you did here.

So it's not up to him to say why he's not concerned. Its up to you to say why he should be concerned.

And of course, there's the issue that while so many here are throwing around wild hypotheticals of suitcase nukes and all sorts of, frankly, ridiculous scenarios, they refuse to even acknowledge the fact that most ports in most countries are operated in the same manner. Including the US.

So completely ignoring reality, not only of how port management works, but even of this particular deal, while at the same time relying on wild hypotheticals. Now we already had someone here who has experience with sort of issue, and he repeated the same thing I said: security at the port is the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies of the country. Full stop! And yet, what do we keep hearing? Mao's little red book and America coming to the rescue. Ok, carry on.

 

[NeilChapman]

Games?

You think we like sending our sons and daughters around the world to provide security? You think we like spending US$600B annually on defense? The US is in Darwin because your government wanted it to be so. Evidently your leadership do not share your point of view.

Perhaps the issue is that you think it's a game and don't give it the level of serious analysis that it deserves. Perhaps you feel that Australia is far enough away and there is no risk to you.

It seems pretty obvious that there is a high level of "anything goes" w/respect to industrial espionage and IP theft for Chinese companies.
It seems pretty obvious that China's government encourages industrial espionage and IP theft.
It seems pretty obvious that China is militarizing the South China Sea.
It seems pretty obvious that China is willing to promote physical confrontation with it's neighbors, ship pushing, water cannons etc, to escalate the likelihood of military confrontation.

It is a fact that China will go to war to prove that a country cannot protect its ally. As such, it is trivial to wield all its leverage to deny or slow delivery of natural resources, such as LPG, iron ore, feed and livestock, to its perceived political competitors.

It seems pretty obvious that China wants to be the "big brother" to its family of neighbors. The sad fact is that China has squandered that opportunity by making poor decisions. Nobody wants to listen to or be protected by the big brother that has dishonored the family.

No - the Chinese are not all spies. But having China managing Port Darwin carries risk - especially if becomes a larger more critical port. You seem not to acknowledge any risk.

1. First off, combing a bunch of completely unrelated issues and topics, with this one, is not a good idea.What do these things have to do with port management? Nothing. Second, there still hasn't been any reasonable objection to be made by anyone on here about this company managing the port at Darwin. None has been provided, other than hypotheticals, or bringing in unrelated issues as you did here.

So it's not up to him to say why he's not concerned. Its up to you to say why he should be concerned.

2. And of course, there's the issue that while so many here are throwing around wild hypotheticals of suitcase nukes and all sorts of, frankly, ridiculous scenarios, they refuse to even acknowledge the fact that most ports in most countries are operated in the same manner. Including the US.

So completely ignoring reality, not only of how port management works, but even of this particular deal, while at the same time relying on wild hypotheticals. Now we already had someone here who has experience with sort of issue, and he repeated the same thing I said: security at the port is the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies of the country. Full stop! And yet, what do we keep hearing? Mao's little red book and 3. America coming to the rescue. Ok, carry on.

1. I made a point that China has basic negative behavior patterns in relation to manipulating its influence to meet political objectives. The management company or perhaps even individuals associated may be subject to this pressure. You state that these are unrelated issues. I disagree for the reasons stated. Clearly there is risk and it will be critically important that Australian law enforcement and security services verify that no problems arise.

Trust but verify.

2. I was not one of the ones talking about suitcase nukes. Exerting pressure can involve making it difficult for political enemies not receiving shipments or slow-downs of shipments. This can be contrived paperwork problems, labor issues, or any multitude of actions. I'm not one of the ones that have disregarded the fact that many ports are managed by off-shore companies.

3. The US would not be in Darwin if the Australian government did not want it to be so.

Lastly, it is interesting that you didn't state that these Chinese behavior patterns have not taken place.

 

[Rickshaw]

Good explanation. Thanks

Anytime.

I note the undertone of sinisterness. Why might it not have been important for the company to win the bid to continue it's plans for expansion? Not everything is about geo-politics nor is everything ordered by the Politburo in Beijing.

No undertones. When assessing a situation it is beneficial to have all the relevant information.

Well, apart from the fact none of us has all the relevant information, we only have snippets, often coloured by our own political beliefs.

All depends upon what investment they attract from the main stream of Australian society and from overseas. Sounds like a good investment to me. Are you interested?

Perhaps the wording of my question wasn't clear. I'm questioning whether the NT have the capacity to grow to 65X current exports. Do you have the natural resources to generate that amount of livestock, iron ore, feed etc. A level of investment will not necessarily generate the water, fields, deposits etc for 65X growth. Are there not physical and political constraints? Will the people of NT allow this level of extraction? Are there fresh water deposits that will allow this level of growth sustainably?

Tell me, is the USA able to grow sixty-five times it's present size? Darwin has potential, how that is exploited is up to the Northern Territorians. It faces special problems but there may be ways around them.

*SIGH*. As far as I am concerned, the US military can stay out of Australia. We are not a suitable piece of real estate for your geo-political games. The Chinese are not all spies. Anymore than all Americans work for The Company. :

Games?

Games. The world has seen your government endeavoring to gain and maintain it's position as the leader of the world. This has meant some good but it's also meant some bad. The US Government isn't a saint, you only have to look at the Middle-East to see that!

You think we like sending our sons and daughters around the world to provide security?

The question rises, "security for whom?" Security for Americans or the people they are invading or killing?

I am not an American, I don't consider Americans to be any different to any other peoples.

You think we like spending US$600B annually on defense?

I have no idea. Do you like spending US&600B annually on defence? It appears some here feel that amount is inadequate.

The US is in Darwin because your government wanted it to be so. Evidently your leadership do not share your point of view.

Well, I believe "my leadership" doesn't represent my views very well, so please lets leave them out of this, shall we?

You're right they wanted the US in Darwin - in moderation. They have been very careful to try and eat their cake and have it too, preferring not to upset the PRC very much. Personally, I think they'd be better off saying, "get stuffed," to both sides.

Perhaps the issue is that you think it's a game and don't give it the level of serious analysis that it deserves.

Au contrae', I give it very serious analysis. My language might be light but it contains serious intent.

Perhaps you feel that Australia is far enough away and there is no risk to you.

These is little risk, beyond a nuclear strike which is extremely unlikely to occur. Yes, we are far enough away. Australia is a long way from anywhere and why would anybody need to invade when we are willing to sell them our natural resources? Then of course, there is the problem where they would invade, the "Top End" or the SE corner where the majority of the population and industry resides? The "Top End" is the shortest route but what is there apart from empty semi and arid countryside? The SE corner is the longest route and that comes with associated problems of logistics and of course, intervention.

It seems pretty obvious that there is a high level of "anything goes" w/respect to industrial espionage and IP theft for Chinese companies.
It seems pretty obvious that China's government encourages industrial espionage and IP theft.
It seems pretty obvious that China is militarizing the South China Sea.
It seems pretty obvious that China is willing to promote physical confrontation with it's neighbors, ship pushing, water cannons etc, to escalate the likelihood of military confrontation.

The Chinese are making the rules up as they go along without a doubt but then so did the Europeans and the Americans when they were expanding their empires and influence. As Hilar Beloc' suggested, "Thank God we have the Maxim and they do not!" When discussing the expansion of the European empires in Africa at the end of the 19th century.

It is a fact that China will go to war to prove that a country cannot protect its ally.

Really and which country would that be? You claimed you weren't being sinister but it appears you're mistaken IMO.

As such, it is trivial to wield all its leverage to deny or slow delivery of natural resources, such as LPG, iron ore, feed and livestock, to its perceived political competitors.

And how is it going to do that when all that is required is for the ships carrying them to be rerouted? Thats the beauty of sea transport, it can be easily rerouted, whereas rail or road is bound by it's means of conveyance. The PRC's raw materials must be conveyed through the national waters of at least one or more nations. The raw materials for the surrounding nations don't have to go through any Chinese waters.

It seems pretty obvious that China wants to be the "big brother" to its family of neighbors. The sad fact is that China has squandered that opportunity by making poor decisions. Nobody wants to listen to or be protected by the big brother that has dishonored the family.

What a shame that Washington has never learnt that lesson...

No - the Chinese are not all spies. But having China managing Port Darwin carries risk - especially if becomes a larger more critical port. You seem not to acknowledge any risk.

Oh, I am willing to acknowledge risk, when I perceive it. That a Chinese company has won the right to manage Port Darwin - a commercial port comes IMO with little risk. As I mentioned, what are they going to do? Tow the port back to the PRC? If they slow exports, the exporters will scream. The Chinese company stands to lose the right to manage the Port. You all appear to believe that this ties the hands of the Australian Government for some obscure reason. It doesn't. The Australian Government can still confiscate the Port from the Chinese company any time it desires.

 

[Rickshaw]

Games?

You think we like sending our sons and daughters around the world to provide security? You think we like spending US$600B annually on defense? The US is in Darwin because your government wanted it to be so. Evidently your leadership do not share your point of view.

It's amusing how fast his viewpoint would change as soon as things went south. He'd expect the US to come riding to the rescue. :

I expect the United States to act out of it's own national self-interest. It always has, in the past, afterall.

Just as it has refused to help us the three times we have requested it's help when we have been faced with what we perceived were national emergencies. Each time, we asked for American help, Washington refused. This is despite us helping you lot everytime we were asked. So, that is why I recommend that my government hesitates the next time the US comes a callin'. When Washington realises that an alliance has responsibilities on all parties involved, I might reconsider matters.

 

[Rickshaw]

Games?

You think we like sending our sons and daughters around the world to provide security? You think we like spending US$600B annually on defense? The US is in Darwin because your government wanted it to be so. Evidently your leadership do not share your point of view.

It's amusing how fast his viewpoint would change as soon as things went south. He'd expect the US to come riding to the rescue. :

SFerrin I have to disagree he'd be unfurling the Chinese flag and be waiting with Mao's Little Red Book in one hand and a list of his imperialist capitalist neighbours that should be reeducated in camps in the other

As I thought, it didn't take long for the Wild West viewpoint to surface. Why is that I cannot be independent in my thinking? I have no desire to see the USA or the PRC dominate my nation. I believe in an independent Australia. Why do you find that so hard to accept? Are you frightened by the idea of the Kangaroo bestriding the world, independent and free?

 

[NeilChapman]

Perhaps the wording of my question wasn't clear. I'm questioning whether the NT have the capacity to grow to 65X current exports. Do you have the natural resources to generate that amount of livestock, iron ore, feed etc. A level of investment will not necessarily generate the water, fields, deposits etc for 65X growth. Are there not physical and political constraints? Will the people of NT allow this level of extraction? Are there fresh water deposits that will allow this level of growth sustainably?

Tell me, is the USA able to grow sixty-five times it's present size? Darwin has potential, how that is exploited is up to the Northern Territorians. It faces special problems but there may be ways around them.

I would not expect the USA to grow 65X in the next 100 years, no. Is it up the the NT only how your nations natural resources are exploited? You have no interest if parts of Australia are exploited?

*SIGH*. As far as I am concerned, the US military can stay out of Australia. We are not a suitable piece of real estate for your geo-political games. The Chinese are not all spies. Anymore than all Americans work for The Company. :

Games?

Games. The world has seen your government endeavoring to gain and maintain it's position as the leader of the world. This has meant some good but it's also meant some bad. The US Government isn't a saint, you only have to look at the Middle-East to see that!

I believe you have little insight into the people of the United States. Many would like to leave the rest of the world to their own devices. The majority feel that the problem is that we can't. Your leaders keep asking for help.

The US feels a responsibility to the rest of the world perhaps based on the super abundance or our territory, people and accomplishments. You can contribute it to noblesse oblige, Christian philosophy or American exceptionalism as you see fit. You may be appreciative, jealous or disdain it as you will. The reality is still the reality.

The US Government isn't a saint? Was this meant to be a pithy remark? US foreign policy is executed by a bureaucracy - by definition a train wreck. But it's what we've got to work with. This is why our founding fathers meant to restrict tyranny through our Constitution. Unfortunately, our government has figured out how to work around these check and balances. But, it's our problem and we're working on it.

The question rises, "security for whom?" Security for Americans or the people they are invading or killing?

I am not an American, I don't consider Americans to be any different to any other peoples.

The US is in Darwin because your government wanted it to be so. Evidently your leadership do not share your point of view.

Well, I believe "my leadership" doesn't represent my views very well, so please lets leave them out of this, shall we?

You're right they wanted the US in Darwin - in moderation. They have been very careful to try and eat their cake and have it too, preferring not to upset the PRC very much. Personally, I think they'd be better off saying, "get stuffed," to both sides.

Well, we can't leave them out of this since we are discussing Port Darwin, the US Marines there, the potential of a new Pacific Command in Darwin and the actions of China in the SCS. You seem to want to create your own "facts on the ground" and not take into account the actions of China or your government.

Perhaps the issue is that you think it's a game and don't give it the level of serious analysis that it deserves.

Au contrae', I give it very serious analysis. My language might be light but it contains serious intent.

Perhaps you feel that Australia is far enough away and there is no risk to you.

These is little risk, beyond a nuclear strike which is extremely unlikely to occur. Yes, we are far enough away. Australia is a long way from anywhere and why would anybody need to invade when we are willing to sell them our natural resources? Then of course, there is the problem where they would invade, the "Top End" or the SE corner where the majority of the population and industry resides? The "Top End" is the shortest route but what is there apart from empty semi and arid countryside? The SE corner is the longest route and that comes with associated problems of logistics and of course, intervention.

You're very calculating. I'm glad Australia's history was not made of people with your particular proclivities.

It seems pretty obvious that there is a high level of "anything goes" w/respect to industrial espionage and IP theft for Chinese companies.
It seems pretty obvious that China's government encourages industrial espionage and IP theft.
It seems pretty obvious that China is militarizing the South China Sea.
It seems pretty obvious that China is willing to promote physical confrontation with it's neighbors, ship pushing, water cannons etc, to escalate the likelihood of military confrontation.

The Chinese are making the rules up as they go along without a doubt but then so did the Europeans and the Americans when they were expanding their empires and influence. As Hilar Beloc' suggested, "Thank God we have the Maxim and they do not!" When discussing the expansion of the European empires in Africa at the end of the 19th century.

A 5000 year old culture making up rules as they go along? Possible but not probable.

It is a fact that China will go to war to prove that a country cannot protect its ally.

Really and which country would that be? You claimed you weren't being sinister but it appears you're mistaken IMO.

Vietnam.

As such, it is trivial to wield all its leverage to deny or slow delivery of natural resources, such as LPG, iron ore, feed and livestock, to its perceived political competitors.

And how is it going to do that when all that is required is for the ships carrying them to be rerouted? Thats the beauty of sea transport, it can be easily rerouted, whereas rail or road is bound by it's means of conveyance. The PRC's raw materials must be conveyed through the national waters of at least one or more nations. The raw materials for the surrounding nations don't have to go through any Chinese waters.

Recall your explanation about the growth of Port Darwin as a major port. This changes the calculus.

It seems pretty obvious that China wants to be the "big brother" to its family of neighbors. The sad fact is that China has squandered that opportunity by making poor decisions. Nobody wants to listen to or be protected by the big brother that has dishonored the family.

What a shame that Washington has never learnt that lesson...

Yet - the US Marines are in Darwin, not the British, the French, the Germans, Italians or Russians. Your views are evidently in the minority in your country I'm thankful to realize.

No - the Chinese are not all spies. But having China managing Port Darwin carries risk - especially if becomes a larger more critical port. You seem not to acknowledge any risk.

Oh, I am willing to acknowledge risk, when I perceive it. That a Chinese company has won the right to manage Port Darwin - a commercial port comes IMO with little risk. As I mentioned, what are they going to do? Tow the port back to the PRC? If they slow exports, the exporters will scream. The Chinese company stands to lose the right to manage the Port. You all appear to believe that this ties the hands of the Australian Government for some obscure reason. It doesn't. The Australian Government can still confiscate the Port from the Chinese company any time it desires.

Well...We've seen above that at least some of your opinions have been wrong.

My regret is the disregard you have for anyone who holds a differing opinion than you. You've decided this is a good deal and that's all there is to it. You fail to realize that it won't matter if exporters scream.

You acknowledge the poor behavior of the Chinese government around the world only as "growing pains". However you do not take the responsibility to acknowledge or mitigate any risk to your neighbors, your country or your countries allies security or even your own countries natural resources as you explained above. I'm glad your position is in the minority.

---

I believe I've learned all I can from your position on this subject. I don't expect I'll be responding to any more of your posts on Port Darwin. Thank you for your insights and look forward to other subjects on which we can argue.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I would not expect the USA to grow 65X in the next 100 years, no.

Growing 65X in a century might be a bit much. but I would hope the US expands *thousands* of times over the next millenium. I see no reason why Luna, Ceres, Mars, Europa, Sedna, etc. cannot eventually join the US. There should come a time when the *vast* majority of humanity has never set foot on Earth... and there a re w whole lot of much worse options - and few better ones - than for spacefaring humanity to be linked via something much like the US Constitution. Spacefaring humanity under Chinese management? Seems a bad idea.

 

[bobbymike]

I would not expect the USA to grow 65X in the next 100 years, no.

Growing 65X in a century might be a bit much. but I would hope the US expands *thousands* of times over the next millenium. I see no reason why Luna, Ceres, Mars, Europa, Sedna, etc. cannot eventually join the US. There should come a time when the *vast* majority of humanity has never set foot on Earth... and there a re w whole lot of much worse options - and few better ones - than for spacefaring humanity to be linked via something much like the US Constitution. Spacefaring humanity under Chinese management? Seems a bad idea.

Compounding 3% growth over 250 years should see the US GDP at around $29 Quadrillion.................

 

[Rickshaw]

Perhaps the wording of my question wasn't clear. I'm questioning whether the NT have the capacity to grow to 65X current exports. Do you have the natural resources to generate that amount of livestock, iron ore, feed etc. A level of investment will not necessarily generate the water, fields, deposits etc for 65X growth. Are there not physical and political constraints? Will the people of NT allow this level of extraction? Are there fresh water deposits that will allow this level of growth sustainably?

Tell me, is the USA able to grow sixty-five times it's present size? Darwin has potential, how that is exploited is up to the Northern Territorians. It faces special problems but there may be ways around them.

I would not expect the USA to grow 65X in the next 100 years, no. Is it up the the NT only how your nations natural resources are exploited? You have no interest if parts of Australia are exploited?

My views are only as important as the next Australian's. They are less important than a Northern Territorian, afterall, they live there, they vote there, I do not. The USA has just as much potential for growth as any other country, as long as it's government is sensible and the American people don't elect an ignoramus like Donald Trump to the Oval Office.

*SIGH*. As far as I am concerned, the US military can stay out of Australia. We are not a suitable piece of real estate for your geo-political games. The Chinese are not all spies. Anymore than all Americans work for The Company. :

Games?

Games. The world has seen your government endeavoring to gain and maintain it's position as the leader of the world. This has meant some good but it's also meant some bad. The US Government isn't a saint, you only have to look at the Middle-East to see that!

I believe you have little insight into the people of the United States. Many would like to leave the rest of the world to their own devices. The majority feel that the problem is that we can't. Your leaders keep asking for help.

Oh, I agree. Standing on one's own two feet is harder than holding the hand of a big brother. However, it means we walk where we want when we want, rather than being restrained all the time.

The US feels a responsibility to the rest of the world perhaps based on the super abundance or our territory, people and accomplishments. You can contribute it to noblesse oblige, Christian philosophy or American exceptionalism as you see fit. You may be appreciative, jealous or disdain it as you will. The reality is still the reality.

The US Government isn't a saint? Was this meant to be a pithy remark? US foreign policy is executed by a bureaucracy - by definition a train wreck. But it's what we've got to work with. This is why our founding fathers meant to restrict tyranny through our Constitution. Unfortunately, our government has figured out how to work around these check and balances. But, it's our problem and we're working on it.

I love how Americans denigrate their Government so much but when disaster threatens, they turn to it for help immediately and scream when it doesn't arrive. No Government bureaucracy is perfect, lets make that clear but it is better than any anarchy. As much as Americans might dislike the idea of someone actually ordering their society to make sure everybody helps everybody else, it will happen. You might prefer the idea of the Wild West, but the reality is that most people don't. Australians are similar, we all like to think of ourselves as Ned Kellys but in reality we live in cities, cheek by jowell with our neighbours and we rub along. We trust one another and don't need guns.

My comment about the lack of sainthood was to indicate that despite the rhetoric to the contrary, most of the world can see through the lies that Washington broadcasts when it next enters into the invasion of a country. It manufactures the reasons for it's domestic consumption. I can think of only one attempt by the US to actually do something out of altruism and that failed dismally. Can you guess which invasion that was?

The question rises, "security for whom?" Security for Americans or the people they are invading or killing?

I am not an American, I don't consider Americans to be any different to any other peoples.

The US is in Darwin because your government wanted it to be so. Evidently your leadership do not share your point of view.

Well, I believe "my leadership" doesn't represent my views very well, so please lets leave them out of this, shall we?

You're right they wanted the US in Darwin - in moderation. They have been very careful to try and eat their cake and have it too, preferring not to upset the PRC very much. Personally, I think they'd be better off saying, "get stuffed," to both sides.

Well, we can't leave them out of this since we are discussing Port Darwin, the US Marines there, the potential of a new Pacific Command in Darwin and the actions of China in the SCS. You seem to want to create your own "facts on the ground" and not take into account the actions of China or your government.

You might believe you should be allowed to establish any base you desire, any command you want and no doubt you'll bully the Australian government into allowing it but your Marines won't be popular and their presence will be resented. They can't handle Australian beer and they don't understand Australian women, if past experience is anything to go by. I've been on military exercise with US troops and they couldn't even figure out that you drive on the correct side of the road downunder, the Left. Perhaps it was because of the Cold War and the general unpopularity of the Left in US society? ;D ;D

Perhaps the issue is that you think it's a game and don't give it the level of serious analysis that it deserves.

Au contrae', I give it very serious analysis. My language might be light but it contains serious intent.

Perhaps you feel that Australia is far enough away and there is no risk to you.

These is little risk, beyond a nuclear strike which is extremely unlikely to occur. Yes, we are far enough away. Australia is a long way from anywhere and why would anybody need to invade when we are willing to sell them our natural resources? Then of course, there is the problem where they would invade, the "Top End" or the SE corner where the majority of the population and industry resides? The "Top End" is the shortest route but what is there apart from empty semi and arid countryside? The SE corner is the longest route and that comes with associated problems of logistics and of course, intervention.

You're very calculating. I'm glad Australia's history was not made of people with your particular proclivities.

Humans are a calculating species.

It seems pretty obvious that there is a high level of "anything goes" w/respect to industrial espionage and IP theft for Chinese companies.
It seems pretty obvious that China's government encourages industrial espionage and IP theft.
It seems pretty obvious that China is militarizing the South China Sea.
It seems pretty obvious that China is willing to promote physical confrontation with it's neighbors, ship pushing, water cannons etc, to escalate the likelihood of military confrontation.

The Chinese are making the rules up as they go along without a doubt but then so did the Europeans and the Americans when they were expanding their empires and influence. As Hilar Beloc' suggested, "Thank God we have the Maxim and they do not!" When discussing the expansion of the European empires in Africa at the end of the 19th century.

A 5000 year old culture making up rules as they go along? Possible but not probable.

How do you think they got to the 5,000 year mark, except by making the rules up as they went along?

It is a fact that China will go to war to prove that a country cannot protect its ally.

Really and which country would that be? You claimed you weren't being sinister but it appears you're mistaken IMO.

Vietnam.

Vietnam and the PRC? You obviously need to learn some history!

As such, it is trivial to wield all its leverage to deny or slow delivery of natural resources, such as LPG, iron ore, feed and livestock, to its perceived political competitors.

And how is it going to do that when all that is required is for the ships carrying them to be rerouted? Thats the beauty of sea transport, it can be easily rerouted, whereas rail or road is bound by it's means of conveyance. The PRC's raw materials must be conveyed through the national waters of at least one or more nations. The raw materials for the surrounding nations don't have to go through any Chinese waters.

Recall your explanation about the growth of Port Darwin as a major port. This changes the calculus.

In what way? We own the port, we own the resources. QED.

It seems pretty obvious that China wants to be the "big brother" to its family of neighbors. The sad fact is that China has squandered that opportunity by making poor decisions. Nobody wants to listen to or be protected by the big brother that has dishonored the family.

What a shame that Washington has never learnt that lesson...

Yet - the US Marines are in Darwin, not the British, the French, the Germans, Italians or Russians. Your views are evidently in the minority in your country I'm thankful to realize.

I take the view of my cousins, the Indigenous Australians the Americans are there at the moment, in 50,000 years their presence is like a drop of water in the ocean.

No - the Chinese are not all spies. But having China managing Port Darwin carries risk - especially if becomes a larger more critical port. You seem not to acknowledge any risk.

Oh, I am willing to acknowledge risk, when I perceive it. That a Chinese company has won the right to manage Port Darwin - a commercial port comes IMO with little risk. As I mentioned, what are they going to do? Tow the port back to the PRC? If they slow exports, the exporters will scream. The Chinese company stands to lose the right to manage the Port. You all appear to believe that this ties the hands of the Australian Government for some obscure reason. It doesn't. The Australian Government can still confiscate the Port from the Chinese company any time it desires.

Well...We've seen above that at least some of your opinions have been wrong.

In your opinion but that is merely your opinion. You have failed to present any facts which have negated my opinions from my viewpoint.

Has the Australian Government given up any rights to it's sovereignty over the Port of Darwin to the PRC? No.
Has the Australian Government given up any rights to it's sovereignty over the Port of Darwin to the USA? No.

When you can prove otherwise, please get back to us, OK?

My regret is the disregard you have for anyone who holds a differing opinion than you. You've decided this is a good deal and that's all there is to it. You fail to realize that it won't matter if exporters scream.

I don't disregard differing opinions. I listen to them and argue against them, pointing out the error in their thinking. I don't particularly care if the deal is "good" or "bad". It is OUR deal, not yours. Your views about the dangers of handing management of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company are IMO, unfounded.

Why does the Port exist? Is it to help exporters export? If they scream, their government is bound to listen to their screams. Otherwise, that Government is out on it's ear at the next election. You do understand how democracy works, don't you?

You acknowledge the poor behavior of the Chinese government around the world only as "growing pains". However you do not take the responsibility to acknowledge or mitigate any risk to your neighbors, your country or your countries allies security or even your own countries natural resources as you explained above. I'm glad your position is in the minority.

I see them as "growing pains" because that is what they are. The United States, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, you name it, all suffered from displaying bad behavior when they placed their national concerns above everybody elses'. We have fought wars because of them. Remember? "Manifest Destiny" meant one thing for the Philippinos and another for Americans and something different for the Japanese.

---

I believe I've learned all I can from your position on this subject. I don't expect I'll be responding to any more of your posts on Port Darwin. Thank you for your insights and look forward to other subjects on which we can argue.

You are welcome. I look forward to future discussions.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.rand.org/blog/2016/03/beijing-ups-the-ante-in-south-china-sea-dispute-with.html?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=rand_social

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.rand.org/paf/projects/us-china-scorecard.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/asia-times-pentagon-trying-stop-chinese-air-defense-zone-disputed-sea/

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/asia-times-pentagon-trying-stop-chinese-air-defense-zone-disputed-sea/

Far too little, far too late.

 

[sferrin]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/asia-times-pentagon-trying-stop-chinese-air-defense-zone-disputed-sea/

Wow. Putin an Xi probably have to take downers daily to keep from laughing themselves to death at the incompetence of this administration.