China Projecting Power in South and East China Seas

[NeilChapman]

Five bases identified in Philippines

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/03/20/1564662/us-philippines-agree-5-base-locations-under-edca

 

[NeilChapman]

99 yr Chinese lease of Northern Australian port. Can you believe that?


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/world/australia/china-darwin-port-landbridge.html?ref=world&_r=1

 

[Rickshaw]

99 yr Chinese lease of Northern Australian port. Can you believe that?


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/world/australia/china-darwin-port-landbridge.html?ref=world&_r=1

Perhaps you'd have preferred a US company to step in? Ooops, no one put up their hand... :

 

[sferrin]

99 yr Chinese lease of Northern Australian port. Can you believe that?


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/world/australia/china-darwin-port-landbridge.html?ref=world&_r=1

Hopefully they were smart enough to say "no military ships".

 

[Orionblamblam]

99 yr Chinese lease of Northern Australian port. Can you believe that?


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/world/australia/china-darwin-port-landbridge.html?ref=world&_r=1

Hopefully they were smart enough to say "no military ships".

There is a simple solution: Wait for the Chinese to become annoying, then do things the Bernie Sanders/ Hugo Chavez way and nationalize the port. Viola! problem solved.

 

[Arian]

Port management company leases port to manage that no one else wanted to manage. News, at 11.

 

[sferrin]

Port management company leases port to manage that no one else wanted to manage. News, at 11.

Not so simple.

 

[Rickshaw]

Port management company leases port to manage that no one else wanted to manage. News, at 11.

Not so simple.

You mean you want to see Port Darwin used by US military forces 'cause Guam has become too vulnerable to prevent your nation from exerting it's hegemony?

In reality, it was that simple. No one else was willing to put up the dosh so the Chinese got the Guernsey. Simples, really. :

 

[fredymac]

Australia calls China South Seas actions counterproductive.

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Wednesday called China's military deployments on the South China Sea "counterproductive", an unusually forceful rebuke against the country's biggest trading partner.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-southchinasea-china-australia-idUKKCN0WP0VO?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

 

[sferrin]

Port management company leases port to manage that no one else wanted to manage. News, at 11.

Not so simple.

You mean you want to see Port Darwin used by US military forces 'cause Guam has become too vulnerable to prevent your nation from exerting it's hegemony?

In reality, it was that simple. No one else was willing to put up the dosh so the Chinese got the Guernsey. Simples, really. :

Wow. "Hegemony"? That's hilarious. No, I just think it's a stupid idea to give a potential enemy control over a naval port in your country. YMMV.

 

[Rickshaw]

Port management company leases port to manage that no one else wanted to manage. News, at 11.

Not so simple.

You mean you want to see Port Darwin used by US military forces 'cause Guam has become too vulnerable to prevent your nation from exerting it's hegemony?

In reality, it was that simple. No one else was willing to put up the dosh so the Chinese got the Guernsey. Simples, really. :

Wow. "Hegemony"? That's hilarious. No, I just think it's a stupid idea to give a potential enemy control over a naval port in your country. YMMV.

"Control"? What do you think they are going to do? Put a gate up at the entrance and say, "No!" When a USN ship comes calling? You really are paranoid, you realise that? We are not at war with the PRC. Your country is not at war with the PRC. The company concerned is interested in making money (profit). Who are you to demand that the government of the Northern Territory in Australia should deny the highest bidder from paying the money for the right to manage their port on their behalf? As I keep pointing out, no US company was prepared to bid against the Chinese. When you find another company prepared to match or better the Chinese bid, get back to us, OK? : :

 

[sferrin]

Port management company leases port to manage that no one else wanted to manage. News, at 11.

Not so simple.

You mean you want to see Port Darwin used by US military forces 'cause Guam has become too vulnerable to prevent your nation from exerting it's hegemony?

In reality, it was that simple. No one else was willing to put up the dosh so the Chinese got the Guernsey. Simples, really. :

Wow. "Hegemony"? That's hilarious. No, I just think it's a stupid idea to give a potential enemy control over a naval port in your country. YMMV.

"Control"? What do you think they are going to do? Put a gate up at the entrance and say, "No!" When a USN ship comes calling? You really are paranoid, you realise that? We are not at war with the PRC. Your country is not at war with the PRC. The company concerned is interested in making money (profit). Who are you to demand that the government of the Northern Territory in Australia should deny the highest bidder from paying the money for the right to manage their port on their behalf? As I keep pointing out, no US company was prepared to bid against the Chinese. When you find another company prepared to match or better the Chinese bid, get back to us, OK? : :

Willful ignorance is a sad sight to see. It's worst when fueled by pompous self-assurance.

 

[Arian]

Willful ignorance is a sad sight to see. It's worst when fueled by pompous self-assurance.

Sorry Sferrin but he explained it quite nicely. What do you think leasing a port for management involves, and what do you think it, is?

You don't seem to know what it is, first of all. Second of all, you didn't actually read the article, that's also quite clear.

 

[Rickshaw]

Port management company leases port to manage that no one else wanted to manage. News, at 11.

Not so simple.

You mean you want to see Port Darwin used by US military forces 'cause Guam has become too vulnerable to prevent your nation from exerting it's hegemony?

In reality, it was that simple. No one else was willing to put up the dosh so the Chinese got the Guernsey. Simples, really. :

Wow. "Hegemony"? That's hilarious. No, I just think it's a stupid idea to give a potential enemy control over a naval port in your country. YMMV.

"Control"? What do you think they are going to do? Put a gate up at the entrance and say, "No!" When a USN ship comes calling? You really are paranoid, you realise that? We are not at war with the PRC. Your country is not at war with the PRC. The company concerned is interested in making money (profit). Who are you to demand that the government of the Northern Territory in Australia should deny the highest bidder from paying the money for the right to manage their port on their behalf? As I keep pointing out, no US company was prepared to bid against the Chinese. When you find another company prepared to match or better the Chinese bid, get back to us, OK? : :

Willful ignorance is a sad sight to see. It's worst when fueled by pompous self-assurance.

As against one powered by paranoid self-delusion? Exactly what are the Chinese company going to do? Come on! Tell us what you fear so much from a management company which will have several executives on-site? What do you think they are going to do? All the workers are Australian, all the infrastructure is Australian. Do you think they will smuggle a nuke in or something? :

 

[Arian]

Willful ignorance is a sad sight to see.

Sferrin, port management in most countries is done by a foreign company. Its the nature of the business that only companies in 2-3 countries specialize in it. Most major ports also have multiple management companies. Who do you think manages most US ports? Who do you think manages most Australian ports right now? Who do you think manages most Chinese ports, for that matter? (hint: most of their port terminals are also managed by foreign companies).

The freak-out by US politicians in 2006 was absolutely ridiculous. But in today's world of freaking out over everything, it's not unexpected.

 

[sferrin]

Willful ignorance is a sad sight to see.

Sferrin, port management in most countries is done by a foreign company. Its the nature of the business that only companies in 2-3 countries specialize in it. Most major ports also have multiple management companies. Who do you think manages most US ports? Who do you think manages most Australian ports right now? Who do you think manages most Chinese ports, for that matter? (hint: most of their port terminals are also managed by foreign companies).

The freak-out by US politicians in 2006 was absolutely ridiculous. But in today's world of freaking out over everything, it's not unexpected.

"Port management" is exactly what it says it is. And no, letting a potential enemy handle that isn't a particularly bright idea.

 

[fredymac]

The root of the problem is the "principal-agent" conundrum.

The principal–agent problem (also known as agency dilemma or theory of agency) occurs when one person or entity (the "agent") is able to make decisions on behalf of, or that impact, another person or entity: the "principal". The dilemma exists because sometimes the agent is motivated to act in his own best interests rather than those of the principal. The agent–principal relationship is a useful analytic tool in political science and economics, but may also apply to other areas Not mentioned in the preceding definition is that the principal has ceded some significant authority or holding to the agent.

In the specific case of the US "freak out", you had a company based in the United Arab Emirates looking to take over the port of New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, and others. The economies of the middle east (other than Israel) are quasi government structures. All companies whether they call themselves private or not are behooving to the government. Al Jazeera is a good example. What they do as a matter of course, must be with approval from the government (Qatar in this case). 5 years after 9/11, the idea of turning over the port of New York to a company that might not be too concerned with 19 Saudis slipping off a cargo ship struck more than a few people as unsettling.

If you are placing your port under management by a company which in turn is either directly or indirectly acting under guidance from a foreign government, should you be worried about the political goals of that government? Given the size, scope, and complexity involved in running a port, are there opportunities to hide smuggling activities (both people and "things"), conduct increased levels of espionage, or perform any other kind of mischief?

You can say that with proper oversight there will not be a problem. On the other hand, consider the example of the principal-agent situation involving political leaders acting "in behalf" of their voters. That hasn't worked too well lately (see Europe/Migration). Or you can look to Wall Street hedge fund managers and their clients (see Jon Corzine/re-hypothecation).

 

[Rickshaw]

You are ignoring the fact that Port Darwin is a minor port in Australia. It has separate government controlled entities which handle Customs, Excise and Quarantine as well as Immigration. They have extensive police powers all their own. They are NOT behooven to the port management authority. That authority is limited in what it does and can do. It manages the quays and the refueling resources for the ships. It manages access to the quays and it manages access to the quays. It manages the cranes and the tugs, the condition of the channel and rota of Wharfies ("Longshoremen" in American). So, exactly what are they going to do again? The Naval dock is managed separately. The naval refueling system is separate to the civil one.

As I have pointed out, no American company was willing to put up the dosh to match the Chinese bid. Until the critics of the decision find a competitor who is, all you're doing is, "Whistlin' Dixie" and showing your paranoia.

 

[sferrin]

As I have pointed out, no American company was willing to put up the dosh to match the Chinese bid. Until the critics of the decision find a competitor who is,

How is this even relevant?

 

[Grey Havoc]

On South China Sea islet, Taiwan argues Philippines case is far from watertight (Reuters)

 

[fredymac]

As I have pointed out, no American company was willing to put up the dosh to match the Chinese bid. Until the critics of the decision find a competitor who is,

How is this even relevant?

It is relevant in that anyone actually concerned about making a profit has decided to pass. It reinforces the notion that others who step in are not concerned about sustaining a loss.

 

[sferrin]

As I have pointed out, no American company was willing to put up the dosh to match the Chinese bid. Until the critics of the decision find a competitor who is,

How is this even relevant?

It is relevant in that anyone actually concerned about making a profit has decided to pass. It reinforces the notion that others who step in are not concerned about sustaining a loss.

If anything that simply reinforces the notion that it's a bad idea. Your potential enemy is willing to take a loss to get a toe-hold in one of your ports? Might want to take a closer look at that.

 

[Rickshaw]

As I have pointed out, no American company was willing to put up the dosh to match the Chinese bid. Until the critics of the decision find a competitor who is,

How is this even relevant?

So, you feel that Australian tax payers should pay for the management of their own port? I thought you were dead set against socialism...

 

[sferrin]

So, you feel that Australian tax payers should pay for the management of their own port? I thought you were dead set against socialism...

So you feel it's better to have your potential enemy manage your port than to cough up a few bucks? I thought you said you were smart? Ports are national assets. Having the enemy manage a port is as stupid as having them manage an airport.

 

[Rickshaw]

So, you feel that Australian tax payers should pay for the management of their own port? I thought you were dead set against socialism...

So you feel it's better to have your potential enemy manage your port than to cough up a few bucks? I thought you said you were smart? Ports are national assets. Having the enemy manage a port is as stupid as having them manage an airport.

"Enemy"? Is that how you perceive the PRC? Interesting. Why are you so afraid of the PRC? Do you think they want to rule the world like the USA does with its hegemonic ambitions? Does that frighten you?

 

[Arian]

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, even in China, are operated and managed by foreign companies. No, ports are not national assets. Ports, or rather terminals as ports are not a single entity but a collection of terminals, are build, operated and managed by private companies. Companies lease space to either operate terminals, or build new terminals.

The security of a port or terminal is not the responsibility of the company managing it. Its the responsibility of law enforcement agencies of the country. What sort of ridiculous scenario do people imagine where because some company operates some terminal, it can ship whatever it wants into the country? What absurdity.

As I said earlier, most ports around the world are operated and managed by foreign companies. Not understanding why, or what this entails, cannot be brushed aside by Sferrin repeating the same line "but they are potential enemies!". No, they are not potential enemies. COSCO is not my enemy, nor yours. Nor is Lenovo my enemy because it bought IBM's computer business and operates such facilities in the US. This is exactly the Donald Trump-esqe/Hugo Chaves-esqe mentality of third world dictators who nationalize private assets for the benefit of "the nation". This is not how things are done in our countries (or even in China, where most ports, or airports, are also managed by foreign companies).

These are the port operations of DP World, the Dubai-based company that idiot US politicians freaked out about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DP_World

The funny part is that many terminals and ports in Australia are already operated by Chinese companies, or Dubai companies, or others. The funny part is that 90% of US port terminals are also operated by foreign companies http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5234177

As are Chinese port terminals. As are everyone's!

 

[Arian]

Having the enemy manage a port is as stupid as having them manage an airport.

Here's some reading for you: http://www.air-trans-source.com/linked/manage-bk.pdf

 

[sferrin]

This sorry state of understanding of international business is what leads to things like Donald Trump.

Actually it's the hardcore apologists, who excuse every cut, justify every broken law, and jeer at any attempt to rectify the situation that leads to things like Donald Trump. People get sick of listening to excuse after excuse after excuse while watching their country slide into the gutter as a result.

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, even in China, are operated and managed by foreign companies. No, ports are not national assets.

Actually they are. Just ask Russia why they took Crimea.

Ports, or rather terminals as ports are not a single entity but a collection of terminals, are build, operated and managed by private companies. Companies lease space to either operate terminals, or build new terminals.

The security of a port or terminal is not the responsibility of the company managing it. Its the responsibility of law enforcement agencies of the country. What sort of ridiculous scenario do people imagine where because some company operates some terminal, it can ship whatever it wants into the country? What absurdity.

As I said earlier, most ports around the world are operated and managed by foreign companies. Not understanding why, or what this entails, cannot be brushed aside by Sferrin repeating the same line "but they are potential enemies!". No, they are not potential enemies. COSCO is not my enemy, nor yours. Nor is Lenovo my enemy because it bought IBM's computer business and operates such facilities in the US. This is exactly the Donald Trump-esqe/Hugo Chaves-esqe mentality of third world dictators who nationalize private assets for the benefit of "the nation". This is not how things are done in our countries (or even in China, where most ports, or airports, are also managed by foreign companies).

These are the port operations of DP World, the Dubai-based company that idiot US politicians freaked out about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DP_World

The funny part is that many terminals and ports in Australia are already operated by Chinese companies, or Dubai companies, or others. The funny part is that 90% of US port terminals are also operated by foreign companies http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5234177

As are Chinese port terminals. As are everyone's!

Listen to you. You sound as though your life depends on everybody being cool with an ever larger Chinese presence in strategic locations. Sorry if you can't see the bigger picture. No doubt you will hurl more insults but that's pretty much par for the course for you.

 

[Rickshaw]

Why is Port Darwin a "strategic location"? Oh, because you believe it is. You really do need to read some history and look at a map. Port Darwin is a minor port on the "Top End" of the Australian continent. You have yet to explain why it is important not to allow a Chinese company to manage it. You've yet to explain who will manage it, apart from the Northern Territory Government, at the expense of the Northern Territory citizens. You have yet to explain how this "strategic location" was ignored by everybody until after the announcement that a Chinese corporation had purchased the rights to manage it. Instead, all we get are moans and complaints...

 

[fredymac]

The security of a port or terminal is not the responsibility of the company managing it. Its the responsibility of law enforcement agencies of the country. What sort of ridiculous scenario do people imagine where because some company operates some terminal, it can ship whatever it wants into the country? What absurdity.

Yes, it is indeed the responsibility of the company managing a port to be a party to maintaining the security over it. Law enforcement has neither the people nor budget to stay on top of all movements and activities occurring over the expanse of a port. In the event of a security failure, at least in the US, the managing company would be fully liable to and front and center for any inquiries into a failure leading to something like this.

Tianjin Port Explosions (where Dubai Port Authority operates a container terminal according to your link)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_nnZntSYjo

As I mentioned earlier, you can not say “Chinese Company” or Dubai Port Authority and expect there to be no association to Chinese Government or Dubai Government. Unless of course you wish to say that both represent truly democratic countries with rule of law and sanctity of private property. It is precisely why you need to be careful when a state controlled/influenced company is involved when that state has goals or objectives contrary to your own.

The Donald Trump phenomena is a result of a slow awakening and rising disgust with the way “international business” has placed corporate interest over national interest. Companies do not care if their actions impoverish their own citizenry or harm the security of their own country. This wasn’t always the case but has become the norm over the past 50 years as directorships of executive boards and principal stockholders have come to view themselves as apart and above the quaint confines of national citizenship. The world as a whole operates on an old fashioned mercantilist philosophy. The US has been the principal mechanism (ie, the willing idiot) to enabling this as testified by our trade deficits. The question is finally being put to the American public whether they want to let this continue. Whether or not you approve, Donald Trump is providing them an opportunity to say "stop".

 

[Arian]

Yes, it is indeed the responsibility of the company managing a port to be a party to maintaining the security over it

No, it's not. That's it.

In the event of a security failure, at least in the US, the managing company would be fully liable to and front and center for any inquiries into a failure leading to something like this.

Tianjin Port Explosions (where Dubai Port Authority operates a container terminal according to your link)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_nnZntSYjo

That's not even remotely the same thing.

The Donald Trump phenomena is a result of a slow awakening and rising disgust with the way “international business” has placed corporate interest over national interest.

Nonsense. That's why we're a capitalist free market economy, and not a third world Banana Republic, which is the logic being followed here.

Actually it's the hardcore apologists, who excuse every cut, justify every broken law, and jeer at any attempt to rectify the situation that leads to things like Donald Trump. People get sick of listening to excuse after excuse after excuse while watching their country slide into the gutter as a result.

Rectify what? You're just spewing nonsense when you can't even formulate what the problem is to begin with.

Actually they are. Just ask Russia why they took Crimea.

Yes, we're not a dictatorial regime, unlike Russia. Russia, which BTW just leased terminals in their Novorossysk port to DP World

Listen to you. You sound as though your life depends on everybody being cool with an ever larger Chinese presence in strategic locations. Sorry if you can't see the bigger picture. No doubt you will hurl more insults but that's pretty much par for the course for you.

Right, so while you can't even formulate what the problem is, or what port management even means, you accuse others of hurling insults.

 

[Arian]

The world as a whole operates on an old fashioned mercantilist philosophy.

Clearly, if you ignore every link provided here to the contrary.

The US has been the principal mechanism (ie, the willing idiot) to enabling this as testified by our trade deficits. The question is finally being put to the American public whether they want to let this continue. Whether or not you approve, Donald Trump is providing them an opportunity to say "stop".

Letting "the public" with a HS education make decisions on trade, is exactly the problem. The US is the "willing idiot" because it benefits from cheaper products and the world's largest inbound FDI? Yeah big problem there.

 

[fredymac]

Rather than engage in a protracted exchange in details I will identify the crux of the issue. Are ports, whether sea or air, by their nature a physical component of the sovereign borders that define a state. Since they are by function the means through which foreign peoples and materials can enter a country I would say yes. The question then reduces to whether a sovereign state should relinquish control over its' borders to a foreign entity. For those who regard the very notion of borders to be an embarrassing relic of pre-Schengen and outmoded thought (perhaps even high school level), the issue is meaningless. If a Mexican company submitted the lowest bid, the US may as well let them manage the maintenance of fences, cameras, and seismic sensors along its' southern border.

Regarding the Tianjin Port explosions and their relevance to the discussion, I concede I used that to illustrate the possibilities that open when the world's foremost, specialized companies in port management get together. As for financial liability and yes criminal culpability (as defined under the terms for negligence), had this happened in New York as opposed to Beijing (Tianjin is the port city serving Beijing), there would be hordes of trial lawyers, many with Ivy League credentials, willing to share my high school parochialisms.

As a devotee of high school education, I have never seen a port management contract and yet I would not believe it would not have a provision whose gist would be: "all state and national laws regardless of nature (including but not limited to those pertaining to immigration, safety, health, and labor) shall be followed and any infractions thereof shall be immediately reported to relevant government authorities and corrective actions shall be implemented to prevent further occurrences". This clause would be the heart of the criminal negligence charge. It also illustrates my previous contention that policing is post-facto. Prevention requires oversight and that is the realm of management.

As tempting as it is, I will pass on the notion of who is worthy to participate in democracy.

 

[Rickshaw]

No one has yet defined exactly what this Chinese management company is going to do when it manages the port of Darwin. Australia has not relinquished any degree of sovereignty of its borders to this Chinese company which is purely concerned with the management of the physical infrastructure of the port. Australia's Border Force still controls the Customs, Quarantine and Immigration at that port. The Australian Federal Police still polices the port and it's environs, along with the Northern Territory Police. The Chinese company is, as I have explained many times, concerned with the management of the physical infrastructure and the day-to-day running of the civilian, commercial port. I cannot see how handing that over to a foreign corporation of Chinese, American, British or Nigerian nationality can represent any danger to the Australian nation or its sovereignty. No one has explained what the danger is. No one has explained how this affects Australia's strategic interests. Instead we have had airy-fairy, "Look out, it's a Chinese company!" Style of comments. : :

 

[Arian]

Rather than engage in a protracted exchange in details I will identify the crux of the issue. Are ports, whether sea or air, by their nature a physical component of the sovereign borders that define a state. Since they are by function the means through which foreign peoples and materials can enter a country I would say yes. The question then reduces to whether a sovereign state should relinquish control over its' borders to a foreign entity.

And this is the core of the argument. This is in no way shape or form "relinquishing control over the borders". This is the fundamental misunderstanding from you and Sferrin here. Which I suspect is not simply a misunderstanding, but a deliberate refusal to recognize facts. Its the king of straw-man arguments. You keep refusing to acknowledge the fact that this sort of arrangement, whereby terminals and ports are operated by various private companies, mostly foreign companies (because it just so happened that companies from only a few countries specialize in this service), exists everywhere. In the US, in China, in Australia. Everywhere.

It absolutely does not involve, in any way shape or form, any form of transfer of "sovereignty" to anything. This is simply the management of docks and equipment at the docks. It's got nothing to do with borders, its got nothing to do with security (which you confused with "safety", as in health and safety and technical operations)

For those who regard the very notion of borders to be an embarrassing relic of pre-Schengen and outmoded thought (perhaps even high school level), the issue is meaningless. If a Mexican company submitted the lowest bid, the US may as well let them manage the maintenance of fences, cameras, and seismic sensors along its' southern border.

You're confusing two entirely separate issues. I'd be perfectly happy with a Mexican company managing the fences and cameras and sensors on the US border. Of course it wouldn't happen because there's no private companies that specialize in such a task. Managing terminals in ports, or airports, or whatever other industrial sites? Yeah, there's lots of companies that do that. And yes, if they can do it better than US companies, they will get the contract.

90% of US port terminals are operated by foreign companies. Some of those, are Chinese. Just as most port terminals in China are operated by foreign companies. Just as airports in China are operated by foreign companies, many of those US (some of those Chinese airports are operated by US government entities, as in regional airport management companies set up by regional US governments).

Regarding the Tianjin Port explosions and their relevance to the discussion, I concede I used that to illustrate the possibilities that open when the world's foremost, specialized companies in port management get together. As for financial liability and yes criminal culpability (as defined under the terms for negligence), had this happened in New York as opposed to Beijing (Tianjin is the port city serving Beijing), there would be hordes of trial lawyers, many with Ivy League credentials, willing to share my high school parochialisms.

Your example there is not relevant because it has nothing to do with your claim. That is an issue of technical operations and technical safety. It has nothing to do with sovereignty, or security, in terms of law enforcement. The whole point of a management company is that they manage the technical aspects of the port. If they fail to do so well, then of course they are responsible for it. Its irrelevant if its a foreign or domestic company; if your negligence leads to something blowing up your port, you're responsible. But if you don't want things blowing up, then perhaps you should give the management of the port to a company that does it well, and not to one that does it poorly simply because it is domestic.

As a devotee of high school education, I have never seen a port management contract and yet I would not believe it would not have a provision whose gist would be: "all state and national laws regardless of nature (including but not limited to those pertaining to immigration, safety, health, and labor) shall be followed and any infractions thereof shall be immediately reported to relevant government authorities and corrective actions shall be implemented to prevent further occurrences". This clause would be the heart of the criminal negligence charge. It also illustrates my previous contention that policing is post-facto. Prevention requires oversight and that is the realm of management.

You're again confusing unrelated issues. Health and safety and technical operations are the responsibility of the management firm. Law enforcement regarding immigration etc., is not an ex-post responsibility of law enforcement of said country, or ex-ante responsibility of the terminal manager. It is always ex-ante responsibility of law enforcement of said country. When a US company manages an airport in China, does it bring over US cops to patrol the airport? No. When a European company manages an airport in the US, does it bring over British cops to patrol the US airport? No. TSA and local police are the ones responsible, regardless who operates the airport. There is no contract in the world that cedes sovereignty to any entity, foreign or domestic on law enforcement matters. Immigration or any kind of law enforcement is not the responsibility of the managing company, whether it is American or foreign.

You seem to think a foreign company operating some industrial complex is like an embassy?

Are Saudi Aramco operations in the US, Saudi Arabian sovereign territory? http://www.aramcoservices.com/Who-We-Are/Our-Reach.aspx Are American cops and law enforcement not allowed to enter Saudi Aramco refineries and oil operations in the US? Are Saudi Aramco research centers in the US not subject to the same laws as Exxon-Mobile research centers in the US? Can Saudi Aramco headquarters in Houston ship in Saudi soldiers into its buildings, and US law enforcement has no jurisdiction?

As tempting as it is, I will pass on the notion of who is worthy to participate in democracy.

Last time I checked we were a nation of laws, in the US. Not a nation of mobs. So no, the mob doesn't get to dictate what companies do or with who, simply because the mob doesn't like it. The law dictates what they do and with who.

 

[Arian]

No one has explained what the danger is. No one has explained how this affects Australia's strategic interests.

And no one ever will. You've explained it all very well, and much more briefly than I ever could. But we're not dealing with arguments from facts here.

 

[Rickshaw]

No one has explained what the danger is. No one has explained how this affects Australia's strategic interests.

And no one ever will. You've explained it all very well, and much more briefly than I ever could. But we're not dealing with arguments from facts here.

I agree, wholeheartedly. It is based more on Xenophobia than anything else. China is a nation which Australia is friendly with. China is a nation that the US is (supposedly, although that is increasingly doubtful as the US resents being supplanted by the PRC) friendly with. No one has explained what the small number of Chinese nationals working for this corporation are going to do. Are they going to spy on the comings and goings of vessels in Port Darwin? Are they going to try and sabotage the vessels coming and going? Are they going to attack the vessels in Port Darwin? How are they going to achieve that when there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of Australian nationals working in Port Darwin? Exactly how many vessels do people here think frequent Port Darwin? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Nothing has been defined. We don't know what they problem is, let alone how to counter it, if it is judged to exist.

As I keep pointing out, find a non-Chinese port management corporation that can bid the equal or greater than the Chinese did and they are welcome to take over Port Darwin's management. Until then then, please stop whinging. The Chinese have broken no laws and are not acting illegally. Time to wake up and smell the coffee, gentlemen. Unlike you, rational people don't react merely because people are Chinese in nationality.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

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.

 

[Rickshaw]

No part of Defence had a concern from a security perspective in respect of the sale. The Navy’s interest was overwhelmingly the question of access, not the question of ownership, given that it is a commercial port, not a navy base.

Secretary of Defence, Dennis Richardson. Testimony before the Senate Estimates Committee, 2015.

So, what are the Chinese going to do? As Premier Jo Bjelke-Petersen once remarked about Japanese investment in Queensland in the 1980s, "What are they going to do? Tow the land back to Japan?" Jo might have been crooked but he was smart. Port Darwin remains in Australian hands. It is managed by a Chinese commercial corporation. What is the Chinese Government going to do? Tow it back to China? : :

 

[Arian]

They could for example refuse to service an American ship at the port and therefore require the Australian government to intervene in port operations.

No, they couldn't. This is a straw-man.

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.

But Australian operators of this Chinese company, would automatically be Chinese spies and follow orders from the Chinese government?

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

Is this the source which confused fire-fighters of this company with "armed militias"?

Now, apply all these arguments your brought here, to COSCO terminal operators in the US. Can COSCO shut down the port of Seattle, prevent US law enforcement from entering, and are COSCO employees at their terminals in Seattle (who are all 100% locals) CCP spies too? This is all fantasy for fiction books, not for actual policy.

PS: BTW, if you follow the links posted here in previous posts, you'll see that there are plenty of Chinese companies operating terminals in Australian ports of much greater importance than some backwater like Darwin.