Chinese Communist Party officials should ask honest and objective questions about the morality of things, think hard about their lives and conduct, and radically change their behavior, plans, and purposes as a result.
This might happen in a few cases here and there. People have free will, and we know that defections are possible. We don’t, however, really expect China’s dictator, Xi Jinping, or any of his top lieutenants to alter their conceptions of right and wrong and switch their allegiance to reason, freedom, and individual rights anytime soon or ever.
Ethically questionable
Despite his recently expressed interest in questions of ethics, the Chinese ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, will not be the one to surprise us (“Chinese envoy slams ‘ethically questionable’ takeover of Darwin Port,” Financial Review, May 26, 2025).
In 2015, the government of Australia’s Northern Territory made a bad decision. It signed a 99-year lease with the Chinese firm Landbridge, owned by Chinese billionaire Le Cheng, to run the Darwin Port. Landbridge paid $506 million for the lease. And Landbridge has made investments.
“These efforts have brought remarkable improvements to the port, turning its financial situation from losses to profits and contributing positively to local economic and social development,” Ambassador Xiao says.
“Such an enterprise and project deserves encouragement, not punishment. It is ethically questionable to lease the port when it was unprofitable and then seek to reclaim it once it becomes profitable.”
If the reason for retrieving the port were only to take advantage of improvements and the revived financial prospects, Xiao might have a point. But his comments as relayed by Financial Review miss the actual reason that the Australian government wants to take the port from Landbridge, “which in a 2020 parliamentary inquiry report into the port’s sale was noted as having ‘extensive connections to the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Liberation Army.’ ”
If you’re a country government, it would be morally wrong not to reverse a decision that has handed a major asset to a major enemy of your country. This doesn’t mean that the port should be publicly operated; a private company of Australia or of some friendly country, not the Australian government, should operate the port. But neither the Chinese Communist Party nor any of its allies or proxies should operate it.
A campaign pledge
“Defence and security officials issued no objection to the deal at the time, and it fell short of requiring Foreign Investment Review Board scrutiny,” reports Financial Review. “Subsequent reviews have also cleared it on security grounds.”
But:
National security experts have regularly attacked the lease for handing control of a key national asset to a Chinese-controlled company. American officials have also expressed concern given the presence of thousands of US Marines nearby.
During the election campaign, both Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and then opposition leader Peter Dutton promised to strip the port from Landbridge and bring it back into Australian hands, either by assuming public ownership or having superannuation funds buy it, despite Landbridge’s insistence it wasn’t for sale.
A government spokesman says that the Port of Darwin is “a critical infrastructure asset of national importance.” Though he has hardly been a pillar of strength in opposition to the Chinese Communist Party, Prime Minister Albanese is right on this question (except insofar as he favors public ownership).
Minister Albanese has just won reelection to a second three-year term. Will he follow through on “what was a major bipartisan commitment during the election campaign”? It would be ethically questionable not to. But his government didn’t recover the port during his first term.
Also see:
Strategic Analysis: Beijing tested our defences—Anthony Albanese blew it (March 1, 2025)
“When our navy and air force are incapable of mounting a coherent operation to monitor, respond and pressure three Chinese ships firing weapons between the east coast of Australia and New Zealand, we should all understand this is an unacceptable political and military failure.”
Skynews:“Port of Darwin lease agreement ‘simply has to go’ ” (September 16, 2021)
““The Port of Darwin, I think, is unique because it is the only substantial naval port that we have really in the top part of the country and clearly of strategic relevance when you see what’s going on to our north in southeast Asia.”
