- [Narrator] Chinese
firms fully or partly own and operate all these ports
outside China's borders. There's 95 of them on this map. Meanwhile, US companies don't operate any major ports abroad. For China, these ports have been part of a long-term effort to
build global infrastructure. Chinese firms have spent years and billions of dollars to build, operate, and develop ports around the world. American officials view
China's expanding network as an increasing security threat, posing significant economic
and even military risks. So what has the US done to counter this? Block China from making
more deals to keep ports in so-called friendly hands, but the US has had mixed success. In the past decade, China has spent a trillion dollars on its Belt And Road Initiative, a global infrastructure project designed to boost China's economy and political clout through
government-backed investments in dozens of countries. - The scale of China's trading enterprise is really staggering. - [Narrator] Isaac
Kardon is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment
studying China's maritime affairs. He and a colleague spent
years building a data set of all Chinese owned and
operated ports around the world. It currently includes 95 ports
across dozens of countries. - The strategic motivations for China, I think, are fundamentally defensive. They feel vulnerable to the United States and its alliance network
that they could be cut out of the global economic
system in some fundamental way. And so I think the drive to
make themselves indispensable to it and central to it is in part a way of insulating themselves
against that vulnerability. - [Narrator] Ports are considered national security infrastructure by the US government
because they're central to the flow of essential
goods like steel and food. But commercial ports are dual purpose. They're useful both economically, China can give its
vessels priority handling, and lower docking fees, and militarily, docks are used by navies
to refuel, restock, and re-arm ships. In recent years, the US
has worked to keep China from expanding this network
in a few strategic regions. China has three main shipping
and logistics companies that own most of its stakes in overseas ports, Cosco Shipping Ports, China Merchants Port and Hutchison Ports. Cosco and China Merchants are both owned by China's central government, while Hutchinson is privately owned. Cosco is an investor in several
key US ports, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Seattle. But in 2017, when Cosco
almost took over operation of a Long Beach container terminal, US regulators stepped in. The Trump administration blocked them from getting control out of
national security concerns. Ultimately, Cosco sold the terminal, but Chinese firms are still
a major presence at US ports. Cosco still has a major stake
in another container terminal at Long Beach from a preexisting deal, and lots of port infrastructure like the cranes that move cargo from ship to shore is made in China. Lately, some US officials have argued that's a security concern too. - There's growing suspicion that anything which is
controlled by China is used to spy on the United States. There's been procedures at
the US government to see whether the cranes at
American ports, which are made in China, are used to spy on
the operations of the port. - In Europe, the US has also
been trying to block China from expanding its stake in ports and controlling the flow
of goods to the continent. But US officials have had mixed
success convincing countries that security concerns
outweigh the benefits of Chinese state investment. In Hamburg, Germany's largest port, Cosco planned to buy a 35% stake in one of the port's container terminals. Government officials reduced
the potential stake to 24.9% but still faced criticism from the US and many in the German government. The country's chancellor
ultimately permitted the deal to move forward, but the
offer is still pending review. - The United States would
advise and press any country in the world not to accept
Chinese investments. It's a big dilemma for countries because the Chinese
have the cash to invest, which means this creates a lot of jobs, and it also improves the
outputs of those countries. - [Narrator] The Hamburg
deal though continues to face opposition which
will make it difficult to move forward. - In the past, such small investment wouldn't even make news. It's just indicative of
how tense the relations of the Western world are with Beijing - [Narrator] A similar
scene played out in Croatia, but in that case, the
US was more successful. It used behind the scenes diplomacy to have Croatia cancel a deal it had made with Chinese firms looking to
operate a container terminal in Rijeka and give the contract to a Danish company, Maersk, instead. Rijeka is strategically valuable because it's close to the Suez Canal and has access to
central European markets. The US government was particularly
concerned about the deal because the US Navy and
NATO sometimes use the port to move military equipment
in and out of Europe. China could have made that more difficult. - What Western intelligence
officials are saying is that by controlling this
terminals, they could eventually have a navy installation
there, in the future. I don't think this will be the case, especially in any European
point in time soon, but it could happen in Africa. - [Narrator] The US has
arrangements with dozens of military bases in
Africa, including several on the continent's west,
north, and east coasts. China has just one base in Djibouti, but while US firms don't own
commercial ports in Africa, Chinese firms own many. US officials have been
concerned about China building on the relationships it's
formed through commercial ports to establish additional permanent
military bases in Africa, especially on the Atlantic ocean, waters the US considers home turf. - The thing I think I'm most worried about is this military base
on the Atlantic coast, and where they have the most traction for that today is in Equatorial Guinea. - [Narrator] In Equatorial Guinea, the US has been trying to
convince country officials to reject China's bid
to build a military base in the city of Bata, where China already has a
commercial port deep enough for naval vessels to dock. - It's easy to put, install naval facility at a commercial port. If the port infrastructure is there, it can be used by a navy ship. There are, I think, real concerns that eventually you will
see Chinese warships docking at that port. - [Narrator] If it were to
establish a military base there, Equatorial Guinea would
be China's first base on the Atlantic, which would enable
Chinese warships to re-arm opposite the East Coast of the US. US officials have gone
to Equatorial Guinea to persuade leaders there
to reject China's overtures but it's unclear whether
the diplomatic outreach will fend off a Chinese
naval presence there. - This will be something that US officials are watching closely. Beijing hopes that it could in the future have a military presence in terminals and ports that it controls. - Whether it is or isn't
defensive is almost irrelevant. It has security consequences. We need to be attuned to those. We need to focus on what
we're trying to accomplish and maybe that means we
do need to counter China at various turns but that competition is
not gonna be one for one, you get a port, we get a port. It's more like what can we do to secure our own maritime
trade and transport, because ultimately that's
what they're doing. It just has negative externalities for our own ability to feel
secure in maritime trade.
