BEIJING, November 10, 2026 — China is using its growing network of smart ports and automated terminals to push for a larger role in the technology that moves goods around the world, promoting driverless trucks, remote-controlled cranes, AI-powered customs systems and digital shipping documents ahead of next week’s APEC summit in Shenzhen.
The initiative reaches beyond faster cargo handling. Maritime transport carries more than 80% of goods traded worldwide by volume, and the software that tracks containers, verifies documents and coordinates customs can influence how quickly cargo moves and which companies control the data behind it. Beijing wants Chinese technology to become part of that operating layer, while Western officials and analysts warn that dependence on a narrow set of suppliers could create strategic and cybersecurity risks.
China’s Ministry of Transport says the country has built 60 automated terminals, more than any other country, and aims to increase that number to 90 by 2030. The ministry describes the network as a leading example of smart-port development, but those claims are official assessments and should be distinguished from independent comparisons of productivity, cost and reliability across countries.
At the Mawan Terminal in Shenzhen, automated trucks move containers between quayside cranes and storage yards, while remote operators supervise equipment from control rooms. The New Qianwan Container Terminal in Qingdao is presented by Chinese officials as a fully automated facility. The terminal says each crane can handle about 61 containers an hour, more than twice the rate cited for conventional docks. Such figures are site-specific performance claims rather than a universal measure of how every automated port performs.
Automation changes the work inside a terminal. Crane operators who once sat in high cabins can move to remote-control centres, while autonomous vehicles and software coordinate container movements across the yard. Sensors, cameras and tracking systems can reduce the need for manual checks and help managers see where equipment and cargo are located. The systems can improve safety by moving workers away from hazardous areas, but they also change the skills required and can reduce or reorganise some jobs.
The next stage is not limited to physical machinery. During preparations for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, China has proposed leading working groups on electronic bills of lading and customs databases that use artificial intelligence and large datasets. An electronic bill of lading is a digital record of cargo and shipping rights that can replace paper documents when accepted by the relevant parties. A shared customs data system could help authorities screen shipments and identify inconsistencies more quickly.
The advantage of digitising documents is straightforward: fewer paper transfers, less time spent reconciling records and a clearer audit trail for the parties involved. But the value depends on common standards and mutual recognition. A document that is digital in one country may still need additional verification when a ship arrives elsewhere. Ports, shipping lines, banks, insurers and customs authorities must agree on how records are authenticated, amended and protected.
APEC’s November 18–19 summit in Shenzhen gives Beijing a platform to present its approach to regional trade and logistics. The meeting is not itself a treaty that would require every member economy to adopt Chinese systems. Working groups can shape standards and cooperation, but national customs agencies and port operators will still decide which technologies they buy and which data they share.
Chinese companies are already selling port equipment and software overseas. Westwell, a maker of autonomous trucks, has deployed vehicles at Felixstowe in Britain. Huawei and other suppliers are involved in technology systems used across logistics and communications. China Merchants Port has said it installed a homegrown terminal operating system at Brazil’s Paranagua port and has rolled out its system at terminals in Sri Lanka, Greece, Italy and Turkey.
The overseas push builds on a substantial financing footprint. AidData, a research group at William & Mary, estimates that Chinese state-backed lenders and donors committed nearly US$24 billion to 363 port-related projects at 168 ports in 90 countries between 2000 and 2025. The report identifies about US$4.7 billion in financing for projects that included equipment such as cranes and security scanners. Those figures cover a broad range of projects and should not be mistaken for a single programme controlled by one Chinese company.
AidData’s analysis also shows that China’s overseas port financing is not limited to lower-income countries. About 45% of the portfolio it measured supports port locations in high-income economies, including Australia, Spain, New Zealand, Singapore and Brunei. The research says Chinese-financed ports can serve commercial purposes, while some facilities with Chinese owners or operators have also hosted naval activity. The study does not claim that every financed port is a military asset.
Also read: China Extends Suspension of Expanded Rare-Earth Export Controls Until January 10
The security debate centres on the data generated by a port. Terminal operating systems can record the movement of containers, vessels, equipment and cargo. Customs databases may contain information about importers, exporters, shipping routes and sensitive goods. If a supplier has privileged access to those systems, a host government needs confidence that the data are protected, that access can be audited and that the software can continue operating during a political or commercial dispute.
Western concerns intensified around LOGINK, a Chinese-backed logistics data platform that was promoted as a way to connect shipping information across countries. Reuters reported last month that the project had quietly lost momentum after resistance from governments and industry groups. The episode shows that building a technology platform is not enough: foreign ports and shipping companies must also trust its governance, security and commercial terms.
The United States has its own automation debate. A 2024 Government Accountability Office report found that all 10 of the largest US container ports were using some form of automation, with at least one terminal at each port using technology to track and communicate container movements. The report also found that adoption and effects varied. Port operators weigh costs, profitability, operational priorities and labour agreements, while stakeholders cited both potential safety gains and mixed effects on productivity and jobs.
That evidence makes a simple comparison between Chinese and American ports difficult. The number of automated terminals does not by itself establish that one country has a more resilient or secure system. Different ports handle different cargo mixes, vessel sizes and labour arrangements. A terminal that is highly automated may still depend on imported software, network connectivity and human intervention when equipment fails.
The risk of technological dependence is not unique to China. Ports around the world use equipment and software from companies based in several countries. The question for governments is whether procurement rules provide enough transparency about data access, software updates, remote maintenance and emergency support. A system that handles cargo information can become a strategic vulnerability if its operator cannot verify who has access or how quickly a supplier can restore service.
For shipping companies, the attraction of automated ports is more predictable turnaround times, better visibility over cargo and less paperwork. Delays at a major hub can ripple through vessel schedules, container availability, warehouse operations and retail supply chains. If digital systems reduce errors and help ports plan berth and yard operations more efficiently, the benefits can extend far beyond the terminal itself.
For countries that rely on imports of fuel, machinery, electronics and food, port technology is also an economic security issue. India’s trade depends on efficient maritime gateways, and its own port modernisation programmes have placed greater emphasis on digital services, logistics links and cleaner operations. The expansion of Chinese systems abroad will create choices for Indian operators about procurement, interoperability, data sovereignty and long-term vendor dependence.
India does not need to choose between automation and security. It can evaluate systems on measurable performance while requiring clear rules for data storage, access, encryption, software updates and incident reporting. Procurement decisions should also consider whether ports can switch providers, maintain operations during a cyber incident and retain control of essential operational records. Those safeguards matter whether a supplier is Chinese, American, European or Indian.
Also read: US-China Unveil $30 Billion Reciprocal Tariff Framework
The technology competition also has implications for workers. Automation can reduce physically demanding tasks and improve safety, but it can change staffing requirements and make some roles obsolete. Training and labour consultation will influence whether the transition produces better jobs or simply shifts employment away from port communities. The GAO’s review of US ports shows that labour agreements and local priorities can shape the speed and form of automation.
A second test will be interoperability. Shipping is international by definition, and a container may pass through several ports before reaching its final destination. Digital bills of lading and customs records will be most useful when systems can exchange information securely without forcing every participant to use the same proprietary platform. Standards that are open, auditable and widely accepted can reduce friction; closed systems can create new dependencies.
The APEC meeting will offer an early indication of how much support China can attract for its proposals on electronic shipping documents and AI-enabled customs. The summit will not resolve questions about overseas port ownership or cybersecurity, but it could help shape the language and standards used in regional logistics. Governments and companies will be watching whether the proposals emphasise open interoperability or create a larger role for particular national platforms.
China’s smart-port push is therefore both an industrial programme and a contest over the digital infrastructure of trade. Its automated terminals show that the country can deploy technology at scale, while its overseas financing and software exports give Chinese firms a route into foreign logistics networks. Whether that becomes a durable advantage will depend not only on crane speeds and autonomous trucks, but also on trust, security, competition and the ability of ports to retain control of their own data.