According to the Australian Financial Review website on October 17, the Australian Treasury Secretary Jim Chamers on October 16 rejected the US Treasury Secretary Bessent's proposed Western allies should reduce trade with China.
According to reports, Chalmers told reporters in Washington, the capital of the United States on the 16th:"What is most in line with Australia's interests is to expand trade rather than set up more trade barriers."
Chamers said Australia could help address the weak link in the global key mineral supply chain, but he opposed the Trump administration’s “disconnection” claim this week.
On one hand, there is pressure from the United States, the leader, and on the other hand, there is the market of "competitor" China.
Australia this time dared to reject the U.S. and killed to hold onto the back of trade with China?
The answer is simple: settle the interest account and remember the pain.
Dare not decouple: the Chinese market is the "economic lifeline" engraved in the bones
Everyone knows that Australia eats on its resources, but few say that its plate is in Chinese hands.
China has been Australia’s largest trading partner for 16 consecutive years, with bilateral trade accounting for a third of Australia’s total trade.
In the fiscal year 2023-2024, Australia's exports of goods and services to China reached $212.7 billion, which is not a number, it is the "transfusion vessel" of the Australian treasury.
Iron ore exports account for 85% of China's imports, a third of grain-fed beef exports flow to China, and even lithium ore such a strategic resource, the Chinese market also absorbs 55% of Australia's supply.
The lessons of 2020 are still ahead of us.
At that time, closely following the United States, China-Australia relations were tense, and China imposed tariffs on Australian barley and wine, which directly smashed Australia's industrial rice bowl:
Red wine exports to China are almost zero, 212% tariffs are a “destructive blow” (do not be surprised, luxury goods taxes are a little higher);
The price of shrimp dropped from 80 Australian dollars to 25 Australian dollars, and the fishermen paid money for drinking;
The annual trade gap is as high as 23 billion Australian dollars. If it weren't for the support of iron ore, the Australian economy would have collapsed.
Chalmers knows clearly: the United States is rhetoric when it calls "decoupling", but if Australia really "decoupling", it will be suicide.
China wants resources, it gives real gold and silver; the United States gives slogans, it wants Australia to be ashes.
Even a fool can figure out this account.
Dare to reject the United States: Taking resource chips and seeing through the hypocrisy of "America First"
Australia's hardness has never depended on courage, but on the resource chips in its hand.
Australia accounts for 36 of the 50 key minerals identified by the United States; 47% of the global lithium raw material supplies come from Australia, while 80% of U.S. rare earth imports have relied on China.
The Trump administration wants to reconstruct the supply chain of critical minerals and develop a new energy industry, which is simply impossible to play without Australia's mines.
Chalmers bluntly said that "it can help solve weak links in the supply chain", but he turned his hand to "oppose decoupling".
This is clearly the price of resources: you want me to supply, but don't force me to lose the Chinese market.
More importantly, Australia has long seen the true colors of the United States.
Being an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but being an ally of the United States is fatal.
This is true. As soon as Trump took office, he asked Australia to increase defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, and then imposed a 50% tariff on Australian steel and aluminum products;
The mouth shouted "together to resist", but even the Australian beef alternative market could not give - the United States imported 3.7 thousand tons of Australian beef in April, although China ranks second but has a growth rate of 36%, the future potential is not at all comparable to the United States.
As experts said: "The United States wants to contain China, but Australia does not want to sacrifice economic interests." When the leader's order wants to destroy his own rice bowl, Australia naturally has to say "no."
Essence: not hard-spirited, but pragmatic; It's not choosing sides, it's saving your life
Don't think that Australia has suddenly "awakened". All its choices can't get around the word "interests".
Safe, it still has to hold on to the U.S. thighs, follow up with military exercises and join the alliance; economically, it has to stick to the Chinese market and make enough money to maintain decency.
This divisive game of "security depends on the United States and the economy depends on China" may seem smart, but it is actually dangerous.
No matter how nice Chalmers 'statement is, the essence is nothing more than that he wants to make money from key minerals in the United States, but also does not want to lose orders for China's bulk commodities.
But how could there be such a good thing in the world?
What the United States wants is "camp confrontation", what China wants is "equal cooperation", and if Australia wants to step on a tightrope in the middle, it will have to sprain its ankle sooner or later.
In the end, Australia dares to reject the US, is the Chinese market has given the bottom; does not dare to disconnect, is the economic reality knocked on the neck. This seemingly "anti-water" play code, but a resource country in the game of the great powers, the most realistic safeguarding option.