The U.S. does not dare to directly raise tariffs on China, instead neglecting its allies to shoot on China, and Australia first said no, stressing that it will not increase trade barriers.

According to a report by the Australia Broadcasting Corporation on October 17, on Friday local time, Australia Treasury Secretary Jim Chalmers, who was visiting Washington, USA, stated that Australia may help resolve weak links in the global key mineral supply chain, but he clearly opposed the Trump administration's "decoupling" argument against China this week.

It should be said that this is the first since the recent U.S. threat to raise tariffs to China at 100%, the first clearly opposed to China's de-linking and the traditional Western camp countries that fight a trade war with China.

The Australian minister, who was in Washington, did not completely "kneel down" Trump. He clearly warned that China is Australia's largest trading partner, and Australia should continue to cooperate with China based on its own interests.

They want to expand trade to maximize profits, rather than add barriers to trade.

Recall that during the previous United Nations General Assembly, Australia was also the first to announce the recognition of a Palestinian state, and the United States was sufficiently angry.

In fact, in essence, this time is a continuation of the Sino-US trade war. Since the Trump era in 2018, the United States has imposed tariffs on China and restricted technology exports. Now it's the turn of critical minerals. China controls more than 80% of the world's rare earth processing, and has recently restricted some exports. The United States is anxious and wants to attract allies to build a "parallel supply chain."

Australia, as a mineral power, is naturally watched by the United States, hoping that Australia will stand.But Australia: Oh, I trade with China so deeply, do not disconnect yourself?

So he publicly voiced his opposition and became the first U.S. ally to explicitly say "no." This also sets the example for other countries, such as Europe and Japan, which may also struggle.

The core reason why Australia is unwilling to decouple from China is money!

Sino-Australian trade is the lifeblood of Australia. Simply put, Australia has made a lot of money by selling things to China. "Decoupling" is equivalent to cutting off one's own legs.

From the data point of view, the total bilateral trade volume between China and Australia has soared to about 250 billion US dollars in 2025. China is firmly on the throne of Australia's largest trading partner, accounting for more than 30% of Australia's total exports.

What does Australia export? Primarily iron ore, coal, natural gas, agricultural products and education services.

China is the largest buyer of these things. For example, 70% of Australia's iron ore is sold to China, helping Australia support its mining economy and creating millions of jobs.

If we decouple, if China turns to Brazil or Africa to buy mines, Australian mining companies will cry and its economy will shrink by several percentage points.

The Australian case has actually struck the pain of global trade protectionism.

Since the rise of trade protectionism led by the Trump administration, countries have erected tariff walls, engaged in disconnection, subsidized their own industries, on the surface protecting themselves, and actually harming themselves.

Protectionism is a short-sighted "zero-sum game" where winner takes all? If it doesn't exist, everyone loses. Australia's statement is a reminder: in the era of globalization, cooperation is king. In the long run, decoupling can never be not an antidote, but a poison.