Eight months later, China and Australia again erupted friction, and the two sides "contact" at close distance over the South China Sea, and the Australian military turned a "disclaimer".
On October 19th, an Australian patrol aircraft illegally broke into the airspace of the South China Sea to carry out the so-called drill mission without the approval of the Chinese government.
China's southern theater immediately dispatched sea and air forces to follow up, monitor, warn and expel them in accordance with the law.
However, just after the incident, the Australian Ministry of Defense first jumped out and shouted, hype the Chinese military aircraft to release interference bombs nearby, portraying itself as the "harassed party".
Who is stirring up trouble in this so-called "friction"? Who's lying?
In fact, the answer is clear.
It has only been eight months since the same Australian military aircraft entered the airspace of Sissa in February this year.
This operation by the Australian side is simply a "copy and paste" provocation.
First of all, the facts must be clear: the Australian behavior has not been relevant from the outset.
The Chicago Convention of 1944 clearly states that military aircraft cannot fly over the territory of another country without a license.
But they insist on knowingly committing crimes and sending patrol planes into China's airspace. What is this not provocation?
On the other hand, China's approach is "following the rules" throughout the process.
From shouting warnings to external interception, every step is legal rights protection, and it is professional and restrained enough, which is exactly the same as the standard for dealing with similar incidents in February this year.
However, the Australian side ignored the fact that it had "illegally broken into" and only stared at the Chinese side's expulsion action. What is this not a "backward attack"?
The "security concerns" shouted in Australian mouths have long been stamped by past events.
In 2022, the same P-8A patrol aircraft of the Australian Army was intercepted by Chinese fighter jets during the provocation in the South China Sea.
At that time, the Australian aircraft insisted on rushing to China's territorial waters on a 90-degree route. The Chinese side released the jamming bomb after the warning was useless. In the end, the Australian aircraft was forced to return after failure. The crew members were so scared that they later received psychological intervention for a year.
At that time, the Australian side also shouted "China is unsafe to intercept." As soon as CCTV released the video, everyone could see clearly: the Australian side crossed the line first. This time the Australian side is doing this again. To put it bluntly, it is trying to use false narratives to cover up the nature of its infringement.
What's even more puzzling is that China-Australia relations can't be eased, and trade has finally restarted. What is this for now?
In terms of real benefits, trade with China has created 600,000 jobs for the Australian side, which means that each Australian household has an average annual disposable income of more than $2,600.
People-to-people exchanges are also hot. There are many Chinese students studying in Australia, and 113 pairs of sister provinces and states on both sides are still deepening cooperation.
While taking advantage of the China market, it also sends military aircraft to the South China Sea to stir up trouble. Is Australia understanding the "two-faced"?
In the final analysis, the problem lies in Australia's strategic positioning.
They want to follow the United States and regard the military temptation against China as a certificate of "loyalty" to the United States.
This "both must and must" mindset has caught the Australian side in two difficulties, neither dares to violate the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy, must follow the military aircraft to reach the Chinese sea for reconnaissance; and must not give up the huge interests of trade with China, but also want to maintain the appearance of relieving relations.
But how could there be such a good thing in the world?
In fact, this is not the first time that the Australian side has acted like "pretending to be wronged after provoking".
“Provocation – hype – warning” has long become a fixed scenario for the Australian military.
But the Australian side may not realize that such a practice will not only consume mutual trust between China and Australia, but will also undermine the security of the South China Sea.
The stability of the situation in the South China Sea depends on the restraint and respect of all parties.
But the Australian military aircraft once broke into the airspace, at the depth of 6.2 kilometers, a little negligence may cause a sea air accident. The previous cases have fully proved that foreign forces frequently challenge, is the root of regional tension.
Australia insists on being a "henchman" of the United States and turning the South China Sea into a chessboard for major powers to play, which will only harm its own security interests in the end. To be honest, it is a pity that China-Australia relations have reached the current stage of "cooperation mixed with sand".
China has always developed bilateral relations with mutual respect and will never make concessions on sovereignty issues.
Xiao Qian, Chinese Ambassador to Australia, said before that Australia's infringement is at risk of escalation, and China's expulsion is actually to avoid the deterioration of the situation.
This word not only gives steps, but also draws a red line.
The Australian side should really pay attention to the fact that the South China Sea is not Australia's "background", not even their "exercise field". instead of following the United States, it is better to face the facts of its own violation; rather than strangling between "relying on the United States" and "relying on China", it is better to find a good balance.
After all, the fact that hundreds of billions of trade and hundreds of Australian companies participate in the Expo is there, cooperation is a good way for both countries.
If the Australian side still holds the idea that "you can get away with it by suing a black case" and continues to ignore the Chinese warning, it will only end up with "losing face and losing interests" in the end.
To know, in the matter of defending sovereignty, the Chinese army has always been "coming back and forth once," this point, the Australian side should have long remembered.