On October 16, during the autumn annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington, U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent said that the United States does not intend to disconnect with China, while calling on allies to "reduce their economic dependence on China" in a closed-door meeting.
Faced with this inconsistent approach, Australia Treasury Secretary Chalmers responded on the spot and clearly refused to adjust China policy in accordance with the US intentions.
This brief dialogue sharpened a key contradiction in the current international landscape: the United States is trying to restore the global economic order, but its allies are not always willing to pay for Washington’s strategy.
Washington's "decoupling" directive
The incident occurred on an unusual occasion. The meeting on October 16 was originally intended to discuss global economic growth and coordinated response strategies, but in the closed-door meeting, Bessent suddenly changed the tone and asked allies, including Australia, to reduce their trade dependence on China.
This scene is in sharp contrast to his statement in public the day before that "the United States has no intention of decoupling from China." The rhetoric is not only a change in style, but also exposes the obvious "duplicity" of the United States' China policy.
In the face of U.S. pressure, Chamers did not shy away, and he calmly replied: “For Australia, to maximize national interests is to expand trade, not to set more trade barriers.”
The words were calm, but loud, and the attendees understood that this was not only a polite rejection, but also an expression of Australia's position in the game of great powers.
Behind Chalmers' answer is Canberra's balance of real interests. Australia is not only an important exporter of key mineral resources in the world, but its iron ore, lithium, rare earths and other resources are the "patches" urgently needed by the United States to restructure its supply chain.
China, the largest buyer of these resources, shows that about 70% of Australian iron ore exports flow to China, accounting for an overwhelming proportion of total Australian iron ore exports, and the support of related industries for employment and fiscal income cannot be overlooked.
Therefore, the US "decoupling" proposal is not an abstract diplomatic option for Australia, but a real threat that may lead to economic "blood breakdown". In this context, Chalmers' response is not only based on economic rationality. Judgment is also a kind of maintenance of national autonomy.
The hurt memory.
Australia's attitude today was not formed overnight. It stems from a profound "memory of the cost." The lessons of its China policy during the former Morrison government are still vivid in our minds.
After 2020, Australia in the United States pushed high-profile calls for the new coronavirus to launch the so-called "independent trace investigation", directly touching the sensitive nerves of China-Australia relations.
The result was soon apparent: China took restrictive measures on several Australian export industries, beef, wheat, wine, shrimp and other commodities were defeated, among them, the wine industry was the first, the exports fell by more than 90%, and the entire industrial chain suffered seriously.
What angered the Australia people even more was that when their goods were shut out of the China market, American suppliers quickly "took over" the market gap and seized Australia's original share.
This scene is known in Australia as the "backbone", which has caused strong dissatisfaction in the business community and the media, and many voices directly point to the government's policy against China "to work for the United States and hurt itself."
These lessons prompted the Albanese government to re-examine Canberra's foreign strategy after taking office. Data show that the bilateral trade volume between China and Australia in the 2023/2024 fiscal year exceeded US $200 billion, and China remains Australia's largest export market and source of imports.
Especially in the fields of iron ore, natural gas, education and tourism, the Chinese market is irreplaceable, and the real economic interests are in front of the eye, and Australia is clear that if one wrong station leads to another loss of the Chinese market, the cost may be heavier than the last time.
As a result, when dealing with competition between China and the United States, the current government has gradually shifted to a more pragmatic line, maintaining security cooperation with the United States and not easily sacrificing economic and trade relations with China.
Crisis of trust among allies
On the surface, the United States seems to be “competing” with China, but the deeper contradiction is reflected in the strategic inconsistency, with Bessent on the one hand emphasizing “risk” rather than “disconnect.”
On the other hand, it continues to put pressure on allies to reduce their dependence on China. This contradictory posture is actually an attempt by the United States to make its allies bear the cost of "decoupling" while remaining as flexible as possible.
This strategy is not an isolated case, from the Trump administration's high tariff policy, to the Biden administration's export restrictions on China in semiconductor, rare earth, green energy and other fields, the U.S. economic policy towards China has always had a strong "political priority" color.
During the Trump administration, he has repeatedly threatened to impose punitive tariffs on Chinese goods, and even once put Australia on the "tariff observation list", which has made allies such as Australia realize that even as an "Iron Belt" ally, it is difficult to escape the influence of the U.S. policy shift.
Although the Biden administration is more moderate in language, it is also wavering in actual implementation. When talking about the supply of rare earths, Bescent publicly accused China of "disrupting the global chain", but on another occasion he stated that "the United States does not seek decoupling from China."
This vague strategy confuses allies and weakens U.S. coordination in the global system, showing differences not only in Australia’s, but also in the EU’s policy towards China.
Germany, France and other countries have repeatedly stated that "de-risking is not equal to decoupling" and emphasized that they will continue to maintain economic and trade cooperation with China, while South Korea, Singapore and other countries are more cautious and avoid choosing sides between China and the United States. This time, Australia's response can be seen as an "open" expression, that is, allies are no longer willing to bear too much price for the US strategy.
Trust is the basis for the operation of the alliance system, but when the strategy of the United States is neither clear nor stable, long-term allies will naturally begin to reassess their own interests and positions, which is not only related to immediate economic interests, but also related to future diplomatic autonomy.
This seemingly simple verbal confrontation actually reflects a deeper reality: today, as the global landscape accelerates multipolarity, the era of unilateral pressure is becoming a thing of the past.
The "decoupling" strategy that the United States is trying to promote is being calmly rejected by more and more allies, and Australia's response just shows that countries that have experienced lessons are learning to use their own calculations to make big international accounts.
For China, maintaining an open, stable and predictable cooperation environment may be the key to winning more partners. The international game depends not only on who shouts loudly, but also on who can calculate clearly.
Source of information:
U.S. finance minister pulls allies with China to "disconnect", Australian minister clearly rejects 2025-10-17 23:41 · Observer Network