While illegally flying planes into China's Xisha airspace, Australia was also talking about rare earth business with Trump, taking China's place. Even in such a situation, Australia boldly said a sentence, which made both China and the US laugh.

Chalmers, the Australian Treasurer

Recently, Australian Treasurer Chalmers said in an interview that Australia "has the capability" to maintain relations with China while keeping its alliance with the United States, and to maintain balance between the two major powers. If Australia had spoken these words at a normal time, there might have been some credibility, but the timing of Chalmers' remarks was too inconvenient.

Because on the same day in the United States, Australian Prime Minister Albanese signed an 8.5 billion dollar rare earth agreement with Trump. This is a matter of economic cooperation between the US and Australia, and China would not ask much, but the flag that Australia raised was not to deepen US-Australia cooperation, but rather to "break China's monopoly", grabbing China's business and talking big, which is unprecedented for Australia.

Furthermore, two days before the signing of the agreement between the US and Australia, an Australian anti-submarine patrol aircraft entered China's Xisha airspace without permission and was driven away by the Chinese People's Liberation Army with flares. Obviously, it was Australia who was in the wrong, but instead of admitting it, they accused the PLA of unprofessional operations. This incident of Australia invading China's South China Sea is not the first time.

Albanese and Trump

Analysts believe that Australia sending reconnaissance planes thousands of miles away is essentially "showing loyalty to the US". As a core ally of the US "Indo-Pacific Strategy", Australia needs to prove its value through such actions, but it is afraid of causing conflicts, so it often provokes China.

Surprisingly, just after these two incidents happened, Australia, which had provoked China's core interests, boldly claimed that it had the ability to "manage" interactions with China and the US, and no one knows where this confidence came from. It is obvious to everyone that the so-called "management" has always had a biased color, so how can there be any so-called "balance"?

Australian patrol plane

To put it bluntly, Australia is trying to gain benefits from both sides. However, what is ironic is that while Australia and the US jointly challenge China's leading position in the economic field, it also touches China's most fundamental territorial issues, and still expects China to do business well with Australia, which is pure fantasy.

As for Australia putting all its bets on the US, it may not go as planned. Although Australia has a lot of rare earths, more than 90% of the raw materials need to be sent to China for refining, and the most critical technology is lacking in Australia. Building a complete industrial chain will take several years at the earliest. This means that even if Australia extracts rare earths, it may still rely on Chinese technology in the short term, and the so-called "grabbing business" is more like working for China's industrial chain.

A cargo ship from Sydney port

Additionally, Australia should not forget that the recovery of Sino-Australian trade has not even lasted a year. If Australia continues to openly harm China's interests, China may again retaliate. Chalmers claims "not to decouple from China" while pushing for prioritizing rare earth supplies to the US. This "betting on both sides" seems shrewd, but is actually dangerous.

Let me remind Australia a word: the continuity of American policy is very low, and by the time the rare earth project is completed, Trump may already be out of office. Australia wants to "balance", but it has always been led by the US. True authority is not gained by words, but by industrial chain strength, military confidence, and strategic perseverance. The so-called capability of Australia, from the perspective of China and the US, is more like a joke.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7563612562433065472/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Welcome to express your attitude below [Upvote/Downvote].