"China threatens Australia" Topic

🤔

"In January 2026, China escalated diplomatic and economic threats against Australia, warning of "forceful intervention" and retaliation if the Albanese government moves to forcibly reclaim the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin from Chinese company Landbridge. China's ambassador signaled potential trade sanctions, citing obligations to protect Chinese corporate interests.

Key details regarding the rising tensions include:
Port of Darwin Dispute: Ambassador Xiao Qian warned that taking back the port, which was leased to Landbridge in 2015, could harm bilateral trade and investment.

Trade Sanctions Risk: The threat includes potential, unspecified economic repercussions similar to previous sanctions, which could affect Australian exports, reported The Nightly.

Taiwan and Steel Tariffs: China has also pressured Australia regarding its stance on Taiwan's reunification and has cautioned against new tariffs on Chinese steel imports, according to YouTube and YouTube.

Australian Position: The Australian government has reiterated its intention to review the port lease for national security reasons, despite Beijing's warnings.

These threats represent a significant freeze in the previously thawing diplomatic relationship between the two nations, noted streamlinefeed.co.ke. "

I think China is threatening everyone is Asia. Japan is under a ton of pressure too.

It seems as if China looked at the hatred Japan earned in WWII, shrugged and said "Hold my beer!"

The PRC is always threatening Australia, "punishing" us by imposing tariffs, banning imports, arresting Chinese-Australians silly enough to visit China, etc. The mining magnates and agricultural conglomerates go screaming about how the economy will be wrecked, jobs (aka votes) will be lost, etc, and how they'll withdraw their political donations unless the government becomes "reasonable". Not too different from what I see in other countries, where money doesn't just talk, it screams and rants.

If the government had the 'nads to say "OK, we'll stop exporting anything to the PRC." then the PRC might rethink its position- and Twiggy and his mates . But I really doubt it.

The PRC is always threatening Australia

Well not always, the last major threat was after the prime minister demanded an inquiry into COVD19.

"punishing" us by imposing tariffs

Which is why it was shocking that our supposed "ally" did the same thing last year, and it wasn't even retaliation for anything we'd said or done.

if the government had the 'nads to say "OK, we'll stop exporting anything to the PRC."

How do you think our economy would go if we shut off 1/3 of our export income?

The port of Darwin issue is a problem of our own making. We shouldn't have leased it, but having done so we should live with it and not renege on the contract. That's banana republic stuff.

@ Shardik.

Threats over tariffs seems the preferred tool of authoritarian regimes now. China, the US.

Big Business re-negotiates contracts all the time, so I'm OK with cancelling the lease. There'll be a financial penalty involved but that's fair.

As for not trading with China – that's delusional. I believe OZ has started diversifying after the last time. Like Canada has found, it is wise not to get too chummy with bully-neighbours.

ochoin

TDS strikes again. You think of Trump more than the average American.

We cannot trust the CCP. They fund and are behind many initiatives to destroy the US. They only respect strength. They play the long game … they will continue to try to undermine the US. No matter how long it takes …

OSCS +5

Shardik, not all threats are economic. There have been a number of threats to shoot down/sink Australian aircraft and ships (not all of them were RAAF or RAN, either) for "violating China's sovereignty" over the SCS. There's also been some dangerous stunts pulled- visible lasers used to dazzle flight crews, dumping flares or chaff in front of aircraft, trying to white-noise flood GNSS systems. Lastly, how many Australian citizens are currently held in Chinese gaols, still awaiting information on why they're being held?

I agree- the port should never have been leased, but privatising assets, or leasing them, seems to be a favourite of parties when they're trying to pork-barrel an election. A mistake on the NT and Fed governments' part, and there's no reason why they shouldn't correct that mistake.

As for stopping exports, it would be painful. Diversifying our trading partners would be worth it, as it would ease most of the uncertainty our overseas trade currently has to factor in. If that means Target can't buy jeans for $2.00 AUD in the PRC, and sell them here for $40.00 AUD, who cares? (Apart from the company's board and shareholders?) Perhaps the threat of cutting trade may also make the PRC rethink their approach- though I strongly doubt that.

As for not trading with China – that's delusional.

Why? We did without them until the 1980's, and dropped some long-time trade partners so that the new PRC markets could be fully exploited. It's also a favourite excuse used by the few who would be hit hardest (Twiggy and Gina should have enough money by now), and is right up there with "re-regulating banks would stifle the economy" as a self-serving scare tactic.

Here's a similar situation from history- do you think Pig-Iron Bob was right to keep selling steel and iron to the Japanese in 1941?

The ones hit hardest would be the now unemployed hundreds of thousands of miners, providing ore for the Chinese market, and the average Australian consumer when the economy goes belly-up.

Sorry, Dal, this "Economics: 101". Diversify is sensible. Find other markets before you cut off your enemies (or "allies").

And threatening (then backing off when your bluff is called) is the stupendously unsuccessful tactic of the Leader who loves using the 'tariff weapon". Guess who?

@ Oscs74

TIS strikes again. You leap to his defense even when it's indefensible. BTW if that's all you have to add – a puerile barb-
I may as well "grey box" you as well. It's interesting how a number of grey boxes doesn't seem to marr a thread at all. I guess it's dependent on the "boxees". So, a few cogent & polite arguments (if you have them in you) would be welcome.

OSC, Legion, Dal +1

"But today there is no day or night
Today there is no dark or light
Today there is no black or white
Only shades of gray" 😉

Sorry, Dal, this "Economics: 101". Diversify is sensible. Find other markets before you cut off your enemies (or "allies").

Good point, but only if there are no possible alternative markets. They are out there, they may not be as profitable, however- and that's all that matters to the magnates. Profit. But how are we going to make lazy magnates look for fresh markets, Ochoin? Some, such as the agricultural sector, did start looking for new markets after Morrison offended the PRC by speaking the (unpalatable to them) truth. But all the mining sector could do was moan about how hard things were and why couldn't we grovel to China, so they could get back to making their billions. Stopping exports of strategic minerals to the PRC would technically do less damage, especially job losses, but the PRC would probably ban all Aussie imports if we tried that. They are likely to ban Aussie imports again, in any case.

Agreed. Threatening and not following through is a kindergarten trick. So the threat to stop exports must be real (return to line 1). Though I doubt it, the PRC may actually want to talk and avoid that happening.

So which way do we go? Supply at the PRC's pleasure, and ignore their foot on our economic necks? Or look for alternatives and tell the PRC to shove it?

I fail to see how you could think that a government uses a trade ban that cast many Australians into unemployment is a useful tactic. And if this put the wealthy technocrats against them, how would such a government win the next election?

You lead a sulky horse by its nose, not by flogging its rear end. Find markets, sign deals & *then* comes the weaning. Look at what the exceptional Mark Carney, who has the same problem of trying to shift trade from a different bully, is doing in Canada. There's India, the EU & smaller democracies if you don't want to trade with the authoritarian states. But you need a deal first.

I don't know about you but I've had a few jobs I didn't like much. I made sure I had lined up another before I quit.

As far as I am concerned, TDS is following him and believing him.
If not believing him is DH worthy as TDS, then believing him, and proclaiming him, should be equally DH worthy. Fair is fair.
Triumphantly condemning TDS is just plain silly.

Thanks, John. It's just a silly insult.

Not nearly as good as my favourite insult:

"You're upside down. Your feet smell & your nose runs."

(acknowledgement to the great Marx Bros.)

In ‘Murica, lèse-majesté should NOT be a DH offense. But, apparently in some quarters it is.

I fail to see how you could think that a government uses a trade ban that cast many Australians into unemployment is a useful tactic.

Short term it's a shocker. In the long term which would you prefer:

1. Remain under Chinese economic domination? Or

2. Get some of the economic eggs into different baskets and diversify our trade partner relationships?

And if this put the wealthy technocrats against them, how would such a government win the next election?

There's the rub, Donald. While the big companies have that level of influence over the pollies then they can, and to a certain extent do, run the country for their benefit. How many people were charged and tried after the financial services Royal Commission (RC)? Why was the proposed RC (or was it just an inquiry?) into mining in WA stillborn?

I agree- it would be better to look for a landing place before we jump. But that jump will never happen until the will to step out from under China's boot is more important than "campaign donations" for the next election.

I made sure I had lined up another before I quit.

Not bragging, but I've rarely searched for a job since I retired from the army. The jobs came asking for me- which wasn't always a good thing (JP20**……). It happens when you have the right qualifications and experience in (what was) a niche technology.

Like civilised human beings, Dal, we'll end this here on good terms.

I am not convinced by your arguments & you are not convinced by mine. But that is political debate…..unless you're small-minded & petty enough to sink to name calling.

By the way…

Is China really developing a space supercarrier?

link

Armand

Like civilised human beings

Well, if you're going to insist on being reasonable…. [where's that bleeding *sulking* icon?]

unless you're small-minded & petty enough to sink to name calling.

Any particular name you'd like me to use, mate?

I get worried, Donald. The US has been a relatively benign world power. Going by China's current behaviour in Tibet and Hong Kong, I don't doubt they'll be anything but benign.

Bnign. Beten. Beeleven.

(apologies)

Call me anything you like except "English".
For obvious reasons. 87)

The US has been a relatively benign world power.

Has been. Hopefully it will change course and revert back to that position.

Call me anything you like except "English".

Not even I would do that, mate. The shade of my McKinney grandmother would be peeved.

Has been.

I was ambivalent, mate, until his recent remarks about the US allies in Afghanistan. Now I try to avoid the subject.