Trade trumps geopolitics as Australia PM visits China
Regional security and trade will take centre stage during the prime minister's six-day trip spanning three cities - Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu.
"My government will continue to cooperate with China where we can, disagree where we must, and engage in our national interest," Albanese said in a statement.
The trip marks Albanese's second official visit to China - but the first since his re-election in May. It comes as countries around the world navigate US president Donald Trump's "America First" policies including tariffs.
China accounts for nearly a third of Australia's total trade and "will remain so for the foreseeable future", Albanese said.
"The relationship in China means jobs in Australia. It's as simple as that," he told reporters on Friday.
Albanese, whose Labor Party government was re-elected with an increased majority in May, had pledged among other things to create more jobs and bring back manufacturing in Australia.
Analysts say this trip signals a stabilisation of ties between Australia and China, even as Beijing has been trying to extend its military reach across the Pacific to some protest by Australia.
Last month, Australia's defence minister Richard Marles called on China to explain why it needs to have "such an extraordinary military build-up".
A rare Chinese military drill in the Tasman sea in February was also called "unusual" by Marles.
"Both sides recognise their differences... [and] agree those differences should not define the relationship," says James Laurenceson, director of Australia-China Relations Institute.
The two countries are not seeking geopolitical alignment, he said.
"They need to keep the politics stable and constructive so that other parts of the relationship, like businesses, cultural organisations, universities and so on can forge ahead with engagement in their own areas."
Mr Laurenceson notes, however, that Washington "will not be pleased" with Albanese's visit. But the prime minister has domestic support for this, he says.
"Washington is heading in a direction so plainly contrary to Australia's interests that any [leader] seen as kowtowing to the White House would face pushback at home," he says.
Beijing will continue to criticise Australia's involvement in the Aukus submarine deal with its longstanding allies, the UK and the US, observers tell the BBC, while Canberra will reiterate its commitment to the pact - even as Trump's administration has recently put the agreement under review.
But disagreements over issues like Aukus will not thwart Australia's and China's relationship significantly, the observers say.
And neither will other contentious topics Albanese may bring up - including China's actions in the South China Sea and the case of Australian novelist Yang Hengjun, who has been jailed and handed a suspended death sentence by Beijing on espionage charges which he denies.
"This is part of a broader, understated and mature diplomacy from the current government and it does not fall into the recriminations of previous years," says Bryce Wakefield, who leads the Australian Institute for International Studies.
Albanese's delegation to China includes top executives from Macquarie Bank and the Australian arm of HSBC, as well as mining giants Rio Tinto, BHP and Fortescue, according to the Australian Financial Review.
Albanese had cited green energy among the areas that Australia and China can "further engage" on.
While in China, the prime minister will also meet with Premier Li Qiang and Zhao leji, chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People' Congress.
China's state newspaper Global Times says Albanese's visit "carries special significance" and shows "Australia's desire to seek more reliable partners in an uncertain world order... with China being the obvious choice".
In November 2023, Albanese became the first Australian leader visit China in seven years - ending a hiatus triggered by a string of disputes including various Chinese sanctions on Australian goods, and back and forth accusations of foreign interference.
Since then, his administration has managed to stabilise ties with Beijing and negotiate the end of a series of brutal tariffs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Decision to Fire BLS Chief Echoes Putin's Strategies
U.S. President Donald Trump shake hands with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, on July 16, 2018. Credit - Brendan Smialowski—Getty Images President Donald Trump's firing of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Friday afternoon just after she delivered a negative jobs report echoes the impulse of many leaders to shoot the messenger. Trump declared, 'I've had issues with the numbers for a long time. We're doing so well. I believe the numbers were phony like they were before the election and there were other times. So I fired her, and I did the right thing.' While Trump may or may not be friends with Vladimir Putin, he is clearly following the Russian President's HR staffing guidelines to eliminate lieutenants who bring bad news. As we've documented before, the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) has a long history of manipulating official economic statistics to please Putin, 'bending over backward to correct bad numbers and burying unflattering statistics' under the pressure the Kremlin has exerted to corrupt statistical integrity, especially since Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The reliability of official statistics from China has also been brought into question, leading analysts to rely on a wide range of unofficial or proxy indicators to gauge the true state of the Chinese economy. Even China's former Premier, the late Li Keqiang, reportedly confided that he didn't trust official GDP numbers. Read More: What to Know About the Jobs Report That Led Trump to Fire the Labor Statistics Chief Like other strongmen, Trump has repeatedly shown a pattern of manipulating data to suit his preferred narrative. Trump's surprise firing of BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer has quickly caught the attention of technical market analysts and economists on both sides of the political spectrum. One side cheers the push to disrupt a slow, bureaucratic federal agency. The other side shouts in dismay over concerns about yet another example of Trump politicizing an apolitical institution. Both responses are warranted. The accuracy of BLS data has long been questioned as major revisions only come in months later. To their credit, the BLS, in addition to other statistical agencies, has publicly recognized a need to modernize its methodology. Unfortunately, though, the severity of job revisions has worsened since the COVID-19 era, with no successful program to address the issue. The downward revision on Friday of more than 250,000 jobs marked the most significant adjustment since the depths of the pandemic. However, Trump's accusations against the BLS of rigging the job numbers to make him and the Republican base look bad, and his subsequent firing of McEntarfer based on a belief that BLS revisions were politically motivated, are yet another step closer to authoritarianism. Introducing his latest conspiracy theory, the President went even further by suggesting McEntarfer, whose career spans two decades across Republican and Democratic Administrations, rigged the numbers 'around the 2024 presidential election' in then-Vice President Kamala Harris' favor. Trump conveniently fails to mention that his definition of 'around' was back in August 2024. Recall, the 2024 presidential election was a full three months later in November. Revisions are not unusual behavior by the BLS. They are a critical part of the natural process for developing an accurate picture of the largest, most dynamic economy in the world. The average size of job revisions since 2003 is not insignificant at 51,000 jobs. And, despite what Trump may want Americans to believe, his tariff policies have created an unprecedented level of uncertainty in the U.S. economy, comparable only to that of 2020, with many economists expecting a recession to follow as a result. Bloomberg reporting has pointed to a possible connection between the severity of negative job revisions and recessionary economic environments. The BLS has also been subjected to DOGE-led hiring constraints and other resource rescissions. In addition, the Trump Administration's disbanding of the Federal Statistics Advisory Committee in March both eliminated one of the main engines for enhancing agency performance and, perhaps, in what should have been a concerning harbinger, abolished the canary in the data integrity coal mine. Complaints about BLS methods are legitimate, like the reliance on enumerators over scanner data, and deserve attention, but this is not how to fix it. Read More: What Trump's Win Means for the Economy This is far from the first time Trump has subordinated statistical integrity to political theater. From crowd sizes to weather forecasts, vote counts to tariff formulas, Trump has discarded facts for fictions that play to his political favor. Trump doesn't just bend the truth—he twists the numbers until they resemble propaganda and then silences those who disagree. As CBS News titan Edward R. Murrow warned 65 years ago: 'To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.' Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump fires labor statistics chief hours after data showed jobs growth slowed
Donald Trump fired the federal government official in charge of labor statistics, hours after data revealed jobs growth stalled this summer, prompting accusations that he is 'firing the messenger'. The US president claimed that Erika McEntarfer, commissioner of labor statistics, had 'faked' employment figures in the run-up to last year's election, in an effort to boost Kamala Harris's chances of victory. Trump later claimed: 'Today's Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad'. He produced no evidence for these allegations, and insisted that the US economy was, in fact, 'BOOMING' on his watch. But Friday's employment figures told a very different story, and raised questions about the state of the labor market since Trump's return to office. 'We need accurate Jobs Numbers,' he wrote on Truth Social. 'I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY. She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified.' McEntarfer was contacted for comment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) confirmed in a brief statement that she had been dismissed. William Wiatrowski, the agency's deputy commissioner, will serve as acting commissioner. Trump's abrupt announcement came as administration officials scrambled to explain a lackluster employment report. Not only did jobs growth fail to meet expectations in July, but previous estimates for May and June were revised significantly lower. The president was promptly accused of trying to hide accurate statistics. 'Trump is firing the messenger because he doesn't seem to like jobs numbers that reflect how badly he's damaged the economy,' said Lily Roberts, managing director for inclusive growth at the Center for American Progress, a thinktank. 'Politicizing our country's collection of data on what's going on in the economy … will make it harder to create an economy that makes sure everyone has a good job,' added Roberts. 'Borrowing from the authoritarian playbook fuels more uncertainty that will cost Americans for years to come.' Paul Schroeder, executive director of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, described the president's allegation as 'very damaging and outrageous', adding: 'Not only does it undermine the integrity of federal economic statistics but it also politicizes data which need to remain independent and trustworthy. This action is a grave error by the administration and one that will have ramifications for years to come.' McEntarfer is a widely respected economist and veteran employee of the federal government. She previously worked at the US Census Bureau under George W Bush and at the US census bureau under Barack Obama, Trump and Joe Biden. In January 2024, before McEntarfer's confirmation for her current post by the US Senate, her nomination was backed by four former BLS commissioners. In a letter also signed by organizations including the American Statistics Association and a string of senior economists, they said there were 'many reasons' to confirm McEntarfer as commissioner of labor statistics, citing her 'wealth of research and statistical experience'. She was ultimately confirmed by a vote in the Senate, with 86 votes cast in favor and eight against. Gene Sperling, chair of the national economic council under Bill Clinton and Obama, and who worked as an official under Biden, said he expected Trump to 'destroy the credibility' of economic data when his administration suffered its first bad jobs report. 'Now: first bad job report, and he just fired BLS head over absurd claims of bias,' Sperling wrote on X, formerly Twitter. Trump's decision to fire McEntarfer was 'outrageous but not surprising', said Julie Su, former acting US labor secretary under Biden. 'He hates facts, so he blames truth-tellers.' The US 'needs and deserves trustworthy economic data', added Su. 'This is a pathetic attempt by the president to gaslight everyone about the consequences of his disastrous economic policies.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
From Laos to Brazil, Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers. But even the winners will pay a price
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers – from small, poor countries like Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners like Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty taxes – tariff – on the products they export to the United States starting Aug. 7. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that caved to Trump's demands — and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run — even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. 'In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. 'The biggest winner is Trump,' said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. 'He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded – dramatically.'' Everything goes back to what Trump calls 'Liberation Day'' – April 2 – when the president announced 'reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% 'baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs — all of which is now being challenged in court. Winners will still pay higher tariffs than before Trump took office Trump retreated temporarily after his Liberation Day announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually, some of them did, caving to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs for the privilege of continuing to sell into the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States — up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the UK for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low single-digit rates they paid last year — but lower than the tariffs he was threatening (30% on the EU and 25% on Japan). Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt. '20% from the beginning has not been our goal, we hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate,' Taiwan's president Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Bashing Brazil, clobbering Canada, shellacking the Swiss Countries that didn't knuckle under — and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath — got hit harder. Even some of the poor were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 — versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for trying to lose his electoral defeat in 2022. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on longstanding U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax — even higher than the 31% Trump originally announced on April 2. "The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington'' to make a deal, said Wolff, now senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his Liberation Day tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wend its way through the legal system, and may likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. 'If (the tariffs) get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Paying more for knapsacks and video games Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who try to pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits — or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker, have all hiked prices due to U.S. tariffs "This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,'' Appleton said. 'Sneakers, knapsacks ... your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates. 'The U.S. consumer's a big loser,″ Wolff said. ____ AP Economics Writer Christopher Rugaber contributed to this story. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
