[pphysch]

It's a stretch to call it "coercion" when it is directly in response to offenses committed against China [1] and primarily driven by Washington. Framing every negative action as coercion, regardless of causality, drains that word of meaning.

The bottom line is China wants to do business, but Washington wants China to be contained.

[1] - https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/12/1/australia-china-...

[JumpCrisscross]

> China wants to do business, but Washington wants China to be contained

China expelling diplomats and cutting economic ties because an Australian college student said something mean or Baltic nation didn't agree with the party line on Taiwan is not wanting to do business.

[pphysch]

In virtually every case these are explicit tit-for-tat actions.

[JumpCrisscross]

> virtually every case these are explicit tit-for-tat actions

Zig versus zag. The point is economic repercussions for diplomatic faux pas means you aren’t just looking to do business, you’re leveraging business as a political tool. That’s a novel risk environment compared to before Xi.

[threeseed]

You weren't clear what offences Australia has committed to China or why you are making this about US.

Banning Huawei over national security concerns or asking for an independent inquiry into the source of COVID is hardly offensive. And they are not excuses for refusing to abide by WTO rules and inventing reasons to prevent free and fair trade.

What is offensive is China providing a list of 14 grievances that Australia must address (e.g. supporting China's take over of Taiwan) in order to maintain a normal economic relationship.

[pphysch]

> You weren't clear what offences Australia has committed to China or why you are making this about US.

I cited it, you just didn't bother to read it.