Five years ago Australia cut a deal with France to supply them with $66 billion worth of diesel-powered submarines. Today, they suddenly announced that they were pulling out of the deal and would instead be working with the US and UK on a program to supply them with nuclear-propulsion subs. The French are not happy about this:
The world is a jungle. France has just been reminded this bitter truth by the way the US and the UK have stabbed her in the back in Australia. C’est la vie.
— Gérard Araud (@GerardAraud) September 15, 2021
All the reporting I've seen says that it was Australia that initiated talks with the US and Britain, so if anyone stabbed France in the back it would seem to be Australia. But I guess it's easier to blame countries you don't like that much in the first place.
The US has never shared its nuclear propulsion tech with anyone aside from the UK, so this agreement basically puts Australia on the top of the heap of US allies. Naturally this irked the French, who put out an official statement:
The American choice to exclude a European ally and partner such as France from a structuring partnership with Australia, at a time when we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region, whether in terms of our values or in terms of respect for multilateralism based on the rule of law, shows a lack of coherence that France can only note and regret.
I'm sure more will be leaked shortly about what was behind this specific deal, but generally speaking it's little more than a dramatic illustration of something that's been obvious for a long time: Australia is simply a more reliable ally than anyone in continental Europe. And that's become more and more true over time as Europe's interests steadily diverge from ours.
This is not a judgment about whose foreign policy is better or more farsighted. It's just acknowledging a fact. Europe is reluctant to challenge China because they're more economically dependent on them than we are. They're friendlier toward Russia because Russia is right next door. Most of them (though not France) are unwilling to meet their NATO funding obligations. Beyond that, there always seems to be endless squabbling over trade and security issues of all kinds and sizes. France, needless to say, is one of the worst squabblers.
It's entirely understandable that Europe chafes at the idea that they should accept junior status and let the US call the shots. At the same time, they can hardly blame the US for wanting allies who have a similar view of the world. Australia does, and increasingly Europe doesn't.
This is hardly a sign of some kind of huge breakdown in US-European relations. It's not. It's just one more straw on the camel's back. At some point, though, Europe needs to make up its mind. Do they want to do what they continually threaten to do, namely build a genuinely formidable pan-European military force? Or do they want to continue along the fractured, militarily useless path they're on? If the former, they can call their own shots. If the latter, they have to accept that the US is going to provide the lead whether they like it or not.
So far they haven't decided. But they can't put it off forever.
I hear the French are rude.
Personal experience is that they were generally polite to me if I was polite to them. It really helps to greet them in their language. If you do that, they aren't offended that you are not fluent.
With a few notable exceptions I have found the French to be polite. When entering a French shop, it is expected you will look the proprietor in the eye and say "Bonjour". When you leave you say "Merci". Anything less will be considered rude. Also like all countries, city dwellers tend to be more abrupt and impatient than the people in the provinces.
There's a French stereotype that Parisians are rude. This may be true; it seems to be true world wide that people who live in big cities behave differently than their compatriots from less populous places, and Paris is France's biggest city.
I don't pretend to know what's behind our government's appalling decision, but it's been apparent for a long time that it was increasingly disillusioned with the French contractor. We could have bought excellent Japanese boats off the shelf, but they were only good for defending Australia, so obviously that was no good. We've been tagging along on British/American military adventures in distant lands since 1899, and we're not about to stop now. Captain, set your course for the South China Sea!
This 'deal' has all of the hallmarks of a massive boondoggle. It almost certainly means that Australia is going to have no new submarines for decades. Note, in reality all the deal actually entails is that Austrailia will begin to negotiate the purchase of 8 submarines. They still have to decide which submarines, how much will be built in austrailia, who will build them and how much they will cost. and austrailia can't afford the actual cost of 8 nuclear powered submarines, especially if they are going to be built in austrailia by a company that has never built a submarine before.
The French subs were supposed to cost $40 billion, but then ran into big cost overruns . . . apparently at the same time as the French government's own nuclear sub order was coming in much cheaper, which made the Australian government suspicious.
The nuclear submarines will probably be costly, too, but they're a much better fit given the sheer size of the waters they'll need to patrol (and Australia's great coastline size and comparatively few ports). Nuclear submarines are generally just better than non-nuclear submarines in most ways except cost, and nuclear power is basically ideal for something where the ability to operate underwater for months at a time is extremely useful.
Generally true that nuclear subs are superior, but a high tech Swedish non-nuclear sub did make fools of the U.S. Navy in war games a few years ago, taking periscope pictures of a U.S. supercarrier without being detected.
Yes, the latest diesels are actually more stealthy than a lot of the nukes. However, a sub optimized for service in the Baltic is a poor fit for Pacific distances.
Plus the future nuclear subs should be a lot quieter. They're shifting to pump-jets for propulsion rather than propeller screws for both of the next generation US subs (the Columbia- and Virginia-class).
That is one other advantage of those. They can be really quiet, especially if they don't move quickly.
They make a lot of sense in places where the subs wouldn't be expected to lurk too far from a friendly port.
Remember, Australia was insisting that 50% of the construction had to be done in Australia and with Austrailian companies. This was of course going to substantially increase the costs. Australia will demand the same thing for these subs as well. And note, Frnace was perfectly willing to sell Austrailia nuclear powered subs. Australia wasn't interested because they didn;t think they could afford them.
Do we want Europe to be more militarized?
I think it's a really poor idea.
IF it's controlled by the EU, they'll never get all the votes they'd need to use the force.
Or, Orban would try to call in airstrikes on Love Parade.
Uh, there's a difference between militarization and weakness. Europe can't even sustain a minor military campaign for more than 2 weeks.
Minor is all they would need against anyone they might get into a conflict with outside Russia and China, and if that happened the US would certainly be involved.
Other than that all they're fighting is refugees.
Nah, it comes down to something much more basic: French-owned Naval Group did not want to offer guarantees to subcontract Australian builders to complete the $90B contract. Australia had been looking to get out of the deal since this past February.
It was clear this was about the lack of guarantees for subcontracts for Australian companies. $90B is, after all, a shitload of money.
It wasn't enough. Besides, how can PM Morrison say no to nuclear subs? It's not like they're shared with just anyone. Australia will be just the 7th nation with them.
Note how your 2nd quote "commit to spending 60 per cent of its total contract value with Australian suppliers" completely destroys your actual claim.
Kevin, you need to ease up in Europe. It isn’t easy to have your defense cake, eat it too, and have someone else pay for a big slice of it all at the same time…
France's complaints sound much like the U.K. whining about us leaving Afghanistan when they left in 2014.
Living in France, I don't think the French are upset about strategic balances or anything else they're offically putting out. Australia is way, way outside of their area of influence and has few strategic overlaps with it. It's just a major blow to a domestic industry.
Indeed, this is French mercantilism.
By the way, the answer to this question: "Or do they want to continue along the fractured, militarily useless path they're on?"
Yes, they want exactly that. Not France which, like the US, feels others count on it much more than it can count on them. But everyone else. And this is born of a realization based on history: military irrelevance is great for Europe. What most Europeans consciously or intuitively want is enough military capability for defense but not enough for offense. It's what they have since the fall of the USSR. So there is no "at some point they have to choose". They already did. It's why all the talk about a pan-European force capable of projecting power leads nowhere. They discuss it to keep the French happy but don't want it. The US should be happy with that (and, by the way, can stop paying whenever it wants to). It ensures Europe will never be a rival power, for the best reason imaginable: it doesn't want to be one.
Yes!
Do they have enough military for defence? I think that's a legitimate question.
This recent article (Dec 2020) argues that yes, it can: https://cis.mit.edu/publications/analysis-opinion/2020/europe-can-defend-itself
This response (April 2021) argues that no, it cannot: https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/45/4/7/100571/Illusions-of-Autonomy-Why-Europe-Cannot-Provide
I tend to agree with the latter more than the former, but the real answer depends very much on what they are defending against and how long they have to recognize a shared threat and put aside international squabbling.
The French blew it
They needed to exchange letters with the Australian PM
Beautiful letters the BEST letters
Then they could fall in love.........
Lol!
Had they elected Marianne Le Pen three years ago, she & El Jefe would have had the most beautiful political marriage since Adolf & Benito.
Ayn Rand and Charles Manson.
The merchants of death (Defense contractors) are nasty folks. I can't be bothered to give a care about them. Waste of money.
WASHINGTON/CANBERRA, Sept 16 (Reuters) - China on Thursday denounced a new Indo-Pacific security alliance between the United States, Britain and Australia, saying such partnerships should not target third countries and warning of an intensified arms race in the region.
Under the arrangement,dubbed AUKUS, the United States and Britain will provide Australia with the technology and capability to deploy nuclear-powered submarines.
The United States and its allies are looking for ways to push back against China's growing power and influence, particularly its military buildup, pressure on Taiwan and deployments in the contested South China Sea.
Yeah travel time for an ICBM from China to the US is about 30 minutes flight time?
Australia to China may be half that?
They may want to start building back yard bomb shelters
I'll have a large order of freedom fries, Kevin.
With chicken salt to less I assume…
No less that is … it is a sad day when Coral starts to look good…
I’m not sure it’s a good idea to count on the UK given the lunatic they have in charge. There is a good reason Biden called Boris a clone of Trump. He and his band of right wing Tories have refused to act on concerns about the influence Putin has on the UK or investigate the evidence that Russia may have interfered in the Brexit referendum. The UK has been a major money laundering asset for Russian oligarchs.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-russia-report-kremlin-putin-brexit-eu-referendum-a9630976.html
Wasn't there talk of increased European Community regulation of banking procedures because of extensive money laundering by the oligarchs just before Brexit became such a vital matter?
Also this:
https://youtu.be/np_ylvc8Zj8
Is this part of the reason LIBOR fell out of favor?
Europe is reluctant to challenge China because they're more economically dependent on them than we are.
And maybe they're not so sure we have their backs.
...there always seems to be endless squabbling over trade and security issues of all kinds and sizes. France, needless to say, is one of the worst squabblers.
I dunno. I have to admit my first reaction on hearing this news was: is there really no way to cut the French in on the deal, or perhaps give them a compensating contract? Maybe I'm just something of a francophile. But I do think France is a valuable partner, and one of the foremost proponents of Western, humanist values. It's also done more than most high income countries to maintain a credible defense capability. Sure, they come across as arrogant and prickly at times. But if we're really going to build a credible coalition to counter China, we need Europe. And France is a key component of the EU, especially post-Brexit. I guarantee you Beijing, for all its Sturm und Drang on this deal, is quietly happy with the consolation prize of a rift between France and the anglophone powers.
France seeks to maintain, and China seeks to increase, influence on the African continent; France has intervened militarily on several occasions in its former West African colonies, but has avoided extended deployments. We should certainly prefer French to Chinese influence in the region. Africa today is certainly more democratic than the colonial or immediate post-colonial periods; Western democracies must move cautiously because of their histories of exploitation, but cannot afford to let illiberal China expand its influence there.
The Chinese are just as good as Westerners at wearing out their welcome.
Given that the last French naval action in the Pacific was the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, they must have lightened up on those Western humanist values.
That's an Australian concern not an American one and la politique mercantaliste de la France n'a rein à foutre de soi-disante valeurs humaines. C'est du commerce. Ne sois pas dupe.
Needlessly alienating a valuable partner in the Western alliance is very much an American concern. USA/UK/Australia are much stronger vis a vis China with France/Europe behind them than without. I am not suggesting Australia can't/shouldn't make its own decisions regarding military procurement. I'm suggesting that, since this move has US defense contractor fingerprints all over it, a more sensitive, diplomatic approach — one that might take French national pride into account and perhaps throw them a bone or two in terms of compensation — would have been a sounder way to go about it. This needless snubbing of Paris has turned what should have been a moment of triumphant Western resolve on display into a non-trivial intra-Western spat.
Not smart. And not necessary.
(I think Biden's team has enough sense not to nurse grudges, and unlike the previous administration they'll probably try to soothe feelings in the medium term; but this has been a significant own goal on the part of the White House).
By the way, China has just applied for membership in whatever they're calling the TPP these days. Unless there's a plausible way of telling Beijing to pound sand (until such time as Washington might deign to apply), the very purpose of this organization has been nullified.
One final point: the current administration has been a huge improvement over the previous one in myriad ways, but they're far from perfect, and should be called out when they do something stupid or inept. Like this time.
Complete Bollocks
The French have never hesitated with mercantile arms deals (or for that matter other deals, as I have been deal-bystander to them screwing over the Americans on wind-turbine sale with dirty pool on side incentives from French Gov to destination Gov) to play dirty pool.
They played a bad commercial hand and they're trying to pretend this isa matter of grand strategy rather than being put out about a failed mercantilist arms deal demarche. Your lapping up their pretence is silly.
Complete Bollocks. The French have never hesitated with mercantile arms deals (or for that matter other deals, as I have been deal-bystander to them screwing over the Americans on wind-turbine sale with dirty pool
Don't be daft, Lounsbury. The main point isn't which grotesquely greedy arms merchants are best able to maximize profits. The point is to at least make some effort to present a unified front against the Colossus of the East.
As I indicated previously, Canberra must do what it believes is consistent with a strong defense, including jettisoning a large arms purchase from a Nato member. But this has been handled in a needlessly crude and tactless manner by two other Nato members. Also, if the canceled transaction involved something as mundane as energy equipment, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.
So in short, your analysis is grotesquely naive in re the French.
I know your analysis is grotesquely naive but what is mine?
The TransPacific Protocol crackup is Bernie & Trump's worst legacy, longterm.
Shortterm, obviously, it's the Rona Plandemic Hoax.
Hillary also contributed to that. And McConnell, IIRC (they should have been able to get that deal done on a bipartisan basis when Obama was president).
Now that France has withdrawn it's ambassador the US can respond by closing Disneyland Paris.
I suspect this has more to do with the fact that Australia has come to realize it really does need deepwater naval capabilities to counter China and the French subs, in addition to costing a lot more than they wanted, weren't going to cut it.
Cafe Americain to be rebrands as Cafe Liberte.
Lol!
"Do they want to do what they continually threaten to do, namely build a genuinely formidable pan-European military force? Or do they want to continue along the fractured, militarily useless path they're on? If the former, they can call their own shots. If the latter, they have to accept that the US is going to provide the lead whether they like it or not.
So far they haven't decided. But they can't put it off forever."
---> They have put off this decision for about 70 years and it has worked pretty well so far (for both the USA and Europe), all things considered. Inertia suggests that they will continue to do so absent some shocking event.
‘some shocking event’ such as a second Trump presidency …?
I would have thought that the first Trump presidency would have been enough.
Don't be surprised in the wake of this that negotiations are either beginning or starting over a U.S. - British trade agreement. With Boris Johnson basically turning the Tories into "Labour Lite", he's much less odious a partner to deal with than the old Brexiteer Boris. This is something Johnson needs in order to alleviate shortages in the UK thanks to the Brexit he championed and it's in the U.S. interests as well and there won't be any insistence on the U.S.'s part to nuking the NHS if Trump were still in office (yes TRUMP LOST!). So its a deal that now can be done.
Why in the heck would President O'Biden make a trade agreement with the idiot who is wrecking the Good Friday Agreement and threatening to upend peace in Ireland?
For those who don't speak French: "C'est la vie" is not white hot rage, it is the verbal equivalent of shrugging one's shoulders.
Shoganai.
しょうがない. (Just wanted to see if WordPress can handle Japanese Unicode.) "It can't be helped."
Maybe it is not about defense at all: Australia, along with the US is one of the worst sinners in matters of climate change. This may explain the bonding between US and Australia...
On a side note/question, why aren't the Canadians included in this new group? Being so near US waters I'm not that surprised they aren't interested in buying subs, but considering this is geared as a reaction to China I'm not sure why they didn't sign on.
"The United States objected to the RCN having SSNs as part of its fleet, fearing a significant impact to its own submarine operations in North American waters and possible conflict over access to the Northwest Passage. In order to prevent this, the United States exercised its rights under two previously signed treaties. Under the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, the US had the right to block the sale of submarine nuclear reactors by the United Kingdom to any third party (i.e. Canada), and under a 1959 agreement between the US and Canada the US had the right to block the purchase of submarine nuclear reactors by Canada from any third party (i.e. the United Kingdom or France).[24] Attempts to negotiate with the United States were initially unsuccessful, as Canadian Defence Minister Perrin Beatty was "told in no uncertain terms by the U.S. Defense Department and submarine service officials that a Canadian nuclear submarine program was unnecessary and even unwelcome." "
US""Hey remember when we told you we weren't going to allow you to have nuclear subs? Well, now we'd like you to spend a whole lot of money buying them- of course, we'll control how you're allowed to use them."
Canada: "No thanks"
That's fascinating.
When it comes to European military power, it's worth remembering that both France and the UK have nuclear arsenals sufficient to seriously deter potential enemies, even without the US "nuclear umbrella".
It's also worth noting that nobody in their right mind, especially the Russians, wants Germany to start feeling insecure enough to start rearming. Germany's GDP is larger than Russia's, and Germany makes very good tanks. If they so chose, they could make MANY very good tanks, and all the necessary supporting equipment. I don't think any Russian wants to see Panzer divisions rolling again.
Russia is not even a teensy, weensy bit nervous about German tanks, because they know full well Germany isn't suicidal.
What they fear is a German nuclear program.
Otto von Braun did nothing wrong.
Conservative thought is like a drawer full of doorknobs in the basement of an abandoned house.
The French are famous for Squabbling among themselves.
How about us?
Australia is America's poodle
But that will only last until the Australians get shot of the right wing nut jobs currently in charge
France throwing a bit of a tantrum: https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEF9dcppfhERAedtKDJQacY4qGQgEKhAIACoHCAow2Nb3CjDivdcCMP3ungY?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
It's angling for a compensation prize. These are coolheaded diplomats capable of keeping any anger inside. They're not crying over spilt milk.
Continuing the tantrum, in the diplomatic style: https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEMZ-JOfY5hqpgExgUpvVsdoqFwgEKg8IACoHCAowjuuKAzCWrzwwloEY?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
I remember trying to figure out France when I was in grade school back in the mid-1960s. DeGaulle had just removed France from the NATO command structure, and everyone in the US was going nuts. France was aiding the Russians. It had a huge Communist party. Blah, blah, blah.
Then I realized, even as a kid, that having a divided front has advantages. It was like all those movies where the good guy gets drummed out of whatever and winds up doing more good as an outsider. If the USSR actually attacked, it was rather obvious which way France was going to go, but during the period of ambiguity, France could do and say things that the US and its closer allies couldn't.
I don't claim that I was a great foreign policy analyst back in grade school, nor am I one today, but if there is one thing grade school taught me, it's that there's a difference between a rival and an enemy. France was a rival. Russia was an enemy. France is justifiably pissed at losing a big military contract, and I can't blame them, but Australia has a major role to play in the Indian Ocean and adjacent areas. Nuclear submarines will make them an even more effective ally.
Why would Biden do this? French baguettes are the secret ingredient to great subs!