I’m French, France sounds ready to put up a stink, but I have difficulty understanding who is right.
I guess Australia is building submarines in preparation to keep China within their waters. So the contract (even though it’s already signed) should come back to the nation that is least under Chinese dominance:
- Australia itself is deeply impregnated of Chinese spies, currently focussing on busting Chinese citizens evaded in Australia,
- USA has chosen the president who had the most ties to China,
- While UK banned Huawei products notably for national routers, France has signed a historic major partnership with Huawei, which is suspected of being the main reification of the Chinese’s secret services.
Whatever the Australians are trying to buy submarines for, I don’t think they can be isolated from the enemy they are supposed to fight.
The problem from a French point of view is a breach of trust from close allies. The problem is not that they made a collaboration agreement, and the breach of contract by itself could be worked out (this sort of things happen all the time). More annoying is that they did it behind France’s collective back, keeping them in the dark to the last moment even though diplomatic relations with Australia were considered excellent and those with the US re-normalising after Trump.
Also, France has some difficulties making the rest of the EU understand the urgency of the situation, and would have probably seized the opportunity for cooperation in the Pacific if given the chance, as they have quite large territories there, unlike any other European country.
Also also, this is a political victory for Boris Johnson who probably cannot believe his luck and is going to be a pain in the arse of everybody else in Europe for quite a few years.
So Australia and the US are right to work something out (China certainly is menacing). The U.K. is completely useless in this as usual. They should have done it better, though, and excluding France even though they clearly have aligned interests and are supposed to be close allies is not great.
This seems like a fairly strong gesture IMO. Normally think of ambassador recalls when war is imminent, although know it can also be used to make a strong diplomatic statement. Guessing France wants to make it clear how pissed they are about the situation.
As several people have suggested already, the US should just buy these subs from France and give them to Taiwan or another friendly nation in the area. Win win for everyone.
Another naive outrage :-) Obviously the US, like any other country, was not going to let a "gift" of 50B to France, if they could get these 50B for themselves. It's not friends, allies or partners, it's just business.
France, like Europe shall play both cards with China and the US. There is more to win than to take a side, especially if that side might lose at some point
This is a big contract, but it's a red herring to focus on it, IMHO.
The US have played in secret against France in order to isolate it and to destroy its strategy in the region. This is actively hostile action and that's what France is angry about.
> The US have played in secret against France in order to isolate it and to destroy its strategy in the region
Unless proven otherwise, this is a conspiracy theory. What are the reasons to destroy France's strategy in the region?
It's not like France had any strategy in the region anyway, rather they have business interest (50B lost ...), and well, they care about their islands - and not losing them. But let be honest, neither China, nor Australia nor the US is going to mount a military invasion against any of these islands!.. The threat for France is actually from within, as shown very well in New Caledonia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_New_Caledonian_independen...). And New Caledonia might not be alone...
This isn't conspiracy theory. I'm stating what the public account of what happened is and, from the French's reaction, I can believe it is the reality.
Of course. Nuclear powered submarines ( with ballistic missiles more so than attack ones, but still) are a very powerful deterrent. An enemy can't know where they are, and is afraid of them, and has to spend considerable resources to counter them.
There are still more planes in the ocean than submarines: About 480 if I remember. But oceans are huge. What would be the correct ratio?
Besides, any nation which doesn’t have control of its airspace, oceans and now even higher and higher in space, is doomed to be controlled by those who have the higher control.
I don't understand how a contract that have been awarded after a rigorous and public competition between German/Japanese/French propositions and probably voted by Australian parliament can be just dismissed after a secret discussion with US and UK.
Partly because the cost had inflated drastically, to the point that comparisons with France's own purchase of brand new nuclear subs - for a much lower cost - made the deal look increasingly duff.
Apparently this has been a background issue in Australian politics since at least the start of the year.
Australia did not want nuclear subs so the design of the French subs had to be modified to accommodate classic propulsion, hence the extra complexity.
Now Australia says it wants nuclear subs and is going for a new deal that's even more expensive.
My opinion is that all this emphasis on cost and problems with the French deal is just a smoke screen.
For the French the commercial aspect is not the most important aspect, actually. They have been much more seriously and deeply shafted and that will have a lasting impact.
This seems to imply a subtler point in the distinction:
"Canberra was reportedly particularly keen on the French bid because of the ability to switch the Barracudas from diesel to nuclear power — technology that was deemed political poison so recently after the Fukushima disaster in Japan, but that the government believed could become more palatable in time."
It was no secret or last minute change that Australia wanted diesel electric subs.
France submitted a competitive tender to provide a diesel electric sub at a particular price point, with much of the manufacturing being done in Australia, and was chosen over other bids on that basis.
If France couldn’t provide that at the cost they bid then they shouldn’t have bid.
There were other competitive bids from Japan and Germany both of which have proven diesel electric sub designs.
Actually it was quite different - Australians wanted their own specifications, built on their own soil, where no local industry nor experience was present, and with US weapon system. The last point meant for that a full redesign was necessary, almost from scratch, and that they had to collaborate with a competitor who was given much more leeway for delays and great incentives to make the french contract go sour.
This is what happened finally, the french have lost their contract, the US will now build those subs and the Australian taxpayers will have to foot the bill.
I think the Australian actions here were reasonable, the project was massively over budget and well behind schedule. The regional security situation has shifted a lot in the last 5 years since this project was announced.
The news could have been delivered more nicely but there was always going to be fallout. Ultimately Australia doesn’t owe France a submarine contract, and France wasn’t doing Australia a favour by letting it buy submarines. It was a commercial agreement that Australia no longer wishes to pursue.
For Australia I think the strategic calculus is in a way simple. The US is the only country that can credibly oppose China. If a significant escalation of tensions with China is at all likely, then Australia’s best chance would be to operate closely with and support the US in opposing China.
The submarines come as part of a larger package including larger US forces being based out of Australia and the placement of tomahawk missiles in Australia.
The more interesting questions I think are is open conflict with China likely and does China actually pose a threat to Australian sovereignty?
The thing that make the french government angry is not much the cancellation of the contract, but how it was done it completely in secret behind his back.
You just don't do that to ally on the geopolitical stage.
I think the contract was important for France for soft power in the around the Pacific ocean as well. It's probably a very big loss to them in that regard, and I can't see how they can ever make up for that again. They're permanently hamstrung basically.
I do think it could have been handled in a more diplomatic fashion, but there was never going to be a nice way to break the news. Further I think if the Naval Group had been anywhere close to delivering on time and on budget then it would have been a fundamentally different discussion. France would have been at the table and part of the deal.
I think the big problem for France now is how to protect the reputation of the Naval Group. If this is seen as a failure to deliver by the Naval Group then future export opportunities may be threatened. So instead France is aiming to portray as a grand betrayal by Australia and the US.
It is somewhat a betrayal. Secret negotiation is a way for US and Australia of telling to France (after 30 years of collaboration in Pacific) "We don't want to work on strategic stuff with France anymore".
If the news broke out like this, you can bet there was a complete diplomatic breakdown.
Stuff like this doesn’t happen. Cost concerns, etc is just smokescreen.
It happened because it was not handled diplomatically. A huge problem.
France is right. If it cannot trust it’s allies, then what are her diplomats doing there?
I think France should stop overtly complaining in this anglosphere world that's useless it's like whining and just do what is best for France in foreign policy without thinking too much to past obsolete alliances.
44 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 98.1 ms ] threadI guess Australia is building submarines in preparation to keep China within their waters. So the contract (even though it’s already signed) should come back to the nation that is least under Chinese dominance:
- Australia itself is deeply impregnated of Chinese spies, currently focussing on busting Chinese citizens evaded in Australia,
- USA has chosen the president who had the most ties to China,
- While UK banned Huawei products notably for national routers, France has signed a historic major partnership with Huawei, which is suspected of being the main reification of the Chinese’s secret services.
Whatever the Australians are trying to buy submarines for, I don’t think they can be isolated from the enemy they are supposed to fight.
Also, France has some difficulties making the rest of the EU understand the urgency of the situation, and would have probably seized the opportunity for cooperation in the Pacific if given the chance, as they have quite large territories there, unlike any other European country.
Also also, this is a political victory for Boris Johnson who probably cannot believe his luck and is going to be a pain in the arse of everybody else in Europe for quite a few years.
So Australia and the US are right to work something out (China certainly is menacing). The U.K. is completely useless in this as usual. They should have done it better, though, and excluding France even though they clearly have aligned interests and are supposed to be close allies is not great.
As several people have suggested already, the US should just buy these subs from France and give them to Taiwan or another friendly nation in the area. Win win for everyone.
They forgot to recall the ambassador to the UK. The UK also often pisses them off.
France, like Europe shall play both cards with China and the US. There is more to win than to take a side, especially if that side might lose at some point
The US have played in secret against France in order to isolate it and to destroy its strategy in the region. This is actively hostile action and that's what France is angry about.
Unless proven otherwise, this is a conspiracy theory. What are the reasons to destroy France's strategy in the region?
It's not like France had any strategy in the region anyway, rather they have business interest (50B lost ...), and well, they care about their islands - and not losing them. But let be honest, neither China, nor Australia nor the US is going to mount a military invasion against any of these islands!.. The threat for France is actually from within, as shown very well in New Caledonia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_New_Caledonian_independen...). And New Caledonia might not be alone...
what an odd event
/r/cringe
I feel like that aspect is conveniently overlooked in any discussion of the matter and I don't like that.
Besides, any nation which doesn’t have control of its airspace, oceans and now even higher and higher in space, is doomed to be controlled by those who have the higher control.
Who needs amabassadors nowadays anyway? It's not like you have to send your delegate on a boat for one month to talk to the other party.
My home country once recalled its ambassador and he had to take a one hour car ride home "for counsultations". Can't we just stop the theater?
Other than that what is France gonna do about it? Invade Australia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
Apparently this has been a background issue in Australian politics since at least the start of the year.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38790/australia-report...
Now Australia says it wants nuclear subs and is going for a new deal that's even more expensive.
My opinion is that all this emphasis on cost and problems with the French deal is just a smoke screen.
For the French the commercial aspect is not the most important aspect, actually. They have been much more seriously and deeply shafted and that will have a lasting impact.
"Canberra was reportedly particularly keen on the French bid because of the ability to switch the Barracudas from diesel to nuclear power — technology that was deemed political poison so recently after the Fukushima disaster in Japan, but that the government believed could become more palatable in time."
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-...
France submitted a competitive tender to provide a diesel electric sub at a particular price point, with much of the manufacturing being done in Australia, and was chosen over other bids on that basis.
If France couldn’t provide that at the cost they bid then they shouldn’t have bid.
There were other competitive bids from Japan and Germany both of which have proven diesel electric sub designs.
This is what happened finally, the french have lost their contract, the US will now build those subs and the Australian taxpayers will have to foot the bill.
Australia should probably have informed them in a better way though.
It seems easy to tell this after the fact and there is different official way to complain about the contract.
Additionally, that don't answer to the question: Why they don't have to follow the standard and legal process for the next deal ?
I agree with your second point - I don’t know what the process should have been but they clearly haven’t followed it
The news could have been delivered more nicely but there was always going to be fallout. Ultimately Australia doesn’t owe France a submarine contract, and France wasn’t doing Australia a favour by letting it buy submarines. It was a commercial agreement that Australia no longer wishes to pursue.
For Australia I think the strategic calculus is in a way simple. The US is the only country that can credibly oppose China. If a significant escalation of tensions with China is at all likely, then Australia’s best chance would be to operate closely with and support the US in opposing China.
The submarines come as part of a larger package including larger US forces being based out of Australia and the placement of tomahawk missiles in Australia.
The more interesting questions I think are is open conflict with China likely and does China actually pose a threat to Australian sovereignty?
You just don't do that to ally on the geopolitical stage.
I think the big problem for France now is how to protect the reputation of the Naval Group. If this is seen as a failure to deliver by the Naval Group then future export opportunities may be threatened. So instead France is aiming to portray as a grand betrayal by Australia and the US.