On the other hand, this is basically a diplomatic version of a tantrum; and powerful countries rarely respond to a tantrum by doing anything substantial.
If France could get the rest of the EU behind it, then maybe. But rest of the EU looks at the problem with disinterest, given that they stood to gain nothing from the original contract.
a) abandon New Caledonia entirely. This may happen anyway, as an independence referendum is scheduled for December and the balance is uncertain;
b) join AUKUS as a junior partner, very painful but logical;
c) embrace China out of spite or as a result of different geopolitical calculus. That would probably have significant realignment echos in Europe, because France has a big voice in the EU. I am a little afraid of this scenario, though I consider it unlikely to happen.
Edit: I remembered that Tahiti is at stake too. Not certain about local independence movement status.
The EU and (especially France and Germany) is not THAT critical of China as the US (and other countries...), and France has a big sense of national pride and no problems acting on it.
Is this in any way "good"? I don't know, but realisticaly i CAN see the EU siding more with China than the US in the long run.
It should be noted that this was in retaliation to the EU imposing sanctions on a number of Chinese officials.
wouldn't this encourage future human-rights violations as "leverage" for concessions?
Why is this logical? These partners have already shown that they are going to betray France's trust and lie to them. It would be better to be on your own than have unreliable partners, or worse ones that work against you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War
A lost sale in contrast? That seems more like normal business than lying and betrayal.
I would not expect France to the same behavior with other EU members.
Culture runs deep. France adores Vercingetorix, who surrendered to Julius Caesar after "releasing" all the women and children to die of starvation between the Roman and French lines at the Battle Of Alesia.
Since WWII, France has been a fickle ally to the US at best.
What? Betray France? So France jeopardizes a nation's national defense by failing to deliver critical defense assets, and this is spun into being a betrayal on France?
Are we supposed to put our blinders on to think that this issue is about France's commercial interests and not Australia's national security?
The betrayal issue comes with the very recent statements from Australia about supporting the project, whilst behind the scenes unbeknownst to France planning to scrap it.
It's more that Caledonia could chose to leave. But that only marginaly change the issue. France has other territories in the Pacific.
> b) join AUKUS as a junior partner, very painful but logical;
That would be very illogical. France interests are not aligned with the USA. Also they are a nuclear country with a permanent seat on the UN security council. They will never be a junior partner to an alliance with the USA or Australia let alone the UK.
> c) embrace China out of spite or as a result of different geopolitical calculus. That would probably have significant realignment echos in Europe
There is no need for spite or realignment. China is a diplomatic and commercial partner of the EU. The systemic opposition is strictly the doctrine of the USA. There is plenty to gain through the diplomatic route as long as you see China as an equal partner and not an inferior country. Lobbying China is harder than it used to be but not impossible.
There are plenty of alternative to these three scenarios anyway. The logical next steps would just be pushing for further for military integration in the EU (Afghanistan already left a sour taste in everyone's mouth anyway) and lobby to get the EU - Australia free trade agreement severely limited then carry on as usual. The relationship with the UK will see no progress as long as Johnson is PM so it seems useless to waste time on it.
This type of response always baffles me. Australia here is not buying what France is selling. If they object to that, making it harder for Australians to buy other things France is selling is the opposite of clever.
And in reverse - Australia sells food and raw materials. Under what circumstances is it bad for France to trade bits of paper for actually useful physical goods?
Restricting trade is cutting of the nose to spite the face. Australia sells commodities, we don't care if any individual block trades with us. China tried clamping down on trade with Australia and it didn't achieve much. They've got to buy from someone else, that someone else's customers becomes Australia's customers.
Australia have been extremely untransparent regarding their position and how they conducted the whole negociation. They lied to their French counterparts during the summer and announced their withdrawal in an extermely clumsy and frankly disrespectful way. Why would you want to put in place treaties easing controls and trades with countries which have already proven they are dishonest?
> Restricting trade is cutting of the nose to spite the face.
No one talked about restrictions. I just expect France to lobby for things to stay as they are rather than go in the direction of easier trading.
I don't fault the French if they don't see a benefit and want to be annoying in some sort of tit-for-tat strategy; but making trade harder is not going to make their lives better. People only trade when the trade improves their position.
A $60+ billion military deal is never going to be handled under a free trade agreement. I haven't read into the details but I doubt there was even any fraud involved; just standard political backstabbing. The French weren't given an opportunity but they are not worse off.
Does China see other countries as equal partners? Their Howling Wolf diplomacy seems to kick in whenever anything they dislike appears in any media. See their current hatefest against Lithuania, a country with population smaller than Shanghai.
I for one am not very ready to sacrifice, e.g. freedom to criticize the Chinese system or to say that Taiwan is Taiwan and not Chinese Taipei or whatever. And I do not trust China commercially either, given their history of copying everything and then flooding markets with cheap knock-offs to undermine the original producers.
We have a load of our own problems here in the West, but we can at least discuss them mostly freely and the authoritarian developments (governmental and distributed alike) tend to get some pushback and dissent, and the dissidents do not end up in jail or shot. These are not the values of Xi's China and any partnership with it will end in Beijing dictating their demands.
The US isn't much better. They have a history of invading of destabilising the governments of countries they don't like.
> we can at least discuss them mostly freely and the authoritarian developments (governmental and distributed alike) tend to get some pushback and dissent, and the dissidents do not end up in jail or shot.
Tell that to all the countries who tried to implement communist systems of government... and found their leaders shot or in jail.
> I do not trust China commercially either, given their history of copying everything and then flooding markets with cheap knock-offs to undermine the original producers.
And I don't trust the US commercially, with their history of enforcing tariff-free markets on countries and flooding them with cheap US-made goods that wipe out domestic production leaving the countries in very dire straits (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_Haiti).
If I were a Latin American, I would be distrustful towards American power projection. But I am a Central European and our history with the U.S. is a lot better.
I am not trusting them blindly, but the worst import we had from the U.S. so far was a shallow-ish pop culture, plus some of the racial nonsense that really rubs the wrong way in a different context.
This is whataboutism and has nothing to do with discussion on France/EU's stance of China.
Reading on you comments, are you living in the past? We are discussing current politics.
> Tell that to all the countries who tried to implement communist systems of government... and found their leaders shot or in jail.
That was happening 40 years ago in current EU countries, whats your point?!
> with their history of enforcing tariff-free markets on countries and flooding them with cheap US-made goods that wipe out domestic production leaving the countries in very dire straits
Again derailing conversation from China to USA
Edit: go ahead and keep downvoting me for literally pointing out logical fallacies
Treating EU like a tiny country that needs to rely on imports of finished products is discounting the fact EU is the largest trading block in the world.
Besides EU can decide to incentivise the manufacturing of key goods (like germany getting into electronics manufacture).
Also US cannot bully EU like it does other weaker countries.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
China is an authoritarian country with a strategic vision which put it at odd with its closest neighbors. It's in no way an easy partner. Then again, neither is it an unreadable one nor a completely unreasonable one. What China wants is pretty clear: control of the South China sea and being the dominant soft power of the region. With this framework in mind, a lot can be achieved through negociations.
I am not saying countries should always be soft with China. Their track record record regarding human rights is worrying. I am very much in favor of using tit for tat measures regarding their distortion of competitive markets and their threats on the Chinese diaspora in Europe and the USA have to stop.
Still I am not convinced that a policy of systematic opposition and war mongering will do much good. Xi Jinping is already 68. His rule won't last eternally. It seems better to me to adopt a position of observation, containment and soft power influence than direct confrontation. I understand that Taiwan might be a victim of it which sadden me a bit but is something I am fine with from a realpolitik point of view. I consider this position better for Europe than following the USA in its opposition which I view as essentially motivated by a desire to protect the position they consider to be theirs in the international order rather than some kind of moral imperative.
Eternally not, but the recent progresses in longevity field might give him 20-30 more years at the helm.
This is an interesting strategic question that isn't discussed as much as it ought to. Even Western nations are evolving into gerontocracies. We should probably introduce some hard term limits. Already there are U.S. Senators that served more than 40 years.
France has the largest maritime EEZ in the world, owning 8% of the global EEZ areas. A lot of that is due to its territories in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. New Caledonia also has 25% of the world's nickel reserve. Defending your national territory is a vital interest.
Saying that it "should leave the Pacific be" is exactly what the US and Australia want (hence France being excluded from AUKUS), and exactly what it should not do.
(Though probably not "vital" in the same sense as suppression of jihadism is. A massive growth of jihadism in North Africa could destabilize peace in France itself, while loss of Pacific territories would only be painful economically.)
No-one is going to help you preserve your own territory, quite the opposite. National territory is always a vital interest.
This is why they are deeply pissed off beyond the loss of this submarines deal. Basically the US have 'torpedoed' a big part of their long term strategy here.
[1] https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/whats-behind-the-rising-indi...
FAUKUS does have a ring to it…
The French strategy can’t possible be based on selling submarines to a continent country bordering its atolls
The French government has openly stated that this goes beyond the canceled contract per se.
This is about the not getting a heads up for the negotiation with US/UK
France knew Australia was unhappy with the deal
Multilateralism was a pillar of that strategy. Australia shifting from an equal partner to a US vassal signals an end to that.
If buying American makes one a vassal wouldn’t buying French be the same ?
I'm sure this is bad for France, don't get me wrong, but in terms of how their allies acted, its not particularly shocking or even abnormal.
Also doesn't look like this was a "breach" of contract, just a cancellation. A breach implies what was done is illegal in international law, a cancellation implies they simply went elsewhere.
This is a very disingenuous take on the issue, if not outright completely wrong, and it feels like you intentionally decided to feign ignorance regarding France's failures to deliver and even meet the contract's basic requirements.
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-...
Looking back, it is hard to argue that official line was not very disingenuous, even after acknowledging the issues with the program.
I doubt the EU could even contemplate creating something similar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countering_America%27s_Adversa...
Early in the cold war there were a few senior generals on both sides that thought the US could or should make a first strike against Russia. But the leadership and the populous on both sides of the curtain never thought that was what it was all about at all. The aggressor was always going to be Russia invading western Europe, and NATO was always about defending it.
But go ask random people on streets in the US, Russia or Europe, and they will focus on the "cold war" and the iron curtain and NATO's defense of the west against the threat of Soviet expansion.
The NATO treaty only protects members if they were attacked in Europe or the North Atlantic. If bin Laden had hit the Sear Tower instead of the WTC it would probably not have been a NATO operation.
On the original contract in 2016, Germany also bid and in all likelihood could have won, since Germany has far more experience with building non-nuclear subs with Diesel or fuel-cell drives. France had to start the designs almost from scratch since they offered a redesign of their nuclear subs. France desperately wanted the contract and probably only won the bidding by intentionally bidding too low and too quick, downplaying their technical challenges. This behavior of France has bitten various European supposed allies and supposed good neighbors a number of times. Either they got outbid by a phony French bid. Or they were customers of such a bidding process, getting endless delays and price overruns.
So I'd be surprised if there were any substantial EU backing for France in this matter.
Some of the press coverage back then and now: https://thediplomat.com/2016/01/has-germany-lost-the-bid-to-... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-submarines-comp...
Furthermore, it's entirely on Australia to choose the best bid. If they thought TKMS' bid is risky to upscale, they should also have thought DCNS/Naval Group's bid is also risky due to having to redesign and chosen the Japanese design which was the closest to what they wanted. Considering the fiasco that was their precious submarine acquisition, it's not surprising it failed again.
I don't know what they're going to do while waiting for the new subs to come in the 2050s, the Collins-class isn't supposed to last that long.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-australia-trade-deal-runs...
AUKUS basically blindsided France, didn’t give them any warning or a chance to diplomatically save face. It was like spitting in their face.
Why bother having a defence meeting with the UK if they’ll turn around tomorrow and spit in France’s face again by not telling them something?
It is not the UK's responsibility to inform France of a status change in their contract with Australia. In fact the UK has a duty to stay out of it as they are not parties to the contract- it is up to Australia to inform France.
France has a right to be peeved, but not at the UK or US.
They were still very willing to continue to continue on the diplomatic & cooperation fronts.
It was the French who blew up that aspect because of the submarine contract. It doesn't seem right to point the finger at the Australians for that.
Iran treatment after islamic revolution and temporary imprisonement of diplomats and CIA officials can be described as bruised ego / tantrum from outsiders perspective. There were great relations before and could have been good relations after if US was willing to put a blind eye on that (like it does with neighboring Saudi Arabia and all that is happening there).
It was definitely not sudden. They had been warned many times for growing costs, delays etc.. It may have been 'sudden' in the sense that they didnt think Australia would actually pull through with the threat.
If growing costs and delays are the supposed issue, buying nuclear submarines of an unspecified design while having no nuclear facilities or know-how, with the scheduled date of arrival of the first nuclear sub is in 2040, is a very weird way of fixing it.
If Australia wanted a quick and cheap submarine class, they should have bought the Japanese proposal. If they wanted a nuclear one, they could have tendered for it and gotten a French proposal based on the Barracudas. But they did neither.
I saw no evidence of that. There was only reports of worsening relations.
>If growing costs and delays are the supposed issue, buying nuclear submarines of an unspecified design while having no nuclear facilities or know-how, with the scheduled date of arrival of the first nuclear sub is in 2040, is a very weird way of fixing it.
No nuclear facilities or know-how is a a problem that can now be finally fixed. 2040 gives us plenty of time, and really, its only 10 years later than what was expected.
>If Australia wanted a quick and cheap submarine class, they should have bought the Japanese proposal. If they wanted a nuclear one, they could have tendered for it and gotten a French proposal based on the Barracudas. But they did neither.
Yeah but come on. Comparing the french nuclear subs versus the US ones is apples an oranges. Only the US have the tech for sealed engines, and no need to refuel.
Announcing 2 weeks later that the contract was cancelled sounds like a "sudden" announcement to me, while the press reports that discussions had been ongoing for almost 18 months in secret make that communique slightly deceitful from Australian government imo.
[1]: https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/marise-payne/med...