13 ms·
France Recalls Its Ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia over a Submarine Deal
- pm90 5y agoThis is getting pretty ridiculous. Almost like a child throwing a tantrum. How does France expect to be taken seriously if it acts like a petulant child?
- blibble 5y agoFrance always reacts like this
- Dobbs 5y agoWell I mean Australia and the USA could not go behind Frances back to strike a deal which apparently causes Australia to back out of a deal it has with France?
- briane80 5y agoThey are after all French
- aphroz 5y agoThe contracts were signed and it is perceived as a betrayal from the US which French thought were their allies. The ministry of defense of France called it a “stab in the back”.
- trynumber9 5y agoIt seems like a bit of an overreaction. Is shipbuilding that important to France?
- manacit 5y agoThat's part of it, but it's mostly a larger political play around France and Europe being less dependent on the USA as a partner around the world. France has been pushing on 'strategic autonomy' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_autonomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_autonomy) for quite some time now, and this played right into their hands as an opportunity of the USA not being reliable. Whether or not it's true, or if this will work, will take a lot more time to figure out.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- elefanten 5y agoAlso genuinely curious. With no judgment, I want to understand the French perspective here. And can anyone weigh in on whether these deals getting scuttled is so rare. Esp for advanced military equipment, I’d think that it’s quite common.
- SiempreViernes 5y agoA large part is the behaviour of Australia and the US who just said "Surprise! We're a couple now! Oh, by the way France, I texted you that you've been dumped this morning" And the reason they did it this way is basically because it was domestically convenient for them to have a press release last Wednesday and they didn't want to bother with first cancelling the contract and waiting even a month with announcing the new alliance that at the moment is entirely on paper.
- WastingMyTime89 5y agoFrance is more annoyed that the point wasn't raised during its summit with Australia during the summer nor by the USA during their last meetings. They consider that to be a deep breach of trust between allies and therefore recalled their ambassadors.
- conradfr 5y ago€50B over 50 years, dubbed "the contract of the century".
- chrisseaton 5y agoThe French were messing up the contract all on their own. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-20/australia-attack-class-submarines-project-costs-delays-criticism/13074440 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-20/australia-attack-clas...
- allemagne 5y agoIt's always about domestic politics. Macron doesn't want to look weak in the leadup to the 2022 election, and it's not hard to see why France would be upset here.
- ekabod 5y agoWhen Merkel decided to welcome one million refugees on german soil, it was about domestic politics?
- markus_zhang 5y agoRefugee is essential a business in Germany.
- allemagne 5y agoNot sure what you're trying to poke at here, so I'll just clarify. Basically any diplomatic actions that on their face appear to be overreactions, or intense provocations, are better understood as communicating something to a domestic audience in a context that rewards it. Classic example is "wolf warrior diplomacy", where tweets from Chinese officials can seem to indicate that the PLA is about to deploy tanks when in reality it's just a diplomat trying to look as nationalistic as they can for their bosses' approval. Or when France opposed the Iraq War in 2003, the "Freedom Fries" nonsense in America was really more about the general patriotic hysteria of the moment rather than a sign that there was any enduring hatred for France.
- Leparamour 5y ago> When Merkel decided to welcome one million refugees on german soil, it was about domestic politics? No, that was about personal revenge for the press eviscerating her and calling her the "Ice Queen"[1] after an interview segment was shown on TV in which Merkel can be seen rejecting a refugee girl's teary-eyed plead to bend the asylum law solely for her. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKBa2VvUMAE1Ymv?format=jpg&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKBa2VvUMAE1Ymv?format=jpg&name=... [2] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/7/29/a-refugees-hope-young-girl-takes-on-merkel https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/7/29/a-refugees-hope...
- skissane 5y agoIt isn’t just that Australia cancelled the deal and made a new one with someone else. It is they kept their plans secret from France instead of letting them know about it and giving them a chance to make a counter-offer or save some face. France has nuclear submarines too, so maybe France could still have played some role? Maybe AUKUS could have been AFUKUS? They didn’t allow France into the negotiation room, and they told France “everything is fine, we are sticking with your submarines” even while secretly negotiating with the US and UK. I think being excluded and lied to upsets Macron far more than the submarines themselves do.
- ericmay 5y agoLooks to me like political hardball being played and it’s surprising France (and to a lesser extent the EU). Frankly, France and the EU have been trying to straddle a middle ground between the US and China, and strategically Europe is mostly irrelevant outside of the UK (yes I know France can project some power I’m not downplaying them) but they have been dragging their feet and the action is just not going to be in Europe anymore. Australia (and the UK) are far, far more important to the United States. Europe has been unwilling to throw their cards in with America 100% and America is saying well… ok then we can’t rely on you so we’ll do something else. Look at the repercussions now. France is huffing and puffing and what exactly is going to happen? The Us is still buying French wine and German cars, and the EU is still buying US products and trade is just going to continue on as normal. Who cares? On the other hand, Australia is vital. I don’t think NATO exists in a meaningful way anymore and this is just window dressing around what has already happened. Russia is Europe’s problem. And the US is losing a reason to engage when Europe is seemingly not willing to. Think about it. If you take away the saber rattling why would the US give a shit about Russia? It’s an economic backwater. Europe doesn’t want to pony up and show teeth. What is to be gained? Hell, the US and Russia will probably forge better ties going forward. And yes I’m an American, but I’m just looking at this as I see it geopolitically.
- SiempreViernes 5y agoActually, France has far more territory in the Pacific than the UK, and better positioned too. The UK is part on the basis of historical ties, not because someone looked at a map and said "hey, that guy controls some important bits". It also seems distressingly naive to say "it's been two days and nothing's happened, so nobody cares" when talking about the EU reaction. The only fast EU action you ever get is the statements, and those have been supportive of France. The interesting thing is to see what happens this spring when France has the EU presidency. Anyway, the big benefit of NATO is to keep Europe and the US aligned; Europe has lived with Russia for a long time before NATO existed and the big trouble in Europe was about keeping whatever nations where large at the time from attacking each other. I don't see the US and Russia getting along much better, precisely because, as you say, Americans don't think they need to respect the Russians very much, a judgment which the Russians don't agree with.
- roenxi 5y agoFrance has a GDP of ~2,600 billion and the contact was something like 40 billion + potential overruns. Recalling an ambassador over a 1-2% of GDP slight seems pretty proportionate. It is a lot of money.
- le-mark 5y agoAgreed, this was huge huge deal for them. Reporting from Washington was Biden admin totally downplayed France objections, I was surprised actually. I think Macron is right to raise a fuss, but nothing will come of it. Europe doesn’t have a defense leg to stand on, that’s the current world order, right or wrong. The other thing that surprises me is the Anglo centric makeup of AUKUS, Oceana anyone?
- xyk2 5y agoIs it just me or are there more off-topic political posts on HN lately?
- cryptoz 5y agoThis isn't off-topic for HN. We've always had 1) submarine posts (aha, I mean both meanings here haha), 2) military strategy posts, 3) $40B deal-falling-apart posts, and even 4) war escalation posts. There's even a prized technical angle about the development of high-tech nuclear submarines. On-topic.
- RobRivera 5y agogeopolitical topics != politics impact of nation-state relations have a very real impact on the world commerce
- akfanta 5y agoDidn't know we are are Commerce News.
- math 5y agoDisturbing observation: 5 years ago, the trends that seemed most important to me were all technical - I really paid no attention to politics. Today, they are mostly geo-political.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoLet me guess, 5yr ago you had an order of magnitude (or two) less money tied up in markets and illiquid investments.
- MarkLowenstein 5y agoCould it be an ennui about tech news, resulting from the Tower of Babel of great projects and great ideas, that haven't reliably improved our IT or development experiences?
- dougmwne 5y ago
- rmk 5y agoIt looks like the vaunted experience of Biden and his team has not translated into any sort of deft policymaking, particularly in foreign policy. The messy pullout out of Afghanistan, followed by this scuttling of the deal in progress between Australia and France have reinforced the notion that Uncle Sam can not be relied upon, even by his closest allies. Pretty surefire way of helping fence-sitters become client states of China.
- torstenvl 5y agoDerna forever! EDIT: Sorry for the low-effort riffing. I was being wry. The U.S. won a decisive victory at Derna and, in the aftermath of the diplomatic resolution resulting from that victory, promptly abandoned our allies, without pay, in enemy territory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Derna_(1805) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Derna_(1805) It is my opinion that we are unreliable, and it's deeply painful when diplomats squander gains made at the cost of decades of treasure and military blood. This is especially painful right now. A lot of us had to beg, borrow, and steal our way to rescuing Afghan interpreters while the State Dept did nothing.
- rmk 5y agoHuh? What does this mean?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- truetraveller 5y agoHe's saying what happened in Derna (i.e. abandoning allies) was and always will be the way of the US government. It's a part their DNA, their heritage, and they'll keep doing it. Personally, not sure if this holds merit.
- rmk 5y agoYou shouldn't let downvotes cow you into issuing mea culpas. Stand your ground and ignore the loss of imaginary internet points :) It is deeply unjust that old farts (who no longer even send their own children into combat; the current president is a fortunate exception) instigate futile wars and then blunder their way out of them by essentially capitulating more or less completely. This has been especially true in Iraq where we have handed the country on a platter to Iran, and also in Afghanistan where we do not even know if future terrorists will not be sheltered. But I still believe that what Churchill (supposedly) said about us is essentially correct: "Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.”
- tkojames 5y agoIt is super laughable because the nuclear powered version that they are building for themselves was a fixed bid contract for something like 10 billion for 8 subs.. and the Australian contract keeps going up and up something like 35 billion for ten subs. The diesel sub for Australia is based on the nuclear sub that they signed the fixed bid contract for. Anybody with half brain can tell they are making up the lost of fixed bid contract by charging the Australia more.. and then they act surprised when Australia pulls out when they can get nuclear subs for cheaper. When nuclear subs usually cost 2.5* the cost. These people do great reporting on all of this. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone
- mahkeiro 5y agoFrench contract took 4 years to be negotiated, the US one less than 6 months, in total secret with no public check… expect big surprises at the end, US weapons program are not known to never overrun their costs
- tkojames 5y agoFor sure all that is right as well. But if I was in the Australian shoes this is just to good of deal from US and UK to turn down.
- enkid 5y agoThe cost on the French contract had already gone up by tens of billions of dollars, and nothing had been delivered.
- mahkeiro 5y agoUK frigate program for Australia navy is having the same issues: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/getting-real-about-the-schedule-for-australias-future-frigates/ https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/getting-real-about-the-sch...
- mytailorisrich 5y agoOf course, 'negotiation' concludes faster when it's one way.
- gdy 5y agoI wonder what French think now about their cancelling of the Mistral deal with Russia [0] under American pressure [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-class_amphibious_assault_ship#Russian_purchase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-class_amphibious_assau... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-russia-mistral-idUSBREA4B08V20140512 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-russia-mistral-idU...
- tmilard 5y agoWell... I feel we got screwed twice !
- lvs 5y agoDoes a NATO county selling weapons to a NATO strategic adversary not seem mildly questionable on its own?
- wonnage 5y agoThey're just not thinking big enough, the US has been creating its own strategic adversaries by selling weapons to terrorists and regretting it 20 years later for decades
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoThese ships are not a real problem. The credible part of Russian navy is nuclear submarines. Russian surface navy is not, and won't be a threat to Nato, with or without them. There isn't really a country theatened by Russia where sea is a relevant theater - it's always a land border Pales in comparison with amount of US weapons left in middle east, supplied to Saudi, etc. The diffetence is Russia has some standards, they don't do things like 9/11.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y agoThe Euro strategy is to make themselves vassals of Russia to appear less threatening. Look at how Germany walked away from nuclear and made themselves dependent on Russian natural gas.
- ldargin 5y agoThere's no question that nuclear subs are more appropriate for Australia, especially against a sophisticated opponent like China. Hopefully USA and Australia can compensate France in some way to maintain their prestige.
- turbinerneiter 5y agoFrance can do nuclear subs, Australia explicitly wanted diesel, until they suddenly didn't want diesel anymore. Arms deals are a joke always, they don't make sense, its basically all corruption fraud and lies.
- ekabod 5y agoFrance refuses to sell nuclear submarines.
- turbinerneiter 5y agoDidn't know that, thanks for the correction.
- PoignardAzur 5y agoIt's never that simple. From what I understand, France is willing to sell nuclear submarines, with some caveats related to non-proliferation treaties (though apparently the upcoming US deal might blatantly violate those). This kind of move is about backroom deals and consolidation of soft power; if Australia had asked France for nuclear submarines, they would never have sunk a multi-billion deal over that.
- droopyEyelids 5y agoChina is Australia's largest trade partner, and China owns tons of Australian real estate (residential and industrial), and one out of 20 Australians considers themselves of Chinese ancestry. It doesn't seem to make much sense to conceive of Australia and China as submarine warfare opponents.
- 5y ago
- nikolay 5y agoBiden is a idiot! You don't please one partner by screwing over another one!
- taurath 5y agoIt’s pretty much an Anglosphere FU to the EU here, but the stakes are one countries military industrial complex vs another. With nuclear tipped deterrents all around the world why are we so determined to play these power games? Not that it’s anything new of course. It reminds me of the future played out in Dune where nobody can act openly against each other so everyone is trained in espionage - what are those subs going to do? Give a 2 minute head start on 10 minute ICBMs?
- thatguy0900 5y agoI thought the purpose of the subs was to make a large first strike harder by concealing where all the launch sites are
- enkid 5y agoThat's for nuclear missile subs. The Australian subs will only have nuclear propulsion. They will be conventionally armed, like a US attack sub.
- caycep 5y agoI suspect also there's a greater need to "shadow" Chinese subs in the south china sea given expected increase in naval activity there
- nradov 5y agoThese are attack submarines. They won't carry ICBMs (or nuclear weapons of any kind) for deterrence. They could potentially be used to pre-emptively sink some Chinese missile submarines, but that's pretty far fetched.
- tomohawk 5y agoNot a surprise, with the EU's passivity wrt Russia, China, and Iran
- Robotbeat 5y agoI got how bad this seems from the French perspective, but pulling Ambassadors sounds like something you do if a country assassinated your diplomat or something, not just due to losing a military contract.
- dirtyid 5y agoLast time France pulled ambassador from Australia was when Australia denied France from a weapons bid due to France testing nukes in the Pacific.
- neltnerb 5y agoThis is amazing, is it always about money? Surely there are other examples.
- dirtyid 5y ago>always about money Usually the messier politics behind the scenes, in this case there was little notification, embarrassed French Pacific ambitions (France has substantial territory/EEZ holdings next to Australia), and a few months before the French election. Also diplomatically a dick move for transatlantic relationship, EU just announced their Indo-Pacific strategy. Last time in 1995 also had AU messing with French embassy diplomatic bags, delaying French ships at AU ports and other shenanigans. Recalls don't happen that often, especially between "friendly" countries. It's pretty wierd it happened twice between France and Australia. Arguably French deserved it, but Australia also seems to have gone full bogan. US / France has their own drama, especially in MIC competition, i.e. US label France of conducting industrial espionage on par with China, meanwhile US poached lucrative contracts from France before. So both money and political influence.
- sudosysgen 5y agoUS industrial espionage on the level of China and France (using Echelon and the rest of the NSA) was uncovered in the Snowden leaks. It's also about the US trying to force Australia to commit to an anti-China policy while the conservative government is in power. Australia announced support to the US in the region so it's also because of that. It's just dirty geopolitics. The US is trying to tie in Australia before they realize that it's not worth massive expense to defend their trade routes from China. When those trades routes are... With China.
- nabla9 5y agoBig weapons deals are always deeply political. If you have a defense alliance, it affects where you buy. South Korea, Japan and Australia, etc. can generally buy any big weapon system they want as long as it's American, because the US has huge political commitment to defend these countries. They can take bids from others to keep the price/performance within reasonable limits, but unless the US system is outrageously expensive or inferior, they go with that.
- yaacov 5y agoThis feels like a submarine piece. http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- virtuabhi 5y agoWhat a meta-reference for HN community :D
- anigbrowl 5y agoUn café liberté, s'il vous plait!
- blazespin 5y agoThe french have a reason to be upset. Biden announced this without given them a chance to adjust to changing circumstances. He did it in the manner he did, because he didn't want it leaked out over time and undermining his announcement, which will surely help his approval rating as being tough on China. This makes the french look stupid and out of the loop. It certainly doesn't make them look like a respected ally. The deal itself, they can't complain. Australia is below china and if giving them nuclear subs is the right to do for national security, it's the right thing to do.
- markus_zhang 5y agoMy observation: 1- US probably predicts that China is gonna breakthrough the first island chain in the next 10 years. 2- France needs to reconsider her Indo-Pacific stratrgy because Aussi explicitly shows that it's going all in with US instead of trying to follow some sort of independent strategy. 3- Win for whoever in EU who supports self defense and a more consolidated Europe. 4- First time a non nuclear country (Aussi has very limited exp with nuclear power) manages to obtain nuclear subs from nuclear countries.
- redis_mlc 5y ago1) Taiwan is part of the first island chain, so that's next to get pac-manned. 2) it's almost certain that Japan is assembling a-bombs (they already have ICBMs) 3) EU is not winning - they just refuse to invest in self-defense 4) Australia cannot defend itself, so it's good they're making an effort as long as the result is credible.
- systemvoltage 5y agoPoint #4. Distinction we need to make is that Australia will obtain Nuclear-powered subs, not nuclear weapons. I haven’t seen what “Nuclear Sub” entails with regards to this contract anywhere so please correct me if I am wrong. It’s not breaking the non-proliferation treaty.
- sudosysgen 5y agoIt entails in the case of US subs 95% enrichment uranium.
- systemvoltage 5y agoIs making rad bombs trivial? Can you just dump nuclear fuel out of the sub and stick it in a gun-type bomb with no prior experience?
- sudosysgen 5y agoPretty much, yes. Enrichment is the hard part and US subs have fuel enriched enough for a gun type nuke.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dumdumdumdum 5y agoA little part of me was hoping the objection was on the grounds that we shouldn't be increasing the number of hot nuclear weapons, but of-course it's just a turf war.
- yyyk 5y agoThe issue is not the submarine deal, but frustrations lasting for months over other issues, in particular the travel ban. The US has had an EU travel ban for over 18 months, despite the EU having more vaccination and less covid than the US[0]. Which country's citizen are not banned from traveling to the US? Russia! Despite a soaring epidemic and very low vaccination rates. Biden told the world that 'America is back'. Yet most of his foreign policy is similar to Trump's, the difference is being in practice more abrasive to allies and more conciliatory with rivals. If this continues, the US will simply have less allies. Perhaps it's more profitable to be a rival - the US will treat you better. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/16/biden-travel-ban-europe-analysis/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/16/biden-travel... [1] https://www.nafsa.org/regulatory-information/covid-19-restrictions-us-visas-and-entry#countryproclamations https://www.nafsa.org/regulatory-information/covid-19-restri... (Note that the EU travel ban was about to be lifted in January, the President reinstated it for no reason I can fathom.)
- twelve40 5y ago> Which country's citizen are not banned from traveling to the US? Russia! That's technically true, but de-facto entering the US is almost impossible if you need a new/renewed visa - the US stopped issuing those in Russia, and even for people wealthy enough to fly to a different country to get a US visa, that is also nearly impossible with wait times of 6+months.
- bequanna 5y ago> If this continues, the US will simply have less allies. I’m not so sure. We’re in a two super power world now with China being a threat to almost every Western country. Which countries do you think would risk losing support from US intelligence and military in this climate? The EU just might have to put up with some of America’s BS if you want us to keep China in check when they come after your interests.
- yyyk 5y agoWhether rightfully or not, EU does not feel threatened by China, and therefore sees no need for US help to 'keep China in check'.
- systemvoltage 5y agoThis is not good - the west should be unifying against Russia and China, not infighting. Bunch of comments here about how US is an unreliable partner, how France is throwing a tantrum over trivial matters and how Australia is stabbing them in the back. The larger picture of all this bickering is causing sentiment dent amongst NATO countries and the rest of the western powers. Media finds all this spicy and it has been on top news channels spooking people into tribal instincts. Not good.
- sbmthakur 5y agoWhy haven't they recalled their Ambassador from the UK?
- Shadonototra 5y agoUSA has no allies, only vassals when will the world wake up?
- plandis 5y agoI think it’s a touch ironic that for all the time the French government spent mocking the US because of Trump that they are now pulling a Trumpian temper tantrum for losing out on a business deal.
- kaminar 5y agoFrance got f'd by its best allies. Only a compete idiot president would do...
- BrandoElFollito 5y agoA similar case is with Iran. France was bullied into leaving Iran and breaking our contracts there because the US do not like Iran. France and style other countries tried to ask EU to weight it, but it was busy with doing nothing (and since it has zero influence anyway wild not have helped). The US is a bully. We are the 1st grade kid being beaten up for fun and profit, and told to smile. International politics is ugly and hypocrisy, in the name of Diplomacy.
- mrlonglong 5y agoWhy didn't they also recall their ambassador from the UK as well?