8 ms·

France recalling ambassadors to the United States and to Australia

43 points by tarsinge 5y ago

anderson1993 5y ago
Well France had already cancelled a Dinner date with the US, that's like Def Con 2 for the French.
- sysadmindotfail 5y ago
  Almost spit out my coffee. Thanks for the laugh :)
- laurent92 5y ago
  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.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    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.
    - beardyw 5y ago
      I think Johnson would have liked to have the UK ambassador recalled too. As it is it just makes the UK look a bit irrelevant.
      - kergonath 5y ago
        Exactly what I was thinking and I am pretty sure this is intentional.
- unraveller 5y ago
  The bigger insult was changing the dinner menu to be dairy-free at the last minute.
moory2000 5y ago
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.
Proven 5y ago
Will anyone notice? They forgot to recall the ambassador to the UK. The UK also often pisses them off.
WinstonSmith84 5y ago
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
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  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.
  - WinstonSmith84 5y ago
    > 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_independence_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_New_Caledonian_independen...). And New Caledonia might not be alone...
    - mytailorisrich 5y ago
      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.
    - mySubSub 5y ago
      It's no conspiracy theory, the US and the UK have played secretly behind France's back to close the deal.
agumonkey 5y ago
minuscule anecdata: a few aussies are apologizing on france subreddit what an odd event
- TMWNN 5y ago
  >minuscule anecdata: a few aussies are apologizing on france subreddit /r/cringe
cdot2 5y ago
Macron is throwing a tantrum because they lost a contract
black_puppydog 5y ago
Just for completeness' sake: it's not clear to me the world needed any more submarines, nuclear or not, French or US. I feel like that aspect is conveniently overlooked in any discussion of the matter and I don't like that.
- mam2 5y ago
  Peace was brought faster by two atomic bombs than by 200 years of diplomacy. Im pretty fine with more submarines
- sofixa 5y ago
  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.
- laurent92 5y ago
  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.
shimonabi 5y ago
Recalling your ambassadors was once a warning to the host country that war is imminent. 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?
- akmarinov 5y ago
  Yep, Trump had it right - countries should just communicate via Twitter.
Rexxar 5y ago
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.
- akmarinov 5y ago
  There are probably some clauses for compensation in this event. Other than that what is France gonna do about it? Invade Australia?
  - tuatoru 5y ago
    Well, it has a track record in the region... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
- detritus 5y ago
  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. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38790/australia-reportedly-looking-at-an-alternative-to-its-costly-new-french-designed-submarines https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38790/australia-report...
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    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.
jeeeb 5y ago
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?
- siderax 5y ago
  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.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - greenhatman 5y ago
    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.
  - jeeeb 5y ago
    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.
riddleronroof 5y ago
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?
doe88 5y ago
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.
dave333 5y ago
Boris wins round one of the post Brexit passive aggressive war between UK and France.

43 points by tarsinge 5y ago

anderson1993 5y ago

Well France had already cancelled a Dinner date with the US, that's like Def Con 2 for the French.

sysadmindotfail 5y ago
Almost spit out my coffee. Thanks for the laugh :)
laurent92 5y ago
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.
- kergonath 5y ago
  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.
  - beardyw 5y ago
    I think Johnson would have liked to have the UK ambassador recalled too. As it is it just makes the UK look a bit irrelevant.
    - kergonath 5y ago
      Exactly what I was thinking and I am pretty sure this is intentional.
unraveller 5y ago
The bigger insult was changing the dinner menu to be dairy-free at the last minute.

moory2000 5y ago

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.

Proven 5y ago

Will anyone notice? They forgot to recall the ambassador to the UK. The UK also often pisses them off.

WinstonSmith84 5y ago

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

mytailorisrich 5y ago
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.
- WinstonSmith84 5y ago
  > 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_independence_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_New_Caledonian_independen...). And New Caledonia might not be alone...
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    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.
  - mySubSub 5y ago
    It's no conspiracy theory, the US and the UK have played secretly behind France's back to close the deal.

agumonkey 5y ago

minuscule anecdata: a few aussies are apologizing on france subreddit what an odd event

TMWNN 5y ago
>minuscule anecdata: a few aussies are apologizing on france subreddit /r/cringe

cdot2 5y ago

Macron is throwing a tantrum because they lost a contract

black_puppydog 5y ago

Just for completeness' sake: it's not clear to me the world needed any more submarines, nuclear or not, French or US. I feel like that aspect is conveniently overlooked in any discussion of the matter and I don't like that.

mam2 5y ago
Peace was brought faster by two atomic bombs than by 200 years of diplomacy. Im pretty fine with more submarines
sofixa 5y ago
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.
laurent92 5y ago
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.

shimonabi 5y ago

Recalling your ambassadors was once a warning to the host country that war is imminent. 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?

akmarinov 5y ago
Yep, Trump had it right - countries should just communicate via Twitter.

Rexxar 5y ago

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.

akmarinov 5y ago
There are probably some clauses for compensation in this event. Other than that what is France gonna do about it? Invade Australia?
- tuatoru 5y ago
  Well, it has a track record in the region... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
detritus 5y ago
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. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38790/australia-reportedly-looking-at-an-alternative-to-its-costly-new-french-designed-submarines https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38790/australia-report...
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  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.

jeeeb 5y ago

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?

siderax 5y ago
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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- greenhatman 5y ago
  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.
- jeeeb 5y ago
  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.

riddleronroof 5y ago

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?

doe88 5y ago

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.

dave333 5y ago

Boris wins round one of the post Brexit passive aggressive war between UK and France.