8 ms·

France cancels defence meeting with UK over submarine row, sources say

42 points by underscore_ku 5y ago

inglor_cz 5y ago
On one hand I understand them, sudden cancelation of a contract is very unpleasant and demeaning. 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.
- gerty 5y ago
  It's not just a contract though. France actually has a maritime border with Australia and its own interests in the Pacific -> the entire French Pacific strategy was wiped out by 3 "allies" behind its back.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    There are basically three things that France can now do: 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.
    - RalfWausE 5y ago
      I would bet a paycheck on option c) 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.
      - makomk 5y ago
        Well, the big thing holding up a trade deal with China right now is that China decided to sanction several MEPs and the European Parliament's human rights subcommittee for scrutinizing their forced labour camps in Xinjiang, which the European Parliament of course considered an attack on democracy itself. So if France used its sway to get the EU to align with China, that'd basically demonstrate that the French government's feelings had more power than the pretence of EU democracy.
        mytailorisrich 5y ago
        > now is that China decided to sanction several MEPs and the European Parliament's human rights subcommittee It should be noted that this was in retaliation to the EU imposing sanctions on a number of Chinese officials.
        RalfWausE 5y ago
        Now... i would think it would go on the line of "change through rapprochement", and even this would not be THAT far fetched. China may be a dictatorial regime, but its an dictatorial regime that values good trade deals and making money. So getting concessions on not genociding the Uigurs (at least not in a way the world can be witness) are becoming more easy.
        Chris2048 5y ago
        > getting concessions on not genociding the Uigurs wouldn't this encourage future human-rights violations as "leverage" for concessions?
    - Balero 5y ago
      > b) join AUKUS as a junior partner, very painful but logical; 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.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - woofie11 5y ago
        To be fair, France has consistently betrayed its allies, throughout history. The start of WWII is worth looking at, where both France and Britain broke mutual defense treaty after mutual defense treaty appeasing Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War A lost sale in contrast? That seems more like normal business than lying and betrayal.
        kazen44 5y ago
        mind you that pre world war two. the political and diplomatic game in Europe was far different then it is today. I would not expect France to the same behavior with other EU members.
        woofie11 5y ago
        None of the other parties here are 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.
      - inglor_cz 5y ago
        Unreliable partners are Europe's mode of operation since Antiquity. The positive side is that European countries mostly know what to expect from one another. Xi's China is a new player whose intents are much less legible.
      - 5y ago
    - willvarfar 5y ago
      There's a new trending joke in defense circles about how the opportunity was missed for a FAUKUS alliance, which would have been comically delicious to pronounce.
    - gerty 5y ago
      There are also alternative ways of sending a message, e.g. targeting of US soft power. While INSTEX was not a huge success in its time, an alternative payment mechanism that works around US sanctions aligns well with French (and even EU) interests and strongly against US.
    - WastingMyTime89 5y ago
      > a) abandon New Caledonia entirely. 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.
      - roenxi 5y ago
        > lobby to get the EU - Australia free trade agreement severely limited then carry on as usual 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.
        inglor_cz 5y ago
        In France, fierce protectionism is part of the governmental policy longer than the Republic exists. This has seeped into EU policies as well, though not to the same extent.
    - mytailorisrich 5y ago
      d) stand its ground independently, invest in its military to have the capability it needs, work with AUKUS if and when it is in its interests to do so. This includes taking a more 'non-aligned' stance on China, but that'd not be historically new (France was the first Western country to recognise the PRC and De Gaulle even advised Kennedy to do it sooner than later).
      - inglor_cz 5y ago
        French vital interests are in Africa, not in Pacific. And the strategic situation in Sahel isn't good. Given that military budgets are always strained, it makes sense to concentrate on the core challenges and leaving the Pacific be.
        mytailorisrich 5y ago
        France has strategic interests in Africa. And it has also vital interests in the Pacific because it actually has territories in the region. 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.
        inglor_cz 5y ago
        You got me. I was only thinking about the territories themselves (arguably not crucially important) and forgot about the maritime EEZs that come with them. These seem to be rather important. (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.)
        mytailorisrich 5y ago
    - liotier 5y ago
      Offering closer partnership to India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore might be a viable alternate way forward for France - and they might find it in their interest too. More "indo" than "pacific" though.
      - mytailorisrich 5y ago
        They've already been working on this with India [1]. They have been working on building partnerships in the region for years, with a focus on India and Australia. 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-india-france-maritime-activity-in-the-indo-pacific/ https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/whats-behind-the-rising-indi...
      - inglor_cz 5y ago
        India is naturally more inclined to cooperate with the UK, though. Colonial legacies are complicated and Indian elite tends to go study in English-speaking countries, so there is a lot of personal contact. It is much rarer to meet Indian students in continental EU.
    - hsbauauvhabzb 5y ago
      > b) join AUKUS as a junior partner, very painful but logical; FAUKUS does have a ring to it…
  - zaphirplane 5y ago
    What’s the strategy that was wiped ? AFAICT this is about a canceled contract and the secrecy of the negotiations. The French strategy can’t possible be based on selling submarines to a continent country bordering its atolls
    - jean_tta 5y ago
      See here: https://au.ambafrance.org/IMG/pdf/en_indopacifique_web_cle0f44b5.pdf https://au.ambafrance.org/IMG/pdf/en_indopacifique_web_cle0f... The French government has openly stated that this goes beyond the canceled contract per se.
      - zaphirplane 5y ago
        I’ll double down strategic Alliances are not built on selling a product. This is about the not getting a heads up for the negotiation with US/UK France knew Australia was unhappy with the deal
  - alexitorg 5y ago
    How has the French pacific strategy been wiped out? What was it?
    - liotier 5y ago
      France’s Indo‑Pacific Strategy: https://au.ambafrance.org/IMG/pdf/en_indopacifique_web_cle0f44b5.pdf https://au.ambafrance.org/IMG/pdf/en_indopacifique_web_cle0f... Multilateralism was a pillar of that strategy. Australia shifting from an equal partner to a US vassal signals an end to that.
      - zaphirplane 5y ago
        Hmm France doesn’t want strong partners ? :) If buying American makes one a vassal wouldn’t buying French be the same ?
        liotier 5y ago
        Working with a similarly powerful partner and working with a major power are not the same balance in relationship.
        zaphirplane 5y ago
        I don’t see the working with part, I see a buy from France or else part
  - bodge5000 5y ago
    Lets not pretend this was a mighty backstabbing by everyone else who france treated with nothing but kindness. I can't speak much for the US or Aus, but I wouldn't call them on good terms with the UK, beyond even the historical jibes. 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.
    - Adrig 5y ago
      It is, tho. Diplomacy is a sensible thing. It's not as much about the contract lost, but the way it was handled. The contract was also a key piece for a deeper collaboration in the pacific area, one of the most important geopolitical sectors for the next 20 years. France shared highly confidential material for months, while Australia already had decided to breach the contract. In international relationships among allies where trust is crucial, it's pretty big.
      - bodge5000 5y ago
        As I said, France has not been a strong ally of the UK (again, cant speak for US or Aus, but may be a similar situation there) in the past or even very recently, why you would expect differently the other way around I don't know. 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.
- BurnGpuBurn 5y ago
  They could just leave NATO, see what happens. I hope they do. The alliance clearly doesn't care about anybody but the US.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Former Soviet satellites still trust it as a deterrent against Russia.
    - sedan_baklazhan 5y ago
      But did NATO (ever in its history) function as a defence alliance, not as an agressive alliance, though?
      - willvarfar 5y ago
        NATO has only ever been a defense alliance. 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.
        jean_tta 5y ago
        Including, of course, the defensive invasion of Afghanistan using article 5.
        willvarfar 5y ago
        There have been a long history of "hot" confrontations and proxy wars like Korea, Cuba and Angola, Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan and then the US in Afghanistan etc. 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.
- jean_tta 5y ago
  I don't understand why major arm contracts suddenly went from having obvious geopolitical implications (e.g. Turkey S-400 procurement) to being "mere contracts".
  - rualca 5y ago
    It's not hard to understand why Turkey's case has critical geopolitical implications while Australia's doesn't really have one. I mean, just take a look at the sellers and the military alliances the buyers are in.
    - jean_tta 5y ago
      Australia went from an ever-closer relationship with France to ditching them, unannounced. Even if it is unwarranted, surely France reaction _is_ a major geopolitical consequence.
      - rualca 5y ago
        > Australia went from an ever-closer relationship with France to ditching them, unannounced. 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-its-french-sub-deal/ https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-...
        lerela 5y ago
        Despite those difficulties (that do not sound ludicrous considering the complexity and the amount of technology transfer that was required, but I'm no submarines expert), as I mentioned in another comment, the joint communique between French and Australian Defence minister from August mentioned that "both sides [were] committed to deepen defence industry cooperation and enhance their capability edge in the region" and that "ministers underlined the importance of the Future Submarine program". Looking back, it is hard to argue that official line was not very disingenuous, even after acknowledging the issues with the program.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  People with big egos often throw tantrums, US and other presidents are no exceptions. And you need a big ego and some other nasty personality traits to navigate super-competitive realm of high politics and end up with some powerful role. 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).
- rmm 5y ago
  >>On one hand I understand them, sudden cancelation of a contract is very unpleasant and demeaning. 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.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Sudden in the sense that in spring they discussed concretely what's going wrong and what is needed to fix it, and came out thinking everything is OK for Australia. While Australia was negotiating with the US and UK. 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.
    - rmm 5y ago
      >Sudden in the sense that in spring they discussed concretely what's going wrong and what is needed to fix it, and came out thinking everything is OK for Australia. While Australia was negotiating with the US and UK. 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.
  - lerela 5y ago
- corty 5y ago
  France cannot get the EU behind it. 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-build-australias-new-subs/ https://thediplomat.com/2016/01/has-germany-lost-the-bid-to-... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-submarines-competition-idUSKCN0UZ316 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-submarines-comp...
  - sofixa 5y ago
    The press coverage you linked contradicts you. It says that TKMS' bid is too risky because it requires doubling the size of their existing design, which is risky. 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.
  - jbreitbart 5y ago
    It looks like that this may also stop the EU-Australia trade deal from happening. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-australia-trade-deal-runs-aground-over-submarine-furor/ https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-australia-trade-deal-runs...
    - corty 5y ago
- akmarinov 5y ago
  It’s not so much the cancellation of the contract as how it was done instead. 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?
  - JetSetWilly 5y ago
    > 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.
    - jean_tta 5y ago
      I do not think anyone is arguing that the UK has some kind of legal obligation to inform France. Alas, alliance and more broadly international politics go beyond minutiae of contracts.
      - JetSetWilly 5y ago
        It didn't have any obligation - legal, moral or otherwise. In fact it had an obligation not to interfere or surprise Australia by communicating things. The responsibility was 100% on Australia.
- wdr1 5y ago
  My understanding was the only change initiated by AU was the submarine contract. 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.
google234123 5y ago
France was probably aware much earlier that the contract was in jeopardy. Everyone in France being on vacation in July and August didn’t help at the end.
- leshokunin 5y ago
  Your first sentence is pure speculation, and was refuted by French officials. The second sentence is just hyperbole. I’m sure you can do better!
  - google234123 5y ago
    https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/new-pressures-emerge-in-french-submarine-fight-20210513-p57rid https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/new-pressures-emerge-in... (from may) https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/call-to-review-submarine-program-over-tensions-20210118-p56ux0 https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/call-to-review-submarin... (Jan) mentions walking away. Doubling the price, delays, and changing the terms (reducing local contribution told from 90 to less than 60) aren’t good ways to secure a deal with a partner that was already angry in 2018.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      They were aware there were issues, and negotiations happened on how to fix them, with the French leaving them with the impression everything is good. Meanwhile Australia was already negotiating an alternative deal.
      - corty 5y ago
        > They were aware there were issues, and negotiations happened on how to fix them, with the French leaving them with the impression everything is good. The French culture is to never deliver bad news before the deadline has arrived. Underlings will never tell their boss that something is impossible, decisions will be made by grande-ecole-bosses without technical expertise and relationships are valued far higher than knowledge and expertise. You'll always get the first impression that all is well and they'll manage before the deadline. If you need a real non-sugar-coated insight as to how the project is going you need to gather your own data. Discreetly. However, as soon as shit has hit the fan and bosses got involved, they'll bend over backwards to make things work. But you cannot expect meeting the first deadline, ever. Same for the first budget. Subsequent ones depend on the size of the project.
Proven 5y ago
Screw them, they're one of the guilty parties responsible for the ongoing continental-size abuse of population in the EU, through various EU and ECB policies. They can sell the subs to the ECB, that should be easy. The ECB pays them, and parks the subs in Frankfurt (or Hamburg, whatever). Similar to the way they hand out cash for worthless FPIIGS government bonds.
gatronicus 5y ago
One article said that the France contract was about 7 bil per diesel sub, while the new one will be 4 bil per nuclear sub. I can't imagine how you can justify 7 bil for a diesel sub. Is it possible that France though that Aus had no alternative and ran the price up?
- sofixa 5y ago
  > One article said that the France contract was about 7 bil per diesel sub, while the new one will be 4 bil per nuclear sub Both of those are wrong. > Is it possible that France though that Aus had no alternative and ran the price up? No, there was an official procedure with multiple candidates ( France, Japan and a third one I can't recall). Australia chose the French option, even though it required significant modifications to a nuclear design to make it diesel electric. > I can't imagine how you can justify 7 bil for a diesel sub Furthermore, the contract included significant know-how transfers and construction in Australia, so whatever the price per sub turned out to be, it wouldn't be for the subs alone. As for why the 4 bil per sub is wrong - they haven't decided anything. They don't know the design, upon what it will be based ( the smaller UK Astute class or the bigger US Virginias), etc. Lots of infrastructure needs to be built, and people have to be trained since Australia has no nuclear sector to speak of. So any price projection as of today is purely theoretical. Oh and the first subs under the new contract should be available in 2040, so probably a decade later. That's a long time.
- grandinj 5y ago
  Much more likely that the standard optimism that runs through people when they are starting new projects lead them to dramatically underestimate the difficulty of the project - which ended up being "design a new sub from scratch" instead of the intention, which was "lightly modify an existing design"
- worrycue 5y ago
  That’s kind of irrelevant to the situation though. It’s not Australia changing suppliers that’s the problem but how they did it. France found out they got dropped from the news if I’m right.
- Adrig 5y ago
JetSetWilly 5y ago
Seems like manufactured outrage from France for the benefit of its electorate. The UK and US are entirely innocent. They have no standing in the Australia-France contract, and the burden of informing France of the cancellation clause being invoked falls entirely on Australia - if they failed to do so and France feels peeved, they should take that up with Australia. The UK and US are entirely irrelevant. Even by the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" standard of morality - France would do exactly the same as the UK and US have if the shoe was on the other foot. I do wonder to what extent if any France being instrumental in interdicting vaccines bound for Australia in March had on this outcome. I recall that around the same time the UK exported vaccines to Australia (see [1] ). Given it was Australia that approached the UK to initiate this deal towards the end of march, it may not have been the smartest move by France to demonstrate that they are not reliable and are perfectly willing to shaft Australia when the chips are down. But of course we don't know if there was any relation at all between those events, the timings are suspicious tho. [1] https://www.dw.com/en/australia-receives-astrazeneca-vaccines-through-uk-report/a-57129511 https://www.dw.com/en/australia-receives-astrazeneca-vaccine...
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  I think they are genuinely shocked, but state of shock is usually a bad one to perform any diplomacy in.
kryptiskt 5y ago
So they have failed to deliver for five years with huge cost overruns and delays and get all mad when their customer says enough is enough. I wonder if any lessons learned will make it way back to their defense industry, or if playing the victim will suffice for them too.
- tempodox 5y ago
  Projects like that are (in)famous for what you mentioned. Of course it works best when the customer is your own government.
- akmarinov 5y ago
  So Australia’s answer is to further delay things by starting over and getting nuclear submarines at best 10 years later than the new french timeline, but realistically probably a lot more?
- Adrig 5y ago
  The usa is definitely a reassuring partner concerning delays and cost overruns in the weapon industry
  - tick_tock_tick 5y ago
    The USA rarely sells "new" stuff so allies get the product after all that shit has happened. France was overhauling a sub design for them (probably why it was years late and way over budget).
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  > So they have failed to deliver for five years with huge cost overruns and delays and get all mad when their customer says enough is enough. The contract was signed in 2019 after a complicated negociation and is only in the design phase. If you go read the Australian reports on it, you will see that the main cause of delay is actually Australia. Contrary to France which has experience working on this kind of deal - they sold submarines to Brasil and India and boats to many more countries - Australia is not used to do this kind of work and it shows. The Morrison government however is all too happy to pin the blame on France especially considering the deal was mostly done by Turnbull. If you expect the American contract to go smoothly and with no overrun, you are in for quite a surprise I fear.
curionav 5y ago
Politics plays a significant role here: * next year a new presidential election will take place in France * Macron may use this contract cancellation as an opportunity to decrease France participation in NATO (technically it could leave the integrated command) as De Gaulle did before him. This would allow him to capture more votes from the right as he would appears as a strong leader then, acting in continuity with General de Gaulle... France can not go out of NATO, the alliance with all its drawbacks is just too important for its own defense. This contract cancellation may end up being in the best interest of both Australia and France: * Australia changed its mind in the course of the last years regarding what types of submarines it really needs. * Such change of perspective affected the partnership in between both countries, which could have escalated into a costly commercial dispute where Australia would have acted in bad faith to prevent the French delivering what they did not want anymore. There are tension in the Asia-Pacific regions in between the US and China, and France like other Europeans countries are too far from home to take a part in this.
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  > France can not go out of NATO, the alliance with all its drawbacks is just too important for its own defense. France could. It has maintained a strategy of independence regarding its own defense. France has its own nukes, its own nuclear submarines, designs and operates its own fighters, has a nuclear powered aircraft carrier and has some limited capacity of projection. France has no American troops stationed on its soild and apart from the catapults of the carrier, none of their technologies come from the USA. France has one of the lowest public opinion on NATO in the EU. I think France would be very much in favor of sidelining NATO for a EU force. The issue is the others members of the EU particularly in the east. > France like other Europeans countries are too far from home to take a part in this. France has mutiple territories in the Pacitic including New Caledonia which has a border with Australia.
  - mmarq 5y ago
    France, like any other western country, UK included, is heavily dependent on the USA for defence. France’s low opinion of NATO is part of a broader delusional weltanschauung which sees France as an economic and military superpower. It is staged in a parallel universe where the 19th century never ended and the Franco-Prussian war never happened.
DisjointedHunt 5y ago
There's a strong story here under the surface that we're not privy to. A few observations that may or may not be connected, but in macro politics, isn't everything always connected?: First, please read this gripping tale of the evolving national defense strategies of the United States and France within the "Indo Pacific" as seen during the change in foreign policy beginning with the later Obama years and the Trump administration: https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/10/21/france-other-indo-pacific-power-pub-83000 https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/10/21/france-other-indo-p... One of the tl;drs of the link above is that France sees the Indo Pacific MUCH differently from many other western powers including the USA and UK. They see themselves having a prominent authority in the Indo Pacific, key to their economic interests. To this end, they have been trying to establish an alliance of powers in the region including Australia and India. France actually pulled off a coup earlier this decade when they closed on a major Military Air Craft sale to India with their Dassault Rafale. They have been similarly trying to establish long term military relationships with Australia and thus align the two countries' interests. The interests that France has in the region are about safeguarding their own economic concerns and not necessarily directly address the rise of the communist party of China. This is in stark contrast to the UK, the US and Australia who see the rise of the communist partys ambitions directly threaten their countries defense and economic concerns. There is going to be a lot of drama after this because what just happened here is a domino fell. We're seeing the emergence of an alliance that could form part of the "Quad" in the region or something similar that may not necessarily have France as the central power directing diplomacy in the region.

42 points by underscore_ku 5y ago

On one hand I understand them, sudden cancelation of a contract is very unpleasant and demeaning. 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.

gerty 5y ago
It's not just a contract though. France actually has a maritime border with Australia and its own interests in the Pacific -> the entire French Pacific strategy was wiped out by 3 "allies" behind its back.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  There are basically three things that France can now do: 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.
  - RalfWausE 5y ago
    I would bet a paycheck on option c) 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.
    - makomk 5y ago
      Well, the big thing holding up a trade deal with China right now is that China decided to sanction several MEPs and the European Parliament's human rights subcommittee for scrutinizing their forced labour camps in Xinjiang, which the European Parliament of course considered an attack on democracy itself. So if France used its sway to get the EU to align with China, that'd basically demonstrate that the French government's feelings had more power than the pretence of EU democracy.
      - mytailorisrich 5y ago
        > now is that China decided to sanction several MEPs and the European Parliament's human rights subcommittee It should be noted that this was in retaliation to the EU imposing sanctions on a number of Chinese officials.
      - RalfWausE 5y ago
        Now... i would think it would go on the line of "change through rapprochement", and even this would not be THAT far fetched. China may be a dictatorial regime, but its an dictatorial regime that values good trade deals and making money. So getting concessions on not genociding the Uigurs (at least not in a way the world can be witness) are becoming more easy.
        Chris2048 5y ago
        > getting concessions on not genociding the Uigurs wouldn't this encourage future human-rights violations as "leverage" for concessions?
  - Balero 5y ago
    > b) join AUKUS as a junior partner, very painful but logical; 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.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - woofie11 5y ago
      To be fair, France has consistently betrayed its allies, throughout history. The start of WWII is worth looking at, where both France and Britain broke mutual defense treaty after mutual defense treaty appeasing Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War A lost sale in contrast? That seems more like normal business than lying and betrayal.
      - kazen44 5y ago
        mind you that pre world war two. the political and diplomatic game in Europe was far different then it is today. I would not expect France to the same behavior with other EU members.
        woofie11 5y ago
        None of the other parties here are 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.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      Unreliable partners are Europe's mode of operation since Antiquity. The positive side is that European countries mostly know what to expect from one another. Xi's China is a new player whose intents are much less legible.
    - 5y ago
  - willvarfar 5y ago
    There's a new trending joke in defense circles about how the opportunity was missed for a FAUKUS alliance, which would have been comically delicious to pronounce.
  - gerty 5y ago
    There are also alternative ways of sending a message, e.g. targeting of US soft power. While INSTEX was not a huge success in its time, an alternative payment mechanism that works around US sanctions aligns well with French (and even EU) interests and strongly against US.
  - WastingMyTime89 5y ago
    > a) abandon New Caledonia entirely. 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.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      > lobby to get the EU - Australia free trade agreement severely limited then carry on as usual 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.
      - inglor_cz 5y ago
        In France, fierce protectionism is part of the governmental policy longer than the Republic exists. This has seeped into EU policies as well, though not to the same extent.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    d) stand its ground independently, invest in its military to have the capability it needs, work with AUKUS if and when it is in its interests to do so. This includes taking a more 'non-aligned' stance on China, but that'd not be historically new (France was the first Western country to recognise the PRC and De Gaulle even advised Kennedy to do it sooner than later).
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      French vital interests are in Africa, not in Pacific. And the strategic situation in Sahel isn't good. Given that military budgets are always strained, it makes sense to concentrate on the core challenges and leaving the Pacific be.
      - mytailorisrich 5y ago
        France has strategic interests in Africa. And it has also vital interests in the Pacific because it actually has territories in the region. 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.
        inglor_cz 5y ago
        You got me. I was only thinking about the territories themselves (arguably not crucially important) and forgot about the maritime EEZs that come with them. These seem to be rather important. (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.)
        mytailorisrich 5y ago
  - liotier 5y ago
    Offering closer partnership to India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore might be a viable alternate way forward for France - and they might find it in their interest too. More "indo" than "pacific" though.
    - mytailorisrich 5y ago
      They've already been working on this with India [1]. They have been working on building partnerships in the region for years, with a focus on India and Australia. 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-india-france-maritime-activity-in-the-indo-pacific/ https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/whats-behind-the-rising-indi...
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      India is naturally more inclined to cooperate with the UK, though. Colonial legacies are complicated and Indian elite tends to go study in English-speaking countries, so there is a lot of personal contact. It is much rarer to meet Indian students in continental EU.
  - hsbauauvhabzb 5y ago
    > b) join AUKUS as a junior partner, very painful but logical; FAUKUS does have a ring to it…
- zaphirplane 5y ago
  What’s the strategy that was wiped ? AFAICT this is about a canceled contract and the secrecy of the negotiations. The French strategy can’t possible be based on selling submarines to a continent country bordering its atolls
  - jean_tta 5y ago
    See here: https://au.ambafrance.org/IMG/pdf/en_indopacifique_web_cle0f44b5.pdf https://au.ambafrance.org/IMG/pdf/en_indopacifique_web_cle0f... The French government has openly stated that this goes beyond the canceled contract per se.
    - zaphirplane 5y ago
      I’ll double down strategic Alliances are not built on selling a product. This is about the not getting a heads up for the negotiation with US/UK France knew Australia was unhappy with the deal
- alexitorg 5y ago
  How has the French pacific strategy been wiped out? What was it?
  - liotier 5y ago
    France’s Indo‑Pacific Strategy: https://au.ambafrance.org/IMG/pdf/en_indopacifique_web_cle0f44b5.pdf https://au.ambafrance.org/IMG/pdf/en_indopacifique_web_cle0f... Multilateralism was a pillar of that strategy. Australia shifting from an equal partner to a US vassal signals an end to that.
    - zaphirplane 5y ago
      Hmm France doesn’t want strong partners ? :) If buying American makes one a vassal wouldn’t buying French be the same ?
      - liotier 5y ago
        Working with a similarly powerful partner and working with a major power are not the same balance in relationship.
        zaphirplane 5y ago
        I don’t see the working with part, I see a buy from France or else part
- bodge5000 5y ago
  Lets not pretend this was a mighty backstabbing by everyone else who france treated with nothing but kindness. I can't speak much for the US or Aus, but I wouldn't call them on good terms with the UK, beyond even the historical jibes. 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.
  - Adrig 5y ago
    It is, tho. Diplomacy is a sensible thing. It's not as much about the contract lost, but the way it was handled. The contract was also a key piece for a deeper collaboration in the pacific area, one of the most important geopolitical sectors for the next 20 years. France shared highly confidential material for months, while Australia already had decided to breach the contract. In international relationships among allies where trust is crucial, it's pretty big.
    - bodge5000 5y ago
      As I said, France has not been a strong ally of the UK (again, cant speak for US or Aus, but may be a similar situation there) in the past or even very recently, why you would expect differently the other way around I don't know. 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.
BurnGpuBurn 5y ago
They could just leave NATO, see what happens. I hope they do. The alliance clearly doesn't care about anybody but the US.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Former Soviet satellites still trust it as a deterrent against Russia.
  - sedan_baklazhan 5y ago
    But did NATO (ever in its history) function as a defence alliance, not as an agressive alliance, though?
    - willvarfar 5y ago
      NATO has only ever been a defense alliance. 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.
      - jean_tta 5y ago
        Including, of course, the defensive invasion of Afghanistan using article 5.
        willvarfar 5y ago
        There have been a long history of "hot" confrontations and proxy wars like Korea, Cuba and Angola, Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan and then the US in Afghanistan etc. 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.
jean_tta 5y ago
I don't understand why major arm contracts suddenly went from having obvious geopolitical implications (e.g. Turkey S-400 procurement) to being "mere contracts".
- rualca 5y ago
  It's not hard to understand why Turkey's case has critical geopolitical implications while Australia's doesn't really have one. I mean, just take a look at the sellers and the military alliances the buyers are in.
  - jean_tta 5y ago
    Australia went from an ever-closer relationship with France to ditching them, unannounced. Even if it is unwarranted, surely France reaction _is_ a major geopolitical consequence.
    - rualca 5y ago
      > Australia went from an ever-closer relationship with France to ditching them, unannounced. 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-its-french-sub-deal/ https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-...
      - lerela 5y ago
        Despite those difficulties (that do not sound ludicrous considering the complexity and the amount of technology transfer that was required, but I'm no submarines expert), as I mentioned in another comment, the joint communique between French and Australian Defence minister from August mentioned that "both sides [were] committed to deepen defence industry cooperation and enhance their capability edge in the region" and that "ministers underlined the importance of the Future Submarine program". Looking back, it is hard to argue that official line was not very disingenuous, even after acknowledging the issues with the program.
saiya-jin 5y ago
People with big egos often throw tantrums, US and other presidents are no exceptions. And you need a big ego and some other nasty personality traits to navigate super-competitive realm of high politics and end up with some powerful role. 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).
rmm 5y ago
>>On one hand I understand them, sudden cancelation of a contract is very unpleasant and demeaning. 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.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Sudden in the sense that in spring they discussed concretely what's going wrong and what is needed to fix it, and came out thinking everything is OK for Australia. While Australia was negotiating with the US and UK. 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.
  - rmm 5y ago
    >Sudden in the sense that in spring they discussed concretely what's going wrong and what is needed to fix it, and came out thinking everything is OK for Australia. While Australia was negotiating with the US and UK. 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.
- lerela 5y ago
corty 5y ago
France cannot get the EU behind it. 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-build-australias-new-subs/ https://thediplomat.com/2016/01/has-germany-lost-the-bid-to-... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-submarines-competition-idUSKCN0UZ316 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-submarines-comp...
- sofixa 5y ago
  The press coverage you linked contradicts you. It says that TKMS' bid is too risky because it requires doubling the size of their existing design, which is risky. 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.
- jbreitbart 5y ago
  It looks like that this may also stop the EU-Australia trade deal from happening. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-australia-trade-deal-runs-aground-over-submarine-furor/ https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-australia-trade-deal-runs...
  - corty 5y ago
akmarinov 5y ago
It’s not so much the cancellation of the contract as how it was done instead. 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?
- JetSetWilly 5y ago
  > 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.
  - jean_tta 5y ago
    I do not think anyone is arguing that the UK has some kind of legal obligation to inform France. Alas, alliance and more broadly international politics go beyond minutiae of contracts.
    - JetSetWilly 5y ago
      It didn't have any obligation - legal, moral or otherwise. In fact it had an obligation not to interfere or surprise Australia by communicating things. The responsibility was 100% on Australia.
wdr1 5y ago
My understanding was the only change initiated by AU was the submarine contract. 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.

google234123 5y ago

France was probably aware much earlier that the contract was in jeopardy. Everyone in France being on vacation in July and August didn’t help at the end.

leshokunin 5y ago
Your first sentence is pure speculation, and was refuted by French officials. The second sentence is just hyperbole. I’m sure you can do better!
- google234123 5y ago
  https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/new-pressures-emerge-in-french-submarine-fight-20210513-p57rid https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/new-pressures-emerge-in... (from may) https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/call-to-review-submarine-program-over-tensions-20210118-p56ux0 https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/call-to-review-submarin... (Jan) mentions walking away. Doubling the price, delays, and changing the terms (reducing local contribution told from 90 to less than 60) aren’t good ways to secure a deal with a partner that was already angry in 2018.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    They were aware there were issues, and negotiations happened on how to fix them, with the French leaving them with the impression everything is good. Meanwhile Australia was already negotiating an alternative deal.
    - corty 5y ago
      > They were aware there were issues, and negotiations happened on how to fix them, with the French leaving them with the impression everything is good. The French culture is to never deliver bad news before the deadline has arrived. Underlings will never tell their boss that something is impossible, decisions will be made by grande-ecole-bosses without technical expertise and relationships are valued far higher than knowledge and expertise. You'll always get the first impression that all is well and they'll manage before the deadline. If you need a real non-sugar-coated insight as to how the project is going you need to gather your own data. Discreetly. However, as soon as shit has hit the fan and bosses got involved, they'll bend over backwards to make things work. But you cannot expect meeting the first deadline, ever. Same for the first budget. Subsequent ones depend on the size of the project.

Proven 5y ago

Screw them, they're one of the guilty parties responsible for the ongoing continental-size abuse of population in the EU, through various EU and ECB policies. They can sell the subs to the ECB, that should be easy. The ECB pays them, and parks the subs in Frankfurt (or Hamburg, whatever). Similar to the way they hand out cash for worthless FPIIGS government bonds.

gatronicus 5y ago

One article said that the France contract was about 7 bil per diesel sub, while the new one will be 4 bil per nuclear sub. I can't imagine how you can justify 7 bil for a diesel sub. Is it possible that France though that Aus had no alternative and ran the price up?

sofixa 5y ago
> One article said that the France contract was about 7 bil per diesel sub, while the new one will be 4 bil per nuclear sub Both of those are wrong. > Is it possible that France though that Aus had no alternative and ran the price up? No, there was an official procedure with multiple candidates ( France, Japan and a third one I can't recall). Australia chose the French option, even though it required significant modifications to a nuclear design to make it diesel electric. > I can't imagine how you can justify 7 bil for a diesel sub Furthermore, the contract included significant know-how transfers and construction in Australia, so whatever the price per sub turned out to be, it wouldn't be for the subs alone. As for why the 4 bil per sub is wrong - they haven't decided anything. They don't know the design, upon what it will be based ( the smaller UK Astute class or the bigger US Virginias), etc. Lots of infrastructure needs to be built, and people have to be trained since Australia has no nuclear sector to speak of. So any price projection as of today is purely theoretical. Oh and the first subs under the new contract should be available in 2040, so probably a decade later. That's a long time.
grandinj 5y ago
Much more likely that the standard optimism that runs through people when they are starting new projects lead them to dramatically underestimate the difficulty of the project - which ended up being "design a new sub from scratch" instead of the intention, which was "lightly modify an existing design"
worrycue 5y ago
That’s kind of irrelevant to the situation though. It’s not Australia changing suppliers that’s the problem but how they did it. France found out they got dropped from the news if I’m right.
Adrig 5y ago

JetSetWilly 5y ago

Seems like manufactured outrage from France for the benefit of its electorate. The UK and US are entirely innocent. They have no standing in the Australia-France contract, and the burden of informing France of the cancellation clause being invoked falls entirely on Australia - if they failed to do so and France feels peeved, they should take that up with Australia. The UK and US are entirely irrelevant. Even by the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" standard of morality - France would do exactly the same as the UK and US have if the shoe was on the other foot. I do wonder to what extent if any France being instrumental in interdicting vaccines bound for Australia in March had on this outcome. I recall that around the same time the UK exported vaccines to Australia (see [1] ). Given it was Australia that approached the UK to initiate this deal towards the end of march, it may not have been the smartest move by France to demonstrate that they are not reliable and are perfectly willing to shaft Australia when the chips are down. But of course we don't know if there was any relation at all between those events, the timings are suspicious tho. [1] https://www.dw.com/en/australia-receives-astrazeneca-vaccines-through-uk-report/a-57129511 https://www.dw.com/en/australia-receives-astrazeneca-vaccine...

inglor_cz 5y ago
I think they are genuinely shocked, but state of shock is usually a bad one to perform any diplomacy in.

kryptiskt 5y ago

So they have failed to deliver for five years with huge cost overruns and delays and get all mad when their customer says enough is enough. I wonder if any lessons learned will make it way back to their defense industry, or if playing the victim will suffice for them too.

tempodox 5y ago
Projects like that are (in)famous for what you mentioned. Of course it works best when the customer is your own government.
akmarinov 5y ago
So Australia’s answer is to further delay things by starting over and getting nuclear submarines at best 10 years later than the new french timeline, but realistically probably a lot more?
Adrig 5y ago
The usa is definitely a reassuring partner concerning delays and cost overruns in the weapon industry
- tick_tock_tick 5y ago
  The USA rarely sells "new" stuff so allies get the product after all that shit has happened. France was overhauling a sub design for them (probably why it was years late and way over budget).
WastingMyTime89 5y ago
> So they have failed to deliver for five years with huge cost overruns and delays and get all mad when their customer says enough is enough. The contract was signed in 2019 after a complicated negociation and is only in the design phase. If you go read the Australian reports on it, you will see that the main cause of delay is actually Australia. Contrary to France which has experience working on this kind of deal - they sold submarines to Brasil and India and boats to many more countries - Australia is not used to do this kind of work and it shows. The Morrison government however is all too happy to pin the blame on France especially considering the deal was mostly done by Turnbull. If you expect the American contract to go smoothly and with no overrun, you are in for quite a surprise I fear.

curionav 5y ago

Politics plays a significant role here: * next year a new presidential election will take place in France * Macron may use this contract cancellation as an opportunity to decrease France participation in NATO (technically it could leave the integrated command) as De Gaulle did before him. This would allow him to capture more votes from the right as he would appears as a strong leader then, acting in continuity with General de Gaulle... France can not go out of NATO, the alliance with all its drawbacks is just too important for its own defense. This contract cancellation may end up being in the best interest of both Australia and France: * Australia changed its mind in the course of the last years regarding what types of submarines it really needs. * Such change of perspective affected the partnership in between both countries, which could have escalated into a costly commercial dispute where Australia would have acted in bad faith to prevent the French delivering what they did not want anymore. There are tension in the Asia-Pacific regions in between the US and China, and France like other Europeans countries are too far from home to take a part in this.

WastingMyTime89 5y ago
> France can not go out of NATO, the alliance with all its drawbacks is just too important for its own defense. France could. It has maintained a strategy of independence regarding its own defense. France has its own nukes, its own nuclear submarines, designs and operates its own fighters, has a nuclear powered aircraft carrier and has some limited capacity of projection. France has no American troops stationed on its soild and apart from the catapults of the carrier, none of their technologies come from the USA. France has one of the lowest public opinion on NATO in the EU. I think France would be very much in favor of sidelining NATO for a EU force. The issue is the others members of the EU particularly in the east. > France like other Europeans countries are too far from home to take a part in this. France has mutiple territories in the Pacitic including New Caledonia which has a border with Australia.
- mmarq 5y ago
  France, like any other western country, UK included, is heavily dependent on the USA for defence. France’s low opinion of NATO is part of a broader delusional weltanschauung which sees France as an economic and military superpower. It is staged in a parallel universe where the 19th century never ended and the Franco-Prussian war never happened.

DisjointedHunt 5y ago

There's a strong story here under the surface that we're not privy to. A few observations that may or may not be connected, but in macro politics, isn't everything always connected?: First, please read this gripping tale of the evolving national defense strategies of the United States and France within the "Indo Pacific" as seen during the change in foreign policy beginning with the later Obama years and the Trump administration: https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/10/21/france-other-indo-pacific-power-pub-83000 https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/10/21/france-other-indo-p... One of the tl;drs of the link above is that France sees the Indo Pacific MUCH differently from many other western powers including the USA and UK. They see themselves having a prominent authority in the Indo Pacific, key to their economic interests. To this end, they have been trying to establish an alliance of powers in the region including Australia and India. France actually pulled off a coup earlier this decade when they closed on a major Military Air Craft sale to India with their Dassault Rafale. They have been similarly trying to establish long term military relationships with Australia and thus align the two countries' interests. The interests that France has in the region are about safeguarding their own economic concerns and not necessarily directly address the rise of the communist party of China. This is in stark contrast to the UK, the US and Australia who see the rise of the communist partys ambitions directly threaten their countries defense and economic concerns. There is going to be a lot of drama after this because what just happened here is a domino fell. We're seeing the emergence of an alliance that could form part of the "Quad" in the region or something similar that may not necessarily have France as the central power directing diplomacy in the region.