9 ms·

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

by 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.

by gerty 5y ago

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.