4 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  > 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. Australia have been extremely untransparent regarding their position and how they conducted the whole negociation. They lied to their French counterparts during the summer and announced their withdrawal in an extermely clumsy and frankly disrespectful way. Why would you want to put in place treaties easing controls and trades with countries which have already proven they are dishonest? > Restricting trade is cutting of the nose to spite the face. No one talked about restrictions. I just expect France to lobby for things to stay as they are rather than go in the direction of easier trading.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    What plausible risk is there that Australians won't honour the deals they make under a free trade deal? If someone buys a million dollars worth of Australian beans they're going to get tonnes of beans. I don't fault the French if they don't see a benefit and want to be annoying in some sort of tit-for-tat strategy; but making trade harder is not going to make their lives better. People only trade when the trade improves their position. A $60+ billion military deal is never going to be handled under a free trade agreement. I haven't read into the details but I doubt there was even any fraud involved; just standard political backstabbing. The French weren't given an opportunity but they are not worse off.
inglor_cz 5y ago
> There is plenty to gain through the diplomatic route as long as you see China as an equal partner and not an inferior country. Does China see other countries as equal partners? Their Howling Wolf diplomacy seems to kick in whenever anything they dislike appears in any media. See their current hatefest against Lithuania, a country with population smaller than Shanghai. I for one am not very ready to sacrifice, e.g. freedom to criticize the Chinese system or to say that Taiwan is Taiwan and not Chinese Taipei or whatever. And I do not trust China commercially either, given their history of copying everything and then flooding markets with cheap knock-offs to undermine the original producers. We have a load of our own problems here in the West, but we can at least discuss them mostly freely and the authoritarian developments (governmental and distributed alike) tend to get some pushback and dissent, and the dissidents do not end up in jail or shot. These are not the values of Xi's China and any partnership with it will end in Beijing dictating their demands.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > See their current hatefest against Lithuania, a country with population smaller than Shanghai. The US isn't much better. They have a history of invading of destabilising the governments of countries they don't like. > we can at least discuss them mostly freely and the authoritarian developments (governmental and distributed alike) tend to get some pushback and dissent, and the dissidents do not end up in jail or shot. Tell that to all the countries who tried to implement communist systems of government... and found their leaders shot or in jail. > I do not trust China commercially either, given their history of copying everything and then flooding markets with cheap knock-offs to undermine the original producers. And I don't trust the US commercially, with their history of enforcing tariff-free markets on countries and flooding them with cheap US-made goods that wipe out domestic production leaving the countries in very dire straits (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_Haiti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_Haiti).
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    This is where different countries have different experiences. If I were a Latin American, I would be distrustful towards American power projection. But I am a Central European and our history with the U.S. is a lot better. I am not trusting them blindly, but the worst import we had from the U.S. so far was a shallow-ish pop culture, plus some of the racial nonsense that really rubs the wrong way in a different context.

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.
WastingMyTime89 5y ago
> 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. Australia have been extremely untransparent regarding their position and how they conducted the whole negociation. They lied to their French counterparts during the summer and announced their withdrawal in an extermely clumsy and frankly disrespectful way. Why would you want to put in place treaties easing controls and trades with countries which have already proven they are dishonest? > Restricting trade is cutting of the nose to spite the face. No one talked about restrictions. I just expect France to lobby for things to stay as they are rather than go in the direction of easier trading.
- roenxi 5y ago
  What plausible risk is there that Australians won't honour the deals they make under a free trade deal? If someone buys a million dollars worth of Australian beans they're going to get tonnes of beans. I don't fault the French if they don't see a benefit and want to be annoying in some sort of tit-for-tat strategy; but making trade harder is not going to make their lives better. People only trade when the trade improves their position. A $60+ billion military deal is never going to be handled under a free trade agreement. I haven't read into the details but I doubt there was even any fraud involved; just standard political backstabbing. The French weren't given an opportunity but they are not worse off.

inglor_cz 5y ago

> There is plenty to gain through the diplomatic route as long as you see China as an equal partner and not an inferior country. Does China see other countries as equal partners? Their Howling Wolf diplomacy seems to kick in whenever anything they dislike appears in any media. See their current hatefest against Lithuania, a country with population smaller than Shanghai. I for one am not very ready to sacrifice, e.g. freedom to criticize the Chinese system or to say that Taiwan is Taiwan and not Chinese Taipei or whatever. And I do not trust China commercially either, given their history of copying everything and then flooding markets with cheap knock-offs to undermine the original producers. We have a load of our own problems here in the West, but we can at least discuss them mostly freely and the authoritarian developments (governmental and distributed alike) tend to get some pushback and dissent, and the dissidents do not end up in jail or shot. These are not the values of Xi's China and any partnership with it will end in Beijing dictating their demands.

nicoburns 5y ago
> See their current hatefest against Lithuania, a country with population smaller than Shanghai. The US isn't much better. They have a history of invading of destabilising the governments of countries they don't like. > we can at least discuss them mostly freely and the authoritarian developments (governmental and distributed alike) tend to get some pushback and dissent, and the dissidents do not end up in jail or shot. Tell that to all the countries who tried to implement communist systems of government... and found their leaders shot or in jail. > I do not trust China commercially either, given their history of copying everything and then flooding markets with cheap knock-offs to undermine the original producers. And I don't trust the US commercially, with their history of enforcing tariff-free markets on countries and flooding them with cheap US-made goods that wipe out domestic production leaving the countries in very dire straits (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_Haiti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_Haiti).
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  This is where different countries have different experiences. If I were a Latin American, I would be distrustful towards American power projection. But I am a Central European and our history with the U.S. is a lot better. I am not trusting them blindly, but the worst import we had from the U.S. so far was a shallow-ish pop culture, plus some of the racial nonsense that really rubs the wrong way in a different context.