General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSome help. please, understanding France's anger over the U.S./Australian sub deal
I've searched for news about why France is so upset that the U.S. and Australia made a deal for advanced submarine technology. The best reason I've found is that France had a pre-existing deal with Australia that is negated by the new agreement.
Is France recalling her ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia because they weren't informed of the new pact? That seems awfully petty but I'd appreciate some DU insight.
Thanks, in advance.
Here's The NY Times article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/us/politics/france-ambassador-recall-us-australia.html
Fullduplexxx
(7,818 posts)PJMcK
(21,921 posts)Thanks for responding.
Fullduplexxx
(7,818 posts)ProfessorGAC
(64,425 posts)$44 billion is over 1/60th of their entire GDP.
It's likely a multi year deal, but still.
That amount of money is only about 1 five hundredth of US GDP.
So, it's a pretty big deal to them. It would be like the US signing onto a $380 billion deal.
dawg
(10,610 posts)Now they don't get to.
It's usually about money, isn't it?
Thank you for your thoughts.
edhopper
(33,208 posts)It was jobs and $$ more than a foreign policy dispute.
I don't know if telling them before hand would change anything.
PJMcK
(21,921 posts)It figures that France would be pissed.
Too bad.
I appreciate your help understanding this issue, edhopper. Enjoy your weekend.
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)The France/Australia sub deal was done, with significant investments already made. From Frances POV, this is a broken contract and we are in possession of stolen goods. Australia will certainly be on the hook for massive penalties for breach of contract.
As recently as August, Parly had held a summit with her Australian counterpart, Peter Dutton, in Paris, and issued a lengthy joint communique highlighting the importance of their joint work on the submarines as part of a broader strategy to contain China in the Indo-Pacific region. Given Duttons failure to tell his French counterparts of the months of secret negotiations with the US, the only conclusion can be he was kept out of the loop, was deeply forgetful, or chose not to reveal what he knew.
There was no forewarning. France only heard through rumours in the Australian media that its contract was about to be torn up live on TV in a video link-up between the White House, Canberra and London.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/16/aukus-deal-showing-france-and-eu-that-biden-not-all-he-seems?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
August was last month. Think about it.
PJMcK
(21,921 posts)Treefrog
(4,170 posts)Thank you.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)to inch understanding forward.
After all, this is about more than just this huge military contract. Money? Think France's economy.
When tRump effectively abandoned the Pacific to China's swift aggression, it's understandable that France would see in that both significant threats to its national security and opportunities in that vacuum, and not just in military sales. France developed a new French Indo-Pacific foreign policy to protect and advance France's interests, although reportedly intending more accommodation and less confrontational containment of China than the U.S. planned. The pact with Australia was to be a strageic partnership for decades.
Now, we're resuming our role, including this creation of a new security alliance with Australia and UK. Also with India in another, with whom France has also expanded its foreign policy interests.
That we would resume our strategies if tRump lost was an obvious possibility. France would have foreseen that but tried to make it play out differently. It sounds as if France could have been handled better, but Australia claims they let France know some time ago of their concerns about the capabilities of their subs due to increasing threats.
What are some of the other things to know about giant strategic and economic international affairs touching on this? There'll be a bunch.
Response to PJMcK (Original post)
wcmagumba This message was self-deleted by its author.
ripcord
(5,084 posts)relayerbob
(6,510 posts)Xolodno
(6,341 posts)Of course this was going to be boon for them and we basically pulled the rug from under them. Plus France has nuclear submarines and can build them, just not as fast as we can.
But when Russia took Crimea, France was pressured by the US to cancel their contract to deliver two helicopter carriers to Russia and refund the money. Add insult to injury, they were already built and was forced to keep them...when they really didn't need them.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33798102
Of course, the jobs of building aren't the only things gone. Maintenance contracts also go *poof*.
Add that they were very patient with the US during the TFG tenure...
They got screwed not once, but twice. I'd be pissed too.
PJMcK
(21,921 posts)Thanks for helping me understand the bigger picture. These issues weren't included in the news reports I've seen.
Enjoy your weekend, X.
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)would have been the way to avoid this mess. Maybe it could still be an option. What do I know (not much, admittedly).
Australia is the party that insisted on diesel subs. They could have told the French weve had a change of heart, can you team up with the Yanks. Would have also had the side effect of demonstrating solidarity v. China as opposed to this fragmented cluster.
Xolodno
(6,341 posts)Of course, the other problem, you have to train your sub crews on two different types of subs. But would have been worth it.
The US could make the first part of the delivery and France the second.
But we all know Defense Contractors are supportive of GOP spending and get greedy. As this person once said:
Clinton: Chief of Staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott
Principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney
Bush, 2nd Term: U.S. ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Obama: Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs
Biden: Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
And her husband: Robert Kagan, is a historian, foreign policy commentator at the Brookings Institution, and co-founder in 1998 of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
Fuck the EU - Victoria Nuland
A hawk, but a hawk you can't get rid of because experience.
crickets
(25,896 posts)roamer65
(36,739 posts)They very much prize the close relationship they have with the United States, more so than the relationship with the UK.
I had it explained to me by an Aussie cab driver in Sydney about 20 years ago. The UK walked out on them in WW2, but we stepped in to defend them from the Japanese.
They havent forgotten that.
They see themselves as a very intergral part of the American sphere of influence.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)Coventina
(26,874 posts)Because that's what you're condoning right now.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)jobs that could help Americans. Business is business.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)JoanofArgh
(14,971 posts)Ben Wallace, the UK defence secretary, said on Thursday that he understood Frances disappointment about the loss of a lucrative export deal, but argued it was driven by an Australian change in its capability requirement at least initially.
If we all step back from it, France and Britain and the US agree on so many things together. We agree on the same rules-based order, we agree on freedom of navigation, we agree on respecting human rights, he added.
Wallace said it was Australia that came to the UK seeking a deal in March, after a secret yearlong study programme in which it concluded it wanted to abandon the French upgrade.
Both countries then went to the US. Johnson joined the Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, and Biden for a trilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Cornwall in June. There, the three discussed the pact in principle, although what began as a technology deal widened into a broader three-way alliance with plans to share other military technologies including artificial intelligence.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/16/aukus-pact-uk-and-us-battle-to-contain-international-backlash
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)In a meeting of defense ministers. Theyre going to be on the hook for massive penalties. Maybe the Chinese can help with that.
Kaleva
(36,147 posts)"Despite the French protests, there had been indications of problems with the Attack submarine project for several years now. Australian media reports have indicated there were concerns in Canberra about extent of workshare given to Australian companies by Naval Group and delivery timelines and costs.
In January, media reports indicated the cost of the Attack submarine project had risen from Australian dollar 50 billion to nearly Australian dollar 89 billion (US $65 billion). While the first submarines were originally intended to enter service by the "early 2030s", in November 2018, vice admiral Michael Noonan, the chief of the Royal Australian Navy, admitted the first ship may not be operational until 2035.
The last submarine would have entered service by 2050, according to the delayed timeline. The delays had raised concern about the relevance of the new ships, particularly given the continuing growth of China's navy and also Beijing's development of unmanned underwater vessels.
Ever since news of delays in the submarine project surfaced, Australian politicians and analysts had called for Canberra to junk the deal and examine buying nuclear submarines from the US."
https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2021/09/16/french-submarine-deal-with-australia-was-in-troubled-waters-before-auukus.html
"The Attack-class program for 12 new boats was intended to replace the Royal Australian Navys existing Collins-class of attack boats but it experienced delays and cost increases that had seen the estimated total program budget balloon to 90 billion Australian dollars....
Although these would not supposedly impact the overall delivery of the program, the report highlighted an overall delay of three years or more could result a gap in the RANs submarine capability. At some point in the past year the DoD must have realized it was taking a lot of risk and spending a lot of money to get a platform that would not offer the increases in capability the RAN will need in the 2050s and beyond."
https://news.usni.org/2021/09/16/french-attack-boat-design-costs-opened-door-to-nuclear-australian-sub-says-expert
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)Our behavior in this case is a total embarrassment. I dont know how anyone here is comfortable with it.
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Ends justify the means. Pursuing greater strategic alignment with Australia makes more sense than not.
This is great news.
uncle ray
(3,153 posts)advance of notice of termination can lead to unpleasant results, such as poor future performance, theft and even sabotage.
heck, at my employer we are working on several years long projects to transfer projects from the current incumbent manufacturers, who are unaware they are about to lose their contracts.
Happy Hoosier
(7,081 posts)I havent seen the contract. Maybe you have. But most contracts include cancellation clauses. Some of those clauses require notification, some dont. I certainly would want Australia to comply with the contract. Assuming they did, there is nothing wrong with the US and/or UK pursuing the contract if France fooked it up.
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)Yeah. I think so.
The denial here is thick.
Happy Hoosier
(7,081 posts)As I understand it, this is a deal with a private company in France
. And apparently it has not been going well, with schedule delays and massive cost increases.
France is understandably disappointed, but in reading up on this, the Contractor screwed the pooch.
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)Biden campaigned on restoring our alliances, basically being the opposite of Trump. Especially with longtime established allies. He was going to be the adult in the room, no drama Obama II.
This outcome, an unprecedented rupture with our oldest ally, is exactly the opposite of what Biden said he would deliver. He is way off-brand and there will be a political price to pay. The Republicans have a talking point that they will use right through the 24 election, or as long as Biden is our standard bearer.
Happy Hoosier
(7,081 posts)And Australia has no recourse? Nonsense. You dont think the French are trying to leverage this to avoid a big loss for one of its companies? They will make some noise in public, but they know they lost this fair and square. They have similarly blustered in support of Airbus.
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)Biden is already being picked apart by the media on this; clips from tonights Lemon and Tapper shows are out there in the Twitterverse for you to see. It will go on all weekend if youre interested.
Treefrog
(4,170 posts)Im really surprised Biden allowed this.
Kaleva
(36,147 posts)The first of the class would not likely be in service until 2035 or so and by the time they all were in service, they wouldn't be up to the task of helping to counter China's rabidly expanding and improving navy and in the meantime, the Aussies would be forced to spend money on upgrading their current subs, the Collins class, to extend their service lives until the new class was available.
PJMcK
(21,921 posts)Enjoy the weekend!
Calista241
(5,584 posts)But the deal is worth more than the dollars to the US, UK and Australia.
The US is fully invested with the US Navy to restrict Chinas sphere of influence in the Pacific. The UK has also signed up for limiting Chinas influence as well. Frances long term commitment to running naval patrols and assisting the Australians in the South Pacific was questionable.
The Australians dont have the infrastructure to build or maintain a nuclear navy, and nobody has the experience the US does with building nuclear submarines and training nuc officers. All three countries joining together sends a big message, and lightens the individual load on each country.
The speculation is that Australia will get lightly modified Virginia class submarines, including sonar, weapons and propulsion integration. The Brits would get similar access to maintain and upgrade their Astute class subs.
This is a BIg Fucking Deal, and is a policy squarely aimed at China.
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Long overdue.
Even better when done with our closest allies, UK and Australia.
crickets
(25,896 posts)Australia wanted to keep sub construction in Australia, which was costlier and contributed to delays. France's Naval Group won the contract for the sub build, but the project was again delayed by a request for an extension. Concerns about the situation, as well as rumblings about pulling out of the agreement with France, have been going on for years. This is not the quite the big surprise France is claiming, but it could have been handled better.
Design on future submarines hits nine month delay 01/14/20
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/design-on-future-submarines-hits-nine-month-delay-20200114-p53rd2.html
Naval Group takes next step with Australia but its position is still in danger 09/10/2021
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/naval-news/naval-news-archive/2021/september/10688-naval-group-takes-next-step-with-australia-but-its-position-is-still-in-danger.html
Lost the plot: How an obsession with local jobs blew out Australias $90 billion submarine program 09/14/2021
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/lost-the-plot-how-an-obsession-with-local-jobs-blew-out-australia-s-90-billion-submarine-program-20210913-p58r34.html
Australia to Pass France's Naval Group; Looks to the U.S., U.K. for Nuclear Submarines 09/16/2021
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/30440/Australia_to_Pass_France_s_Naval_Group__Looks_to_the_U_S___U_K__for_Nuclear_Submarines
Australias Ministry of Defence recommended three contenders for the competitive evaluation process, and it picked French shipbuilder Naval Group as the eventual winner. The company won the Collins-class replacement program, also known as SEA1000, in 2016 with its Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A design. This conventionally powered diesel-electric submarine is based on a scaled-down version of the nuclear-powered Barracuda (Suffren) design that is now entering French Navy service.
The Australian media have long been reporting citing sources in the Defence Ministry that the deal with Naval Group to build a dozen submarines for the Navy was not making progress.
It is said to be due to a combination of reasons, including cost blowouts, missed delays and political. Since negotiations with France began, Australia has had three prime ministers, three deputy PMs, three failed treasurers, five defence ministers and four ministers for defence industry. Of the 15 individuals to have held these portfolios, seven have left the Parliament.
While the project was initially estimated to cost between $20-25 billion, it is now reportedly pegged at around $65 billion (AUS$90 billion). France, meanwhile, is said to be paying $10.2 billion for six Barracudas for its own Navy.
Even the idea of building a submarine powered by a diesel-electric engine was considered a fail.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)Seriously, no navy has nuclear submarines without ICBMs aboard.
We all know that is the next step.
Western Europe in the Soviet days relied upon the American nuclear arsenal in the face of massive Warsaw Pact conventional forces.
AUKUS is a similar strategy against China.
Happy Hoosier
(7,081 posts)You said, Seriously, no navy has nuclear submarines without ICBMs aboard.
Errr yes they do. They are called fast attack submarines. We have LOTS of them.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)It was meant as sarcasm.
I doubt these will be fast attack submarines.
Would not surprise me to see the Japanese included soon in this deal.
Happy Hoosier
(7,081 posts)With potential land attack capabilities (using cruise missiles). They are not boomers.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)We eventually will upsell.
Happy Hoosier
(7,081 posts)I cant tell if you are joking.
I assume you know that Australia does not have nuclear weapons.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)Actually, Australia in a roundabout way does have nuclear weapons. Same goes for Japan.
They are American.
They are under our nuclear umbrella.
Happy Hoosier
(7,081 posts)We cover them with our arsenal.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)Conventional and nuclear.
If these submarines are able to launch cruise missiles, then there will be a quick capability for switchover. Something we would probably not even know about, given the close relationship between the US and Australia.
It would be a contingency plan.
LetMyPeopleVote
(144,005 posts)PJMcK
(21,921 posts)tavernier
(12,322 posts)My neighbor across the street wants to landscape his yard and asks my next door neighbor to do it for a price. They strike a deal but it turns out that my next door neighbor cant get to it for months and the trees he is planning to use are cheap and not very pretty. So my across-the-street neighbor asks me to please help him, because without a nicely landscaped yard finished soon, he will be kicked out of the neighborhood.
So if I agree to help him, why should my next door neighbor be angry with me? He was unable to deliver the goods and I was asked for help. I didnt walk across the street and make a better offer.