[HN Gopher] France recalls US and AU ambassadors over sub-deal
___________________________________________________________________
France recalls US and AU ambassadors over sub-deal
Author : playeren
Score : 40 points
Date : 2021-09-18 20:16 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| throwaway4good wrote:
| If anything this story shows how powerful the military industrial
| complexes are (in France, in the US). The threat from China is
| speculative but the business opportunities for the military
| industry are quite real and massive in size.
| option wrote:
| the threat from China is not speculative see their threats of
| invading Taiwan.
|
| I lived in Ukraine where up until 2014 the threat of Russia
| taking Crimea and eastern provinces was "speculative".
| throwaway4good wrote:
| If anything it weakens the alliance against China (by
| clouding European support) and it doesn't really matter if
| those subs sail under Australian or US flag. This is an arms
| deal with clumsy politics around it.
| option wrote:
| I agree, there should be a stronger Western alliance.
| Excluding France does seem strange.
| yyyk wrote:
| If they did not exclude France, the acronym would have
| been FAUKUS and we can't have that ;-)
| giggzy2 wrote:
| Brillant.
| holografix wrote:
| In no political expert but it seems like the choice was between
| France: very expensive and cost overrunning, less intimidating
| subs and no strategic cooperation. USUK: we give you superior
| tech, you help us police China and display a clear message that
| the US won't fight this alone.
|
| The French are pissed? Je suis desole.
|
| If the Chinese start pushing Aus around and we need help, the
| French would point to the EU tying their hands while they pat
| their pocket full of our billions.
|
| This decision is not just a embarrassment for France but it's a
| vote of no confidence on the EU's willingness to deter China.
| lostlogin wrote:
| This grated: "... This formed part of French efforts to build up
| a geo-political presence in the Indo-Pacific and act as a global
| player in the region in the face of an assertive China. It keeps
| over 7,000 soldiers there, and regularly patrols through the
| South China Sea. Nearly 2m French citizens live in the Indo-
| Pacific, including on French territories such as French Polynesia
| and New Caledonia."
|
| The French have no care for the people of the South Pacific,
| their vain attempts at empire continue, while their toxic and
| deadly legacy in the region remains.
|
| Careful complaining too hard about the behaviour of France
| though, they bombed us down here in New Zealand when we did.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/09/france-has-und...
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warri...
| lokar wrote:
| They should pay to give the subs to Taiwan. Now everyone is happy
| except China.
| enkid wrote:
| I would love the US to step up it's arms sales to Taiwan.
| throw0101a wrote:
| Not their ambassador to the UK though:
|
| > _French foreign minister says France didn 't recall the British
| ambassador over the AUKUS row because France is familiar with the
| UK's "permanent opportunism" and said Boris Johnson was the
| "fifth wheel on the carriage"._
|
| * https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1/status/1439294035357749257
|
| :)
| enkid wrote:
| So basically they dislike the UK enough it didn't change their
| opinion of them.
| fmajid wrote:
| BAE (f.k.a British Aerospace) said on the day of the AUKUS
| announcement it is prepared to participate. That doesn't sound
| like a company that has been closely involved in the
| negotiations.
|
| In all likelihood the Australians will pick US Virginia-class
| subs off the shelf, not made in Australia and not the
| (excellent) British Astute-class subs, because the US doesn't
| normally let junior partners get the spoils, only crumbs. For
| instance when the US organized the 1953 coup that overthrew the
| Mossadegh government in Iran at the British' request, the
| Anglo-Iranian oil company was replaced with a consortium of US
| and European oil companies, with the British getting less than
| the would have had if they had accepted Mossadegh's most
| maximalist plan).
| BrianHenryIE wrote:
| The term for it:
|
| > "Perfidious Albion" is a pejorative phrase used within the
| context of international relations diplomacy to refer to acts
| of diplomatic sleights, duplicity, treachery and hence
| infidelity (with respect to perceived promises made to or
| alliances formed with other nation states) by monarchs or
| governments of the United Kingdom in their pursuit of self-
| interest.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
|
| And as said in Ireland, "the Brits are at it again".
| playeren wrote:
| https://archive.vn/OxS6n
| sschueller wrote:
| Here is a comedy video showing how absurd the whole situation in
| Australia is. https://youtu.be/MTCqXlDjx18
| cblconfederate wrote:
| This is actually a great question, for real: Why is australia
| into this , and how do they see the US in their future ,
| considering their advantageous position near rising china?
| Gravityloss wrote:
| These articles are so plain, they don't explain context.
|
| I'm not a foreign policy expert or historian but isn't there a
| rather recent change in foreign relations of Australia, meaning
| their strategic needs have changed:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93China_relati...
|
| Or maybe it's just posturing.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| No idea. The leader of the opposition in Australia said,
| paraphrasing "the us couldn't win a fight with a bunch of
| villagers with ak47 for 10 years, so it's a bad deal"
|
| Australia is weird.
| watertom wrote:
| Afghanistan was a live combat training exercise. It gave
| valuable experience to career officers who will lead the U.
| S. Military for the next 30 years.
|
| Russia and China can't deploy troops in their own country.
| The U.S. military can land 10's of thousands of troops, with
| a support supply line any where in the world on less than 24
| hours notice, along with all the firepower that comes with
| those troops.
|
| To "win" in Afghanistan would require slaughtering about half
| the population of the country, something the U.S. military
| could easily do, but it would make the U.S. into an
| international pariah, and that would be bad for business.
|
| If the U.S. sovereignty was actually threatened all but the
| nuclear weapons would be unleashed, including all the top
| secret weapons that have been developed since the Gulf War,
| it would probably seem like Star Wars.
| kodah wrote:
| > Afghanistan was a live combat training exercise. It gave
| valuable experience to career officers who will lead the U.
| S. Military for the next 30 years
|
| I served in the Marines and we were well aware people,
| especially those with combat experience, were leaving hand
| over fist. Amos was commandant during my time, and this
| article tells some of the story about what happened:
| https://taskandpurpose.com/news/the-marines-corps-needs-
| to-c...
| bettem wrote:
| It's a terrible deal as Australia initially had France
| redesign a nuclear powered submarine to be Diesel Electric.
| There was also massive negotiations and posturing from both
| governments about building the submarines locally.
|
| Fast forward a few years and the Australian Government had
| announced one of the driving factors of this deal is nuclear
| power rather than diesel electric. We're also building
| [reportedly] even less of the Submarine locally now. Not to
| mention the delivery delays this will cause & our lack of
| servicing capability.
|
| Even as an Australian I can see how this would really annoy
| France.
| contravariant wrote:
| Is it too early at this point to wonder if there isn't some
| kind of underhanded deal going on?
| mmerlin wrote:
| Yes. The French deal was absolutely crappy to begin.
|
| Follow the money. Christopher Pyne brokered this $50Bn
| deal to get re-elected (some boatbuilding would happen in
| SA) which blew out to $90Bn and rising.
|
| Pyne immediately retired (got his pollie-perks-for-life
| golden ticket stamped) and then immediately became
| "employed" as a consult with the people profiting
| massively from this twisted deal against the public
| interest.
|
| Pyne followed the same slimy playbook as Andrew Robb who
| sneakily slipped the 99-year Darwin Port dodgy deal
| across the line, and then he got a free $880k "job" with
| them the day he left parliament shortly thereafter.
|
| Borderline treasonous behavior is rife with our political
| elite (both sides stink badly)
|
| https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/06/chinese-sell-
| andrew...
|
| https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/04/would-you-
| employ-ch...
|
| https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/07/pyne-poisons-ey/
|
| https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2020/01/audit-office-
| torped...
| drevil-v2 wrote:
| You are conflating actions of different governments over
| decades into one singular action.
|
| The world has changed a lot and if the government of the
| day feels it needs to alter a $90 billion purchase (which
| was initially $40 billion by the way before cost overruns)
| to better protect their citizens then it is their right as
| elected officials.
|
| Also don't focus on the PR sideshow of the submarines, this
| is about the alliance itself.
| bettem wrote:
| It's the same government that did the original deal.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| The actions of the US government the past few decades have
| flat out confused me at times, so I don't really try to
| understand them any longer. But the more and more I know
| about the details of this particular deal, the less I
| understand what exactly Australia is doing here?
|
| I wish there was a reliable place you could go for
| objective analysis in cases like this, but I'll have to
| settle for simple confusion for now I guess.
| bettem wrote:
| This is just my speculation, but I wouldn't put it past
| the Australian Prime Minister making a "Captains Call"
| here. He's notoriously stubborn and doesn't listen to
| experts in all circumstances he should.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| I think the point was that, apparently, the official
| position of the Australian opposition (who should be more
| critical of the government) was that the US couldn't fight
| themselves out of a paper bag, rather than France was
| better and honour should be important. Perhaps there's no
| such thing as honour anymore?
|
| But this is just my very limited European view of the news,
| and news is something that I restrict myself on.
| torstenvl wrote:
| The U.S. won the fight handily. It's the massive project of
| reshaping the political culture of diverse and fiercely proud
| and tribal people that proved to beyond the capability of our
| military (a role it was never designed or trained for).
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| Reshaping the political culture of a nation will either
| take decades, or be extremely brutal. The public won't
| stand for either anymore.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Out of interest, do you believe you the Soviet invasion of
| Afghanistan was a win or loss for the USSR?
| torstenvl wrote:
| Apples and oranges. The topic under discussion is
| military tech and military ability. The strategic
| victories or blunders of civilian leadership and
| diplomatic corps are just as important -- indeed often
| moreso -- but they are somewhat orthogonal to military
| strength.
|
| There are only a couple ways to lose a battle, but
| countless ways to lose a war.
| lostlogin wrote:
| That's exactly my point - of course the former USSR and
| current US have a more powerful military than anything
| that exists or existed in Afghanistan.
|
| It wasn't solely a military problem but both chose a
| primarily military solution (as did the British before
| them).
| torstenvl wrote:
| You appear to be disagreeing with my disagreement with
| "the us couldn't win a fight with a bunch of villagers
| with ak47 for 10 years"
|
| How does your point support the original claim? You and I
| are in agreement that fighting alone can't solve the
| problem of Afghanistan, but I don't see how that bears
| any relationship to judging the fighting.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Sorry, I've completely missed your starting point
| (despite reading them. Sigh), and as you say, I'm
| agreeing with you.
|
| I'll leave my comments unedited unless you'd like them
| gone.
| torstenvl wrote:
| Not at all, brother, I appreciate the mutual respect and
| engagement. Thanks for making HN a great place :-)
| mc32 wrote:
| The only way to win in a place like AF is if you become a
| wild animal and just lay things to waste. No one could get
| themselves to do that. Not the Persians or British or soviets
| or Americans. No one wanted to descend to that.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| I mean the US clearly had the military capability to "win"
| against anything in Afghanistan. But effective occupations
| and regime change are brutal. It's not the 1940s - the US
| public of today would not stand for something as intensive as
| the occupation of Germany after WW2, for example.
| fmajid wrote:
| Australia cut a huge deal to purchase 12 diesel-electric attack
| submarines with France 5 years ago, basically taking the
| current-generation French nuclear attack submarine and
| replacing the nuclear power plant with a diesel one. Japan and
| Germany were also in line. France does not sell nuclear
| propulsion tech because of nuclear proliferation concerns. That
| project has been running over budget and the Australians were
| complaining the French were dragging their feet about the
| technology transfers and establishing Australian manufacturing
| for the subs, which was a big consideration for Australia,
| their current obsolescent Collins-class subs being Australian-
| made.
|
| Contrary to what many people say, modern diesel submarines are
| actually stealthier than nuclear ones, because they are smaller
| (this would not apply to a modified nuclear attack sub, of
| course). In 2007 a Chinese diesel sub surfaced near the USS
| Kitty Hawk carrier, having apparently been undetected in the
| middle of a US exercise. They do have less endurance, but that
| is only an issue if Australia expects them to patrol far beyond
| its borders.
|
| Apparently 6 months ago Biden started a secret dialogue with
| the Australians, offering nuclear propulsion tech to counter
| China. The US only ever did that with the UK, not even with
| Canada. The Australians' relationship with China has been
| deteriorating markedly, even though it is their largest market.
| Conversely the Chinese banned most Australian imports but not
| iron ore, because they don't have (yet) an alternative supply
| to feed their steel industry, although Guinea (in Africa) is a
| potential candidate. Keep in mind Australia is largely a
| resource extraction economy, despite being an advanced
| industrialized nation.
|
| The Australians don't have any nuclear tech, not even a
| civilian nuclear power program, so any nuclear subs would need
| to be fueled and serviced by the US or the UK, which means
| Australia is effectively ceding part of its sovereignty (just
| as the British did, because their Trident nuclear missiles are
| 100% US-made). This is a significant development as up to now
| the Australians wanted to preserve their autonomy.
|
| What are the French upset about?
|
| 1) The loss of a AU$ 90B contract, which means probably a
| EUR30B hole in France's naval R&D that will need to be plugged
| somehow. For a middling country like France, that is a lot of
| money.
|
| 2) France has a _significant_ presence in the Pacific, unlike
| every other European nation, even the UK. 2M French citizen
| live there, and 7000 military personnel. France also has the
| largest maritime Exclusive Economic Zone in the world thanks to
| its possessions in the Pacific, but there are separatist
| movements in New Caledonia and Tahiti. The French-Australian
| deal was also part of a strategic cooperation deal with
| Australia, as the French are just as concerned about Chinese
| incursions in the Pacific as the Australians, and it has the
| benefit of being a deal with a peer, not as the junior partner
| of the US superpower (although of course Australia is the
| superpower of the Southern Pacific, but that means little
| compared to the US or China). This strategy is all in tatters
| now.
|
| 3) The French were blindsided, learning of the AU-UK-US deal
| from the press release, in the most humiliating way possible
|
| 4) They were not invited to participate in this AUKUS military
| alliance.
|
| The consequences are severe and the US completely
| underestimated that. In 1966 the US commander of NATO refused
| to answer President de Gaulle's question of whether US nuclear
| weapons were stationed in France, and in retaliation France
| withdrew from NATO unified command (and NATO SHAPE headquarters
| in Paris and Rocquencourt near Versailles had to be moved to
| Belgium), and expelled US troops stationed in France.
|
| France has recalled its ambassadors to the US and to Australia
| for consultations, which is just one step short of cutting
| diplomatic relations. To do so with the US is simply
| extraordinary, it's only happened once before, during the
| French revolution.
|
| President Biden rightfully criticized Donald Trump for
| attempting to contain China while burning bridges with all its
| allies at the same time by waging sanctions against all of
| them, but this is a blunder of the same magnitude. France was
| the more China-skeptic of the major European powers, whereas
| Germany basically cares only about its exports and appeases
| China, and the UK was trying to have it both ways by becoming
| the chief Chinese investment partner in Europe. With this
| stunt, the US gets Australia to abandon its former policy of
| independence from the US, but basically sets back its efforts
| to mobilize Europe against the Chinese by at least 5 years,
| benno128 wrote:
| I found this article helpful for more context:
| https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2021/09/18/the-submarine...
|
| It's by Hugh White the former deputy-secretary of the
| Australian Department of Defence.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Japan, South Korea, and Australia are all the quintessential
| middle parties in a bipolar power dynamic between the US and
| China.
|
| Historically, that's turned out pretty well for them, as
| countries in that position can attract favorable terms from
| both major powers, who want to court them as allies.
|
| Who knows if the government of Australia is thinking in these
| terms, but I'd be incredibly interested in what concessions
| and non-public promises Australia got behind the scenes for
| this.
|
| And in terms of future international relationships, it does
| demonstrate to China that Australia isn't willing to make
| alliances solely on the basis of economic pressure. It will
| be curious if (in the medium to long term) China holds a
| grudge, or tries to reattract Australia with incentives.
| enkid wrote:
| China isn't very good at letting go of grudges, it seems
| like.
| fspeech wrote:
| They are just into realpolitik. They will switch their
| purchases from Australia to the US despite the strategic
| rivalry because it is in their interest to increase
| economic dependence there. They will tolerate far more
| transgression from the US but if others follow they will
| be sure to set an example of them.
| skissane wrote:
| > but I'd be incredibly interested in what concessions and
| non-public promises Australia got behind the scenes for
| this
|
| The US agreeing that Australia can have nuclear submarines
| powered by weapons-grade uranium is a huge concession in
| itself. The US has been insisting that only nuclear weapons
| states be allowed to possess weapons-grade uranium. They
| are making an exception to that for Australia. Nuclear
| submarines powered by weapons-grade uranium do not require
| refuelling during their operational life; those powered by
| reactor-grade uranium do.
|
| And, the US has been trying to block South Korea from
| building a nuclear submarine at all, even one powered by
| reactor-grade uranium only. Most international suppliers of
| enriched uranium (even only reactor-grade) sell it on the
| condition that it is not used for military purposes. In
| theory, South Korea could try to enrich it themselves (like
| Brazil and Argentina are doing for their own nuclear
| submarine programs), but in practice South Korea fears the
| international controversy that may cause, and the risk it
| may offend the US. South Korea has been asking the US to
| supply reactor-grade fuel for naval use, but thus far the
| US refuses. So even allowing Australia to have nuclear
| submarines at all, when it blocks other allies from doing
| so, is also a big concession.
| Gustomaximus wrote:
| Also for context some years back Australia recalled ambassadors
| to France over nuclear testing in the pacific. So this is a bit
| tit for tat in response.
|
| Regardless I feel it's incredibly badly handled especially
| given trade situation with China. Australia is pivoting more
| towards other markets like EU (negotiations happening
| currently) and I can't imagine France is going to be too
| agreeable to this.
| byroot wrote:
| The last French nuclear test was in January 1996, so rather
| unlikely.
| yyyk wrote:
| The sub-deal might be the trigger, but countries don't return
| ambassadors over a sub-deal. This can't be explained without
| underlying tensions.
|
| One big cause might perhaps be an _18 months_ travel ban
| preventing Europeans from visiting the US, a travel ban which
| separates families and has no justification anymore.
| aphroz wrote:
| It's a 60 billions USD sub deal tho.
| pvg wrote:
| Dupe of
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28574951
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28571287
| grecy wrote:
| Having recently come back to Australia, I'm staggered (and
| honestly impressed) at how good the media is at shaping a story
| to suit the needs of politicians.
|
| In all of this talk of "betraying the French" or "siding with the
| US", there is not even a mention of the fact Australia is
| spending towards $100 billion on multiple nuclear submarines.
|
| This for a country that only has 25 million people and a GDP of
| around $1.4 trillion USD.
|
| Why on earth does Australia need nuclear submarines, and why
| isn't that money being spent to improve the lives of regular tax
| paying Australians?
|
| A county of 25 million people that doesn't even have nuclear
| power (or nuclear weapons) has no need of nuclear submarines,
| it's an obscene waste of money.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| This seems more like a US strategic move than an australian
| one. I m just not sure that AU should be on board with it
| atc wrote:
| France is irrelevant and the UK, US and Australia know that and
| don't regard them a considerable player in the world stage.
| karaterobot wrote:
| On the face of it, recalling their ambassadors seems like a
| petulant and counter-productive way of registering a protest.
| What is it supposed to do that a speech wouldn't? Is there any
| effect of this other than not having someone to formally
| represent France's interests in those countries?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-18 23:01 UTC)