Aukus

[Sheilbh]

I think the handling of it was bad, France should have been given notice and informed why. The story I've seen that someone in the Biden administration saying they didn't tell the French about this in advance "because they knew they wouldn't take it well" - which is pathetic and absurd in foreign relations between allies. It's not high school

But I do think there's a bit of overexcitement here - the Le Drian statement talked about this being more than an arms deal but a "50 year marriage" between Australia and France. But there were a significant number of issues from the Australian perspective about how that was going (https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-its-french-sub-deal/) and I think some of the French official commentary, which entirely focuses on the US without much emphasis of Australian agency, may suggest why the Australians wanted something else (and perhaps why the French weren't alive to their dissatisfaction).

Apparently it was the Australians who told the US they wanted to do this in March - in April they wouldn't sign the contracts for the next phase of work with the French company. And I think the simple truth is if you're any other Western power and the US offers to support your defence industry and get involved in tech sharing, then you sign up because the savings you can make from US economies of scale and leveraging off their knowledge and R&D is just immense.

Having said that I think it's a bit rich for Le Drian to talk about how insufferable it is for allies to behave like this given that, as Alexander Clarkson has pointed out, French diplomats, spies, oil executives and arms dealers have screwed over French allies many times in pursuit of French national interest in Francophone Africa.

But Franco-American (and Franco-British and Franco-Australian) relations have recovered from worse, not least Iraq. Although that might depend on the impact on Macron both because of his political project - but also just if this has an impact on very good jobs a year out from an election that's not ideal.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It looks like the French diplomatic reaction is "extreme anger" including canceling of an event France was hosting at its Washington Embassy:

https://www.politico.eu/article/jilted-france-fumes-and-takes-some-retaliatory-measures/

Generally, I think France and by extension the EU are "decent" allies, and obviously we shouldn't needlessly antagonize them. But I also don't have any real issue with Biden having made this decision. The very fact Australia was willing to go with us over France, whom it has signed contracts with, to my mind simply reflects a brutal reality--despite 60 years of trying to "go its own way" it is broadly understood if shit gets serious you want American power on your side a lot more than French. The Americans are much more capable of deploying force around the entire world, and are broadly more committed to using their military for internationalist purpose.

I have to think at least some part of the reason Biden was in favor of something like this is he doesn't see the EU as being very trustworthy in trying to build a "21st century" alliance of democratic countries to counter entrenched autocracies such as Russia and China. The reality is the continental Euros have found few trading, economic or etc agreements with Russia or China they didn't enthusiastically wish to embrace, and show a startling lack of skepticism about letting Huawei infrastructure in their countries when it offers Chinese state intelligence many potential ways to conduct espionage. None proven or anything and as best we know Huawei chips and infrastructure shipped to the West are "clean" of anything that could be used that way, but it's a complicated technological area and what could be slipped in where and when and with what capabilities--would be hard to fully vet everything.

If you want to put it in Cold War terms the Anglosphere is a lot more like the Western/Anti-Capitalist bloc, while the EU is a lot closer in behavior to the Non-Aligned Movement. By talking about the Cold War though it's easy to exaggerate the situation. Unlike the Cold War where trade with the USSR was at persistently minimal levels, everyone does a ton of business with China, the U.S.'s third largest trading partner. It's a weird world we're moving into because you can clearly see the camps emerging, if you were summarizing for a high school textbook, you'd argue there is the "West" with a focus on democratic government, international institutions, and there are the Autocrats who prefer a world governed more by "spheres of influence" and where international organizations stay out of criticizing domestic political actions. No one wants to admit this is turning into "two camps" and there appears to be a strong desire to avoid the development of Cold War type systems, and everyone wants to keep making money with everyone else--an important difference of now versus the 20th century. At the same time both sides kind of realize we're moving towards a two camps situation and wanting to "get things in place" if relationships get more acrimonious.

[Jacob]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the arrangement itself, but it sounds like it could've been rolled out to the French a bit better.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think the handling of it was bad, France should have been given notice and informed why. The story I've seen that someone in the Biden administration saying they didn't tell the French about this in advance "because they knew they wouldn't take it well" - which is pathetic and absurd in foreign relations between allies. It's not high school

But I do think there's a bit of overexcitement here - the Le Drian statement talked about this being more than an arms deal but a "50 year marriage" between Australia and France. But there were a significant number of issues from the Australian perspective about how that was going (https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-its-french-sub-deal/) and I think some of the French official commentary, which entirely focuses on the US without much emphasis of Australian agency, may suggest why the Australians wanted something else (and perhaps why the French weren't alive to their dissatisfaction).

Apparently it was the Australians who told the US they wanted to do this in March - in April they wouldn't sign the contracts for the next phase of work with the French company. And I think the simple truth is if you're any other Western power and the US offers to support your defence industry and get involved in tech sharing, then you sign up because the savings you can make from US economies of scale and leveraging off their knowledge and R&D is just immense.

Having said that I think it's a bit rich for Le Drian to talk about how insufferable it is for allies to behave like this given that, as Alexander Clarkson has pointed out, French diplomats, spies, oil executives and arms dealers have screwed over French allies many times in pursuit of French national interest in Francophone Africa.

But Franco-American (and Franco-British and Franco-Australian) relations have recovered from worse, not least Iraq. Although that might depend on the impact on Macron both because of his political project - but also just if this has an impact on very good jobs a year out from an election that's not ideal.

I don't know how much Biden's hands were on this but I've heard consistent rumors he has a petty streak, and he had tried to get the EU to back off on its last trade deal with China, and was reportedly furious when they ignored him. I would not consider it entirely out of character for Biden to have done it this way as a punch back. I don't think Biden would pursue a policy like this for petty revenge, I think he and his advisors view this deal as good for the United States, but I could see him choosing to do it a way that embarrasses the French out of pettiness, yes.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It's actually interesting to me that Biden was portrayed during the campaign and in the early days of his Presidency as a good anti-Trump for the cross-Atlantic relationship. But I frankly never understood that narrative. Better than Trump? Sure. But even George W. Bush was better for that relationship than Trump.

Biden was picked in part for Obama's VP because he was seen as being "more experienced at foreign policy", but Biden actually didn't have much foreign policy experience outside of being on the Foreign Affairs committee. Which certainly means you spend some time "thinking about foreign policy", but it's not the same as actual foreign policy experience.

The actual history of Biden the Senator and Vice President is that he's a man prone to anger and resentment, and easily pissed off, and not amazing at hiding it when he is pissed off. But he also is more of a deal maker and politician than Trump, so he has a much better control of his ego (for example people were wondering if Biden had trouble tapping Kamala as VP after she went at him during the primary debates--reports are he had zero issue with that, as an actual politician he doesn't hold grudges over shit like debate attacks.) But even still "better control of your ego than Trump" is an extremely low bar to clear, and leaves a lot of room for angry old man Joe to let pride influence his behavior--and this isn't out of line with how he acted in the last 40 years of his political career, either.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the arrangement itself, but it sounds like it could've been rolled out to the French a bit better.

Yeah and as I say I think this, from the NYT, is pathetic:

One U.S. official conceded that the administration did not tell the French about the deal before it was announced because they knew they weren't going to like it. The official, who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the discussions, said the Biden administration decided that it was up to Australia to tell the French since they were the ones with a contract with them. The official acknowledged the French are right to be annoyed and that the decision is likely to fuel France's continued desire for E.U. defense independence.

You know I wouldn't tell a flatmate that I think they could do with losing some weight or I hate their outfit because they wouldn't like it, if me and another flatmate were replacing them on the lease I'd let them know

And the US, Australia and the UK should have sort of jointly rolled the pitch on this and informed the French and ideally have worked out ways to work with the French.

[grumbler]

I am still a bit mystified:  why are the French cancelling events in Washington DC to protest actions taken by the Australian government?  Do the French really feel that the Australians will be more hurt by cancelled events in DC than Canberra?

I understand that the French are unhappy, and especially that the US didn't take on the responsibility of the Australians to notify the French about  change in Franco-Australian relations, but, seriously, fuck France if it thinks that the US owes it any special advance tips in regards to its relations with Australia.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I've seen suggestions it might be connected to Canada's (and New Zealand which together wuth the AUKUS countries comprises Five Eyes) refusal to ban Huawei.

New Zealand is out largely because we don't strategically see them as an important ally due to their 1985 decision to no longer allow U.S. ships to dock in their harbors. Under the ANZUS treaty, Australia/NZ/US had a "non-binding collective security agreement", obviously a lower commitment than NATO--NATO has the provision that an "attack on one member is an attack on all", while ANZUS simply says "an attack on any member is dangerous to the others" and that the other members should endeavor to respond.

After Zealand's 1985 decision, the U.S. formally stated it no longer viewed New Zealand as being part of the collective security agreement in ANZUS, essentially saying it New Zealand were to be attacked the U.S. would have no particular reason to respond. It also formally downgraded NZ from "major non-NATO ally" to "friend." Bill Clinton later re-promoted them to "major non-NATO ally" but the rest of the treaty remains out of effect between the US/NZ and is likely to remain so as long as NZ maintains its anti-nuclear position. For this reason it is highly unlikely we'll ever do any serious close defense agreements with the New Zealanders.

Things did improve further under Obama, the 2011 Wellington Declaration and the 2012 Washington Declaration further repaired some of the relationship and allows for limited military cooperation again, but NZ's position on nuclear weapons means there will always be a barrier to the relationship going past a certain point in terms of defense cooperation.

The bigger issue with the 1985 NZ declaration isn't just nuclear powered / nuclear armed ships. The United States had a policy then and now of not disclosing which of its ships are carrying nuclear weapons, so its 1985 decision to not allow ships carrying nukes means no U.S. Naval vessel could enter New Zealand territorial waters since in theory any U.S. Naval vessel could be carrying nuclear weapons. Under Obama after our diplomatic declarations with them, a symbolic U.S. naval vessel that had pre-certified with the New Zealand defense minister it was not carrying nuclear weapons entered New Zealand's waters--the first time a U.S. ship did so in 33 years. But it hasn't become a routine occurrence since, because aside from symbolic staged events like that, the U.S. is still not disclosing with regularity which ships carry nuclear weapons and which do not.

I'm not sure I read all too much in Canada's absence from the arrangement though. Canada has a number of military treaties with the United States that already involve the highest level of military cooperation possible in most respects--hell under NORAD Canadian planes can technically perform combat air patrol over the United States, although I don't think that's part of ordinary operations (I think some Canadian planes did just that during the 9/11 attacks though.) NORAD itself is arguably one of, if not the, closest military agreements between two sovereign countries. Canada is also in the Five Eyes, NATO etc. I think it's just much more likely since Canada isn't in any kind of market for submarines it had no immediate reason to be in this--the presence of the United Kingdom in the arrangement is a little weird, and I'm not sure politically or diplomatically that anything between the United States and United Kingdom changes at all from them being in the agreement.

[HVC]

I am still a bit mystified:  why are the French cancelling events in Washington DC to protest actions taken by the Australian government?  Do the French really feel that the Australians will be more hurt by cancelled events in DC than Canberra?

I understand that the French are unhappy, and especially that the US didn't take on the responsibility of the Australians to notify the French about  change in Franco-Australian relations, but, seriously, fuck France if it thinks that the US owes it any special advance tips in regards to its relations with Australia.

Because playing that they're mad at Australia won't do anything for them domestically.

[grumbler]

US surface ships no longer have a nuclear capability (neither ASROC nor Tomahawk are any longer certified to carry nuclear weapons, and I don't think that there is a US surface warship with a nuclear magazine any more), so the "cannot confirm nor deny" policy on nukes doesn't apply to them.  It was that policy that blocked all US naval vessels from visiting New Zealand.

[grumbler]

I am still a bit mystified:  why are the French cancelling events in Washington DC to protest actions taken by the Australian government?  Do the French really feel that the Australians will be more hurt by cancelled events in DC than Canberra?

I understand that the French are unhappy, and especially that the US didn't take on the responsibility of the Australians to notify the French about  change in Franco-Australian relations, but, seriously, fuck France if it thinks that the US owes it any special advance tips in regards to its relations with Australia.

Because playing that they're mad at Australia won't do anything for them domestically.

Gotcha.

[HVC]

US surface ships no longer have a nuclear capability (neither ASROC nor Tomahawk are any longer certified to carry nuclear weapons, and I don't think that there is a US surface warship with a nuclear magazine any more), so the "cannot confirm nor deny" policy on nukes doesn't apply to them.  It was that policy that blocked all US naval vessels from visiting New Zealand.

I can understand not wanting nuclear ships in your docks if you're a tiny nation, but what's the rational for no ships? Did the ever give one. Fear of getting first striked seems like it might be one, but that's just my guess

[OttoVonBismarck]

US surface ships no longer have a nuclear capability (neither ASROC nor Tomahawk are any longer certified to carry nuclear weapons, and I don't think that there is a US surface warship with a nuclear magazine any more), so the "cannot confirm nor deny" policy on nukes doesn't apply to them.  It was that policy that blocked all US naval vessels from visiting New Zealand.

Most ships that couldn't dock in New Zealand since 1985 didn't have that capacity either AFAIK, it's just the fact we weren't willing to affirm a specific ship was not carrying nuclear weapons, as I understand it. Likely there were many ships the NZs knew would never be carrying nuclear weapons anyway that haven't docked there since. The first ship to be blocked, the USS Buchanan, was capable of carrying nuclear depth charges, but AFAIK the policy after that denial was that all U.S. ships would be denied port access if they weren't willing to confirm they weren't carrying nuclear weapons. Since the U.S. generally hasn't been willing to confirm that--even on ships that obviously wouldn't be carrying them, we've only had the one symbolic ship enter NZ waters since. Maybe it's become more common afterwards though, but that was the last that I saw anything about it.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It looks like according to this the U.S. ban on NZ ships and policy against certifying an American ship is nuclear free remains official policy and still regularly blocks port access between the two nations. After the Obama symbolic gesture, it looks like a few case by case exemptions have been granted, but the underlying policy remains in effect. A USCG ship was granted access to NZ after complying with its policy on confirming it was nuclear free, and three NZ ships were allowed port access in Hawaii for some naval exercises (in a previous Rim of the Pacific exercise Russia was allowed port access in Hawaii but NZ was not, which the article calls out as somewhat out of line.)

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019/july/lift-ban-new-zealand-port-visits

[Sheilbh]

I am still a bit mystified:  why are the French cancelling events in Washington DC to protest actions taken by the Australian government?  Do the French really feel that the Australians will be more hurt by cancelled events in DC than Canberra?

I understand that the French are unhappy, and especially that the US didn't take on the responsibility of the Australians to notify the French about  change in Franco-Australian relations, but, seriously, fuck France if it thinks that the US owes it any special advance tips in regards to its relations with Australia.

There's four sides I can think of. - and I imagine it's probably a combo.

The sort of France focused ones are - one, as I mentioned that the French are sort of removing Australian agency in some of their reaction - and that might reflect exactly the sort of mindset that caused Canberra to look for alternatives. But basically France doesn't really see Australia as an actor but a piece that is acted on previously by France and now by the US. An alternative is that I think Macron has pitched himself as the anti-populist candidate and figure on the world stage (I don't think that's actually true but I think it's how he presents and imagines himself), I think he probably feels this more from the US because Biden was the restorationist candidate ("America is back"). And I think in Europe there has always been a slight conflation between what is "Trumpian" and what is simply the US prioritising its own interests - especially as the bipartisan consensus formed on China I think there's probably more overlap than European capitals expected. Plus I think Biden's speech on Afghanistan is really important as I think he really means to move to a sort of liberal realist approach of only committing troops and money for "vital interests" and focusing on great power competition in the Pacific, which is perhaps not the America Europe thought it was getting "back" after Trump.

The two US focused ones are that France knows that if the US is willing to share tech and military industrial capacity to a medium power like Australia (or the UK), they can't really turn that down. Alterantely they know that the US relationship is so important and essential that it can take a bit of strain.

I think the motivation from Australia is really interesting and important - how much is because of the issues they were having with the French contract (price had almost doubled on what was already Australia's largest ever defence contract, timelines were pushed out etc) and how much is driven by a feeling they need further range subs/their assessment of the security picture in the Pacific?

Edit: And the de Gaulle move I can see happening now would be if Macron popped up in Delhi to announce a contract to help build/support India in constructing nuclear powered subs...

Edit: And I suppose the other reasoning from Australia's perspective is just that they realised this was, in Le Drian's phrase, a 50 year marriage and they weren't seeing eye-to-eye with France on China which is the most important security issue for Australia, but were with the US.