Aukus

[Sheilbh]

One in five humans lives in China and an even higher share of the global middle class. The economic rationale for Hollywood to cater to these customers is something you will not be able to fight. It's all about profits.

Yeah - I mean that's not Chinese soft power that's just business being business and I wouldn't worry about Hollywood. I would look a lot more closely at Facebook, Google and Apple etc because I think the things those companies are willing to accept for access to the Chinese market are more problematic than Hollywood including a map with the nine-dash line.

It's like if the BBC was installing machinery to block their broadcasts over the iron curtain.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, I think Hollywood isn't something to worry about. For a long time now global box office has been really important for big budget movies. Even aside from China, the movies that do best overseas are ones that aren't bogged down with so much cultural and linguistic baggage that they become difficult to market and adapt for foreign audiences. Different countries have very different cultural taboos, values, and of course even with dubbing and subtitles--some quirks of language are hard to translate to other languages.

It means that the biggest budget "event" movies, are likely to keep getting pumped out where the focus is on special effects, non-verbal action sequences, minimal dialogue etc. A lot of these movies are "fun" and people like them. But there's nothing stopping smaller budget serious films getting made, they just aren't going to have $200m budgets, but a lot of great films can be made without $200m and ultra-expensive action sequences.

[The Minsky Moment]

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/peter-dutton/statements/inaugural-australia-france-22-ministerial-consultations

The French and Australian foreign and defence ministers met on August 30th and even specifically discussed the submarine topic, but it looks like the Australians did not say a word about this.
Sounds like big, but seemingly deliberate failure of Australian diplomacy. They reinforced their alliance with the US, but extremely pissed off France. The US can to a degree ignore the feelings of its allies as they are indispensable. Not sure if Australia is well served with pissing off their neighbour France. I guess their desired FTA with the EU is no longer on the agenda.

If the Australians have revealed this fact before the official announcement, could they have trusted that France would keep their anger to themselves and not leak?  Rhetorical question.

To the extent Australia is seeking counterweights to Chinese power, the fact that New Caledonia is closer to Canberra than Oahu seems of little relevance. The single frigate ported out of Point Chaleix is not likely to do as much good even with the shorter distances than the USN vessels home ported out of Pearl - on their own safely superior to the entire French navy.

As for economics and soft power, the Australians are seeing the solidifying political consensus in the USA in standing up to Chinese over-reaching - one of the few policy areas that remains truly bipartisan.  Whereas France signed a huge trade deal with China just before COVID.  Can Australia trust France to consistently back Australia even at the cost of losing billions in commercial contracts?  The fact that France is so upset about the loss of the sub contact is not a good indicator in that score.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ironically, I actually think there IS an international, rules based order.

Yes of course there is.
There are clearly delineated rules governing conduct between and among nations and much it is formally written out in treaties and conventions. That's why for example there could be international arbitration over say China-Philippines maritime disputes and you can have a set of clearly understood principles applied in a law-like manner to reach a predictable result under the rules.

If the complaint is that the application of the order is weak in inconsistent as compared to most national orders, that is obviously true for the obvious reason that enforcement and the credibility of enforcement is weaker.  And that is why (continuing the example) the Philippines could win their case and yet still pursue a diplomatically conciliatory line with China. But a weak order is still an order.

The Europeans for the most part deserve credit for adhering to the rules-based international order and using their own influence to promote it at as a norm. That's a valuable service and compares favorable to the US, which continues to "bend" the rules at times for some perceived short term gain or do stupid things like refusing to sign the LoS convention.  However, the real reason why the order is weak is not because of occasional superpower hypocrisy but because enforcement is weak, and Europe has not done much about that.

[Sheilbh]

As for economics and soft power, the Australians are seeing the solidifying political consensus in the USA in standing up to Chinese over-reaching - one of the few policy areas that remains truly bipartisan.  Whereas France signed a huge trade deal with China just before COVID.  Can Australia trust France to consistently back Australia even at the cost of losing billions in commercial contracts?  The fact that France is so upset about the loss of the sub contact is not a good indicator in that score.

Not just that but the fact that you've got French foreign policy figures saying France should change its entire approach on China and the Indo-Pacific because of this, sort of indicates why Australia may have wanted a different partner.

[Josquius]

One in five humans lives in China and an even higher share of the global middle class. The economic rationale for Hollywood to cater to these customers is something you will not be able to fight. It's all about profits.

True.
But 1/5 of the population is in Africa, 1/5 in India, 1/5 in Western countries (probably needing to include Latin America) .
China's share sounds a lot...but it is just one share. With how difficult doing business there is becoming I would expect Hollywood to back track on this a little before too long in the future.

[Zanza]

@Minsky:
No disagreement that Australia's security interests can only be served by an alliance with the United States and apparently only with nuclear subs.

But it's my impression that this could have been done on a more face-saving way for France or that it could have been possible to include them somehow.

[OttoVonBismarck]

@Minsky:
No disagreement that Australia's security interests can only be served by an alliance with the United States and apparently only with nuclear subs.

But it's my impression that this could have been done on a more face-saving way for France or that it could have been possible to include them somehow.

I struggle to see how, to be honest. We could just write France a $40bn check I guess. Other than that I'm not sure what could be done. They are offering diesel subs and wanted Australia to use them to promote a closer relationship with Australia and a big purchase order for the French defense industry. Australia made the decision to pursue nuclear subs instead--something France isn't willing to offer, and could not offer competitively to the United States even if it was willing to do the technology sharing.

The desires of Australia and France were in fundamental misalignment, and the French reaction frankly shows anything that resulted in the loss of that diesel submarine order was going to come with extreme anger from the French side.

[Zanza]

The French sources all say this anger is not about the commercial side, but about being left out from the alliance. I know that you see that different from earlier in the thread. But if the French anger is really about being left out from the alliance, not the commercial, it would have been feasible to include France. If it really is about the commercial side, you are right and there is no way to keep France happy.

[Sheilbh]

The French sources all say this anger is not about the commercial side, but about being left out from the alliance. I know that you see that different from earlier in the thread. But if the French anger is really about being left out from the alliance, not the commercial, it would have been feasible to include France. If it really is about the commercial side, youbare right and there is no way to keep France happy.

I think there should be outreach to France when things have settled down. I agree that I think it could have been handled better, but I'm not actually fully sure how.

Practically speaking though I don't see how you go about that. "We're about to screw out of a mega-project, would you like a minor role in ours instead?" But also this isn't a new alliance - there's already an alliance between the UK, US and Australia, it is about deepening that and sharing of sensitive technology which will need to go through Congress. I think it's an easier ask for Australia and UK given 5 eyes and UK-US nuclear cooperation. It may be possible to get France on that list (though I'd note that France has been identified as behind only Russia and China in industrial espionage), or it may be seen as too much of an ask.

But also I think it may depend on the Australian perception - if part of the reason they made this move is because they do not think France is strategically aligned with them on a huge issue for Australia, it makes no sense to include France in the replacement because they're still not strategically aligned. I think in that context Macron's comments, the CAI etc probably did not help.

[The Brain]

At the end of the day you can't be close allies with everyone. Sometimes you have to choose which one you take to the prom.

[Zanza]

Practically speaking though I don't see how you go about that. "We're about to screw out of a mega-project, would you like a minor role in ours instead?" But also this isn't a new alliance - there's already an alliance between the UK, US and Australia, it is about deepening that and sharing of sensitive technology which will need to go through Congress.

My impression was that it was deliberately presented as "new" and as more than just tech-sharing. And yes, a minor role might have been better than nothing.

But also I think it may depend on the Australian perception - if part of the reason they made this move is because they do not think France is strategically aligned with them on a huge issue for Australia, it makes no sense to include France in the replacement because they're still not strategically aligned. I think in that context Macron's comments, the CAI etc probably did not help.

I linked a ministerial statement from Australia from three weeks ago where Australia said that:
"Ministers reaffirmed the shared values, interests and principles that underpin the bilateral relationship, as reflected in the Joint Statement of Enhanced Strategic Partnership between Australia and France, and the Vision Statement on the Australia-France Relationship."
I guess if there was fundamental disagreements in values and Strategic goals, they could have communicated that then.

[grumbler]

The French sources all say this anger is not about the commercial side, but about being left out from the alliance. I know that you see that different from earlier in the thread. But if the French anger is really about being left out from the alliance, not the commercial, it would have been feasible to include France. If it really is about the commercial side, youbare right and there is no way to keep France happy.

I don't see that France would have anything to offer in this particular technology alliance over submarines.  The French certainly have the tech expertise, but not more than the US and UK.  The remaining technology goals to be sought subsequent to this treaty can easily include additional countries.  Aukus itself just sets the goal of improving technological exchange at some future time.

[The Minsky Moment]

@Minsky:
No disagreement that Australia's security interests can only be served by an alliance with the United States and apparently only with nuclear subs.

But it's my impression that this could have been done on a more face-saving way for France or that it could have been possible to include them somehow.

It doesn't make a ton of sense to include them in *this* particular arrangement.  France is a power and has a Pacific presence but that doesn't make them a Pacific power.  And it doesn't make much sense for France to concentrate limited defense resources in the region in any case.

What the US could do is pursue more diplomatic and defense related initiatives with France in Europe and the Med. France is the only major EU nation with significant military spending and it is in the US interest generally that France succeed in maintaining its defense-industrial capacity.  As an example, when Macron calls for greater European military and defense "autonomy" I don't think that is necessarily something the US should discourage.  An EU military capability could be complementary to NATO and to the extent it revitalizes the EU's moribund defense establishment it could be a positive good.  There is a tendancy for US foreign policy and defense planners to focus on Germany because of its economic and diplomatic clout within the Union, the presence of US bases and the fact that German leaders tend to be less prickly and easier to deal with.  But in terms of a domestic military capacity Germany is a bit of basket case whereas France is still in the game.

[grumbler]

I mentioned it before but it's why I think Rana Mitter's take is particularly interesting - especially the example of the Vietnman-Japan agreement:

The Aukus pact is a sign of a new global order

...Aukus is about binding the US into Asia-Pacific security for the long term...

  This is an interestingly insular way of looking at it.  The US is a Pacific power with a history of being central to Asia-Pacific security for over 150 years.  No new treaty could more closely bind the US into Asia-Pacific security for the future, because essential US interests already do that.  It's like arguing that the US-japan mutual defense treaty is "about binding Japan into Asia-Pacific security for the long term."  Treaties cannot accomplish more than interests, and treaties without interests are mere symbolic gestures.