Aukus

[OttoVonBismarck]

Looks like the EU is lining up strongly behind France:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-charles-michel-biden-disloyalty-allies-aukus/

EU leaders accuse Biden of disloyalty to allies
Charles Michel says Trump was 'clear' about disliking Europe, Ursula von der Leyen says 'business as usual' can't continue.

BY DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
September 21, 2021 4:36 am

NEW YORK — The EU's top leaders on Monday bluntly accused U.S. President Joe Biden of disloyalty to the transatlantic alliance, and demanded he explain why he misled France and other European partners in forging a new strategic tie-up with the U.K. and Australia in the Indo-Pacific.

The extraordinary rebuke of the new American president, whose election was celebrated across Europe as an opportunity to rejuvenate ties after the four years of belligerence and combativeness of Donald J. Trump, raised the prospect of a grave and prolonged breach among Western powers.

"With the new Joe Biden administration, America is back," European Council President Charles Michel told reporters in New York, as world leaders convened for the high-level debate of the U.N. General Assembly. "What does it mean America is back? Is America back in America or somewhere else? We don't know."

By failing to consult EU nations about the new Indo-Pacific strategy, under which Australia canceled a blockbuster contract to buy French submarines, Michel said Biden had discarded an agreement reached by leaders after many hours of talks at the G7 summit in Britain in June to remain united in confronting authoritarian regimes, particularly China.

"The elementary principles for an alliance are loyalty and transparency," Michel said, adding: "We are observing a clear lack of transparency and loyalty."

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen voiced her own dismay during an interview with CNN, in which she called the treatment of France  "unacceptable" and demanded Biden provide an explanation.

"There are a lot of open questions that have to be answered," von der Leyen said. "One of our member states has been treated in a way that is not acceptable, so we want to know what happened and why. And therefore you first clarify that before you keep going with business as usual."

Michel said that the 27 EU heads of state and government would discuss the rift with the U.S. over dinner on October 5 in Slovenia, ahead of a summit focused on the Western Balkans.

And von der Leyen's comment signaled potential disruption of the planned first meeting of a new EU-U.S. Trade and Technology Council in Pittsburgh next week — an event that was supposed to showcase the renewed policy partnerships between Brussels and Washington.

But despite the irate rhetoric, it was unclear what, if anything, EU leaders could say or do about the matter, which some EU diplomats and officials suggested was more of a commercial dispute between Paris and Canberra, and a matter of wounded French pride, than a genuine cause for rupturing relations with the U.S. and sowing divisions that could weaken NATO.

By coming in so squarely behind French President Emmanuel Macron — who still has said nothing publicly and is not attending the U.N. meetings — Michel and von der Leyen seemed to elevate the risk of a prolonged dispute that could be exploited by China, Russia and other rivals, and to increase the difficulty in finding a face-saving exit for the Western allies.

Michel insisted the feud should not be viewed narrowly as a matter of French economic interests, but rather as part of a pattern of disregard for European allies and their interests by four U.S. presidents, beginning when George W. Bush decided to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Obama with charisma, very polished, took important decisions in Syria with negative consequences for Europe, and we could observe also a lack of coordination, of consultation between the United States and European governments," Michel said. "At least with Donald Trump it was very, very clear that he was not in favor of the European integration, that for him Europe doesn't matter, but it was clear."

Biden, on the other hand, talked a big game about renewing transatlantic ties, according to Michel, but then railroaded European allies with his decision about following through on Trump's plan to withdraw from Afghanistan, "and," he added, "a few days ago with this strange announcement."

"When the transatlantic alliance is less robust and less solid, this is not good for the security in Europe and everywhere in the world," Michel said, adding: "This is more than a bilateral trade or industrial topic. It's more than that."

Arriving in New York City on Monday, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said all EU countries should be worried about the disregard the U.S. had shown its allies.

"Europeans shouldn't be the rejects of the strategy chosen by the United States," Le Drian said. "We are in this new state of mind, which means the Europeans need to identify their own strategic issues and to have a discussion with the United States on this topic."

Le Drian said that conversation was likely to occur in the context of the development of a new "strategic concept" at NATO, a tacit acknowledgment that addressing the affront by the Americans would take quite a bit of time, and some convincing of EU countries heavily reliant on the U.S. for security guarantees.

A Scandinavian diplomat said Germany "shares the French concern about the U.S. disregard of the EU in this matter" — a point that was confirmed by Manfred Weber, the German leader of the dominant conservative European People's Party (EPP) in the European Parliament.

"I think all Europeans should stand next to France because the main problem in this regard is whether we can really have with America a partnership-oriented, a trustful relationship," Weber said at a meeting of party officials in Rome. "That is at stake." 

Fighting Paris' battle
While Macron has remained silent, France has moved swiftly to retaliate by recalling ambassadors and also vowing to scuttle a proposed free-trade agreement between the EU and Australia.

But despite the very public pronouncements by the EU's top presidents, some EU diplomats and officials expressed concern that France was dragging the rest of the Continent into an unnecessary fight largely because its own national ego was bruised.

"What's of concern is that Paris is presenting something which was essentially a bilateral business deal as a blow to the EU as such," said one Central European official. "I understand Paris might be offended and taken by surprise, but seriously?"

An EU diplomat from Western Europe reiterated the point: "It's seen mainly as a bilateral issue, not an European one."

The Scandinavian diplomat said there was some concern that Paris was blowing the matter out of proportion. "I think there's a little bit of surprise about the harshness of the French reaction," the diplomat said. "Is it mainly for domestic consumption? Is there a cool-headed foreign policy rationale .... or is it, plain and simple, hurt pride?"

Such misgivings, however, seemed all but certain to remain a minority view. With German Chancellor Angela Merkel about to retire, the EU is losing its most authoritative political figure, and many of the other 26 EU capitals are urgently looking to Macron, leader of the EU's second-largest member country, to help fill some of the gap. 

Earlier on Monday, some EU officials and diplomats said they were wondering how far the Elysée would go in trying to reframe the fallout as a call for greater EU unity, and to push for improving joint security and military capabilities, often referred to as "strategic autonomy."

But as the day went on, that question seemed to be answered.

"I am convinced more than ever in the strategic autonomy," Michel said, adding: "The announcement made by the United States, Australia and United Kingdom of this new military alliance in the Indo-Pacific, it's only strengthening my personal opinion that we need to develop our own capacity to act,"

Weber echoed that point.

"It's another wake-up call for strengthening the European defense, European foreign affairs," Weber told POLITICO in Rome. "Everybody recognizes step-by-step that alone, as individual countries, we have no impact, no grip anymore on a global level."

Still, EU countries have long harbored doubts about France's true motivations in pushing for strategic autonomy, which many believe was cover for a "Buy French" economic development campaign on behalf of its defense contractors.

Eastern European countries in particular have long viewed the idea of strategic autonomy as dangerous and unrealistic, arguing it could undermine NATO and that Europe could never defend itself against threats, especially from Russia, without the U.S.

While the U.S. might be viewed as too important to lose, officials and diplomats said there was little reason for the EU to temper its wrath against Australia.

"Australia will pay a hefty price in terms of its relationship with the EU," a senior EU diplomat said. "France will act in areas like trade, regulation, etc. and the Commission will not stand against France on an external matter."

Moving forward
German MEP Andreas Schwab, also of the EPP, said the EU should not "lament" any perceived insult by Washington, but that Brussels should draw swift conclusions about next steps to take in its own interests.

"Europeans must not lament, they must take into consideration the fact that their investments and capacities are not as credible as what the Americans can give," Schwab said. He added that the EU must question whether having a presence in the Indo-Pacific region is worth it, rather than focusing on areas closer to home, like Ukraine, Belarus and Africa.

Michel, however, said the EU should most assuredly have a role in confronting China.

"If we think in the United States that China is the main threat for the world," he said, "it is very strange in my opinion that the United States and some other countries would make the choice to weaken the transatlantic alliance and not to strengthen the transatlantic alliance. It's very strange to put Europe out of the game in the Indo-Pacific region."

"During the G7, we spent three days, we discussed a lot about the geopolitical challenges and especially about the Indo-Pacific region and about China," Michel continued. "We discussed a lot about it, and the main conclusion was: we need to be united."

Of the new U.S., U.K., Australia agreement, dubbed AUKUS, he said: "It's difficult to see this announcement as a sign of unity."

Lili Bayer, Jacopo Barigazzi, Maïa de la Baume, Cory Bennett, Clea Caulcutt, Stuart Lau and Rym Momtaz contributed reporting.

Frankly, my impression is the EU by action and word has shown they largely cannot be trusted to help us confront China, and that if anything even further justifies the AUKUS move.

At the end of the day the main problem the EU is going to have is none of the countries at direct risk from Russia are ever going to sign on for vague French and Germany ideas about "strategic autonomy" that will likely not be backed up with the sort of society-changing militarization necessary to be a viable protection against Russia without U.S. assistance, so what are they really talking about at the end of the day. France and a few other EU allies going it alone? To what end?

[Sheilbh]

Looks like the EU is lining up strongly behind France:

I think verbally. In practice there were EU-US trade and technology talks in Pittsburgh planned for next week which France wanted postponed until this was all resolved. The EU agreed to push it back to early October - it seems to me they've done exactly to show solidarity with France without actually doing anything that would have an effect/consequences.

Which is about the level of support from briefings on meetings of this where several European foreign ministers basically thought it was a bilateral issue for France not the EU.

I think Duda's comments were interesting, comparing it to the US acceptance of Nordstream 2.

Although Macron and Biden have had a call now and issued a joint statement which seems enough to move on - though I agree this is interesting (and if the French extract more support for their operations in the Sahel and a tighter relation with India it's not all been a loss):

laurence norman
@laurnorman
Super interesting line in Joint @JoeBiden @EmmanuelMacron
Statement that probably won't get attention it deserves. "In the framework of their joint fight against terrorism, the United States commits to reinforcing its support to counter-terrorism operations in the Sahel..."-1-
conducted by European states." That's quite a commitment given the mess right now in the Sahel and France's struggle to prevent it spiraling out of control. Also comes amid the talk of a Mali invitation to Russia's Wagner mercenary group to provide help. -2-

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/23/aukus-australia-sent-extremely-satisfied-letter-hours-before-axing-french-contract

Australia sent 'extremely satisfied' letter hours before axing French contract

[grumbler]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/23/aukus-australia-sent-extremely-satisfied-letter-hours-before-axing-french-contract

Australia sent 'extremely satisfied' letter hours before axing French contract

Australia's naval liaison apparently said that it was satisfied that the technical details of the French design were good, not that the Australians were "extremely satisfied" with the overall contract performance.

Note also that this claim is being made by Naval Group, hardly an impartial observer of the situation.

[Zanza]

Let's hope Biden and Macron will be able to turn this spat into something more positive when they meet next month.

[The Minsky Moment]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/23/aukus-australia-sent-extremely-satisfied-letter-hours-before-axing-french-contract

Australia sent 'extremely satisfied' letter hours before axing French contract

Australia's naval liaison apparently said that it was satisfied that the technical details of the French design were good, not that the Australians were "extremely satisfied" with the overall contract performance.

Note also that this claim is being made by Naval Group, hardly an impartial observer of the situation.

Also Australia's action had nothing to do with the performance of the French boats, but with the decision to go to nuclear propulsion for its next gen subs.  It doesn't how matter how well the fork is made if you've decided to buy a spoon instead.

[viper37]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/23/aukus-australia-sent-extremely-satisfied-letter-hours-before-axing-french-contract

Australia sent 'extremely satisfied' letter hours before axing French contract

Australia's naval liaison apparently said that it was satisfied that the technical details of the French design were good, not that the Australians were "extremely satisfied" with the overall contract performance.

Note also that this claim is being made by Naval Group, hardly an impartial observer of the situation.

Also Australia's action had nothing to do with the performance of the French boats, but with the decision to go to nuclear propulsion for its next gen subs.  It doesn't how matter how well the fork is made if you've decided to buy a spoon instead.

Australia bought nuclear submarines that had to be converted to diesel power at their request.  Then they changed their mind midway through the modification process and went elsewhere to get nuclear subs.


Had they asked France for nuclear subs in the first place, France would have happily provided them, like they are doing with Brazil, even building the necessary infrastructure.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think that's right on France being happy to transfer nuclear tech - I don't think that's what they're doing with Brazil and from my understanding France is very reluctant to share nuclear propulsion tech.

But yeah - I think Australia's changed their mind and in 2016 they considered nuclear subs and it was very controversial given Australia's general anti-nuclear history (which is weird given 30% of the world's uranium is in Australia - and has led instead to a massive coal sector). It's only five years later but this decision is being backed by both the Liberals and Labor.

Edit: But I wonder if France might do a deal with India - as I say I think that would be the big de Gaulle move - and frankly, the closer ties France has been encouraging with India since this happened and US commitment to Sahel is the real positive stuff here (from France's perspective), not Biden travelling to Europe for talks. It probably doesn't outweight the loss of the contract plus Australian relations but it isn't nothing.

[Berkut]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/23/aukus-australia-sent-extremely-satisfied-letter-hours-before-axing-french-contract

Australia sent 'extremely satisfied' letter hours before axing French contract

Australia's naval liaison apparently said that it was satisfied that the technical details of the French design were good, not that the Australians were "extremely satisfied" with the overall contract performance.

Note also that this claim is being made by Naval Group, hardly an impartial observer of the situation.

Also Australia's action had nothing to do with the performance of the French boats, but with the decision to go to nuclear propulsion for its next gen subs.  It doesn't how matter how well the fork is made if you've decided to buy a spoon instead.

Australia bought nuclear submarines that had to be converted to diesel power at their request.  Then they changed their mind midway through the modification process and went elsewhere to get nuclear subs.


Had they asked France for nuclear subs in the first place, France would have happily provided them, like they are doing with Brazil, even building the necessary infrastructure.

Halfway through the modification process! Incredible!

How many of the subs had been modified already?

[Berkut]

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-its-french-sub-deal/

This has been a long time coming.

If France is shocked, SHOCKED I SAY! that Australia is walking away from a deal that is years behind schedule before production has even started, at a cost that is nearly double the original estimate, and France has already backed away from the promise of using 90% AUS labor down to 60%, and was actively in the process of trying to whittle even THAT number down lower....well, they are just utterly clueless about their own customers.

There is no great mystery here. Australia has been looking for a way out for sometime now. They found it.

[viper37]

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-its-french-sub-deal/

This has been a long time coming.

If France is shocked, SHOCKED I SAY! that Australia is walking away from a deal that is years behind schedule before production has even started, at a cost that is nearly double the original estimate, and France has already backed away from the promise of using 90% AUS labor down to 60%, and was actively in the process of trying to whittle even THAT number down lower....well, they are just utterly clueless about their own customers.

There is no great mystery here. Australia has been looking for a way out for sometime now. They found it.

Reminds me of the F-35.

[Berkut]

Would Virginia class boats just be too much for what Australia is looking for?

Although that would kill the idea of them being built in Australia....

[Berkut]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2021/09/20/everybody-wins-if-australia-gets-new-los-angeles-class-subs-asap/?sh=25f9388d4a6b

An interesting idea.

Right now the US is planning on "refueling" the six youngest Los Angeles class subs with surplus reactors, to get another ten years out of them.

Any new Australian nuke sub is going to be a long time coming - why not have Australia lease those 6 LA class subs instead, after the US refuels them?  Not a permanent solution of course, but it would then let Australia save the money they were going to spend to keep their 6 aged Collins class boats in service, and get them started on the road to building the shoreside infrastructure they will need to service, maintain, and train a nuclear navy.

The US would get to have those 6 subs still basically in service, albeit with an ally instead of directly, and it would allow the US to more quickly transition to a purely Virginia attack sub fleet, with the commensurate saving on training and maintenance for a retired class of subs.

[Berkut]

Had they asked France for nuclear subs in the first place, France would have happily provided them, like they are doing with Brazil, even building the necessary infrastructure.

Once you decide to go nuclear though, it would be really, really stupid to choose France as your supplier over the US or the UK.

French nuclear subs are considerably less capable, and their technology is not even close to US nuke power plant designs. Or UK designs, for that matter.


Really, the US has only ever shared nuke power plant tech with the UK. And the US technology is far, far ahead of anyone else - I mean, the US has a hell of a lot more experience then anyone else, so that should come as no surprise.


The US agreeing to this means a lot more then just selling a dozen submarines. Nuclear propulsion tech is insanely jealously guarded.

[Berkut]

Speculation is that it is very possible, maybe even likely that Australia will get Virginias:

Which submarine the Australians end up building could also present specific workforce challenges. Most analysts noted the amount of time and money required for designing and developing a new boat from scratch makes it an unlikely option.

Instead, Bryan Clark, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, predicted the US Navy's Virginia-class submarine would be a logical choice.

Clark said the Australians' original deal with the French — which has now been scrapped — called for $66 billion to buy 12 boats.  If research and development costs can be minimized due to the work already done in the US, Clark theorized the deal could include 12 Virginia-class submarines costing roughly $3 billion each, with the rest of the funds going towards building domestic infrastructure, construction and maintenance.

"Because submarines are the one part of the US Navy shipbuilding infrastructure that is maxed out right now, building 12 VA-class for the [Royal Australian Navy] will mean 12 US VA-class will not get built," Clark said. "That could be part of the administrations' plan, since arguably those are still 12 SSNs for the alliance, but they would be paid for by Australia. However, those boats cannot help with US missions elsewhere."

The announcement Wednesday evening made clear the Australian government is keen to tout job creation as a benefit of this deal. But it is not clear whether those manufacturing jobs in Australia would be for building components from scratch or whether they would complete the assembly process. Either way, US industry would be taxed either in raw manufacturing capacity or having to send experts currently working on American Virginia-class submarines to Australia.

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/09/new-australia-nuclear-sub-deal-brings-big-questions-hard-road-ahead/