AUKUS Treaty NEWS ONLY

[zen]

That Australia poisoned its relationship with France

It would be interesting to see how things might have gone down if France didn't have domestic political considerations, including a Presidential election, to factor in here...

I said it already some posts up thread: French people just don't care about that fuss.
It's EXTERNAL affairs when the election is INTERNAL stuff.

Main worry is COVID
Then yellow jackets
then the election
then Bernard Tapie death (will make headlines for the next week, just like Belmondo last month)

Scoop: the main event in the frontline news, related to the coming election, is NOT Australia nor the submarines.

ITs whacky crazy Vichy apologist Eric Zemmour shooting to 15% of the popular vote, on Marine Le Pen heels and ready to overtake her as "the right wing nut qualifying in 2nd position to fight Macron at round 2".

Submarines and Australia have next to zero relationship to the coming election. Not even on the unemployment front - it is not as if NG very existence was threatened with 30 000 jobs to go up in smoke.

Absolutely right there Archibald!

The lockdown protests might not be on mainstream media, especially outside of France, but they exist alright.
Eric Zemmour......were did they dig him up from!?
He sounds like he's make Marine look even more electable!
I suspect Macron is literally digging himself a hole when he talks of giving up France's UNSC seat to the EU.
Rather like EU military is attractive to just a small fraction of the French population.

Seems to me various factions are grasping at Macron's behaviour to justify opposition to RAN SSNs and break AUKUS before anything come out if it....
Now I wonder who would benefit from that......?

 

[Moose]

The published letter pretty much blows the French Foreign Minister, Le Drian's, 'they lied' claim straight out of the water.
It's not a good look at all for him. It's now clear either he lied...or he didn't comprehend the letters very clear meaning. The letter is very clear about its intent and explicitly tells Naval Group that it is not in any way to be taken as approval to proceed any further.

In the FOI request, the Guardian also sought the exact time the letter was sent to Naval Group. Internal defence records indicate the document was created on 15 September at 12.05pm, Canberra time, and modified at 4.34pm, Canberra time, (8.34am, Paris time).

The Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, has said he informed the French president, Emmanuel Macron, of the decision to terminate the contract a few hours later – about 8.35pm Canberra time (12.35pm, Paris time).

I'm not trying to defend Macron or Le Drian in any way here, please.

Just saying that FOUR HOURS is not a lot of "warning time" when cancelling a $60 billion contract.
Ok, NG was WARNED about the cancellation, but four hours ahead of AUKUS, really ?
Give it some days, damn it. Just one weekk would be fine. A month, at worse !

I'm a firm believer in going the extra yard for improved relations, and I think AUKUS had a poor rollout for which there is blame to be a had. Morrison should have had a better strategy for breaking the news to the French government, and all 3 AUKUS leaders needed to make a call to Macron earlier than they did.

However, the "four hours" here matter little. The letter itself is Australia's notice to NG that the contract won't be moving forward, they could have handed it to Naval Group's people while Morrison was on the phone with Macron if they wanted. Heck, I'd have preferred if he called Macron first to warn him before the letter got into NG's hands. The idea that the "four hours" constitute untruthfulness toward or conspiracy against NG is silly.

 

[zen]

Of course considering the threat and the inevitable reality of being on the Target List for instant sunshine.
The question of what sort of Deterrent setup Australia might look at, is....if not directly AUKUS related is certainly indirectly related now, and may yet become an issue.

The logical case is Road Mobile ICBM or IRBM.

But the infrastructure issues would benefit from the SSN effort.

 

[GTX]

The question of what sort of Deterrent setup Australia might look at, is....if not directly AUKUS related is certainly indirectly related now, and may yet become an issue.

The logical case is Road Mobile ICBM or IRBM.

It has been repeatedly stated (including multiple times by all 3 leaders during the AUKUS announcements) that Australia is not seeking nuclear weapons. Therefore such discussion is a moot point.

 

[zen]

It has been repeatedly stated (including multiple times by all 3 leaders during the AUKUS announcements) that Australia is not seeking nuclear weapons. Therefore such discussion is a moot point.

It is now, much like it was a near certainty Australia was opposed to SSNs.
But considering how things could progress.......

 

[GTX]

There is a distinct difference between nuclear powered and nuclear weapons. I reiterate, it has been repeatedly stated (including multiple times by all 3 leaders during the AUKUS announcements) that Australia is not seeking nuclear weapons. Therefore such discussion is a moot point.

 

[Fluff]

It has been repeatedly stated (including multiple times by all 3 leaders during the AUKUS announcements) that Australia is not seeking nuclear weapons. Therefore such discussion is a moot point.

It is now, much like it was a near certainty Australia was opposed to SSNs.
But considering how things could progress.......

Or Aus could ask Uk or US to base some missiles in Aus. Keeping Aus hands clean, and not putting to much pressure on non-proliferation...

 

[GTX]

No need since an attack on Australia could be answered with weapons already elsewhere. Moreover, placing said weapons in Australia would actually be counterproductive.

 

[zen]

In perspective.
States that overly rely on another more powerful state to 'avenge' an attack upon them. Are states more exposed to the potential for betrayal by that more powerful 'avenging' state.

For such reasons, as much as a threatening hostile state, some have found it logical to not to be so overly reliant in such a capacity.

Thus North Korea, pursues nuclear weapons, as much in fear of it's wavering support from China and Russia as it does the threat of the US or South Korea....

Israel

France

UK

A common thread with the last three is their uncertainty of support from a particular state. The US. Which through it's electoral cycle has proved less than reliable repeatedly.
As we saw in Afghanistan
Ukraine
Etc....

In turning to the Pacific Ocean.
Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
Are all capable of developing their own nuclear weapons systems.
South Korea particularly has laid much of the foundations for a complete triumvirate Air, Land and Sea.

Taiwan was said to be a year away in the 1980's from gaining this if it wanted to.

Australia has the potential and if the tensions in the Pacific continue to rise. The question of whether they should be so trusting and reliant on the US will raise it's head.

This subject is not dead, merely dormant for the moment, and AUKUS may yet be the thin end of the wedge on a host of issues.

For that reason it should at least be noted, expressed and pondered. Particularly in the context of AUKUS, as by entering into this alliance, Australia moves up the priority target list.

 

[GTX]

Thus North Korea, pursues nuclear weapons, as much in fear of it's wavering support from China and Russia as it does the threat of the US or South Korea....

Israel

France

UK

A common thread with the last three is their uncertainty of support from a particular state. The US. Which through it's electoral cycle has proved less than reliable repeatedly.

There are other factors going on here including national pride, need to feel 'big', different eras etc etc... I would also caution against comments alluding to the US willingness to provide such support.

This subject is not dead, merely dormant for the moment, and AUKUS may yet be the thin end of the wedge on a host of issues.

For that reason it should at least be noted, expressed and pondered. Particularly in the context of AUKUS, as by entering into this alliance, Australia moves up the priority target list.

In context of AUKUS it has already been stated officially multiple times that AUKUS does not involve nuclear weapons therefore in terms of this thread the discussion is dead!

 

[Fluff]

For that reason it should at least be noted, expressed and pondered. Particularly in the context of AUKUS, as by entering into this alliance, Australia moves up the priority target list.

I think China's rhetoric and activities left Australia no choice, it was a shut up or put up point, and Australia has decided to put up.

China is clearly planning a more expansionist policy, with a large military, and trade as a weapon as well.

First target is clearly Taiwan, but after that Australia would be high on the list, maybe with NZ 'asked' to sign some treaty, basing rights etc.

All the mid tier countries in that area, Japan, Aus, S Korea etc, could easily be knocked over one by one, by china.

this deal makes a good route to preventing that.

 

[zen]

Ok GTX I shall leave it there.
Though I might take issue with your lack of recognition for certain states sense of 'mission'.
But it did need raising, and it should be raised.
I sense this touches a nerve.....

Anyway the rhetoric out of China has been clear about their attitudes for a very long time. It was just inconvenient to pay it attention.
Certainly China intends to remake the world, starting with the Western Pacific (what we in used to call the Far East), and Australia (and New Zealand) are of particularly interest for China. Considering their nature, their resources, and allies.

 

[DWG]

Also, the RAN is definitely going to need more surface combatants, preferably nuclear powered.

Even the USN abandoned CGNs forty years ago with the decision not to build the CGN-42s* in 1983.

* Essentially Aegis on a CGN-38 hull

 

[uk 75]

The important point is that China is now in no doubt that it's naval and air build up will be countered.
Deterrence is about countering a threat at the most effective level. The SSN gives a range of responses.
The classic case was in the 70s when the Callaghan Government let Buenos Aires know that UK SSN were operating off the Falklands thus detering any military adventures.
Far from introducing nuclear weapons the SSN avoids a crisis getting anywhere near that level. Currently UK and US SSN do not have nuclear armed torpedos or cruise missiles. The US might deploy them on its subs if things get worse, but this would not involve RN or RAN subs.

 

[zen]

Currently UK and US SSN do not have nuclear armed torpedos or cruise missiles. The US might deploy them on its subs if things get worse, but this would not involve RN or RAN subs.

Definitely a good point.
I might add the potential would then exist for so arming RN and RAN, as a further stage to ratchet up the counter threat.

It must now impinge on Chinese defence planners and Targeteers (? Did I just make that word up?). That the counter threat from AUKUS, the Quad, 5 Power, etc has enormous potential to increase relentenlessly as well as the direct threat of US systems.
China is behind in scale and depth of capability.
The days of catching up in the slipstream of others has gone.
From here on in, it's all hard work and they've fumbled their key strength. Our willingness to ignore their buildup.

One might say the Western Dragon has woken.

 

[uk 75]

We should not get carried away with the military aspects of this.
Just as we had detente with the Soviet Union (which through the Helsinki Final Act allowed the West to support civil society in the Bloc countries) a sensible arrangement with China will need to be found.
The West tends to see history through its prism and forgets that just as people in Russia saw WW2 as their great patriotic struggle, the Chinese have bitter memories of foreign occupation and bullying of China.
We should use our military strength to seek a relationship based on mutual respect and co-operation and avoid the high-handedness which has sometimes marked Western rhetoric since 1990.

 

[Bhurki]

^^
Hard to create mutual respect with equal status when the domestic name for China is literally 'Middle Kingdom', from which is derived the historical view and mindset that the wheels of the world revolve around this very kingdom and everyone's supposed to pay tributes to it.

 

[UpForce]

Somewhat aghast at the magical thinking here; the new Australian attack subs weren't on pace to deter anyone in time in the first place. Now, by all evidence they've been further delayed.

The subtext on the relationship with the French and/or the EU seems to be that any construct such as AUKUS is automatically mutually exclusive to any other arrangement; that was plainly just a choice, the strategic expediency of which remains murky at best. At this stage AUKUS remains an idea of a handful of people in its respective "participating countries" and as such I haven't even begun to wrap my head around the parliamentary, democratic processes through which this is supposed to reach any operable actualization. Just declaring something and expecting everyone to fall in line has some serious strongman vibes heretofore more familiar in other kinds of societies. Maybe something to ponder before going too hard in attributing the French as being singularly capable at irrational international relations due to internal dynamics.

This is not to say that actions and reactions aren't necessary but for now China's leadership gets to protest the kind of "aggression" it likes the best - one not backed up by actual new capabilities. They will, hopefully, grow but to what extent we might see them through the prism of AUKUS is another matter. I do agree with "uk 75" that military considerations are just an aspect of the whole though the national stories of aspiring great powers get too much play in how these systems are motivated; we may have vastly different ideas of what constitutes "respect", also. Xi perhaps genuinely believes, or at least is confident enough to bet that his system has "evolutionary" (I'm using the term loosely here) advantages over democracies. I'm afraid AUKUS, in how it came to be and so far (early days, I know), hasn't done much to shake his trust in his own judgment.

What happens in Vegas, magic included, does tend to stay there.

 

[Josh_TN]

Xi’s motivation I believe is less based in confidence and more based on deadline. If China truly is inevitable and it’s government system superior, then the CCP can merely wait around for the West to fall at its feet. But the reality is that 25-30% of the Chinese economy is tied up in over valued real estate, along with all the jobs and materials associated with construction. There is also a huge debt burden on individuals, corporations, and local governments. Evergrande is just the rather large canary in the coal mine. To that we can also add demographic inversion-some people estimate Chinas population growth has already turned negative and that the most recent census data was withheld so the numbers could be massaged to paper over this fact. At any rate it is undeniable that the Chinese work force is shrinking even if the absolute population size hasn’t gone negative yet, and the population will go negative, even going by Chinese official numbers, around 2026-27. Given the official fertility rate (also highly suspect), the Chinese population is going to drop off quite dramatically in the next couple decades.

China isn’t a rising power that will eclipse all other world powers, it’s a power that has risen and is about to peak and then dramatically backslide due to its governments own mismanagement, just like the Great Leap and Cultural Revolution. And that makes it much more dangerous-if Xi perceives that China’s window is closing, he is much more likely to do something rash.

 

[uk 75]

The world has known tougher problems. Back in the early 70s we had Nixon and Kissinger batting (baseballwise) for the West with Breshnev, Mao and Uncle Ho on the opposing side. In those days the media only heard what was going on in staged press conferences.

Whether we like it or not, China, the US, the EU, the UK and Oz need one another for a whole raft of reasons. Leaving aside the little matter of trying to work out how to deal with global warming, we are all so interdependent.
Give you an example. During the pandemic teams working in Oxford and China came up with a way to test people at airports. At the time there were few Covid cases in the UK but a lot in China so the tests were tried out there. Later on stuff (sorry Historian not scientist!) needed for the procedure had to come from China as they had come out of lockdown before the UK.

Everyone of the outfits I mentioned above have a whole briefing book full if reasons why they dont trust everyone on the list. But if their advisers are doing their job properly they will have a similar and larger book on why we need to work together. Trading insults is stock in trade for diplomacy, perhaps why Super K was so good at that aspect of it. But lowering the temperature at a working level goes on daily in a whole slew of boring meetings that make Ricky Gervaise look glamorous. But those meetings keep us all safe.

 

[zen]

The mastery of war is to 'change the mind' of the other. Turning them from implacable opponent to accommodating ally.

 

[GTX]

The West tends to see history through its prism and forgets that just as people in Russia saw WW2 as their great patriotic struggle, the Chinese have bitter memories of foreign occupation and bullying of China.

I agree wholeheartedly and it’s not just with China that ‘the West’ suffers from this affliction with. In terms of China though, I have previously posted the following article which I find insightfu:

Harvard Business Review - Ideas and Advice for Leaders

Find new ideas and classic advice on strategy, innovation and leadership, for global leaders from the world's best business and management experts.

bg.hbr.org

 

[DWG]

We should use our military strength to seek a relationship based on mutual respect and co-operation and avoid the high-handedness which has sometimes marked Western rhetoric since 1990.

Which also applies to China and actions in the South China Sea, and some extremely aggressive rhetoric towards Western nations in the state controlled press.

 

[GTX]

First target is clearly Taiwan, but after that Australia would be high on the list, maybe with NZ 'asked' to sign some treaty, basing rights etc.

The Taiwan subject is certainly an interesting one here. If the West wants to make an issue of it and truly prevent any future takeover by China then they probably need to based forces there. While extremely provocativ, such an action would definitely draw a line in the sand and force China to realise that any attack on Taiwan will definitely bring the likes of the US into conflict whereas right now they could be weighing the odds. The problem here though is because it would be provocative, the West (and again, we’re really talking USA here) is also weighing the odds of whether or not such an act would trigger China to do something. Essentially they are having to make a judgement of where the Chinese ‘line in the sand’ really is. Ah the intrigue of geopolitics…

Oh, and for the record, I don’t believe the political climate in New Zealand would support their joining something like AUKUS at this stage. Even ANZUS is on weak ground there. Mind you, I also respect New Zealand for their independent and progressive stance that they have fostered for decades now.

 

[GTX]

Whether we like it or not, China, the US, the EU, the UK and Oz need one another for a whole raft of reasons. Leaving aside the little matter of trying to work out how to deal with global warming, we are all so interdependent.

Most definitely! It will be nice if one day we as a species can finally grow up and stop acting like the group of tribal/territorial apes we evolved from.

 

[GTX]

Further to the Taiwan question, the following from Stan Grant (a journalist and academic I find very inciteful) is timely:

Will America's 'porcupine strategy' work against China on Taiwan?

When Taiwan's foreign minister warns of a fight to the end in a looming war with China, we should pay attention, writes Stan Grant.

www.abc.net.au

 

[zen]

Hmmmm....

Basing AUKUS forces on Taiwan isn't any part of any known discussions by the partners and would need involvement of Taiwan. Assuming it is just the US puts it outside the business of AUKUS.
Canberra and London would both rightly require much in return for such a risky commitment.

China under the CCP isn't and hasn't ever really been an ally or friendly state for the West, let alone one that shares the West's values.
It was just a convenient and a cheap source of labour. Neither of which could last and arguably was a compromise too far from day 1.
Feeding this crocodile has only made it bigger, stronger and hungrier.

 

[zen]

Magical thinking?

Do explain how the EU required Australia to stick to buying the Attack class in order to secure a civilian trade deal?
When were they explicitly linked?
Does the EU now dictate the defence policy of it's trade partners?

 

[shedofdread]

Not terribly exciting but potentially commercially interesting to some - I wonder if there will there be collaborative, funded development projects under the AUKUS umbrella? There's regularly UK-US ones and UK-AUS, UK-CAN every now and again...

 

[Forest Green]

Magical thinking?

Do explain how the EU required Australia to stick to buying the Attack class in order to secure a civilian trade deal?
When were they explicitly linked?
Does the EU now dictate the defence policy of it's trade partners?

Any one EU member can veto a trade deal, so basically France vetoed the deal. This is why being in the EU doesn't actually make trade deals easier.

 

[zen]

Magical thinking?

Do explain how the EU required Australia to stick to buying the Attack class in order to secure a civilian trade deal?
When were they explicitly linked?
Does the EU now dictate the defence policy of it's trade partners?

Any one EU member can veto a trade deal, so basically France vetoed the deal. This is why being in the EU doesn't actually make trade deals easier.

Agreed on the latter point.
The former is not a wise move by France under Macron, as it is sacrificing the EU's civilian trade deal with Australia over a military deal falling through.
Other EU states may come to feel their interests are being sacrificed for a French President's ego.

 

[jeffb]

Magical thinking?

Do explain how the EU required Australia to stick to buying the Attack class in order to secure a civilian trade deal?
When were they explicitly linked?
Does the EU now dictate the defence policy of it's trade partners?

Any one EU member can veto a trade deal, so basically France vetoed the deal. This is why being in the EU doesn't actually make trade deals easier.

Agreed on the latter point.
The former is not a wise move by France under Macron, as it is sacrificing the EU's civilian trade deal with Australia over a military deal falling through.
Other EU states may come to feel their interests are being sacrificed for a French President's ego.

It doesn't need a trade deal with Australia, it has the EU to trade with. Australia, looking for new trading partners after China cut trade, does.

 

[zen]

EU has been working on trade deals all over the place for a very long time. So clearly feels the need for them. It was doing Australia no special favour.

China cutting trade with Australia predates AUKUS.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Kerry: Biden ‘had not been fully aware’ of submarine deal’s impact on France

President Biden “had not been fully aware” of the negative impact a U.S. submarine deal between the United Kingdom and Australia had on France after it was announced, according to John Ke…

thehill.com

Overnight Defense & National Security — US attempts to mend ties with France

It’s Tuesday, welcome to Overnight Defense & National Security, your nightly guide to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. Subscribe here: thehill.com/news…

thehill.com

 

[jeffb]

What a mess...

Inside Biden's full-court press to make amends with France

The White House's secret deal with Australia last month left the French feeling betrayed and blindsided

www.axios.com

 

[UpForce]

So now U.S.'s climate envoy USSen Kerry has waded in, seems "a bit" outside his remit. He does carry a large stockpile of weapons grade boredom though.

I sort of understand the impetus of putting this thing behind both administrations as quickly as possible but I'd vastly prefer any corrective measures to be better thought out than the actions that led to this situation, being clear about the purpose but taking one's time where one can. The French might be happy to put quite a lot of work in considering how co-operation might be improved overall, not just with regard to AUKUS but also EU's common defense angle and beyond. Now Macron sees and opening, is unsure of how long this lasts and it's a bit of bilateral this and that in a bid to position France as the pivotal continental European power.

I have a suspicion that the original mess owes a whole lot to (if not is entirely down to) U.K.'s "Global Britain" effort which really is more of an opportunistic brand in search of substance (trying to construct a half-way coherent whole of admiral Radakin's descriptions, for instance) than a policy governed by principle or measured strategy. Vacillating between "not the EU" and glomming a carrier group-ish on the U.S. Navy sailing the seven seas, the line between performative and truly perfidious pugilism in the haste for "wins" has been crossed and for no good reason as far as everyone else's interests are concerned. The recognition of that, I believe, is behind the French omitting the U.K. from immediate diplomatic measures and demands for explanations; the ramifications must vary according to how responsive or chaotic an agent is.

Perhaps the Shortfin Barracuda deal's impact might've been somewhat lost on Biden considering only the financials: While the deal's overall value was more than half of France's 2021 defense budget, it only came to 1/20th of the U.S.'s (and spread out over many years as well). A POTUS, should she/he feel so inclined, has a lot on her/his plate after all. The core issue, though, is trust - something that undergirds democracy, the fungibility of money and defense agreements - and protecting and enforcing that is no mean feat of which calculations about capabilities are just a constituent part.

 

[Forest Green]

So now U.S.'s climate envoy USSen Kerry has waded in, seems "a bit" outside his remit. He does carry a large stockpile of weapons grade boredom though.

Well the current climate is one of hostility, so it's sort of a climate issue.

 

[Fluff]

So now U.S.'s climate envoy USSen Kerry has waded in, seems "a bit" outside his remit. He does carry a large stockpile of weapons grade boredom though.

I sort of understand the impetus of putting this thing behind both administrations as quickly as possible but I'd vastly prefer any corrective measures to be better thought out than the actions that led to this situation, being clear about the purpose but taking one's time where one can. The French might be happy to put quite a lot of work in considering how co-operation might be improved overall, not just with regard to AUKUS but also EU's common defense angle and beyond. Now Macron sees and opening, is unsure of how long this lasts and it's a bit of bilateral this and that in a bid to position France as the pivotal continental European power.

I have a suspicion that the original mess owes a whole lot to (if not is entirely down to) U.K.'s "Global Britain" effort which really is more of an opportunistic brand in search of substance (trying to construct a half-way coherent whole of admiral Radakin's descriptions, for instance) than a policy governed by principle or measured strategy. Vacillating between "not the EU" and glomming a carrier group-ish on the U.S. Navy sailing the seven seas, the line between performative and truly perfidious pugilism in the haste for "wins" has been crossed and for no good reason as far as everyone else's interests are concerned. The recognition of that, I believe, is behind the French omitting the U.K. from immediate diplomatic measures and demands for explanations; the ramifications must vary according to how responsive or chaotic an agent is.

Perhaps the Shortfin Barracuda deal's impact might've been somewhat lost on Biden considering only the financials: While the deal's overall value was more than half of France's 2021 defense budget, it only came to 1/20th of the U.S.'s (and spread out over many years as well). A POTUS, should she/he feel so inclined, has a lot on her/his plate after all. The core issue, though, is trust - something that undergirds democracy, the fungibility of money and defense agreements - and protecting and enforcing that is no mean feat of which calculations about capabilities are just a constituent part.

Quite a lot of angst, if not butthurt in this.

So Spiffing Boris persuaded Joe, and the aussies, to get into bed with him(he does have some previous on this score) and knocked up a quick nuke boat or 8, in one night?

I think, that maybe, the fact that the aussies couldnt get all the bits they wanted into a diesel boat, no matter how they asked, made them realise they needed a Nuke, and the french nuke needs refuelling, while the US and British boats dont.

Also France is pretty non-interventionist, especially with China, which is exactly the opposite of what Aus was looking for.

Also UK broke free of EU, and is now free to do what it wants, including deals with US and Aus, at the drop of a hat. Sorry about that.

 

[GTX]

The reality is that Australia is both now and historically, closer to the UK and US than just about anyone (except maybe NZ...but no Defence equipment/gain there) so France should not act surprised.

 

[zen]

Ahhh family.
You love 'em
You hate 'em
They love you and....they hate you (sometimes like a moody teenager....yes I'm looking at you America, but you turned out alright in the end)
But you're always there for them.

I speak here in a personal capacity as like millions of British people, we have immediate family and relatives in Australia.
Abandon Australia to the tender mercies of China?
I think you can guess the answer to that.