Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 311
  1. #101
    Thailand Expat HermantheGerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 12:05 PM
    Location
    Germany/Satthahip
    Posts
    6,184
    Quote Originally Posted by David48atTD View Post
    Two mins YouTube on how/why the Nuclear powered subs is a better tactical beast
    But the stupid Australians insisted on a Diesel Sub that can be converted later into a nuclear one.
    If only Diesel then the Germans should have had the contract. Australia seems a bit like a third World country when it come to decisions making.

  2. #102
    Thailand Expat HermantheGerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 12:05 PM
    Location
    Germany/Satthahip
    Posts
    6,184
    By the way, all it takes is a match to light up Australia. No fancy weapons needed.
    Think about it
    So instead of subs order some good german firetrucks

  3. #103
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Last Online
    18-09-2021 @ 05:01 PM
    Posts
    100
    Well said. Though I don't think NZ is any closer to China. It's just the politicians of the day.

    Full support to HK - and to Taiwan in the day I hope never happens because that day would be ww3.

  4. #104
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,404
    ...I imagine there will be some domestic Aussie dissent concerning the nuclear subs, particularly with Chinese troll bots fanning the flames of outrage...

  5. #105
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    80,090
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    ...I imagine there will be some domestic Aussie dissent concerning the nuclear subs, particularly with Chinese troll bots fanning the flames of outrage...
    And our resident Russian ones.

  6. #106
    Thailand Expat
    Klondyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Online
    26-09-2021 @ 10:28 PM
    Posts
    10,149
    NZ says Australia's new nuclear submarines must stay out of its waters

    WELLINGTON, Sept 16 (Reuters) - New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Thursday that Australia's new nuclear-powered submarines would not be allowed in its territorial waters under a long standing nuclear free policy.

    NZ says Australia'''s new nuclear submarines must stay out of its waters | Reuters

  7. #107
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Last Online
    18-09-2021 @ 05:01 PM
    Posts
    100
    Thinking Jacinda was pushed very hard to get to this stage since she obviously knew...

  8. #108
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    80,090
    Quote Originally Posted by DC101 View Post
    Thinking Jacinda was pushed very hard to get to this stage since she obviously knew...
    Not only did she not know, she wasn't invited.

  9. #109
    Thailand Expat panama hat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:56 AM
    Location
    Way, Way South of the border now - thank God!
    Posts
    29,908
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Not only did she not know, she wasn't invited.
    . . . and this annoys her greatly

  10. #110
    Thailand Expat
    Iceman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:44 AM
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    4,239
    I think most are missing the real deal that has gone down.

    The US and UK explained to Oz that the current deal with France would not deliver for years the submarine deterrent that Oz needs now to help counter the Chinese threat.

    The offer to build nuclear powered subs for Australia will take even longer, however the point is that meantime the Australians have now accepted the nuclear option thus opening up the door for the US to fill the gap with their subs meantime using Australia as their forward base patrolling the area.

    That is why price was not even mentioned.

    At this stage it’s a win win - US gets presence in the pacific region and Oz just has to pay paltry comp to the French.

  11. #111
    Thailand Expat misskit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    38,420
    ^

    U.S.-Australia Submarine Pact Targets China’s Undersea Weakness

    Australia’s decision to build eight nuclear-powered submarines with U.S. technology will buttress America’s undersea edge over China and could help create a network of submarine defenses from the Indian to Pacific oceans to help deter Beijing from expansionism.


    China has rapidly built up its military in recent years, including over $200 billion in spending planned for this year, and now has a larger navy than the U.S. However, the U.S. maintains an advantage below the surface of the sea with more powerful submarines that are harder to detect.


    By sharing its technology with Australia and deepening defense ties, the U.S. will effectively augment its own Asian fleet as both countries focus on deterring China.


    “It’s a resetting of the long-term military balance in the Indo-Pacific because these are extremely powerful strike weapons,” said Michael Shoebridge, director of the defense, strategy and national security program at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a government-backed think tank.

    The first of Australia’s new attack submarines, which are designed to destroy other submarines and surface vessels, won’t be ready for over a decade. But they threaten one of China’s relative military weaknesses: the ability to locate and defeat submarines, particularly nuclear-powered vessels.

    The Pentagon said in its annual report on China’s military last year that while Beijing was advancing in its undersea warfare abilities, “it continues to lack a robust deep-water anti-submarine warfare capability.”


    By agreeing to a deal with Australia on nuclear-powered submarines, the U.S. departed from decades of strict policies against sharing the technology. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 precluded sharing U.S. nuclear technology with others, although the U.S. and U.K. later that decade signed a treaty calling for nuclear weapons cooperation.

    “As our closest ally, there is a benefit to the U.K. having a nuclear deterrent of its own as well as nuclear reactor designs,” said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who specializes on naval issues.


    Other countries have asked the U.S. to share its technology but have been rebuffed, Mr. Clark said. The U.S. permitted exports of diesel-powered submarines to other countries between 1945 and 1980, according to the nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative. Exports all but stopped in 1980, and no U.S.-made submarines have been exported since 1992.


    The technology sharing will “contribute to what I call integrated deterrence in the region, the ability for the United States military to work more effectively with our allies and partners in defense of our shared security interests,” U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Thursday.

    Underscoring the military tension in the region, a U.S. guided-missile destroyer transited through the Taiwan Strait on Friday, remaining in international waters, but demonstrating what officials said was a continuing U.S. commitment to free and open seafaring in the Pacific region.


    China has shown its intention to improve its ability to counter submarines, including through the rare publicizing of an anti-submarine drill last year.


    The U.S. and China have roughly the same number of submarines, but while all of the 52 U.S. attack submarines are nuclear powered, seven of China’s 62 attack submarines are nuclear propelled, according to the Pentagon. The rest are diesel powered and have to surface frequently to clear exhaust and charge batteries that provide additional power. Nuclear-powered submarines are also faster than diesel-powered vessels.


    Security analysts say that growing defense cooperation among the U.S., Australia, Japan and India, an informal alliance known as the Quad that was formed around concerns about China’s rising power, could eventually lead to some coordination of their submarine fleets across the Indo-Pacific region.


    India inaugurated its first nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarine in 2018 and has around 15 diesel-electric attack submarines, while Japan operates around 24 diesel-electric attack submarines.


    Euan Graham, an Asia-Pacific security analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Singapore, said Australia’s southern location means its submarines could play a role alongside India in security in the Indian Ocean.


    “That would become a kind of network-enhancing multiplier, which would make life very difficult to operate on the surface and below it,” he said.


    Broader networks of coordination among submarine fleets could also help ensure that important trade routes in the Indo-Pacific region are kept open and protect important waterways such as the Strait of Malacca between Malaysia and Indonesia. Mr. Graham said such arrangements would require major steps forward in military information and intelligence sharing.


    The leaders of the Quad are set to meet in Washington on Sept. 24 and will discuss ways to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific, according to the White House.


    Security analysts warn that China’s military capabilities will advance in the years it takes Australia’s new submarines to arrive and say that while eight submarines are expected, only two or three are likely to be at sea at any one time. Nonetheless, they are seen as significant for the military balance in the region.


    “This will be a major force that will have significant strategic weight against any adversary,” said Sam Roggeveen, the director of the international security program at the Lowy Institute, a Sydney-based foreign-policy think tank.

    U.S.-Australia Submarine Pact Targets China’s Undersea Weakness - WSJ

  12. #112
    Thailand Expat
    Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:05 PM
    Location
    In the EU
    Posts
    9,974
    The French failed to deliver on budget and local work. They were warned enough times. They deserve to lose the contract. Well done to the Aussies in finding a way out.

    It'll take a couple of years before the French contract can be fully terminated. Not sure how much that will cost but it was already nearly double original budget and likely to rise further.

    That'll teach the froggies...

  13. #113
    Thailand Expat
    taxexile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    17,098
    MICRON SPITS DUMMY AND THROWS TOYS OUT OF THE PRAM



    France is not a reliable partner to the English-speaking defenders of freedom

    Macron only has himself to blame for what his foreign minister described as a 'stab in the back'

    DANIEL HANNAN
    18 September 2021 • 1:02pm

    Right on cue, Emmanuel Macron has demonstrated why the Anglosphere democracies do not see him as a reliable partner. In an act of almost comical sulkiness, he has withdrawn his ambassadors from Canberra and Washington, peeved at being frozen out of the AUKUS defence deal. By way of perspective, consider that he is happy to leave his ambassadors in place in Moscow and Beijing.

    This is not the first time that Macron has ordered French envoys home in a fit of pique. He withdrew his ambassador from Rome after an Italian politician supported the gilets jaunes, and withdrew his ambassador from Ankara when President Erdogan suggested he might be a bit bonkers.

    Macron is incandescent about the formalisation of a naval pact among the three foremost English-speaking powers. The AUKUS alliance is as deep as any that exists among independent states. It provides for the exchange of scientific and military know-how, even of nuclear technology. Its first project is to furnish Australia with a nuclear-powered submarine fleet, an initiative that will create jobs in Barrow and Glasgow, although the final assembly of the vessels will happen in Adelaide.

    AUKUS is, on every level, a positive development, a sign that there are still some grown-ups patrolling the playground. Australia will become only the seventh state with a nuclear-powered fleet – quite a statement in the disputed waters of the Pacific. The problem, from Paris’s perspective, is that that deal supplants a previous agreement whereby Australia was supposed to buy diesel-powered subs from France.

    News of the pact had France’s leaders (to employ the joke Franglais that Boris sometimes uses) soufflant leurs hauts. Jean-Yves Le Drian, the foreign minister, called it a “stab in the back.” France’s former ambassador to the US, the reliably pompous Gérard Araud, said it was “a low moment”. Bruno Tertrais, from the Fondation pour le Recherche Stratégique, described it as “a Trafalgar-like blow.”

    One senses that the French are almost enjoying their anger. It is only human to feel a certain righteous glow when your intuitions seem vindicated, and here is an apparent confirmation of every French prejudice about perfidious Anglo-Saxons. Never mind that, as Australian politicians patiently point out, the contractors had fallen behind schedule. This wasn’t primarily about submarines. It was about a series of more abstract concepts that matter very much to our neighbours: le rang, la gloire, l’amour-propre.

    Placeholder image for youtube video: C1dSAuWtYmQ
    Still, it is worth considering why the Anglosphere leaders acted as they did. France, after all, is one of the few countries in the world capable of projecting global naval force, and has significant territories in the Pacific. Why was it not considered a core ally?

    Much of the answer has to do with Macron’s bellicosity towards Britain over the past four years. Again and again, he strained the patience of other EU leaders by picking fights even when there was no European interest at stake. From military satellites to the Irish border, he took up needlessly hardline positions for their own sake.

    His objection to equivalence in financial services has arguably hurt EU firms more than it has London banks. His petulant questioning of AstraZeneca’s efficacy fuelled vaccine hesitancy in Africa, and almost certainly caused needless deaths.

    On two occasions, first during the Brexit talks and then during the fisheries clash with Jersey, he threatened to cut off cross-channel electricity supplies – the kind of aggression we associate with Vladimir Putin. None of these things, to phrase this as gently as I can, is the act of a reliable ally.

    Indeed, at the very moment when the three Anglosphere leaders were sitting down to seal the deal at June’s G7 summit in Cornwall, the French president was ranting about keeping English sausages out of Northern Ireland. The contrast could hardly have been clearer.

    But it would be wrong to put all this down to the personality of one president. France’s diplomatic and political elites have generally taken Macron’s line, as have most Eurocrats – although, significantly, not most European national governments. Josep Borrell, the hapless old boob who serves as the EU’s foreign minister, declared himself miffed that he had not been consulted in advance, a sentiment widely echoed in Brussels.

    Perhaps we are seeing the re-emergence of an older division, a division that was concealed by the exigencies of the Cold War, but that never went away. Britain and its Anglosphere allies have traditionally thought in maritime terms, whereas France’s outlook has tended to be continental. It was precisely this difference in world-view that Charles de Gaulle cited when explaining his decision to veto Britain’s first two applications for EEC membership.

    Britain and France have a necessarily complicated relationship. We have not exchanged hostile fire since 1815 – unless you count the sinking of the French fleet at Oran in 1940 after it refused to scuttle, an episode about which the less said the better. Indeed, we have been allies (more or less) since 1904. Yet, for much of that time, we were frenemies, jostling for commercial and diplomatic advantage even as we recognised that, when the chips were down, we shared an interest in each other’s success.

    One of the occasions when we deployed military force together was the joint invasion of Suez in 1956, which ended in failure for want of American support – a decision Eisenhower regretted to his dying day. The UK and France drew radically differing conclusions from that débâcle.

    The British believed that the breakdown in communications between London and Washington had been disastrous, and that the triumph of freedom in the world depended on a closer Anglo-American alliance. The French, by contrast, concluded that the United States could not be relied on, and that their security depended upon building and leading a European bloc. The Treaty of Rome was signed the following year.

    As long as Soviet tanks were massed beyond the Elbe, these differences were, if not completely forgotten, at least deferred. France withdrew from Nato’s integrated command, but still carried herself as a member of the Western alliance – a difficult and independent-minded member, to be sure, but, in the last analysis, a member prepared to do her bit. Britain, for her part, saw the defence of Western Europe as her primary strategic goal, withdrawing from her Asian and African bases so as to be able to afford her Nato commitments.

    Diplomatic assumptions can last for decades after their original rationale has passed, but the overshoot does not go on forever. The end of the Cold War allowed France to think once again in continental terms, and Britain once again to raise her eyes to the open main. We have moved, very suddenly, back into a multi-polar world, a world of shifting alliances and interests. The collapse of the USSR removed Nato’s primary purpose and released its members to pursue different paths. As geographical proximity loses its importance, Britain has joined the United States in a Pacific pivot.

    To a certain kind of Frenchman, that strategy is further proof that the British have contracted out their foreign policy to Washington. Indeed, some Elysée officials were spinning the decision to leave their London legation unchanged as a subtle snub, a sign that they regarded Britain as an American colony, not worth quarrelling with in her own right. On Friday evening, France’s minister for European affairs, Clément Beaune, described British policy as a form of “accepted vassal status” under the US.

    What never seems to occur to these clever énarques is that Britain, the United States and Australia, because they have a shared political heritage, tend to approach problems in the same way. They value, because their institutions have taught them to value, personal freedom. They acknowledge a responsibility to uphold, as far as they can, a law-based and liberal international order. They are prepared to stand up to bullies – especially when one of their own is being targeted.

    Australia has been subjected to diplomatic and economic sanctions from Beijing since it called for an international investigation into the origins of Covid-19. Britain could not, in conscience, leave its ally unsupported. If that meant helping her acquire the most effective submarines, so be it.

    Australia is in a dangerous neighbourhood. China’s vast territorial ambitions leave it with hostile claims, not only against contiguous countries, but against the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei. The Anglosphere allies are not the aggressors here.

    Still, someone has to step up and preserve international law. Someone has to uphold the rights of small countries threatened by overweening neighbours. Someone has to protect the principles of national sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction.

    Not for the first time, it seems that the responsibility for defending liberty has fallen to the English-speaking democracies.

    France is not a reliable partner to the English-speaking defenders of freedom
    an excellent result thanks to some good work by those of the anglosphere.
    the aussies want proper submarines with cruise missiles, not old tech diesel ones reeking of garlic, cheese and feet.
    whilst the powerful and influential were dealing with real issues, macron was plotting and scheming on ways to keep british sausages out of ireland.

    the daft gerontophile should have kept his eye on the ball.

    macrons humiliation and pique is a rare joy to be savoured in these bleak times of covid.
    let him eat cake.

  14. #114
    Thailand Expat russellsimpson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:59 AM
    Posts
    1,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceman123 View Post
    At this stage it’s a win win - US gets presence in the pacific region and Oz just has to pay paltry comp to the French.
    I think the bigger issue has little to do with the cost of the subs but rather the real harm that has been done to the western 'military alliance'. It seems that our American friends have pretty much concluded the deal in secret from other NATO partners. The French are obviously livid. Germany and Italy are not pleased and even close allies like Canada have had their noses put out of joint. As I have mentioned before, after the massive debacle that was the withdrawal from Afghanistan one would have thought long and hard before entering into the new arrangement. It's not so much what was done but rather the manner in which it was done, in relative secrecy from NATO allies. Maybe the US feels that NATO has run its course but if that is the case there are better ways of informing its partners. It's becoming increasingly unclear about what American foreign policy is, maybe it's a work in progress. Get it together America, let's shoot for some consistency in foreign policy, the partners are pissed off and nervous. It will be interesting to see what will happen the next time the Americans invoke article 5.


  15. #115
    Thailand Expat helge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    7,212
    Quote Originally Posted by taxexile View Post
    an initiative that will create jobs in Barrow and Glasgow

    Quote Originally Posted by taxexile View Post
    His petulant questioning of AstraZeneca’s efficacy fuelled vaccine hesitancy in Africa, and almost certainly caused needless deaths.
    Ouch ! Still hurts
    Quote Originally Posted by taxexile View Post
    described British policy as a form of “accepted vassal status” under the US.
    Fact (aren't we all more or less)
    Quote Originally Posted by taxexile View Post
    macrons humiliation and pique is a rare joy to be savoured in these bleak times of covid.
    let him eat cake.
    Better that than eating crow, I guess

    Let's see what kind of revenge they have for you.

    It won't be banning of english sausages

    Bon appetit

  16. #116
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    80,090
    Quote Originally Posted by russellsimpson View Post
    Germany and Italy are not pleased and even close allies like Canada have had their noses put out of joint.
    Germany can fuck off because if they respected NATO they wouldn't be falling for Putin's cheap tricks with his gas.

    Italy? No-one gives a fuck about Italy.

    As for Canada, Trudeau has already said he's quite happy with what they get out of Five Eyes and they don't give a fuck about this deal as they have no interest in nuclear subs.

    It's quite obvious that the US doesn't think that Europe is pulling its weight, and they're probably right.

    Hopefully when the stupid French have finished bawling like schoolgirls, they and the hun will get the message.

  17. #117
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy View Post
    The French failed to deliver on budget and local work. They were warned enough times. They deserve to lose the contract.
    Yep as i said earlier, they only have themselves to blame. Of course as is their MO, they will stalk around tossing their toys about like Micron is already doing and blaming everyone but themselves.

  18. #118
    Thailand Expat helge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    7,212
    Quote Originally Posted by malmomike77 View Post
    Yep as i said earlier, they only have themselves to blame. Of course as is their MO, they will stalk around tossing their toys about like Johnson is already doing and blaming everyone but themselves.
    Shouldn't this be in the Brexit thread ?


  19. #119
    Chinese spy sabang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:06 PM
    Location
    BackinOz
    Posts
    34,635
    Hopefully when the stupid French have finished bawling like schoolgirls, they and the hun will get the message.
    That their best future is to look East? Could well be.


    Militarily, the decision to obtain nuclear propelled subs is only a good thing. Even more so when the sole sub base on this island continent is on the diametrically opposite corner to where their main deployment will be (a future cost consideration now very much in the wings). It was only ever civilian political issues that kept this off the table.

    But of course, that begs the question why then the RAN could not proceed with the French subs as contracted- but the original nuclear propelled version, not the namby pamby diesel electric modification for delicate nuclear free aussies. There is no question the French were ambushed, and stabbed in the back. I don't think this was really necessary- it could have been handled better.

    It all reeks of partisan, electoral politics to me- as does most everything with this Morrison government. The "Big Announcement", designed to give them a short term boost at the ballot (useful, with the Covid protests and general disgruntlement mounting). Save the details- and rapidly spiralling costs incurred over several generations- for later. The aussie taxpayer has literally just written a blank cheque. They do not know what they have let themselves in for- and neither, frankly, does the government.

    So that is the thin end of a wedge if ever I've seen one. But there is another, which I'm not actually opposed to. You see, we are officially no longer a 'nuclear free Australia'. Sure, the pollies are driving home the narrative 'strictly no nukes aboard'- but how easily could that change, with US/UK nuclear propelled subs and weapons systems? About as easily as changing the missiles. More to the point, to even vaguely meet it's carbon emission targets, I've long speculated that we are gonna need to embrace nuclear power generation in future.....
    Last edited by sabang; 19-09-2021 at 12:26 AM.

  20. #120
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,014
    Its hilarious that Jarden thinks making a statement about not allowing Nuc subs in NZ waters has any impact, firstly she wouldn't know and that's the whole point, and secondly she's had them in NZ waters every year for the last 50 years, dozy bitch.

  21. #121
    Thailand Expat helge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    7,212
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    It's quite obvious that the US doesn't think that Europe is pulling its weight, and they're probably right.
    Maybe

    That said, we have to take into consideration, that there is an american arms prodution, that needs work.

    And

    Is the US armed forces effective and competent enough, compared to Europe ? Bang for the buck !

    Can Europe compete, and will they, with the american spending on consultants, outside "entrepreneurs"and indirectly paying an oversized army of lobbyists ?

    I'm sure that there are others here on TD than myself, who has worked either for or in the US millitary, and can confirm that it's a big hole, that swallows up all the good money you can pour in.

    At times a shameful waste (other millitaries too), a culture of "who gives a shit, it's not my money", carreer nothings who skate through life on the taxpayers bill.

    And lawnmowers to Thule Air Base !


  22. #122
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    But of course, that begs the question why then the RAN could not proceed with the French subs as contracted- but the original nuclear propelled version, not the namby pamby diesel electric modification for delicate nuclear free aussies.
    2 reasons; firstly the AUSUK alliance carries much more weight than a pact with the frogs, secondly as i pointed out and so did Troy the frogs have ramped their original costs significantly and that is for conventional tech power, what happens when you add nuc kettles?

  23. #123
    Thailand Expat helge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    7,212
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    It all reeks of partisan, electoral politics to me
    If you smell a rat, it's either there, or some some laotians has moved in next door.

    (a poor joke, Wilson )

  24. #124

  25. #125
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,014
    The froggie, Germands and Surrenders still haven't worked out that this is a shot across their bows for under fundning NATO and lack of physical military contributions for the last 20 years...a la EU...God they really think they can just live in their EU bubble and the world swoons around them.



    Aukus: France’s ambassador recall is ‘tip of the iceberg’, say analysts

    France’s historic decision to recall its ambassadors to the US and Australia is far more than a diplomatic spat, analysts have warned.

    The move, in protest at Canberra’s surprise decision to cancel an order for French-built submarines and its security pact with Washington and London, will affect France and Europe’s role in Nato and already strained relations with the UK.

    French officials have accused Australia, the US and the UK of behaving in an underhand, duplicitous manner that has betrayed and humiliated France.

    A visibly angry Jean-Yves le Drian, the French foreign minister, accused the Americans and Australians of “lies and duplicity” over the Aukus deal. And he warned: “It’s not finished.”

    Le Drian said Australia had told France that it was breaking the submarine contract and making a new deal with the US and UK just one hour before Scott Morrison, the Australian PM, announced it at a press conference.

    “That is why I say there has been duplicity, contempt and lies, and when you have an ally of the stature of France, you don’t treat them like that,” Le Drian said.

    Asked if there had been a failure of French intelligence in uncovering the secret deal, he replied: “The agreement project initiated by the US and Australia was decided by a small group and I’m not sure US and Australian ministers knew about it.

    “When we see the US president with the Australian prime minister announce a new agreement, with Boris Johnson, the breach of trust is profound. In a real alliance you talk to each other, you don’t hide things, you respect the other party, and that is why this is a real crisis.”

    Le Drian rejected suggestions that France was isolated in the European Union in its response to the Aukus deal, the foreign minister said: “I don’t believe we are alone in this affair. It’s not finished.”

    Asked why France had not recalled its ambassador to the UK, Le Drian went on to say Britain’s role was “opportunistic” and described the country as “the fifth wheel on the wagon”.

    “The UK accompanied this operation opportunistically,” a French diplomatic source told Reuters. “We do not need to consult in Paris with our ambassador to know what to think and what conclusions to draw from it.”

    “This is far more than just a diplomatic spat. The withdrawal of ambassadors is the tip of the iceberg,” Peter Ricketts, a former permanent undersecretary at the Foreign Office and former UK ambassador to France, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

    “There is a deep sense of betrayal in France because this wasn’t just an arms contract, this was France setting up a strategic partnership with Australia and the Australians have now thrown that away and negotiated behind the backs of France with two Nato allies, the US and UK, to replace it with a completely different contract.

    “For the French this looks like a complete failure of trust between allies and calls into doubt what is Nato for. This puts a big rift down the middle of the Nato alliance … Britain needs a functioning Nato alliance.”

    Ricketts added: “I think people underestimated the impact that this would have in France and how this would seem as a humiliation and betrayal in a year President Macron is running for election in a very tight race with the far right.”

    The historic order to recall France’s ambassadors came directly from Macron. A spokesperson for the Elysée said the “seriousness” of the situation required the president’s response. “Beyond the question of the breach of a contract and its consequences, particularly in terms of jobs, there is what this decision says about the alliance strategy. [Such behaviour] is unacceptable between allies,” the Elysée said.

    The French are furious at Australia’s decision to cancel a A$90bn (£48bn) contract that it signed with the French company Naval Group in 2016 for a fleet of 12 state-of-the-art attack class submarines. That deal became bogged down in cost overruns, delays and design changes. Naval Group said the new deal that will see Canberra acquire nuclear-powered submarines built by the US and UK, instead of those from France, was a “great disappointment”.

    Le Drian had already described the trilateral Aukus security pact – including the submarine deal – as a “stab in the back”.

    “The abandoning of the ocean-class submarine project that linked Australia and France since 2016, and the announcement of a new partnership with the United States to launch studies on possible future cooperation on nuclear-powered submarines, constitute unacceptable behaviour between allies and partners, the consequences of which affect the very conception we have of our alliances, our partnerships and the importance of the Indo-Pacific region for Europe,” he added.

    France is also furious at what it sees as the dishonesty of statements coming out of Australia, whose the prime minister, Scott Morrison, said Canberra wanted nuclear submarines “with more autonomy and more discreet than the conventional submarines that France proposed”.

    France says it altered the design of its nuclear submarines to diesel because that is what Australia wanted and ordered.

    In terms of the Indo-Pacific partnership, France is a natural ally for Australia as it has overseas territories home to more than 1.6 million French citizens in the region. Paris also has a significant military presence there, with 8,000 soldiers and dozens of ships, including nuclear submarines, positioned in several bases.

    Nathalie Goulet, an opposition member and vice-president of the French Sénat’s foreign affairs, defence and armed forces commission, said the situation was “very disturbing”. “Someone should have warned before this breach of contract … I don’t understand this couldn’t have happened overnight,” she said.

    “It’s a failure for industry, intelligence and communication and a public humiliation … and nobody likes to be humiliated, even the French.”

    It is the first time France has recalled a US ambassador; the two countries have been allies since the US war of independence. France also cancelled a gala due to be held on Friday to commemorate the anniversary of the Battle of Chesapeake Bay, a decisive event in the war, which ended with the French fleet’s victory over the British on 5 September 1781.

    A White House official told Reuters that the US regretted the French decision and said Washington had been in close touch with Paris. The official said the US would be engaged in the coming days to resolve differences between the two countries.

    The Australian foreign affairs minister, Marise Payne, in Washington, said she understood the “disappointment” in Paris and hoped to work with France to ensure it understands “the value we place on the bilateral relationship and the work that we want to continue to do together”.

    Aukus: France’s ambassador recall is ‘tip of the iceberg’, say analysts | France | The Guardian

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •