Gloire Macron non ! (Cartoon courtesy India's ThePrint.)
---
On September 18, 2021, John Keiger, former Professor
of French History at the University
of Cambridge, wrote the following essay for
the UK SPECTATOR:
"The real reason France was excluded from
Aukus
The fallout from Australia’s cancellation of its
submarine contract with France and the new trilateral Indo-Pacific security
pact between Australia, the US and the UK continues. France has recalled its
ambassadors from Canberra and Washington (though significantly not from London)
for ‘immediate consultations’; the well-worn diplomatic gesture of discontent.
This is the first occasion ever in over two centuries of Franco-American
friendship.
Last night in another outburst of petulance, the
French embassy in Washington cancelled the gala to celebrate Franco-American
friendship. The festivities were to mark the 240th anniversary of the crucial
Battle of the Capes when the French navy defeated its British counterpart in
defence of American independence.
Compared to the present it is a poignant historical
example of how, to paraphrase Lord Palmerston, diplomatic and military
alliances are never permanent, only interests. France, after all abandoned
its western allies in 1966 when it withdrew at short notice from Nato’s
integrated military command. Today at the core of all this turmoil is the
rising power of China. It is a historical truism that rising powers force
diplomatic and military realignments.
History is replete with examples of states that
underestimated the capacity of the international system to coalesce or realign
rapidly in the face of rising and threatening powers. Prussian victory over the
French in 1871 created a powerful Germany, whose rise and rise inevitably
caused the international system to adjust by diplomatic and military
realignments.
Sometimes this occurred slowly (the 1892
Franco-Russian alliance and the 1904 Entente Cordiale) sometimes brutally (the
1939 Nazi Soviet pact and the June 1941 Anglo-Soviet agreement). Then
expediency trumped ideology. Now it trumps friendship. This time France is the
loser. The historically attuned Macron of all people should now put this snap
diplomatic embarrassment behind him and work constructively with Aukus. But the
new architecture of the Indo-Pacific will not be easy to negotiate.
What the three Anglosphere states in the
Aukus pact have put together is a loose, flexible and nimble arrangement for
managing Indo-Pacific security directly. This is something that is second
nature to states of a culture that General de Gaulle always referred to as ‘Anglo-Saxon’.
It is just the kind of arrangement that is anathema to the formal, rational and
legalistic method of the French and their cultural offshoot the EU, whose modus
operandi was best demonstrated by the glacial formalism applied to the Brexit
negotiations.
This clash of cultures – or cultures at cross purposes
– was demonstrated prior to the First World War, when following the 1904
informal Entente Cordiale France was desperate for a formal binding written
commitment from London to side with her in the event of a German attack.
Britain would only agree to wait and see. This was a problem France also
experienced in the interwar years. Then to cap it all, Aukus is a club within
another very exclusive culturally defined Anglosphere club that has existed since
the Second World War and that has never had France as a member, the ‘Five Eyes’
(with New Zealand and Canada).
Aukus members probably wanted France in the pact.
Diplomatically and militarily she has much to offer in terms of naval
projection, nuclear submarines and weapons, intelligence and physical presence
by dint of her overseas territories in the south Pacific. But wishing to react
rapidly, they were probably anxious about her cultural proclivity to define
every term, role and eventuality. The crucial problem for France is that by her
own admission the Australian deal wasn’t merely about submarines. It was the
keystone in a regional security edifice carefully pieced together that will now
have to be remodelled completely, were that possible. This is the source of
their disappointment and public outrage.
The second problem for Paris is that Aukus
is not just a coalition of three. It will be the nexus of a much broader web
drawing in other informal regional groupings with varied objectives from security
to trade, such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, of US, Japan,
India and Australia, or the 12 nation Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement
which includes the US (albeit withdrawn under Trump), Australia, Japan,
Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand and a pending UK membership.
France could now find herself outside
these concentric circles. Her only full access would be by
belated invitation to the sanctum sanctorum of Aukus. But as a late joiner she
might be required to be amenable on other matters, for instance smoothing the
way for an adjustment of the Northern Ireland Protocol (see my recent Coffee
House piece). Heaven forfend that French membership – other than generating the
unfortunate acronym of Faukus – be viewed as the EU’s Trojan Horse
similar to General de Gaulle viewing Britain as America’s Trojan Horse on
London’s application to join the Common Market.
What Macron does next is therefore key. With the
presidential election campaign unofficially underway and France about to take
up the presidency of the EU council for six months, he is certain to make
grandiloquent statements about France and Europe’s only salvation lying in
European ‘strategic autonomy’ from the US and Nato. But Macron knows in his
heart of hearts, like his French predecessors, that this has been on the cards
since the French inspired – and French scuppered – European Defence Community
of 1954 and that it will go nowhere during his mandate.
What's more, an EU defence and security role in the
Indo-Pacific will go no further than gesture politics, as only France has the
capability to deploy in the area. Macron will have to swallow his pride and go
with Aukus. The fact that the French Ambassador in London was not recalled
suggests that he knows how to go about that.”
Pete Comment
Macron’s proclivity
To spit the dummy
Is finicky stupidity.
14 comments:
Hi Pete
Again the Australophile..
A very good article that rightfully points to a fews elements
-It correctly assess that the "submarine row" was not so much about the commercial aspect as to the Fr"exclusion of Aukus" (where it recognized French interest(certainly more than the UK) and potential contributions.Conversely this show implicitely the error of not having an upfront discussion on the commercial deal
-Its historical persepectives are correct.However it is colored by the traditionnal Franco/British love hate /relationship in the British nationalist perspective(The Spectator!)BTW we have the same in France...
It misses ,as the British for the last 60 years the profound nature of the EU,as if Macron alone could manipulate 350M people and their democratic governments..("Fog on the Channel , continent isolated!")
-More important it defines Aukus as a cultural alliance to build a security pact in the Indo Pacific area., hence the French exclusion for cultural differences (which are real although should not be exagerated..)He misses the "Elephant in the room".
The security of the area threatened by China emerging imperialism is first and foremost the matter of India, Indonesia,Australia,Malaysia , Vietnam..and to a small extent France
As they do not share "the culture" they are excluded but might join later "at the club conditions"..
How do they feel?It remind them of something from the past that was not always very pleasant!
We went back into full circle after the article on the Salomon Island. The peaceful integration of Australia with its neighbors.Geography and demography again..
will the US in the next 40 years still be "anglosaxon"?
To be fair Pete, I think it is a tad unfair to blame France 100%. In good grace, it needs to be conceded that, at a bare minimum, Canberra could have been more forthcoming about the communication regarding why Aukus was needed. A logical explanation was possible and from a diplomatic perspective, preferable.
That Dutton, Scotty and the rest of the motley crew were utterly cack handed about the shortfin barracuda mess is undeniable. The RAN and Aus Gov had their own nuke vs diesel sub argument with the latter getting selected first and then the 'switch' to the former was made.
While the switch to me is a logical one given the changed dynamics of the region (esp. post Solomon islands cocking a snook with the Chinese deal), that communication channels were mishandled shouldn't be forgotten in the rush to pile scorn on the French.
In any case, one thing is clear, if China builds a 'port and refueling station' in the Solomon Islands ala Hambantota/Gwadar, Canberra will be forced to permanently spend 4-5% of GDP on defence. 12 plus SSNs (using rule of thirds and patrol needs), a beefed up air force and naval air arm... etc... the costs are going to be significant. BAE-HII-EB all should busy themselves cranking out SSNs from their assembly lines.
One hopes the Chinese don't decide to 'shake the hornet's nest' in the second island chain, though it increasingly seems clear that, au contraire, they will indeed brew a devil's concoction in the second island chain sometime in the next decade or so.
I think you might have missed that India is pushing for France to be in the Quad if Americans and Aussie want the UK in it.
There are a lot of problems that France is facing, firstly it is incapable to do maneuvering in Asia because of the restrictions the EU poses. And not even capable of taking decisions (like FTA). There is a limit on India to help out France in Indo-Pacific if the French are incapable to make those decisions.
Let's see what happens
@Anon
Hambantota is dead, and it's a white elephant. and it never be a military port. Indians made it clear, that we are ready to do regime change in SL if SL ever allowed such activities.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sri-lanka-election-india-insight-idUSKBN0KR03020150118
And now after Indian bailouts, there be a de facto Indian base inside SL.
https://www.sundaytimes.lk/220306/news/india-imposes-tough-conditions-for-us-1-billion-loan-475485.html
Here demands of India
If one looks closer, Indian plans were quite successful in Nepal and Maldives. Aussies should follow similar policies.
Pete
Regardless of the rights and wrong s of how AUKUS was done, this story is relevant and pretty interesting: Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty is visiting UK to talk to BAE, UK MoD, and "other companies" that could be involved in the RAN SSN build. Would that be Rolls Royce for supplying reactors?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-26/defence-secretary-greg-moriarty-visits-uk/101013586
The Solomon Islands deal with China is regrettable but if it has finally lit a fire under Defence to sort out delivery of both the frigates and subs that is a good thing.
Again, regardless of the past decisions, and noting Arpit's comments, I hope at this point, as a minimum, Australia proceeds to equip our current and future SSN bases so that they can sustain French SSNs as well as RAN, RN and USN SSNs.
Hi Arpit,
Yes and No will be my answer. Hambantota port and airport were 'white elephants' by design. China never seriously thought of their commercial viability as the goal was always military. China has listening posts all the way to Tricomanlee, which is the reason India saw red as it is close to the ELF SSBN communications base INS Kattabomman and also not so far from the IUSS extension to Chennai (Japan-Malacca-Chennai IUSS, likely to be used by the Quad). PLAN berthing Type 093Gs there was a deliberate message sent to India...
(the message was our SSN based CJ-10 LACMs can now target peninsular India if need be)
However, now, Sri Lanka is likely to pay heed and not cause additional damage. But, it would be dangerously naive to think China will not leverage the 99 year Hambantota port lease to the hilt. The damage, imho, is already done. The Hambantota bamboo is firmly inside the Chinese panda's mouth and there is not much we can do about that fact.
(Indian posts etc are in SL since a long time...the problem is the Chinese have their hooks in now and the technology gap is now becoming alarming)
Problems facing IN:
1.Indian P-8s and MH-60s are technically inferior robbing them of the most important lethality factor, that of precision weapon strike on potential Chinese CBGs from long range (by that I mean in excess of 200-300 nm Stand off range).
To highlight, For all the goo gah we hear from US, the MH-60s effective radar range is max 70 nm and the P-8s despite higher radar range have no precision guidance or SLAM-ER like missile capability and neither are they currently capable of guiding Nirbhays or Brahmos on ASuW missions. Plus, the NSM on offer is also a stubby with < 100 nm strike range.
(The Indian P-8 is like a Ferrari with three cylinders disabled but IN is supposed to feel giddy about the superb jazzy flashy looking disc cover on the tyres)
(The Indian media is like a teenage girl after 4 shots of tequila, they can be talked into believing anything and they dutifully gush...but Rajnath Singh and IN know better)
2. Additionally, Indian ships and CBGs have a woeful shortage of critical equipment such as capable VDS or Variable Depth Sonar (Active Sonar), EA-18 Growler like EW aircraft to counter the naval version of JT-16Ds and Chinese E-2D equivalents and not to mention long range torpedoes. They should have gone for a 100-150 F-21 Artemis deal with the Scorpenes...besides ordering more advanced Seahakes for the Type-209s.
3. It bears repeating, unless the US bites the bullet wrt the Quad and does two things, A. Supply proper capable weapons with EUMA and B. Stay away from hypocritical grandstanding on 'democracy' and 'rule of law' etc.... perhaps Biden could get himself a big mirror. sigh!
PS: Indian plans were successful in Nepal and Maldives, yes and no again. Here too, China has a firm camp that supports it just like Solomon islands.
Hi Pete,
Nothing to add regarding AUKUS, just thanks for loading the article. Good read.
As an aside, being culturally similar has to make a difference, when making an alliance. I mean sure, you can chop and change, but it does make it easier to get together when interests align. If nothing else, you don't need interpreters, making organising meetings and discussions easier. You can just go into the meeting by yourselves. You just pick up the phone and have a chat. You can eat similar foods, know some of each other's slang, etc.
Have a good week,
Andrew
Hi Australophile Anonymous [at Apr 26, 2022, 5:43:00 PM]
Thanks for your tolerance of me occasionally descending to Prime Minister Morrison's base "diplomatic" level.
On the whole the then Prime Minister, Turnbull, made a hasty selection of Naval Group/DCNS in 2016 for mainly Federal Election winning reasons as they applied to seats in submarine building Adelaide, South Australia.
If people had accepted my faux "Cabinet Brief" https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2016/04/what-should-be-in-brief-to-cabinet-on.html written just before the selection then the SSK shortlist would have been Naval Group vs TKMS for several years.
Over those years the China threat may have been assessed as warranting SSNs for Australia. This would then have involved cancelling the SSK and (who knows) Australia might have asked Naval Group to consider offering the Nuclear Barracuda.
Oh well such is history - I say with 20/20 hindsight.
Yes more than 1,000 years of Anglo vs French distrust doesn't help.
++++++++++++++
Naval Group (NG) has been unfairly scapegoated because the oft quoted A$90 Billion was to be a 80 year program cost including Australian operation of the Attacks (over which NG would have no control).
Also:
- upfront costs attributed to NG covered many Australian subcontractors for such diverse things as construction of Osborne shipyard facilities and main batteries.
- 1/3rd of upfront purchase costs would have gone to Lockheed Martin (and its Australian and other US suppliers) for the Combat System.
++++++++++++++++
Re "a security pact in the Indo Pacific area"
AUKUS is more a highly sensitive weapons development agreement.
AUKUS doesn't even include NZ or Canada (as the UK and US don't see them as operating SSNs). I don't think France would be invited as a recipient of UK/US SSN technology.
In 2016 there were US reservations over France obtaining too much information concerning the US nuclear sub and Attack class Combat System. US reservations would even be more intense concerning release of quieting and US/UK reactor details to France.
France being in the Quad is much more doable. This might morph into the long anticipated Indo-Pacific "NATO". Of course against China and North Korea and
now it would be wise to be concerned about Putin/Russia's Pacific Fleet and eastern Siberian land and air forces.
Vietnam's long history of buying Russian ships and Kilo subs might complicate Vietnam's status in such a "NATO". India is weighing up such issues more than India admits.
As well as for we Anglos China based in the Solomons might equally constitue a problem for France's neaby New Caledonian (and broader Pacific) interests.
We live in interesting times.
Cheers Pete
@Galib
I disagree with this analysis. It's a lease, it is not like China claimed sovereignty. They can nationalize it any day they want, what do the Chinese do then? SL, China are all going to play games, as we would.
To clarify it, all naval bases for permanent deployment need huge harbors, be it artificial or natural. As we see in Karwar or Mumbai, we needed to build huge breakwaters or natural harbors like in Vizag or Norfolk. Further, you need huge logistical centers and repair shops.
Hambantota is nowhere ready as a Naval base, and by location of it, I don't think it ever be. Further, what did PLAN achieve by deploying ships there? You be sitting between Deigo Garcia and Indian bases, it is a very horrific position for a base. You not going to get any reinforcement, as SLOC going to be cut, while US and Indian forces bomb the shit out of it.
On point of SSN, the Chinese only wanted replenishment services from SL for long voyages, whenever they deploy SSN in IOR, now they have to go to Karachi. We also going to need similar services from Vietnam or Ph, when our SSNs operationalize. But this doesn't translate into a naval base,, even US ship replenishes from Indian ports and bases, that doesn't mean the US has a base in India.
But SL even stopped that, so there is no worry or panic. Hambantota is a white elephant, we should actually say to the Chinese please build more ports like Hambantota.
And obviously, our underwater capabilities are abysmal, that's why all our capital ships are multi-role, unlike the west which focuses on AAD and AAF (the reason the low number of Barak-8).
And this confidence only going to increase after SSN. Leave aircraft carriers and else, that not going to add anything to our national security. We need SSNs ASAP, and our own, not Russians ( who add their own restrictions).
In Nepal, I say, we realized by 2015, if we not going to anything, the Chinese going to sit on Nepal India border, that's why even we baiting the CIA against MSS.
https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2022/04/22/us-china-rivalry-complicates-development-aid-in-nepal/
In Australia. the Solomon is only happening because Aussies allowed it, in their own high standard of morality that we shouldn't intervene. This should be a wake-up call for ASIO, and I am quite sure they become quite active in this region for good.
Hi Pete
No problem if arguments are clear and expressed in a civilized manners
One comment about Vietnam.It has always been in confrontation with China for all its history(except during the 1950/1974 period where they needed China for the transfer of Soviet help part of the cold war
In fact in the late 18th to Mid 19th centuries French influence under the Nguyen dynasty was welcomed and used to fight Chinese pushes (Gialong reign)It was ambiguous and the "protector"took the effective power as a full fledge colonial power de facto at the end of the 19 th century.In 1979 The Chinese army and the Vietnamese fought a bloody war in the the North with Langson, Cao Bang and Lao Cai destroyed and ending up to 1991 in a draw
The old generation of Vietnamese communists had a very different history than the Chinese one
They were up to 1930 , intimately linked to the early Kommintern in Europe and fundamuntaly loyal to the soviets (Ho Ch Minh was in 1920 one of the founder of the French communist party in 1920 in Tours..)With the new generation and the fall of the party in the 90 in Russia they have become more pragmatic but always concerned about China and even more for the last 10 years
The replacement of their russian arsenal has started , they are now a large Israeli customer, and in the aerospace sector a key Airbus customer.The Ukraine story were many parts are sourced in Ukraine (helicopters?) , plus their economic proximity with SK, Japan, Taiwan does the rest
It seems that there are a lot of contacts with western suppliers , French in particular
Pete
Looks like you were correct about the Defence Secretary’s trip and the Hunter/Type26 Frigate contract.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-hunter-class-frigate-program-must-be-stopped-and-redirected/
Its not a good look. At this point I have to say I am getting pretty concerned about Defence’s ability to set a coherent direction in shipbuilding. What is the strategy they are trying to deliver? Clarity of purpose is needed if we are to order the right ships and subs.
Hi Anonymous [at Apr 27, 2022, 11:03:00 AM]
Yes "other companies" would include Rolls Royce supplying reactors. Note Rolls Royce has been/is the only UK company that has supplied UK sub reactors - this is since 1966 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_PWR
Any reports that Aus Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty also spent a similar amount of time visiting US SSN and reactor building companies would be interesting.
Regards Pete
Hi Anonymous [at Apr 28, 2022, 8:09:00 AM]
Yes on several occasions I've voiced or recorded problems with the future Hunter class frigates (derived from BAE's Type 26s)
See https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19245896&postID=3970899276651844699 about Greg Sheridan, The Australian, March 4, 2022 opines https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/a-wakeup-call-for-the-west-we-need-to-beef-up-our-defence/news-story/5cd7a7370a205ed96cfc9ad540e032b8 who said:
""Then there are the nine Hunter-class anti-submarine warfare frigates we plan to build. The [RAN] was told to choose a mature design and make minimum changes.
So it naturally rejected the Italian Fremm, which actually exists and was chosen by the US navy. It naturally rejected the Navantia bid, which would have used the hull we were familiar with building for our air warfare destroyers. Instead, prisoners of their deepest pathologies, the navy chose the British Type 26 frigate, which is still not finished with its design work even today and is not yet in service in the British navy.
We made so many modifications the notional frigate now weighs 10,000 tonnes and will be slow, cumbersome and uncompetitive. It will have a pitiful 32 vertical launch cells to fire missiles and only one helicopter to hunt subs. As an ASPI report observed: “Of all contemporary warships, it seems to be the most expensive for getting missiles to sea.” The project is already delayed by years. It will be a miracle if the first Hunter comes into service by the mid-2030s."
Pete Comment
I usually couch Hunter criticisms alongside BAE's poor early performance in building HMS Astute (way over due, over budget).
I'm always cynical that senior Aus DoD and RAN officials/officers verge on intentionally complicating Aus ship/sub building projects (mainly over major Aus only specs). This ensures said officials/officers have continued employment fixing project mistakes while they work in Government and continue that mistake fixing when those officials/officers are higher paid post career contractors.
Regards Pete
Hi Anonymous [Apr 27, 2022, 11:41:00 PM]
Interesting about France's Vietnam relationships and Ukraine shifting away from old Russian weapons. What I'm mainly interested in is how those countries that have bought Russian weapons will need to reorder their relations with Russia. This is if Putin maintains his anti-West posture over the medium-long term.
Russian arms buying countries mainly means India, China, Vietnam and to a lesser extent Indonesia. Who knows Russia may be waging war with Ukraine for many months even years. Even after Ukraine, with Putin at the helm Russia may be waging a semi-hot Cold War with Western interests for years.
The NATO and other powerful Western countries sanctions, supply chain problems, including spare parts as well as currencies to purchase Russian weapons may be problematic for Russian arms buying countries for many years.
Regards Pete
Dear Arpit,
I respectfully disagree. Look at Kyakuphyu port in Myanmar and Gwadar in Balochistan. Gwadar is literally a stone's throw from the fifth fleet base in Bahrain while Kyakhuphyu is not that far away from Andaman naval command and the listening posts of the extreme north islands of the Andaman.
The condition you claim about Diego Garcia is equally applicable to Gwadar for instance. So, the situation is more complicated. Even without needing to establish an open SSN base, China is already reaping many benefits of having a foothold in Lanka. In this naval chess game, unfortunately China has slipped a pawn near hostile territory.
Hambantota is developing exactly on similar lines as Gwadar... Chinese play the patient long term game very well. They took their time establishing an ELF station at Turbat in Balochistan and their presence grew slowly but systematically. I expect them to do something similar quietly and in a way that likely blunts any chance for India to protest openly. Another potential display of 'boil it just below the threshold' type operation.
Considering Uncle Sam's inability to stop self-engineering America's decline, I am afraid India has to defend itself more assertively. We are already facing huge dangers in the next 20 years due to a toxic mix of climate change, geopolitics likely to induce mass migrations from pakistan and bangaldesh...a tinderbox awaits us and it is getting bone drier by the minute....
Post a Comment