Why is France steaming over new AUKUS alliance and Australia’s submarine deal?
To be fair, despite the French outburst, there had been indications of problems with the project for several years now
Australia on Thursday decided to dump its contract with France to build diesel-electric submarines in favour of US’ nuclear-powered submarines because of a “changed strategic environment”.
And Paris is livid!
“It’s really a stab in the back. We had established a relationship of trust with Australia, this trust has been betrayed,” foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told France Info radio. “I’m very angry today, and bitter… this is not something allies do to each other,” he said.
“This unilateral, sudden and unforeseeable decision very much recalls what Mr Trump would do,” Le Drian added, referring to the previous US president Donald Trump who exasperated Europe with his unpredictable decision-making.
Overnight, France has gone from viewing Australia as a friend and ally to a nation that can’t be trusted.
Why is France angry?
France’s Naval Group, partly owned by the State, had been chosen to build 12 conventionally powered submarines to Australia, based on France’s Barracuda nuclear-powered subs in development. The contract was worth around Aus$50 billion (31 billion euros, $36.5 billion) when announced in 2016.
But US president Joe Biden and the prime ministers of Australia and Britain announced a new defence pact that would see Canberra get a nuclear-powered submarine fleet, a privilege reserved for few American allies.
But France says it was completely blindsided.
Bloomberg, quoting a source within the French manufacturer, said that the submarine deal would be scrapped came as a surprise to Naval Group. The source told the news agency that the company had met all its contractual obligations to date, from pricing to timelines and pledges for local production in Australia. It had expected commitments over 50 years under its contracts and would negotiate a breakup fee.
Besides this, French president Emmanuel Macron too had invested considerable political capital in the deal, touting it to be something more enduring than just another arms deal.
During his 2018 visit to Australia, which was only the second such trip by a French president at that time, Macron touted the creation of a new strategic alliance among like-minded democracies in Indo-Pacific, on the back of the Australian deal.
As recently as in June, Macron stuck up for Australia when it was locking horns with China over trade sanctions. Standing next to Morrison in the Elysee Palace courtyard, Macron vowed “we stand by your side”, declaring Canberra “central” to regional stability.
“You are at the forefront of the tensions that exist in the region, of the threats, and sometimes of the intimidation. I want to reiterate here how much we stand by your side,” he had said.
He also said France was committed to “defending the balance in the Indo-Pacific region” and stressed, “how much we consider the partnership we have with Australia to be at the heart of this Indo-Pacific strategy.”
Just two weeks before this heart-warming speech, secret negotiations had already begun that would lead up to the deal announced Thursday by Morrison, Joe Biden, and Boris Johnson.
AFP reported on 2 June, 14 days before Macron’s endearing declaration, that Australia was already considering alternatives to the multi-billion French deal.
It is hardly surprising then that France feels it was cheated out of one of the most lucrative defence deals it had signed with Canberra and was left politically humiliated on the global stage.
What’s Australia’s POV?
To be fair, despite the French outburst, there were indications of problems with the project for several years now.
The aforementioned AFP report cites years worth of delay, an overspilling budget, and a tangled mess of Australian domestic politics as some of the reasons Australia began looking for alternatives in the first place.
Australian media reports have indicated there were concerns in Canberra about extent of workshare given to Australian companies by Naval Group and delivery timelines and costs.
Morrison, in his clarification today, also said that he told Macron in June that there were “very real issues about whether a conventional submarine capability” would address Australia’s strategic security needs in the Indo-Pacific. What he did not say was that the country was actually considering walking out of the deal.
Against this backdrop, Thursday’s move underscores increasing concerns about China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region, where France is also looking to protect its interests that include the overseas territories of New Caledonia and French Polynesia.
Australia has spent 2.4 billion Australian dollars ($1.8 billion) on the project since the French won the contract in 2016.
Morrison said US nuclear submarine technology wasn’t an option open to Australia when the AU$56 billion ($43 billion) deal was struck in 2016. The United States had until now only shared the technology with Britain.
“Of course they’re disappointed,” Morrison said. “They’ve been good partners. This is about our strategic interest, our strategic capability requirements and a changed strategic environment and we’ve had to take that decision.”
“The decision we have made to not continue with the Attack Class submarine and to go down this path is not a change of mind, it’s a change of need,” he said.
“I understand that. I respect it. But as a prime minister I must make decisions that are in Australia’s national security interests. I know France would do the same.” he added.
So, is the US Submarine better than the French?
Short Answer: Yes!
Long Answer: It’s more nuanced than that. It is true that, unlike the nuclear-powered variety, conventional submarines on long transits from Australia to potential conflict zones in the Asian region have to spend time travelling on the surface where they are at their most vulnerable using diesel engines while they recharge their batteries. The batteries propel them underwater.
Admiral Chris Barry, a former defence force chief, said the French and US versions would have similar on-board capabilities, weapons and sensors.“But what we will acquire is better transit speeds and greater operational endurance.”
“Endurance in a nuclear-powered submarine is limited by the patience of the crew and the amount of food on board and of course it’s still limited but much, much greater (endurance) than what we acquire in a conventional submarine,” he added.
But advantages of a more powerful US-powered sub may be offset by the delay in the deployment in the event of an earlier conflict.
The first of the 97-meter (318-foot) Shortfin Barracuda submarines, an adapted French nuclear sub design, was to be delivered in 2027. The first submarine of the US version, Morrison said, would be built by 2040.
With inputs from AFP
Also read:
With AUKUS alliance, focus on strategic importance of Indo-Pacific region gains
