Australia Had To Break-up With France But It Didn’t Need To Be Messy

AUSUK Had to happen — but France could have been kept in the loop

Shockwaves were sent around the diplomatic world this week when Australia announced it would be ditching a $90Bn deal with France to build a new generation of submarines.

Instead, Canberra announced, we would be jumping into bed with the US and UK.

The French were caught completely unawares.

It’s one thing for a deal to fall through — and quite another to find out about it via the news rather than directly from your so-called ally and friend.

Paris was so furious that they have recalled their ambassador for the first time in a generation, and invoking terms such as “duplicity, disdain and lies”.

But was the decision itself poor, or just the way it was communicated?

Australia needs nuclear submarines

Australia is a somewhat isolated continent sandwiched between two oceans: the Indian and the Pacific.

Being the only major “Allied” power facing the Indian Ocean, it is imperative that the nation is able to project power into this theatre.

With no major landmass between Australia and South Africa (and thus limited opportunities to re-fuel along the way), nuclear submarines are key to strengthening this capability.

In terms of the Pacific theatre — the challenge stems from the fact that it is more than twice the size of the Indian side, and has a few islands and smaller countries dotted along it.

Nuclear propulsion will provide greater stealth — allowing them to remain better hidden, as well as allow much greater propulsion speeds (which is key given such vast distances involved in this body of water).

Finally — beyond just the ships themselves, the new arrangement will see Australia build a local nuclear industry.

This includes not just the technical know-how (which in turn means skilled jobs in a more regional city) but critical infrastructure, and the ability to service allied ships that dock at these ports.

It’s not just about Submarines

It’s not just about subs — after all, France too has nuclear submarines which they could have sold us.

Despite the majority of the narrative in the media seeming to focus on the “tearing up” of a contract — it is actually far more wide-ranging and significant.

Deals, after all, fall apart all the time.

The new agreement between the US, the UK and Australia (termed AUKUS) — includes not just building submarines, but seeks to promote technology transfer and interoperability between these powers in a number of fields. These include cyber security, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and undersea capabilities (beyond just submarines).

AUKUS’ thinly-veiled objective is to keep China in check. France — who considers itself a major player in the Indo-Pacific (French Polynesia alone occupies a surface area as large as Europe after all) was left completely out of these discussions.

That is as big a sleight as can be imagined from a supposed friend.

Australia must first and foremost look after its national interest — and so the decision to go down the AUKUS path is understandable.

However, France has long been a reliable partner and ally — and they deserved was a chance to be involved in some of these discussions or at least some advance notice.

Finding out at the 11th hour thanks to a media leak fails would fails Stakeholder Management 101. It’s something you may have expected from Gaddafi or a crazed despot — not a reputed player in world affairs like Australia.

What are your thoughts?

Let me know in the comments below.

You may also like: