…in case you were unsure what I was talking about.
Aha, touché. 
Because Biden is being diplomatic.
…hence:
Pretty sure it was decided well in advance by Australia and the US that it would be easier to apologize later than try to explain before.
FWIW just to state clearly–there is no indication Australia is not going to uphold its contractual agreements. The contracts Australia has signed include a break clause with a set amount Australia has to pay if it breaks the contracts, which Australia has already requested a final tallying of so it can make payment.
Not really, the contract had within it (as does any major contract of this size) plenty of termination clauses and penalties that allow either side to pull out at various stages.
Not without cost of course, but from what I’ve read it seems like Australia were well within their rights to step away and are willing to pay the relevant costs that the contract stipulates.
Australia were clearly concerned that they were not going to get value for money and would rather cough up the penalty clause and swap horses. When you’ve sunk billions into something already there is a definite pressure to keep going and throw good money after bad but I think Australia are actually doing the right thing even though France are bound to feel somewhat slighted.
But why be angry at the USA and UK?
Suppose one of your customers breaks a contract with you. I believe you are a business owner so this is totally a thing you may have been faced with. You would understandably be upset about that. You might well call your lawyer and talk about suing them. But if in the meantime the client went to some other service provider, why would you be pissed at them? Those guys are just doing business.
(And if in fact Australia IS going to pay out a break clause, France has no beef at all. If you write a break clause into a contract, it’s in the contract.)
Just because one side is being diplomatic doesn’t mean the other side is. The phrase “being diplomatic” means “being sensitive in dealing with others and working together to come to a peaceful resolution without incrimination.” That does not at all describe what France is doing right now.
You’re right that it will all amount to nothing significant, but that’s exactly why it’s being called a tantrum. It’s making a fuss with no real consequences. America isn’t going to feel bad because France is mad it offered Australia a better deal. And France is not going to be able to go it alone and cut themselves off from America.
If you define all foreign relations as diplomacy, then, sure, it’s diplomacy. But it’s also silly posturing, and there’s nothing wrong with pointing that out. It’s the very fact that it’s “just diplomacy” that is why we’re not taking France too seriously.
I get the impression some people think Australia should have continued to stick with a French submarine deal that was clearly not working, all in the name of being nice.
…its more like being in an open tender process with three companies openly competing for the contract with all the cards on the table, with a fourth company secretly negotiating behind the scenes.
If that fourth company was also one of your biggest mutual customers, and if you directly asked that fourth company “are you trying to negotiate a deal with XTY” and they said no, then when you find out that they were negotiating a deal and you had just lost a billion dollar contract to them, it really isn’t an extraordinary thing to ask them “what the hell is going on?”
And that really is all that happened here. France withdrew their ambassador. Biden conceded they could have handled it better. France is sending their ambassador back. Its how the game is played.
When France sunk the Rainbow Warrior in Marsden Wharf, killing Fernando Pereira, the international reaction was extraordinary. One would have thought the United States and Britain would have loudly condemned France for an outright act of terrorism. Instead they “sat on their hands” while France tried to punish New Zealand by trying to block our exports for having the gall to have arrested two French agents and held to account.
You guys really have no idea what a real “temper tantrum” is. France used every lever available to get their agents out of the country. They literally sunk a ship in our harbour and got away with it, and the international community shrugged its shoulders.
You aren’t seeing a temper tantrum. Its the equivialant of:
FRANCE “America! Duuuude, What the f#ck are you doing here? Philippe is coming home!”
AMERICA “Sorry, France, our bad. We just forgot to CC you in.”
FRANCE “Forgiven dude. Philippe is just going to catch up with family though…but he will be back in a week!”
AMERICA “Chur bro!”
The bigger story here is “what the hell is going on with the Australian government.” There is something not-quite-right with Scott Morrison.
The fact that Australian military officials sent the French a letter confirming they were “extremely satisfied” with the deal hours before they cancelled it show there is something else at play here. And that “thing at play” is a government acting with zero oversight and no hint of accountability.
Here’s an editorial written in Feb spells out just a fraction of the scandals the Morrison government has been involved in…and has gotten away with.
The sheer scale of it is mindblowing. This is the story. The fact that the Morrison government have broken a billion dollar boondoogle contract to sign another billion dollar boondoogle contract through a process with zero accountability (and that the Australian people, heck, even other relevant branches of government didn’t know about) is what we should be talking about.
I know Americans like to make the story about them, but the fact that France withdrew their ambassador to the US really isn’t a big part of the story at all.
I would say that it is a big story that France is withdrawing its embassador from the US when it seems they ought to have a beef with Australia, and but especially with the US.
The withdrawal of ambassadors between friendly western nations is always a big story, how often has anything comparable happened in peacetime? and was it a big story then?
The general reaction towards France has been some comiseration over the lost contract but a large amount of eye rolling over the ambassador recall.
If you don’t want the option of a contract being broken then feel free to ensure the contract reflects that. Better still, try and ensure that your product reflects the changing times and remains on time and in budget. I don’t think there is any doubt that Australia are choosing a better option and as tough as it is for France I cannot believe they were really unaware of the problems with the delivery nor that they’d expect Australia to conduct back-up negotiations in public.
Is there perhaps an election in the near future for Macron perhaps? is that too cynical of me?
…its already over. The French are sending their ambassador back. It will only ever be a footnote to this story. It misses the greater context.
The US undercut a major military trade agreement with one of its NATO partners and Australia. That is actually a big deal, and I would argue that withdrawing the ambassador for a few weeks was an entirely proportionate thing to do. Its part of the story. But it isn’t the story. It’s normal political posturing, France made their point, the US conceded they could have handled it better, France backed down, it’s over between those two.
What happens next with Australia though remains unclear. They switched from conventional subs to nuclear subs with zero public debate. And if you look at the pattern of many similar decisions, along with the crack-down on the free press, you see a move away from oversight and accountability and a move towards a much more “Trumpian” state of affairs. And as one of Australia’s closest and traditional allies this is concerning.
It is an reaction without precedent to the best of my knowledge. “proportionate” is not a term I’d use.
Withdrawing ambassadors? As I say, it is unprecedented as far as I understand.
…countries withdraw ambassadors all the time. Israel withdrew their ambassador from New Zealand in 2016. Australia withdrew their ambassador from Indonesia in 2015. There is plenty of precedent. And proportionate is the word that I used.
You understand incorrectly.
Neither of those were in reaction to a contract dispute.
Seriously!! LOL
What are they selling next, the Maginot Line?
I’d buy it, if the price was right. Then I’d deploy it between Ireland the Republic and Northern Ireland, and if Boris complained, I’d tell him “prenez un grip about this and donnez-moi un break”.
From the same article, in case somebody was oblivious of the fact that Boris is a lying bully who likes to add insult to injury:
“Because this is fundamentally a great step forward for global security. It’s three very like-minded allies standing shoulder to shoulder creating a new partnership for the sharing of technology. It’s not exclusive. It’s not trying to shoulder anybody out. It’s not adversarial towards China for instance.”
Only six countries have nuclear submarines - Australia will be the seventh (and the first one without nuclear weapons). The rest of the world makes do with diesel subs.