On 17 September 2021, France announced that it was withdrawing its ambassadors
from Australia and the United States.
Coming soon after the announcement of a major new strategic agreement between Australia,
the United States and Britain - and the cancellation of a huge defence contract between
France and Australia - it marked an unprecedented falling out between key western allies.
And while it seems that relations are already being repaired,
at least between Paris and Washington, the effects may well be felt long into the future.
Hello and welcome. If you're new to the channel, my name is James Ker-Lindsay and here I take an
informed look at international relations, conflicts and the origins of countries.
One of the most common ways a country can displace serious displeasure in its
international relations is to recall its ambassador for consultations.
Falling far short of breaking off diplomatic relations,
or even closing an entire mission, it nevertheless sends a powerful message of real anger.
It's against this backdrop that France's decision to withdraw its
ambassadors to Australia and the United States was such major news.
While it's certainly not unusual for allies to have occasional differences,
even quite serious ones, the spectacular falling out between France, on the one hand,
and Australia, Britain and the United States, on the other, has been unusually severe.
Indeed, as has been pointed out, this is the first time Paris has
recalled its ambassador to Washington in almost 250 years of diplomatic relations.
The roots of the crisis lie in China's growing strategic strength.
It seems increasingly hard to imagine, but there was a time, and not so very long ago,
that the People's Republic of China tended to shy away from international engagement.
However, over the past two decades, Beijing has dramatically extended its
international influence - economically, politically and even strategically.
Its flagship 'Belt and Road' initiative is an attempt to the modern recreation of the
ancient Silk Road linking China with the Middle East and Europe.
Meanwhile, across Africa and elsewhere it's increased its
economic presence with major investments.
At the same time, there have been growing fears
about its increasing military strength in the Indo-Pacific region.
As well as ongoing tensions over the South China Sea - an issue I hope to come back to
in a future video - there have been fears about increasing Chinese belligerency towards Taiwan.
All this has made many countries - including key regional actors, such as Japan, India,
the United States and Australia - increasingly nervous.
And it's this rising concern that provides the backdrop for the current spat.
In 2016, Australia signed a major defence deal with
France to purchase 12 diesel electric submarines.
To be built by DCNS, now the Naval Group, which is almost two-thirds owned by the
French government, the agreement was worth almost 40 billion US dollars.
A huge boost to the French defence industry,
it was expected that it would lead to the creation of thousands of jobs.
Indeed, it was so significant that French leaders hailed it as the 'deal of the century'.
However, since then, things have changed.
The further deterioration of relations with China, coupled with apparent delays and cost
overruns with the submarine deal, means that Australia appeared to have had a rethink.
Having supposedly rejected the possibility of acquiring US-made nuclear submarines in 2016,
the Australian government, led by the strongly pro-American Scott Morrison,
reconsidered its decision and entered into secret talks with Washington that would
eventually pave the way for an even more radical rethink of Australia's strategic relations.
On 15 September US President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Morrison joined the UK prime minister,
Boris Johnson, for a live three-way press conference to announce the creation
of a major new security partnership - AUKUS.
Covering cooperation across a range of defence areas,
they announced that the first major initiative would be the construction
of a fleet of nuclear-powered - though not nuclear-armed - submarines for Australi.
The French deal had been sunk.
Unsurprisingly, Paris was furious.
Using uncharacteristically harsh language, the French Foreign Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian,
openly accused the three countries of lying and deceit - especially as french officials insist
that Washington had previously reassured them that rumours of the agreement had been false.
Just two days later,
France recalled its ambassadors from Canberra and Washington, D.C. for consultations.
Apparently, London was spared on the grounds that Paris was familiar with its
"permanent opportunism" and that Johnson had merely been the fifth wheel on the carriage. Ouch.
While some observers have painted the decision
as an overreaction - a tantrum even - in truth one can see why Paris was so angry.
Beyond the huge economic consequences, and the clearly dented pride,
both of which will carry domestic political consequences, France clearly felt that it had
been building an important strategic alliance with Australia - as another Pacific country.
After all, France still maintains an important presence in the region
through its territories of New Caledonia, French Polynesia, and Wallis and Futuna.
Moreover, it also saw the move as a fundamental betrayal by
NATO partners Britain and the United States.
As Le Drian stated, "allies don't do this to each other."
So, just why did the three countries do it then?
In truth, there would seem to be both individual and collective reasons behind a decision.
For Australia, the advantages of the agreement are obvious.
Increasingly concerned about China's growing presence in the Pacific,
it will be far better equipped to deal with any of the growing military threats it faces;
becoming just one of seven countries in the world to have nuclear-powered submarines.
But perhaps even more importantly,
the agreement will further cement its long-standing strategic relationship
with the United States - a relationship that stretches back to the early 1950s when Australia,
along with neighbouring New Zealand, signed a mutual defence pact with the United States.
Likewise, there are also important strategic benefits for the United States;
especially just at the moment.
The hasty and embarrassing withdrawal from Afghanistan has led to widespread
speculation that the United States is now withdrawing from the world.
This announcement will go a long way towards countering that view.
While Washington may no longer be in the business of interventions and state building
in failing countries, it certainly hasn't taken its eyes off the main geostrategic challenges.
It won't do more Iraqs and Afghanistans.
However, it will continue to challenge Russia and China.
But what about the UK?
It too appears to benefit from this.
Following its decision to leave the European Union, it's been keen to promote the idea of
'Global Britain' - a country now able to take a much more active role on the international stage.
This will be seen as the first major proof of concept.
After all, or so the argument goes, it wouldn't have been possible to participate in such a
monumentally significant snub to a fellow EU partner while it was still in the Union.
But there seemed to be wider reasons why France wasn't involved.
Most importantly, Paris had seemingly been far slower than the others to pick up
on the perceived Chinese threat.
Indeed, even relatively recently, it was keen to present itself as a link between China and Europe.
This appeared to leave the others no choice but to do their own thing.
However, others would point out that over the past year or so Paris has in
fact become increasingly skeptical about China - a point also reflected in growing
public concern about Beijing's role in world affairs and human rights abuses.
In any case, Paris would have been incensed that it wasn't even given the option of taking part.
And this is in fact perhaps the most significant aspect of the whole crisis.
While it's clear that the agreement is designed to focus on China - although Beijing isn't
specifically named - the most immediate impact of the agreement is actually on Western unity.
In the days that followed, the fallout appeared to spread.
With talk of French plans to block major initiatives,
including an EU trade deal with Australia, European officials demanded that Washington,
London and Canberra explain their actions against a key European state.
But while the dispute burned brightly, it also appeared to burn fast.
On 22 September, President Biden and French President, Emmanuel Macron,
held a half-hour telephone conversation.
For his part, a conciliatory Biden apologised for the handling of the agreement,
saying that France should have been consulted and that it will be in future.
He also agreed to help French counter-terrorism
efforts in North Africa - a major concern for Paris.
But while this seemed to have placated Macron enough to allow him to announce the return of
the ambassador to Washington, the conversation nevertheless left out two key factors.
First of all, it didn't actually reverse the decision on the submarines.
Secondly, it didn't commit to include France in the new pact.
And it's these two factors that are likely to have a longer-term effect.
While Macron may want to mend fences with the United States, there's no escaping the
fact that France has been hard hit by the cancellation of the submarine deal.
It will want compensation.
But even if it does succeed in securing some sort of payment,
many in France will be angry about this for a long time to come.
Moreover, the fact that it was - and is still - cut out a strategic partnership will fuel
the deeply held sense that France just cannot trust the Anglo-Saxons.
Most obviously, this could well have a
significant impact on NATO - the principal western security body.
Given that Britain, France and the United States are all members of the organisation,
the AUKUS affair will inevitably cause longer-term tensions.
With many in France undoubtedly now more convinced than ever that the United States,
once the backbone of the Western alliance, can no longer be trusted, it could well see increased
calls for the European Union to strengthen its own independent security and defence capabilities.
As a former senior British diplomat put it,
the row raises some very serious questions about the future of NATO.
But even if this does drive the EU to develop its own independent capabilities,
even within Europe there are deep divisions about how to challenge China.
While some members are more hawkish and will naturally be
inclined to follow and align with Britain and the United States,
others, such as Hungary seem more in favour of building relations with Beijing.
And it's this division that in part drove AUKUS in the first place.
In this sense, what we are now seeing is in fact the tip of a very serious debate
about Western unity and the geopolitics of the 21st century.
In the meantime, the row will inevitably contribute to the growing sense that the
Western alliance is fracturing at a time when its overall place in the international system
is coming under ever greater pressure as others, not least of all China, are on the ascendancy.
While suggestions of a complete US withdrawal from
international affairs seems premature, it's clear that it's no longer the leader it once was.
At the same time, Europe also seems divided on the question of how to tackle
major challenges, such as China.
But what about China,
the unstated, but universally understood, target of the strategic agreement?
So far, it has remained outwardly cool about the news - calling on
countries to abandon their "Cold War mentality."
Of course, beneath the surface, it will inevitably be considering its next strategic moves.
The Australian decision will almost certainly fuel
a further tit-for-tat reaction in the growing arms race in the Indo-Pacific region.
In the meantime, Beijing may well be taking a certain amount of bemused
satisfaction in the knowledge that, without actively trying, it has managed to create
such deep divisions between Western partners.
I hope you found that useful. If so, here's another video you might find interesting.
Thanks so much for watching and see you in the next video.