US-UK Nuclear Submarine Deal Was Australia’s Decision

In the media, the Australian, United Kingdom, United States (“AUKUS”) agreement to produce nuclear-powered submarines seemed to take everyone by surprise. It seemed out-of-character for an experienced politician like Joe Biden. In fact, French diplomat Jean-Yves Le Drian told franceinfo radio, “This brutal, unilateral and unpredictable decision reminds me a lot of what Mr. Trump used to do.” Was it really such a surprise? The White House disagreed, saying it had given France a “head’s up” on the deal.

IT WAS AUSTRALIA’S DECISION

More importantly, while Biden has gotten criticism, the deal was really up to Australia, and they had been clear that a change was coming.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison rejected accusations that Australia had lied, saying France should have been aware it was prepared to break the deal. . . Mr Morrison on Sunday said he understood France’s disappointment, but that he had always been clear about Australia’s position. . .The French government “would have had every reason to know that we had deep and grave concerns,” he said. . .

“Ultimately this was a decision about whether the submarines that were being built, at great cost to the Australian taxpayer, were going to be able to do a job that we needed it to do when they went into service and our strategic judgment based on the best possible of intelligence and defence advice was that it would not.”

THE FRENCH DEAL WAS IN TROUBLE FROM THE OUTSET

But more importantly, France knew its deal with Australia was in trouble years before this, due to cost overruns, production delays, and a question of whether the French subs would still be relevant when finally delivered into 2050.

Despite the French protests, there had been indications of problems with the Attack submarine project for several years now. . . the Attack submarine project had risen from Australian dollar 50 billion to nearly Australian dollar 89 billion (US $65 billion). . .vice admiral Michael Noonan, the chief of the Royal Australian Navy, admitted the first ship may not be operational until 2035. . . The last submarine would have entered service by 2050, according to the delayed timeline. The delays had raised concern about the relevance of the new ships.”

The word was out long ago. . .

Ever since news of delays in the submarine project surfaced, Australian politicians and analysts had called for Canberra to junk the deal and examine buying nuclear submarines from the US.

FRANCE KNEW ABOUT THE CONCERNS

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said. . . “[France] would have had every reason to know that we have deep and grave concerns that the capability being delivered by the Attack class submarine was not going to meet our strategic interests and we have made very clear that we would be making a decision based on our strategic national interest,” he added.

Back in January, Financial Review asked, “Would you spend $90b on this submarine?” The deal was agreed upon in 2016, but Business Insider notes that there were problems from the outset.

Extensive budget disputes that meant that the deal wasn’t formally signed until 2019. . . The project to replace Australia’s aging Collins-class submarines was supposed to cost $36.5 billion, Politico reported, but the cost had nearly doubled by this year to an estimated $66 billion. . .

THERE WAS A CULTURE CLASH

Naval Group in 2019 admitted that the two nations did not see eye-to-eye, and said it was designing courses for French expatriates in Australia so they could learn how to “behave, how to understand, and decode,” ABC News Australia reported. . .

An example of the gulf in working practices was when Australian officials were left “stunned” to hear discussion of “la rentrée,” the process by which French workers would get ready to restart work after the whole company stopped working in August for a month-long vacation. . . French officials in return were likewise said to be surprised that Australian officials expected meetings to begin on time. . . The report also mentioned French workers requesting more understanding of their need for long lunch breaks.

Also, in February, Australia announced that it was looking at “alternatives” to the French deal.

Media reports this week have claimed that Prime Minister Scott Morrison has commissioned a Defence Department review into potential alternatives to the Attack-class submarine. . . Many commentators have expressed a vast range of concerns about the program and the constant questioning is a public relations ulcer for the government. . . And that’s where the discussion needs to focus—on the capability. Are we getting the capability we need when we need it, and is it value for money?

And that’s the current consideration. Should Australia pay off the French for their over-priced, time-delayed submarines, with today’s capabilities, but not to complete delivery until 2050? Or just pay for breaking the contract?

In June, Australia and France had “frank” discussions of their dissatisfaction. Also in June, Australia was not ready to continue the project.

“We are coming up to important gates in that contract and there have been issues that we have had to address,” he said, adding that the master schedule and total costs of the project were some of the next steps to be determined.

CONTRACT DIED IN APRIL

More importantly, Australia refused to sign a contract to continue the project back in April

Moriarty’s admission came after his government in April refused to sign a contract for the next phase of the French submarine project, giving Naval Group until this month to comply with its demands. There were reports dating back to the beginning of this year that Canberra was seeking to walk away.

SECURITY CONCERN

Even before the original contract was formally signed, Australia was uneasy, because the French company, “DCNS admitted it had been hacked after 22,000 documents relating to the combat capacity of its Scorpene submarines being built in India were leaked, raising concerns about the security of its Australian project.

WHY FRENCH REACTION?

Since it is clear that for many months Australia has said it was considering alternatives to the French deal, and even refused to renew the contract in April, why do the French seem so upset? It’s about France’s position in the European Union (EU), and French President Macron’s desire to move away from American influence, according to an EU diplomat

“I think the French… will milk it for all it’s worth,” the diplomat said, referring to Macron’s long-standing support for greater European strategic autonomy, though many EU states are reluctant to weaken security ties with the United States.

WHY BRITISH INVOLVEMENT?

Some people also question why Britain is involved in the new deal. For one thing, Britain and Australia are members of their Commonwealth. Another reason is that Britain is the only country (until now) with whom the US has shared nuclear submarine technology. We are partners. And finally, the same article notes, “Britain’s role in the trilateral partnership demonstrates its readiness to be ‘hard-headed’ in defending its interests post-Brexit, newly appointed Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said in an article published on Sunday.

And finally, it should be noted that these nuclear submarines are not designed to carry nuclear missiles. Australia just wants the speed and maneuverability that nuclear propulsion will give them.