France cancels defence meeting with UK over submarine row, sources say

This is about the not getting a heads up for the negotiation with US/UK

France knew Australia was unhappy with the deal

* next year a new presidential election will take place in France

* Macron may use this contract cancellation as an opportunity to decrease France participation in NATO (technically it could leave the integrated command) as De Gaulle did before him.

This would allow him to capture more votes from the right as he would appears as a strong leader then, acting in continuity with General de Gaulle...

France can not go out of NATO, the alliance with all its drawbacks is just too important for its own defense.

This contract cancellation may end up being in the best interest of both Australia and France:

* Australia changed its mind in the course of the last years regarding what types of submarines it really needs.

* Such change of perspective affected the partnership in between both countries, which could have escalated into a costly commercial dispute where Australia would have acted in bad faith to prevent the French delivering what they did not want anymore.

There are tension in the Asia-Pacific regions in between the US and China, and France like other Europeans countries are too far from home to take a part in this.

First, please read this gripping tale of the evolving national defense strategies of the United States and France within the "Indo Pacific" as seen during the change in foreign policy beginning with the later Obama years and the Trump administration: https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/10/21/france-other-indo-p...

One of the tl;drs of the link above is that France sees the Indo Pacific MUCH differently from many other western powers including the USA and UK. They see themselves having a prominent authority in the Indo Pacific, key to their economic interests. To this end, they have been trying to establish an alliance of powers in the region including Australia and India.

France actually pulled off a coup earlier this decade when they closed on a major Military Air Craft sale to India with their Dassault Rafale. They have been similarly trying to establish long term military relationships with Australia and thus align the two countries' interests.

The interests that France has in the region are about safeguarding their own economic concerns and not necessarily directly address the rise of the communist party of China.

This is in stark contrast to the UK, the US and Australia who see the rise of the communist partys ambitions directly threaten their countries defense and economic concerns.

There is going to be a lot of drama after this because what just happened here is a domino fell. We're seeing the emergence of an alliance that could form part of the "Quad" in the region or something similar that may not necessarily have France as the central power directing diplomacy in the region.

China is an authoritarian country with a strategic vision which put it at odd with its closest neighbors. It's in no way an easy partner. Then again, neither is it an unreadable one nor a completely unreasonable one. What China wants is pretty clear: control of the South China sea and being the dominant soft power of the region. With this framework in mind, a lot can be achieved through negociations.

I am not saying countries should always be soft with China. Their track record record regarding human rights is worrying. I am very much in favor of using tit for tat measures regarding their distortion of competitive markets and their threats on the Chinese diaspora in Europe and the USA have to stop.

Still I am not convinced that a policy of systematic opposition and war mongering will do much good. Xi Jinping is already 68. His rule won't last eternally. It seems better to me to adopt a position of observation, containment and soft power influence than direct confrontation. I understand that Taiwan might be a victim of it which sadden me a bit but is something I am fine with from a realpolitik point of view. I consider this position better for Europe than following the USA in its opposition which I view as essentially motivated by a desire to protect the position they consider to be theirs in the international order rather than some kind of moral imperative.