Morrison had to hurt France to get AUKUS subs deal

Illustration: Johannes Leak

Scott Morrison misled Emmanuel Macron over the submarine issue and Macron’s fury has become a political tornado – it has driven Joe Biden into full-scale appeasement of the French and has become a damaging issue for Morrison over truth and trust.

The real danger here is Biden, not Macron. Biden’s apologies to Macron are at variance with the facts and are craven. The latest Biden-Macron rapprochement in Rome saw their collective convenience at throwing Morrison under the proverbial political bus.

That can happen when emotions run high. But this transcends emotions. Macron loathes the AUKUS agreement. In his remarks, he mocked Australia entering the AUKUS deal. It symbolises American rejection of France’s credentials, Australia’s repudiation of a defence contract vital to France, and is a personal insult to Macron’s quest to elevate France as an Indo-Pacific power.

Australia and America misjudged Macron. America can get away with this but Australia is paying a price. The bigger risk here is not what Macron says; it is about Biden’s reliability. He openly criticised the way the deal was done. He said it was “clumsy”, done without “grace” and claims he thought France “had been informed long before” that the ­Australian submarine contract with France was not going ahead.

Australia and America misjudged French President Emmanuel Macron.

Joe Biden has implied that Australia misled him or did not properly inform him.

Biden told Macron that “honest to God” he didn’t know. In short, Biden implies Australia misled him or did not properly inform him. His claims are false. Australia’s position was clear and internally understood – secrecy was imperative and the French would not be told until the last minute. This was understood by the AUKUS partners and it was left to Australia. Biden’s comments reflect badly on his administration and on himself as President. But they also highlight something Australia misjudges – the depth of US-French bonds. France is a vital NATO ally and has a special history with the US. “We have no older or no more loyal, no more decent ally than France,” Biden told Macron. “You’ve been with us from the beginning. You’re the reason, in part, why we became an independent country.” Biden confessed he had a little medallion – suggesting his middle name was “Robinette” – dating back to his French relatives who had come to America with French military commander Lafayette who fought alongside the Americas in the war of ­independence.

“I want to get something clear in front of all the press,” Biden said. “Article 5 (NATO’s mutual defence clause) means everything to us. You were there for us; we’ll be there for you.” This is Biden correcting for a mistake. But withdrawing from the conventional submarine contract with a French company was Australia’s job. And for this reason Australia cannot dodge responsibility for misjudgment over the French reaction. What matters is AUKUS, not Macron’s anger. Morrison needs to speak about and clarify the agreement. What does it say? What are the UK and US obligations? How far is the US pledged to extend nuclear-­powered submarine technology to Australia? What provisions exist about submarine construction in Australia?

Scott Morrison, left, at the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure launch with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Picture: Adam Taylor

For two months, Australian commentary has been filled with speculation, much of it nonsense, about what AUKUS means. The longer Morrison waits to clarify, the more trouble is guaranteed.

What Macron cannot tolerate is that Morrison won by ruthlessly ditching France. But if Morrison misjudged France, he judged America perfectly. Morrison had the insight that pulled off the deal – he judged that US rivalry with China had changed Washington’s strategic outlook such that it would now do the unthinkable and provide its nuclear submarine technology to Australia.

But the devil is in the detail. Morrison needs a US administration totally committed to the letter, spirit and action that makes AUKUS work. Biden and Morrison must have confidence in each other. Australia now faces a huge diplomatic challenge, but does it grasp this? It will need to satisfy US benchmarks for nuclear safety and regulation and meet US concerns about the non-proliferation provisions. And the US, for its part, must quarantine AUKUS from Macron’s anger. The obstacles are immense.

As for Macron and Morrison, there are two realities: Macron was misled; and Morrison had every reason not to inform him. These realities are unpalatable. Many people will deny them. But nobody, certainly not Malcolm Turnbull, has offered any ­viable alternative scenario.

Morrison first raised the submarine deal with Biden at the Morrison-Johnson-Biden meeting at Carbis Bay on June 12. The US system had been involved for months and was supportive. Biden’s reaction was positive but many issues had to be sorted out.

Four days later, Macron hosted Morrison to a working dinner in France dominated by the submarine issue. Morrison said publicly he expected Naval Group to “deliver” on the contract. He publicly thanked Macron for his efforts to sort out problems with the contract. During the dinner, Morrison, as he said two days ago, told Macron Australia felt the strategic situation had changed and it was unlikely a conventional submarine was now suitable. So Macron knew Morrison had problems.

But Morrison did not say nor signal the French contract might be terminated. He did not tell Macron nor hint about the talks with Biden and Johnson mor mention the proposal for Aus­tralia to get nuclear-powered ­submarines from the UK and US. Morrison kept him in the dark.

Was Macron misled? Of course he was. To suggest anything less is absurd. Was ­Morrison justified in maintaining such secrecy? Of course he was. It was imperative. The naivety of commentary on this point is almost beyond belief. Nuclear submarine technology is close to the ultimate in security intimacy. Morrison, Biden and Johnson were engaged in a project held extremely tightly within their governments and unprecedented in its national security import. Morrison had long since decided any nuclear submarine deal had to be with ­either the UK or US, or both. He had ruled out the French as a ­nuclear partner. What would have happened had he come clean with Macron? We know the answer – just look at Macron’s rage after he found out. Macron and his government, facing a lethal blow to French interests, would have intervened, lobbied Biden hard and worked the US administration to terminate or modify the deal.

“France would have left no stone unturned to up-end this deal,” an Australian insider said. Briefing Macron would have been irresponsible folly. Morrison had a historic chance to transform Australia’s strategic outlook. Deciding the priority was being frank with France would have been ludicrous. In this situation, the proposal would have leaked. Australia would have sunk into a chaotic debate about nuclear power and Labor would have been convulsed. Domestic bipartisanship, essential for the deal, would have been ­endangered.

Turnbull’s claim the French, the US and everyone should have been involved and sat around amicably until the same decision was reached is a fantasy. Could Morrison have handled the diplomacy better? Yes. He could have showed far more respect for the French. But Macron was never going to tolerate this defeat without staging a major disruption, exactly as he has done.

Macron was misled. His grievance is personal. Morrison had to hurt France to get the deal. It was nasty but necessary. Relations with France will not be restored while Morrison and Macron are the incumbents. Macron will ensure Morrison pays a price. Saying he “lied” will play into Labor’s election campaign. But taking the side of Macron against Morrison is not a sure winner with voters. Morrison might do a John Howard from 2004 – run on trust and say the public can trust him on the economy and national security.