- 51,491
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
Pressing pause, for the Borough where I was born and raised. https://www.nydailynews.com/snyde/n...0210921-clecq77wprgjhdvdpso2cp54yq-story.html
Presses "Play"
Presses "Play"
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,708 comments
- 1,791,440 views
- 4,223
- Reading
- cutback73
- cutback73
There's obviously a simple explanation for this.
The part of France that is just west of Australia knew about the concerns, but the part of France that is in Europe didn't. Thereby explaining the article in full.
By the way, in order to be unbiased, it does strike me that raising these issues as a primary reason for the cancelled deal is a good way of deflecting any fallout over the new deal towards France and away from the other parties. Whether it IS the primary reason or whether there are others, is maybe what @Milouse is arguing his case upon?
- 2,473
- Paris
- Milouse
- Milouse
It's all about trust.
1) Australia was a client and IS a strategic partner, trust has been broken.
2) UK, also known as "Perfide Albion". Never disappoints. (But i'm sure there's a more serious explanation we'll hear sooner or later)
That's another subject, but you can't be more racist in France to call "African" a french just because he's black. An Afro-American equivalent term would be a no-no here. I won't arg which is a good and a bad way, it's just a cultural difference that needs to be acknowledged.
Trevor Noah, which original video has been widely broadcasted an commented in France for replicating JM Le Pen points (hence the official reaction), refers to colonialism, but most of these sons or grand sons of immigrant migrated after their country of origin became independent. He also make a wrong assertion by pointing supposed contradiction between random nationalist messages and an official governmental voice. And now were totally off-thread
(and i think this has been discussed somewhere on GTP back then)Macron didn't even talked about this publicly, yet. His coalition is not weak: his own party alone won the absolute majority in 2017, and its erosion over the year is compensated by a de-facto coalition. Anyway, nobody cares since we're too close to the next election to likely have big reforms until then. And as i mentioned earlier, nobody on the political scene is criticizing the recall of ambassadors. Former president Nicolas "The American" Sarkozy (adept of atlanticism who made France join the Nato Joint Force Command), yesterday said Macron was right and that France condemned the US way of doing things, and that consequences must be drawn.
----
Globally, France is ranked 2nd country in size of territorial waters (after US), and 1st in exclusive economic zone (EEZ): that are a lot of areas to police, and having to keep a presence and good relationship everywhere is not just a whim.
Also, writing "It's also not up to Australia to protect anyone's interest but its own" is a bit condescendent since nobody implied the opposite. Australia has every right to cancel and change submarine provider, or to seal a wider cooperation plan. It's the way it has been done in french back that is unacceptable between supposed allies.
AU article about contention points around a that big contract for is:
A. Not uncommon and to quote one of those articles "it would be unlikely that the Federal Government would cancel the multi-billion dollar contract".
B. Not an official state-to-state communication.
C. AU PM met Macron after this and issues looked on the way to be resolved. AU PM was just playing time. The very same day the announcement AUKUS, french minister of defense received an official letter from the Australian head of project to say everything was fine at this stage.
-----------------------------------
The more i read and hear about that "Operation Hookless" affair, the more i think it is mostly amateur statesmen at work.
EDIT:
Biden-Macron call:
Joint Statement on the Phone Call between President Biden and President Macron | The White House
President Emmanuel Macron of the French Republic and President Joe Biden of the United States of America spoke on September 22, at the request of the
Last edited:
- 3,926
- St.Pete, FL
- NotThePrez
- NotThePrez
So, wait, does the French government still consider Australia a trusted partner, even after they cancelled the submarine deal? That just seems like an odd course of action. That's like me knowingly leaving my car at a mechanic that I know I don't like, even after the mechanic has said that they won't be able to do the work I'd like them to do.
And if the issue is trust, surely it's important for some kind of diplomat to remain there to discuss things on the behalf of Macron, right? Again, this is a move commonly associated with an impending declaration of war.
Then, again, wouldn't it make sense for the French government to pull their Ambassador, since the UK also has a major role in the new submarine deal? It would still be a bad look no matter what, but it would also make more sense overall if Frances issue was principally with the new sub deal, and not just that the US is a part of it.
Sorry if these are silly questions, but I'm having a really hard time seeing what the French government is trying to accomplish, as well as where they can go from here. It just seems like France is using the US as a scapegoat to excuse its own mistakes, but are also making unusual moves that have the potential to significantly hurt France in the long-run.
Of course there are cultural differences at play, but it does still strike me as really odd, honestly. Like, I am an African-American. I have zero problem identifying myself as such, or being referred to as such. Yeah, I would find it kinda demeaning if I was just referred to as African, but depending on the context, I would probably take issue if I was just referred to as American as well. I'm both, and have no issue with being either American (eh, that might be a slight stretch given the last 2 years) or African, and neither one typically takes precedence over the other.That's another subject, but you can't be more racist in France to call "African" a french just because he's black. An Afro-American equivalent term would be a no-no here. I won't arg which is a good and a bad way, it's just a cultural difference that needs to be acknowledged.
Trevor Noah, which original video has been widely broadcasted an commented in France for replicating JM Le Pen points (hence the official reaction), refers to colonialism, but most of these sons or grand sons of immigrant migrated after their country of origin became independent. He also make a wrong assertion by pointing supposed contradiction between random nationalist messages and an official governmental voice. And now were totally off-thread
It just seems odd to me that France (or at least, the French government) seems to do this thing where, if you are a citizen of France, you are French, first and foremost, regardless of your ethnic background. Granted, I'm an outsider looking in, but it's an unusual stance to take given France's long history of multiculturalism.
------------------------------
And as I type this reply, I hear on the radio that Macron has decided to send his ambassador back to Washington following a phone call with Biden. (NPR)
Sooooo,...what was the point of this whole thing, again? Unless there was some other announcement, the AUKUS deal is still in effect, France still doesn't have a stake in the new submarine deal, and now there is a renewed agreement between the 2 leaders for greater transparency. Besides this renewed agreement, what exactly did France gain in this?
Last edited:
- 2,473
- Paris
- Milouse
- Milouse
I don't think that the regular operational meetings have been canceled, crisis is still at a upper level.
One century ago? As stated from day one, those ambassadors have been recalled for "consultations".
In diplomacy, reputation is key. Of the four country involved, I don't think France is the one that will be hurt the most. Especially since the usually very discret Le Drian (the man in the @Dotini 's "stab" video) has an excellent international reputation.
Apparently this is not just France:
Are black people in the UK called African-British?
Answer (1 of 103): Depends. If they are British-born to parents from Africa, then yes sometimes they may call themselves African-British. But even then, it is rare for them to use that term. Because most Africans to the UK immigrated in the last few decades, their UK-born offspring still retain ...
What does a man really say of himself when feeling the need to tell that a black-skinned man, wherever he lives, is "African"?
And is it really healthy that someone relates more to people of the same ethnological group inside a country? It is natural, yes, but is that really a good path to take? Here we don't want people to lives next to each others, but together.
Citizenship and the way you defined your own identity are two different matters.
France multiculturalism is recent and not totally embraced.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,392
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
That his ethnicity is defined by location and not colour. Nobody seems to make the distinction about Indians or Swedish people or Italians or Spanish or Jewish people in the same way. Gambian or Algerian would be an even better distinction. It's good to know where you came from.
Last edited:
- 40,874
Actually, no, the article you linked as the non-BS proof of France's total innocence in this matter implied exactly that:
The fact that the Australian government themselves have come out and said said that they chose the new deal based on what best fits their own strategic self-interest also suggests to me that there has been a narrative that Australia is combatting that they should have gone along with the deal anyway just to let France save face.
Again, the article you posted as the real truth of what has happened regarding this deal suggests otherwise:
That it's even being framed as "The US stole this deal from France by offering Australia something better than they were going to get" and that a wider cooperation plan is being fobbed off as a "vulgar arms deal" (though France's much more direct arms deal is perfectly fine, of course) is telling for how much Australia supposedly had a "right" to pull out of it without getting raked over the coals over it by the French government.
And as stated from day one, making a big show of stamping your feet, recalling all of your ambassadors from countries with no prior precedent for doing so while calling pulling out of an arms deal a treacherous duplicitous treasonous act that threatens the entire fabric of international military cooperation has been an extreme overreaction on France's part from day one.
This was pointed out to you then, too; but you instead acted like the only way someone would think that France wasn't fully in the right is if they had no clue what they were talking about.
"French government's international reaction to the French government getting egg on its face draws broad support from French politicians. Story at 11."
Conveniently, the Australian government has said multiple times that they did exactly did this from multiple angles of communication; even if those concerns hadn't been so secret and unknown to France that they weren't a matter of public record for at least half a year.
Which they were.
And? What would the acceptable time have been for Australia to decide when they wanted to go with something else and not have France act like Australia crapped on their front porch and set it on fire? 18 months ago when they supposedly started talks with the US to see if they could get something that was better than what France was offering (but long before they would have actually had anything)? 7 months ago when Australian news outlets reported that Australia was having concerns with major elements of the deal? After the election 6 months from now when the prime minister doesn't have to do this performative showboating?
Whether or not Australia strung France along for too long seems immaterial when the principal complaint from France (one parroted by the BS-free article on the other page) is that they dared to go along with anyone else at all.
Yes, that France was stabbed in the back and completely blindsided by the US and UK and Australia who have all been actively scheming against France for over a year is what France and you and that op-ed article you linked as proof of all of this have been alluding to; but for that to be true you need to prove that France somehow was completely unaware of Australia's publicly reported concerns on the project from 7 months ago (which is certainly odd if they were in fact actively investigating those reports) and that the Australian government is lying when they claim that they had told the French government their concerns at an official capacity well before canceling the contract multiple times and that the "US repeatedly lied to what it calls an ally for months about such a strategic matter" as you claimed earlier.
So far it seems to me that the only reason cancelling an arms deal with a country in order to pursue something more beneficial with someone else is so outrageous because it happened to your country.
I mean, we can take your opinion on the matter at face value, I suppose; but France is the one acting like it's significantly more important that France gets paid and has a lead role in standing up to Chinese aggression (even if the things they provided wouldn't have done a good job at it in the first place) than the actual act of standing up to Chinese aggression is.
Last edited:
- 30,000
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I can't guarantee they won't, particularly given how common culture war grievances are these days, but it's worth noting that Sen. Bob Ney (R-OH), who as a member of the US House representing Ohio introduced the resolution that mandated the renaming of French fries to "freedom fries" in congressional commissaries, resigned from the Senate in 2006 and pleaded guilty to charges related to his involvement in an Indian gaming scandal.
- 3,926
- St.Pete, FL
- NotThePrez
- NotThePrez
The recent meeting between Macron and Biden which resulted in the French ambassador going back to his post in Washington suggests that the crisis is no longer a thing (or at least has had a very substantial loss in severity).
Who's talking about what happened a century ago? It's generally accepted that swiftly calling back an ambassador is a general sign of significant diplomatic fallout, especially if the other country in question has no prior history of engaging in the same actions, or otherwise has a long-standing warm relationship. It's basically a move signaling the complete dissolution of diplomatic discourse which, again, is generally considered one of the first steps before declaring war, amongst other possibilities.
And even if the call back was for the sake of "consultations," I'm pretty confident in saying that swiftly recalling ambassadors from allied nations with very little notice while making a big fuss about how said allies "stabbed them in the back" and engaged in "treasanous behavior" is not at all normal behavior itself. At least, I hope it's not for you.
It's been pointed out quite a few times in this conversation that Australia had some issues in regards to the first deal they had with France, namely France dragging their feet on the 60% budget payment request, and the fact that France's plan was to sell Australia subs that did not fully meet their strategic needs. By all accounts, Australia made it very clear that they had some major concerns with the agreement, and common sense would dictate that those concerns are what fueled the Australian government to start talking to the US about the possibility of getting some hardware that better fit their strategic needs. Sorry, but the only way that your leaders could've missed all this is if they were denser than Nivelle himself. This failure to listen to their ally and unwillingness to have actual discussion after things fell through has resulted in France losing a very important contract, and major political power in a very important theatre, which is a bit more important I would say than winning a big shouting match. France doesn't get to have it both ways, where they can accuse others of un-diplomatic behavior, while also seemingly ignoring Australia's very public concerns over the project.
I honestly don't really have a dog in this race, but please don't let patriotism stop you from seeing and criticizing the mistakes made by your leadership. Such behavior is why the US is in its current state.
I don't see how this counters my point? It still seems like odd behavior in an attempt to solve what should be a non-issue, and has the potential to cause trouble for those who wish to be proud of their heritage despite where they currently live.Apparently this is not just France:
Are black people in the UK called African-British?
Answer (1 of 103): Depends. If they are British-born to parents from Africa, then yes sometimes they may call themselves African-British. But even then, it is rare for them to use that term. Because most Africans to the UK immigrated in the last few decades, their UK-born offspring still retain ...www.quora.com
@UKMikey already touched on this. There's nothing wrong with knowing where you came from, regardless of where you live.
Thing is is that there's literally zero escaping that, if recent events in the US are anything to go by. The fact of the matter is that there are certain things that I, as a black man, will probably have to deal with/be aware of that my white friends won't have to, and as such that makes it a bit more difficult to relate to them, but I can talk to other black people and have an easier time communicating my troubles to them, and getting their input since they're likely to have a similar experience. That's in no way limited to just the US, btw.
Of course, that doesn't stop me from trying to communicate those issues to them in an effort to educate my friends, and it doesn't stop me from sitting down and listening to their take on the story (even if their take annoys the crap out of me sometimes). But that need to communicate and relate with individuals that are closest to you is basic human nature. Context depending, it only becomes unhealthy if someone only talks with people of the same ethnic group as them, with little regard to others.
Which is all well and good, but that also doesn't erase the heritage of the person next to you, especially if that heritage is a cornerstone of their personality.
I don't think they have to be. Citizenship is a legal status, while identity is at least partially born out of personality and experience, and those are things that can absolutely be intertwined (and for a lot of people, they are). Again, I'm a natural-born American citizen, and have a large number of benefits from that. However, my heritage as a black person is still there, and when considering this countries historical relationship with black people (as well as other minorities), it's something that I know is important to hold onto.
Well, I fail to see how having people identify themselves as "just French" solves that issue. It seems to me like the government would rather try to ignore that issue by having everyone be "French" rather than acknowledging that their people come from different backgrounds, and may have certain issues because of those backgrounds. See the stupidity that is "All Lives Matter."
Last edited:
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,392
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Given that it's a Quora answer it sounds more like opinion than objective fact.
I wonder how he feels about Canadiens français.
French Canadians - Wikipedia
Last edited:
- 2,473
- Paris
- Milouse
- Milouse
I should have said that earlier, we would have avoided a lot of out of place messages:
We are talking about states. States have interest that they defends, they are not friends. They can be allied, which defines a frame of acceptable actions towards each others.
So i won't answer to messages referring to emotion or pride regarding that crisis.
I answered Dotini's original message because almost every anglosphere article, twitter or social media reaction that i read was ignoring important facts, like...
Anyway, that France knew or not what was happening in its back, for exemple via its secret services, would be irrelevant when considering its partners behavior.
I was specifically asking about someone motivation when he feels the need to mention someone else being African for being black (still on T. Noah).
And since you mention it, "All Lives Matter" is a good example of how context can turn an otherwise universalist message to a weapon against an anti-racism movement.
Also know @NotThePrez, that i have nothing to object to what you said on how and why you relate to an ethnical group. I raised a very broad, long term question that is out of scope. But that would be a long discussion for another thread, so let's move on.
We are talking about states. States have interest that they defends, they are not friends. They can be allied, which defines a frame of acceptable actions towards each others.
So i won't answer to messages referring to emotion or pride regarding that crisis.
I answered Dotini's original message because almost every anglosphere article, twitter or social media reaction that i read was ignoring important facts, like...
- that France can build nuclear powered submarines
- that the diesel ones where asked by Australia in the first place,
- that France have legitimate interests in the area,
- that only a fraction of the the contract value was going to be spent in France
The Biden-Macron phone call was a start for discussion. Le Drian met Blinken the day later, and other meetings are planned. France have limited options anyway given the unbalanced of power. The cooperation in Sahel is already strong (sharing of intelligence before strikes, air refueling of jets), i suspect this part of the joint communiqué to be not more than than... communication.
It's worth mentioning, because you're ignoring the facts that doesn't stick to the narrative you gave. Like AU-FR government meetings and communication that followed the tip-of-the-iceberg articles and should be read as last state of relations: the last one being the successful passing of a "control gates", and before that in June 16th, and i quote AU PM "It was a very positive discussion. The contract is coming up to an important gate in the project.".
Anyway, that France knew or not what was happening in its back, for exemple via its secret services, would be irrelevant when considering its partners behavior.
I didn't even try nor i wanted to counter your point.
I was specifically asking about someone motivation when he feels the need to mention someone else being African for being black (still on T. Noah).
It is not "just French" is that sense, but French in a non-objectionable way, or not from a lesser class French. The context matters a lot here: if origin is mentioned just after the nationality, it is seen as an objection. Otherwise it's absolutely fine in most cases.
And since you mention it, "All Lives Matter" is a good example of how context can turn an otherwise universalist message to a weapon against an anti-racism movement.
Also know @NotThePrez, that i have nothing to object to what you said on how and why you relate to an ethnical group. I raised a very broad, long term question that is out of scope. But that would be a long discussion for another thread, so let's move on.
Indeed. But I've been called "cousin" more than once in Montreal.
In which country do you live? More ambassadors needs to be recalled.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,392
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
I don't know about Trevor but pan-Africanism is a thing.
Pan-Africanism - Wikipedia
- 30,000
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Rudy Giuliani's fart sponge has some thoughts.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
The republican state and Trump-led push for performative legislation recently is interesting. That is, legislation which is designed not to fail to pass (counter to what's mentioned above) in the state, but ultimately everyone knows will be overturned by the courts. First, it seems like it relies upon a deeply uninformed voting base. People who see the big headlines when legislation passes, don't realize it's doomed, can feel that their legislature is doing something for them, and then get mad at the court later for "legislating from the bench". This strategy actually works to get voters, but it relies on voters that are... well... ignorant.
But there's another interesting wrinkle here. Lawmakers in every area of US government are generally lawyers, and that's for a reason. You need to know and understand the law in order to be able to craft law that makes a coherent legal framework. The performative legislation trend decouples that requirement. If it doesn't matter whether your laws will stand, and you don't even need to know if they will, you can pass anything you think will get good headlines. It really does not matter what the legislation says. As a result, the one technical qualification needed for lawmakers is removed (at least for one party). Meaning a buffoon that is popular enough can head up the party, someone who has zero qualifications, and is going to basically make a mess of their job. Complete incompetence in office then feeds hatred for government, and further incompetence in office. The voter base will not detect this, because, as I mentioned earlier, the whole concept relies on the fact that they're ignorant of why being a lawyer might be a remotely good thing in order to hold office in a capacity for passing legislation.
One other wrinkle... this whole scheme relies heavily on our court system. The courts are basically a safety net for bad laws. Republicans are now launching themselves straight into the safety net, that's supposed to be reserved for accidents. If one law slips through, it's disaster for the people. We saw this earlier with abortion rights in Texas. That law didn't slip through, because it hasn't yet been deemed constitutional, but it did temporarily go into effect, and that's impacting the lives of many people in weird a perverse ways. Even allowing one of these absurd pieces of performative legislation temporary status results in real harm. The Texas abortion law is an example of performative legislation. It wasn't really designed to succeed long term, it was more designed to take effect short term. But it really highlights the hazard that Republicans are currently playing with regularly.
But there's another interesting wrinkle here. Lawmakers in every area of US government are generally lawyers, and that's for a reason. You need to know and understand the law in order to be able to craft law that makes a coherent legal framework. The performative legislation trend decouples that requirement. If it doesn't matter whether your laws will stand, and you don't even need to know if they will, you can pass anything you think will get good headlines. It really does not matter what the legislation says. As a result, the one technical qualification needed for lawmakers is removed (at least for one party). Meaning a buffoon that is popular enough can head up the party, someone who has zero qualifications, and is going to basically make a mess of their job. Complete incompetence in office then feeds hatred for government, and further incompetence in office. The voter base will not detect this, because, as I mentioned earlier, the whole concept relies on the fact that they're ignorant of why being a lawyer might be a remotely good thing in order to hold office in a capacity for passing legislation.
One other wrinkle... this whole scheme relies heavily on our court system. The courts are basically a safety net for bad laws. Republicans are now launching themselves straight into the safety net, that's supposed to be reserved for accidents. If one law slips through, it's disaster for the people. We saw this earlier with abortion rights in Texas. That law didn't slip through, because it hasn't yet been deemed constitutional, but it did temporarily go into effect, and that's impacting the lives of many people in weird a perverse ways. Even allowing one of these absurd pieces of performative legislation temporary status results in real harm. The Texas abortion law is an example of performative legislation. It wasn't really designed to succeed long term, it was more designed to take effect short term. But it really highlights the hazard that Republicans are currently playing with regularly.
Last edited:
