France's ambassador to Australia, Jean-Pierre Thebault, said on Wednesday that Australia acted with deceit when it abruptly cancelled a multi-billion dollar deal with Paris to build a fleet of submarines.

"The deceit was intentional," Thebault told media in Canberra on Wednesday.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/newcomer-republican-glenn-youngkin-set-to-win-race-for-virginia-governor-us-media-426354">Newcomer Republican Glenn Youngkin set to win race for Virginia governor: US media</a>

"And because there was far more at stake than providing submarines, because it was a common agreement on sovereignty, sealed with the transmission of highly classified data, the way it was handled was a stab in the back."

Australia in September cancelled a deal with France's Naval Group, opting instead to build at least 12 nuclear-powered submarines in a deal with the United States and Britain.

The new alliance, dubbed AUKUS, is designed to give Australia access to nuclear-powered submarines for the first time.

The decision has caused a major bilateral rift, with France recalling its ambassadors from Australia and the United States in protest. Thebault returned to Canberra last month and the speech on Wednesday is the first time he has spoken publicly on the bilateral relationship.

"These are not things which are done between partners - even less between friends," said Thebault, who added that the French government had no gripe with the people of Australia.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison declined to refute Thebaults comments when speaking on Wednesday in the United Arab Emirates en route from the UN COP26 climate summit.

"Claims were made and claims were refuted, what is needed now is for us to move on," Morrison told reporters.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indonesia-could-phase-out-coal-by-2040-with-financial-help-says-finance-minister-426322">Indonesia could phase out coal by 2040 with financial help, says finance minister</a>

French President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday said Morrison had lied to him about Canberra's intentions. 
Morrison has denied the claim. He said he had previously explained to Macron that conventional submarines would no longer meet Australia's needs.

Morrison and Macron spoke last week before the Australian leader publicly sought a handshake with his French counterpart at the G20 meeting.

The destabilisation of the usually close diplomatic relations between the two nations now threatens to spill over into trade consequences.

The European Union has twice postponed a planned round of free trade talks with Australia. In solidarity with France, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen questioned whether the bloc could strike a trade deal with Australia.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-aviation-regulator-warns-of-potential-interference-from-5g-spectrum-plan-426283">US aviation regulator warns of potential interference from 5G spectrum plan</a>

The relationship was tested further this week after Australian media published leaked messages between Morrison and Macron that attempted to counter France's claim that Australia did not give it sufficient warning that the contract would be cancelled.

Thebault said the leaking of the messages represented an "unprecedented new low" and he said that it sent a worrying signal to heads of state that confidential correspondence could one day be "weaponised against you".

Australia's Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce said Macron was wrong to accuse Morrison of lying. 
"We had a major political leader call the prime minister of Australia a liar, and you can`t do that diplomatically," Joyce told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

"This isn't some tin-pot nation in the middle of nowhere&nbsp;if a person calls you a liar, what are you going to do&nbsp;You have to defend it and say you are not."

US&nbsp;President Joe Biden said last week that the handling of the new pact had been clumsy, adding that he had thought France had been informed of the contract cancellation before the new pact was announced.

France's ambassador to Australia, Jean-Pierre Thebault, said on Wednesday that Australia acted with deceit when it abruptly cancelled a multi-billion dollar deal with Paris to build a fleet of submarines.

France's ambassador to Australia, Jean-Pierre Thebault, said on Wednesday that Australia acted with deceit when it abruptly cancelled a multi-billion dollar deal with Paris to build a fleet of submarines. "The deceit was intentional," Thebault told media in Canberra on Wednesday. Also Read | Newcomer Republican Glenn Youngkin set to win race for Virginia governor: US media "And because there was far more at stake than providing submarines, because it was a common agreement on sovereignty, sealed with the transmission of highly classified data, the way it was handled was a stab in the back." Australia in September cancelled a deal with France's Naval Group, opting instead to build at least 12 nuclear-powered submarines in a deal with the United States and Britain. The new alliance, dubbed AUKUS, is designed to give Australia access to nuclear-powered submarines for the first time. The decision has caused a major bilateral rift, with France recalling its ambassadors from Australia and the United States in protest. Thebault returned to Canberra last month and the speech on Wednesday is the first time he has spoken publicly on the bilateral relationship. "These are not things which are done between partners - even less between friends," said Thebault, who added that the French government had no gripe with the people of Australia. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison declined to refute Thebaults comments when speaking on Wednesday in the United Arab Emirates en route from the UN COP26 climate summit. "Claims were made and claims were refuted, what is needed now is for us to move on," Morrison told reporters. Also Read | Indonesia could phase out coal by 2040 with financial help, says finance minister French President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday said Morrison had lied to him about Canberra's intentions. Morrison has denied the claim. He said he had previously explained to Macron that conventional submarines would no longer meet Australia's needs. Morrison and Macron spoke last week before the Australian leader publicly sought a handshake with his French counterpart at the G20 meeting. The destabilisation of the usually close diplomatic relations between the two nations now threatens to spill over into trade consequences. The European Union has twice postponed a planned round of free trade talks with Australia. In solidarity with France, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen questioned whether the bloc could strike a trade deal with Australia. Also Read | US aviation regulator warns of potential interference from 5G spectrum plan The relationship was tested further this week after Australian media published leaked messages between Morrison and Macron that attempted to counter France's claim that Australia did not give it sufficient warning that the contract would be cancelled. Thebault said the leaking of the messages represented an "unprecedented new low" and he said that it sent a worrying signal to heads of state that confidential correspondence could one day be "weaponised against you". Australia's Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce said Macron was wrong to accuse Morrison of lying. "We had a major political leader call the prime minister of Australia a liar, and you can`t do that diplomatically," Joyce told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. "This isn't some tin-pot nation in the middle of nowhere if a person calls you a liar, what are you going to do You have to defend it and say you are not." US President Joe Biden said last week that the handling of the new pact had been clumsy, adding that he had thought France had been informed of the contract cancellation before the new pact was announced.

French ambassador accuses Australia of deceit over submarine deal

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison lied to President Emmanuel Macron over the cancellation of a submarine building contract in September, said the French leader. &nbsp;

The president also indicated more needs to be done to rebuild trust between the nations. &nbsp;

In Rome for the G20 summit, Macron and Morrison met for the first time since Australia scrapped a submarine deal with France while announcing a new security alliance with the United States and the UK in September. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/g-20-nations-agree-to-new-limits-on-coal-burning-power-plants-425676" hreflang="en">G-20 nations agree to new limits on coal-burning power plants</a>

Dubbed as AUKUS, the new security alliance looks to give Australia access to nuclear-powered submarines. This announcement caught France off guard and saw the ambassadors of the country recalled from Washington and Canberra as the leaders of the country made accusations of betrayal. &nbsp;

"I have a lot of respect for your country. I have a lot of respect and a lot of friendship for your people. I just say when we have respect, you have to be true and you have to behave in line and consistently with this value," the French president told a group of Australian reporters, who travelled to cover the G20. &nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/g20-summit-biden-expresses-disappointment-at-china-and-russias-absence-425707" hreflang="en">G20 Summit: Biden expresses ‘disappointment’ at China and Russia’s absence</a>

Asked if he thought Australian PM lied to him, the president replied, "I don't think, I know." &nbsp;

At a media conference on Sunday in Rome, Morrison later said, he had not lied and that he had previously explained to president that conventional submarines would no longer meet Australia's needs. &nbsp;

"I was very clear that what was going to be provided to us was not going to meet our strategic interests, and there was still a process we were engaged in, and we then engaged in, over the months that followed. And then we communicated to him (Macron) our ultimate decision," Morrison added. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison lied to President Emmanuel Macron over the cancellation of a submarine building contract in September, said the French leader.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison lied to President Emmanuel Macron over the cancellation of a submarine building contract in September, said the French leader. The president also indicated more needs to be done to rebuild trust between the nations. In Rome for the G20 summit, Macron and Morrison met for the first time since Australia scrapped a submarine deal with France while announcing a new security alliance with the United States and the UK in September. Also Read: G-20 nations agree to new limits on coal-burning power plants Dubbed as AUKUS, the new security alliance looks to give Australia access to nuclear-powered submarines. This announcement caught France off guard and saw the ambassadors of the country recalled from Washington and Canberra as the leaders of the country made accusations of betrayal. "I have a lot of respect for your country. I have a lot of respect and a lot of friendship for your people. I just say when we have respect, you have to be true and you have to behave in line and consistently with this value," the French president told a group of Australian reporters, who travelled to cover the G20. Also Read | G20 Summit: Biden expresses ‘disappointment’ at China and Russia’s absence Asked if he thought Australian PM lied to him, the president replied, "I don't think, I know." At a media conference on Sunday in Rome, Morrison later said, he had not lied and that he had previously explained to president that conventional submarines would no longer meet Australia's needs. "I was very clear that what was going to be provided to us was not going to meet our strategic interests, and there was still a process we were engaged in, and we then engaged in, over the months that followed. And then we communicated to him (Macron) our ultimate decision," Morrison added. (With inputs from agencies)

AUKUS row: Australian prime minister lied over submarine deal, says French president

US president Joe Biden is all set to meet his counterpart Emmanuel Macron today, bilateral meets which are scheduled to take place ahead of the G20 summit is being seen as a chance to men relations and further re-engage after a row over AUKUS row.

US president Joe Biden to meet counterpart Emmanuel Macron, bilateral meet ahead of G20 summit

When Australia made its trumpet-blast announcement that it would build nuclear-powered submarines with the help of the United States and Britain, the three allies said they would spend the next 18 months sorting out the details of a security collaboration that President Joe Biden celebrated as “historic.”

Now, a month into their timetable, the partners are quietly coming to grips with the proposal’s immense complexities. Even supporters say the hurdles are formidable. Skeptics say they could be insurmountable.

Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, has laid out an ambitious vision, saying that at least eight nuclear-propelled submarines using U.S. or British technology will be built in Australia and enter the water starting in the late 2030s, replacing its squadron of six aging diesel-powered submarines.

For Australia, nuclear-powered submarines offer a powerful means to counter China’s growing naval reach and an escape hatch from a faltering agreement with a French firm to build diesel submarines. For the Biden administration, the plan demonstrates support for a beleaguered ally and shows that it means business in countering Chinese power. And for Britain, the plan could shore up its international standing and military industry after the upheaval of Brexit.

But the Rubik’s Cube of interlocking complications that pervades the initiative could slow delivery of the submarines — or, critics say, sunder the whole endeavor — leaving a dangerous gap in Australia’s defenses and calling into question the partnership’s ability to live up to its security promises.

“It’s a dangerous pathway we’re treading down,” said Rex Patrick, an independent member of Australia’s Senate who served as a submariner in the Australian navy for a decade.

“What’s at stake is national security,” Patrick said. Given the decadeslong wait for a squadron of new submarines, he added, Australia risked “buying a parachute for after the plane has crashed.”

To pull off the plan, Australia must make major advances. It has a limited industrial base and built its last submarine more than 20 years ago. It produces a few graduates in nuclear engineering each year. Its spending on science research as a share of the economy has lagged the average for wealthy economies. Its past two plans to build submarines fell apart before any were made.

As well, the United States and Britain face hurdles to expanding production of submarines and their high-precision parts for Australia, and to diverting expert labor to South Australia, where, Morrison has said, the boats will be assembled. Washington and London have heavy schedules to build submarines for their own navies, including hulking vessels to carry nuclear missiles.

“I don’t think this is a done deal in any way, shape or form,” said Marcus Hellyer, an expert on naval policy at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

“We sometimes use the term nation-building lightly, but this will be a whole-of-nation task,” he said. “The decision to go down this path while burning all of our bridges behind us was quite a brave decision.”

U.S. officials have already spent hundreds of hours in talks with their Australian counterparts and have no illusions about the complexities, said officials involved. Morrison “has said this is a high-risk program; he was upfront when he announced it,” Greg Moriarty, the secretary of the Australian Department of Defense, told a Senate committee this week.

Failure or serious delays would ripple beyond Australia. The Biden administration has staked American credibility on building up Australia’s military as part of an “integrated deterrence” policy that will knit the United States closer to its allies in offsetting China.

“Success would be tremendous for Australia and the U.S., assuming open access to each other’s facilities and what it means in deterring China,” said Brent Sadler, a former U.S. Navy officer who is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “Failure would be doubly damaging — an alliance that cannot deliver, loss of undersea capacity by a trusted ally and a turn to isolationism on Australia’s part.”

Australia is hoping for a reversal of fortune after more than a decade of misadventures in its submarine-modernization efforts. The plan for French-designed diesel submarines that Morrison abandoned had succeeded a deal for Japanese-designed submarines that his predecessor championed.

“No living Australian prime minister has commissioned a sub that actually got built,” Greg Sheridan, a columnist for The Australian newspaper, wrote in a recent article critical of Morrison’s plan.

Australia’s latest proposal contains many potential pitfalls.

It could turn to the United States to help build something like its Virginia-class attack submarine. (Such submarines are nuclear-powered, allowing them to travel faster and stay underwater much longer than diesel ones, but they do not carry nuclear missiles.)

But the two American shipyards that make nuclear submarines, as well as their suppliers, are straining to keep up with orders for the U.S. Navy. The shipyards complete about two Virginia class boats a year for the Navy and are ramping up to build Columbia-class submarines, 21,000-ton vessels that carry nuclear missiles as a roving deterrent — a priority for any administration.

A report to the Senate Armed Services Committee last month warned that the “nuclear shipbuilding industrial base continues to struggle to support the increased demand” from U.S. orders. That report was prepared too late to take into account the Australian proposal.

“They are working at 95-98% on Virginia and Columbia,” Richard V. Spencer, a Navy secretary in the Trump administration, said of the two U.S. submarine shipyards. He supports Australia’s plan and said his preferred path on the first submarines was to galvanize specialized suppliers to ship parts, or whole segments of the submarines, to assemble in Australia.

“Let us all be perfectly aware and wide-eyed that the nuclear program is a massive resource consumer and time consumer, and that’s the given,” he said in a telephone interview.

Other experts have said Australia should choose Britain’s Astute class submarine, which is less expensive and uses a smaller crew than the big American boats. The head of Australia’s nuclear submarine task force, Vice Adm. Jonathan Mead, said this week that his team was considering mature, “in-production designs” from Britain, as well as the United States.

“That de-risks the program,” he said during a Senate committee hearing.

But Britain’s submarines have come relatively slowly off its production line, and often behind schedule. Britain’s submarine maker, BAE Systems, is also busy building Dreadnought submarines to carry the country’s nuclear deterrent.

“Spare capacity is very limited,” Trevor Taylor, a professorial research fellow in defense management at the Royal United Services Institute, a research institute, wrote in an email. “The U.K. cannot afford to impose delay on its Dreadnought program in order to divert effort to Australia.”

Adding to the complications, Britain has been phasing out the PWR2 reactor that powers the Astute, after officials agreed that the model would “not be acceptable going forward,” an audit report said in 2018. The Astute is not designed to fit the next-generation reactor, and that issue could make it difficult to restart building the submarine for Australia, Taylor and other experts said.

Britain’s successor to the Astute is still on the drawing board; the government said last month that it would spend three years on design work for it. A naval official in the British Ministry of Defense said that the planned new submarine could fit Australia’s timetable well. Several experts were less sure.

“Waiting for the next-generation U.K. or U.S. attack submarine would mean an extended capability gap” for Australia, Taylor wrote in an assessment.

The challenge does not stop with building the submarines. Safeguards to protect sailors and populations, and meet nonproliferation obligations, will require a big buildup of Australia’s nuclear safety expertise.

Residents in some parts of Barrow-in-Furness, the town of 67,000 that is home to Britain’s submarine-building shipyard, are handed iodine tablets as a precaution against possible leaks when reactors are tested. The Osborne shipyard in South Australia, where Morrison wants to build the nuclear submarines, sits on the edge of Adelaide, a city of 1.4 million.

Australia operates one small nuclear reactor. Its sole university program dedicated to nuclear engineering produces about five graduates every year, said Edward Obbard, the leader of the program at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. Australia would need many thousands more people with nuclear training and experience if it wants the submarines, he said.

“The ramp-up has to start now,” he said. 
&nbsp;

When Australia made its trumpet-blast announcement that it would build nuclear-powered submarines with the help of the United States and Britain, the three allies said they would spend the next 18 months sorting out the details of a security collaboration that President Joe Biden celebrated as “historic.

When Australia made its trumpet-blast announcement that it would build nuclear-powered submarines with the help of the United States and Britain, the three allies said they would spend the next 18 months sorting out the details of a security collaboration that President Joe Biden celebrated as “historic.” Now, a month into their timetable, the partners are quietly coming to grips with the proposal’s immense complexities. Even supporters say the hurdles are formidable. Skeptics say they could be insurmountable. Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, has laid out an ambitious vision, saying that at least eight nuclear-propelled submarines using U.S. or British technology will be built in Australia and enter the water starting in the late 2030s, replacing its squadron of six aging diesel-powered submarines. For Australia, nuclear-powered submarines offer a powerful means to counter China’s growing naval reach and an escape hatch from a faltering agreement with a French firm to build diesel submarines. For the Biden administration, the plan demonstrates support for a beleaguered ally and shows that it means business in countering Chinese power. And for Britain, the plan could shore up its international standing and military industry after the upheaval of Brexit. But the Rubik’s Cube of interlocking complications that pervades the initiative could slow delivery of the submarines — or, critics say, sunder the whole endeavor — leaving a dangerous gap in Australia’s defenses and calling into question the partnership’s ability to live up to its security promises. “It’s a dangerous pathway we’re treading down,” said Rex Patrick, an independent member of Australia’s Senate who served as a submariner in the Australian navy for a decade. “What’s at stake is national security,” Patrick said. Given the decadeslong wait for a squadron of new submarines, he added, Australia risked “buying a parachute for after the plane has crashed.” To pull off the plan, Australia must make major advances. It has a limited industrial base and built its last submarine more than 20 years ago. It produces a few graduates in nuclear engineering each year. Its spending on science research as a share of the economy has lagged the average for wealthy economies. Its past two plans to build submarines fell apart before any were made. As well, the United States and Britain face hurdles to expanding production of submarines and their high-precision parts for Australia, and to diverting expert labor to South Australia, where, Morrison has said, the boats will be assembled. Washington and London have heavy schedules to build submarines for their own navies, including hulking vessels to carry nuclear missiles. “I don’t think this is a done deal in any way, shape or form,” said Marcus Hellyer, an expert on naval policy at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. “We sometimes use the term nation-building lightly, but this will be a whole-of-nation task,” he said. “The decision to go down this path while burning all of our bridges behind us was quite a brave decision.” U.S. officials have already spent hundreds of hours in talks with their Australian counterparts and have no illusions about the complexities, said officials involved. Morrison “has said this is a high-risk program; he was upfront when he announced it,” Greg Moriarty, the secretary of the Australian Department of Defense, told a Senate committee this week. Failure or serious delays would ripple beyond Australia. The Biden administration has staked American credibility on building up Australia’s military as part of an “integrated deterrence” policy that will knit the United States closer to its allies in offsetting China. “Success would be tremendous for Australia and the U.S., assuming open access to each other’s facilities and what it means in deterring China,” said Brent Sadler, a former U.S. Navy officer who is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “Failure would be doubly damaging — an alliance that cannot deliver, loss of undersea capacity by a trusted ally and a turn to isolationism on Australia’s part.” Australia is hoping for a reversal of fortune after more than a decade of misadventures in its submarine-modernization efforts. The plan for French-designed diesel submarines that Morrison abandoned had succeeded a deal for Japanese-designed submarines that his predecessor championed. “No living Australian prime minister has commissioned a sub that actually got built,” Greg Sheridan, a columnist for The Australian newspaper, wrote in a recent article critical of Morrison’s plan. Australia’s latest proposal contains many potential pitfalls. It could turn to the United States to help build something like its Virginia-class attack submarine. (Such submarines are nuclear-powered, allowing them to travel faster and stay underwater much longer than diesel ones, but they do not carry nuclear missiles.) But the two American shipyards that make nuclear submarines, as well as their suppliers, are straining to keep up with orders for the U.S. Navy. The shipyards complete about two Virginia class boats a year for the Navy and are ramping up to build Columbia-class submarines, 21,000-ton vessels that carry nuclear missiles as a roving deterrent — a priority for any administration. A report to the Senate Armed Services Committee last month warned that the “nuclear shipbuilding industrial base continues to struggle to support the increased demand” from U.S. orders. That report was prepared too late to take into account the Australian proposal. “They are working at 95-98% on Virginia and Columbia,” Richard V. Spencer, a Navy secretary in the Trump administration, said of the two U.S. submarine shipyards. He supports Australia’s plan and said his preferred path on the first submarines was to galvanize specialized suppliers to ship parts, or whole segments of the submarines, to assemble in Australia. “Let us all be perfectly aware and wide-eyed that the nuclear program is a massive resource consumer and time consumer, and that’s the given,” he said in a telephone interview. Other experts have said Australia should choose Britain’s Astute class submarine, which is less expensive and uses a smaller crew than the big American boats. The head of Australia’s nuclear submarine task force, Vice Adm. Jonathan Mead, said this week that his team was considering mature, “in-production designs” from Britain, as well as the United States. “That de-risks the program,” he said during a Senate committee hearing. But Britain’s submarines have come relatively slowly off its production line, and often behind schedule. Britain’s submarine maker, BAE Systems, is also busy building Dreadnought submarines to carry the country’s nuclear deterrent. “Spare capacity is very limited,” Trevor Taylor, a professorial research fellow in defense management at the Royal United Services Institute, a research institute, wrote in an email. “The U.K. cannot afford to impose delay on its Dreadnought program in order to divert effort to Australia.” Adding to the complications, Britain has been phasing out the PWR2 reactor that powers the Astute, after officials agreed that the model would “not be acceptable going forward,” an audit report said in 2018. The Astute is not designed to fit the next-generation reactor, and that issue could make it difficult to restart building the submarine for Australia, Taylor and other experts said. Britain’s successor to the Astute is still on the drawing board; the government said last month that it would spend three years on design work for it. A naval official in the British Ministry of Defense said that the planned new submarine could fit Australia’s timetable well. Several experts were less sure. “Waiting for the next-generation U.K. or U.S. attack submarine would mean an extended capability gap” for Australia, Taylor wrote in an assessment. The challenge does not stop with building the submarines. Safeguards to protect sailors and populations, and meet nonproliferation obligations, will require a big buildup of Australia’s nuclear safety expertise. Residents in some parts of Barrow-in-Furness, the town of 67,000 that is home to Britain’s submarine-building shipyard, are handed iodine tablets as a precaution against possible leaks when reactors are tested. The Osborne shipyard in South Australia, where Morrison wants to build the nuclear submarines, sits on the edge of Adelaide, a city of 1.4 million. Australia operates one small nuclear reactor. Its sole university program dedicated to nuclear engineering produces about five graduates every year, said Edward Obbard, the leader of the program at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. Australia would need many thousands more people with nuclear training and experience if it wants the submarines, he said. “The ramp-up has to start now,” he said.

Nuclear-powered submarines for Australia? Maybe not so fast.

The chief of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the UN’s nuclear watchdog—has warned that the nuclear submarine deal signed between Australia, US and UK could potentially spark off another race for nuclear submarines, suggesting that “other countries might follow Australia’s example”.

During a visit to Washington, Rafael Grossi, the director general of the IAEA, said he had sent a special team to look into the safety and legal implications of the AUKUS partnership announced last month, in which the US and UK will help Australia build a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, reports the Guardian.

“We have to have specific agreements to make sure that whatever they receive technology-wise or material-wise, is under safeguards,” Grossi was quoted as saying on Tuesday.

“There has to be a specific arrangement with the IAEA. Now we have to dot the Is and cross the Ts, which has never been done before, and it’s a very, very demanding process,” he added.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russias-foreign-minister-lavrov-slams-quad-aukus-417837">Russia's foreign minister Lavrov slams Quad, AUKUS</a>

Grossi said it “cannot be excluded” that other countries would use the AUKUS precedent to pursue their own nuclear submarine plans.

According to the Guardian, Canada and South Korea are contemplating building nuclear-powered submarines, which can stay underwater longer and are quieter than their conventional counterparts. Brazil too has an ongoing nuclear submarine project.

Watch

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/south-east-asian-nations-cautions-over-aukus-pact-414836/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Grossi said one of the key factors that is hindering other nations to emulate Australia was the technical challenges in building a nuclear-propelled submarine.

“To have a nuclear reactor in a submarine in a vessel operating safely is a very difficult thing to do,” he said.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-aukus-submarine-dispute-india-and-france-pledge-to-act-jointly-in-indo-pacific-region-414776">After Aukus submarine dispute, India and France pledge to act jointly in Indo-Pacific region</a>

The IAEA director general said the US and the UK need ensure that the nuclear material and technology was transferred to Australia in a safe way that did not raise risks of nuclear weapon proliferation.

He said the issue had been raised in his talks with US secretary of state Antony Blinken in Washington this week.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/biden-you-should-be-aware-that-your-submarine-deal-has-costs-417409">Biden, you should be aware that your submarine deal has costs</a>

“I think he’s fully aware of the implications, and we are going to have an engagement, formal engagement, soon in a tripartite way or otherwise,” Grossi said. “I already set up a taskforce within the inspectorate, composed of very experienced safeguards inspectors and legal experts to look into this.”

The AUKUS pact will also focus on military capability, an sharing of cyber capabilities and other undersea technologies.

The AUKUS is being seen as a counterbalance to China’s growing influence in the South China Sea.

China has slammed the move saying the pact “seriously undermines regional peace and intensifies the arms race.”&nbsp;

The AUKUS deal also spurned France as it forced Australia to cancel a $37bn deal with a French company building diesel-powered submarines.

France was also irked with the fact that despite being a traditional Western ally, it found out about the new pact only a few hours before the public announcement.

(With inputs from agencies)

The chief of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the UN’s nuclear watchdog—has warned that the nuclear submarine deal signed between Australia, US and UK could potentially spark off another race for nuclear submarines, suggesting that “other countries might follow Australia’s example”.

The chief of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the UN’s nuclear watchdog—has warned that the nuclear submarine deal signed between Australia, US and UK could potentially spark off another race for nuclear submarines, suggesting that “other countries might follow Australia’s example”. During a visit to Washington, Rafael Grossi, the director general of the IAEA, said he had sent a special team to look into the safety and legal implications of the AUKUS partnership announced last month, in which the US and UK will help Australia build a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, reports the Guardian. “We have to have specific agreements to make sure that whatever they receive technology-wise or material-wise, is under safeguards,” Grossi was quoted as saying on Tuesday. “There has to be a specific arrangement with the IAEA. Now we have to dot the Is and cross the Ts, which has never been done before, and it’s a very, very demanding process,” he added. Also read | Russia's foreign minister Lavrov slams Quad, AUKUS Grossi said it “cannot be excluded” that other countries would use the AUKUS precedent to pursue their own nuclear submarine plans. According to the Guardian, Canada and South Korea are contemplating building nuclear-powered submarines, which can stay underwater longer and are quieter than their conventional counterparts. Brazil too has an ongoing nuclear submarine project. Watch Grossi said one of the key factors that is hindering other nations to emulate Australia was the technical challenges in building a nuclear-propelled submarine. “To have a nuclear reactor in a submarine in a vessel operating safely is a very difficult thing to do,” he said. Also read | After Aukus submarine dispute, India and France pledge to act jointly in Indo-Pacific region The IAEA director general said the US and the UK need ensure that the nuclear material and technology was transferred to Australia in a safe way that did not raise risks of nuclear weapon proliferation. He said the issue had been raised in his talks with US secretary of state Antony Blinken in Washington this week. Also read | Biden, you should be aware that your submarine deal has costs “I think he’s fully aware of the implications, and we are going to have an engagement, formal engagement, soon in a tripartite way or otherwise,” Grossi said. “I already set up a taskforce within the inspectorate, composed of very experienced safeguards inspectors and legal experts to look into this.” The AUKUS pact will also focus on military capability, an sharing of cyber capabilities and other undersea technologies. The AUKUS is being seen as a counterbalance to China’s growing influence in the South China Sea. China has slammed the move saying the pact “seriously undermines regional peace and intensifies the arms race.” The AUKUS deal also spurned France as it forced Australia to cancel a $37bn deal with a French company building diesel-powered submarines. France was also irked with the fact that despite being a traditional Western ally, it found out about the new pact only a few hours before the public announcement. (With inputs from agencies)

AUKUS deal may spark off race to acquire nuclear submarines, warns IAEA chief

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Paris, hoping to contain the fallout from the AUKUS deal. France has agreed to send their envoy back to Australia with the intention of mending ties. Palki Sharma tells you more.

Gravitas: Blinken in France to contain AUKUS fallout

More than two weeks after the shock scrapping of a submarine contract with Australia, France is in no hurry to mend ties with Canberra as it weighs up whether to extract a cost for its ally’s “betrayal”.Watch this report for more details.

France in no hurry to mend Australia ties

Amid China's resistance over the Indo-Pacific alliances, Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov slammed the Quad and AUKUS partnership in a strongly-worded statement.&nbsp;

Lavrov said the AUKUS alliance including the four-sided dialogue on security was "directed at eroding long-standing universal formats of cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region that exist under the auspices of the association of southeast Asian nations."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/quad-partners-india-and-australia-to-ink-trade-deal-by-end-2022-417337">Also Read:&nbsp;Quad partners India and Australia to ink trade deal by end 2022</a>

President Biden along with UK Prime minister Boris Johnson and PM Scott Morrison had announced the AUKUS alliance last month which allowed Australia to build nuclear-powered submarines with US and UK's help. &nbsp;

Lavrov while speaking at the assembly of the council of foreign and defence policy took a dig at the Biden administration while asserting that "one of the most fashionable trends today is the so-called Indo-Pacific strategies that are invented by the United States."

Russia's foreign minister said such approaches are "detrimental to existing world system".

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/amid-aukus-row-concern-grows-over-chinese-vessels-overfishing-in-high-seas-416136">Also Read:&nbsp;Amid AUKUS row, concern grows over Chinese vessels&nbsp;</a>

The AUKUS alliance&nbsp;led Australia to cancel its submarine deal with France which angered the Macron government. The defence pact is seen as an attempt to counter China's influence in the high seas.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/scott-morrison-briefly-talked-about-aukus-alliance-with-indian-pm-harsh-shringla-415375">Also Read:&nbsp;Scott Morrison briefly talked about Aukus alliance with Indian PM</a>

The French government recalled its ambassadors from the United States and Australia as relations between the allies&nbsp;touched a new low over the controversial deal.

However, President Biden spoke to Macron in an attempt to cool matters as French ambassador Philippe Etienne returned to the United States and met US secretary of state Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan.

(With inputs from Agencies)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Amid China's resistance over the Indo-Pacific alliances, Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov slammed the Quad and AUKUS partnership in a strongly-worded statement.

Amid China's resistance over the Indo-Pacific alliances, Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov slammed the Quad and AUKUS partnership in a strongly-worded statement. Lavrov said the AUKUS alliance including the four-sided dialogue on security was "directed at eroding long-standing universal formats of cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region that exist under the auspices of the association of southeast Asian nations." Also Read: Quad partners India and Australia to ink trade deal by end 2022 President Biden along with UK Prime minister Boris Johnson and PM Scott Morrison had announced the AUKUS alliance last month which allowed Australia to build nuclear-powered submarines with US and UK's help. Lavrov while speaking at the assembly of the council of foreign and defence policy took a dig at the Biden administration while asserting that "one of the most fashionable trends today is the so-called Indo-Pacific strategies that are invented by the United States." Russia's foreign minister said such approaches are "detrimental to existing world system". Also Read: Amid AUKUS row, concern grows over Chinese vessels The AUKUS alliance led Australia to cancel its submarine deal with France which angered the Macron government. The defence pact is seen as an attempt to counter China's influence in the high seas. Also Read: Scott Morrison briefly talked about Aukus alliance with Indian PM The French government recalled its ambassadors from the United States and Australia as relations between the allies touched a new low over the controversial deal. However, President Biden spoke to Macron in an attempt to cool matters as French ambassador Philippe Etienne returned to the United States and met US secretary of state Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. (With inputs from Agencies)

Russia's foreign minister Lavrov slams Quad, AUKUS

Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said that US-led alliances like QUAD, AUKUS, are seeking to undermine ASEAN-centric cooperation formats in the Asia-Pacific.

Sergey Lavrov: US led alliances erode ASEAN-centric formats

USA is reaching out to France as relations between the two takes a hit after AUKUS deal. US Secretary Antony Blinken will travel to Paris to meet top French officials.

US Secretary Antony Blinken to visit France amid AUKUS row

For more than a decade, Washington has struggled to prioritize what it calls great power competition with China — a contest for military and political dominance. President Biden has been working hard to make the pivot to Asia that his two predecessors never quite managed.

The landmark defense pact with Australia and Britain, AUKUS, that Mr. Biden announced this month is a major step to making that pivot a reality. Under the agreement, Australia will explore hosting U.S. bombers on its territory, gain access to advanced missiles and receive nuclear propulsion technology to power a new fleet of submarines.

On the surface, AUKUS provides a way to aid the deployment of advanced military hardware in Asia and draw a clearer line between countries standing with China and those standing against it.

But the agreement also reflects the problems of great power competition. It’s not clear whether it will help address the security challenges posed by China — or be worth the costs.

Although AUKUS made headlines about a united Anglophone front against China, it caused issues with other allies (namely France). It risks compromising long-term nonproliferation interests in favor of near-term militarism. It directs immense resources to ineffective strategies. It reacts to China’s military buildup but does not provide a credible deterrent or seriously alter the regional military balance against Beijing.

Take the case of Taiwan, considered by many to be the most pressing challenge to the United States from China. The prospect of a Chinese attack on the island is preoccupying generals and policymakers and driving Pentagon budgets and planning amid concerns of aggression.

War games inside and outside the Pentagon show that China’s massive military buildup has increased Beijing’s capability to rapidly gain control over Taiwan. It is far more difficult for the United States and its allies to project power thousands of miles to Taiwan than it is for China to project power 100 miles across the Taiwan Strait. U.S. aircraft simply cannot fly enough sorties to overwhelm both China’s aircraft and its missile defense systems. Allied ships are too few and too vulnerable to Chinese missiles to control the seas around the island.

The AUKUS agreement does not change these facts. And any marginal gains are likely to be too little, too late. It will be at least a decade before the first new Australian submarine is put to sea. Meanwhile, according to U.S. naval intelligence, China will add six nuclear-powered attack submarines by 2030 and is expanding production facilities, in addition to its rapid construction of diesel-electric submarines.

That doesn’t mean the United States and its allies should abandon Taiwan. But it does mean that we cannot expect to defend Taiwan by overwhelming China with superior firepower projected from distant bases and ports. Neither AUKUS submarines nor U.S. bombers flying from northern Australia are likely to tip the balance if they are dedicated to the same losing strategy. So the three nations in the AUKUS agreement are not more likely to intervene or more capable of doing so.

This is a hallmark of great power competition: Competitive initiatives like AUKUS provide visible ways to counter or balance or complicate China’s military activities but don’t necessarily help allies meet defined objectives. More often, competition becomes an end in itself — an open-ended imperative that assumes everything an opponent dislikes must be good policy.

Another common feature of competitive policies is that officials tend to overlook their costs.

For one thing, AUKUS carries significant diplomatic costs at a time when the United States is in desperate need of credibility with its allies. France views AUKUS as “a knife in the back” because Australia sealed it by backing out of a 2016 deal worth $66 billion to purchase French diesel-electric submarines. That perceived betrayal could cause unnecessary friction in NATO and make it more difficult to cooperate with France on China.

In Asia, the agreement exposes the Quad — an informal partnership of the United States, Japan, India and Australia — as thin multilateralism, willing to coordinate on issues from health to military exercises but apparently unwilling or unable to directly confront China. This much was evident when a White House statement after a meeting of the Quad last week did not offer much concrete help for Asian nations facing interference from China.

There is also the risk that the deal spooks Southeast Asian nations that, despite facing threats from China, worry about getting caught in the middle of this great power competition and could become less likely to cooperate with U.S. initiatives that might anger Beijing, their biggest and most powerful neighbor.

Moreover, the AUKUS agreement, with its sharing of nuclear propulsion technology, could do significant damage to nonproliferation interests. Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia rightly promised that the nation “is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability.” But that assurance won’t necessarily prevent or deter other countries from exploiting the loophole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that allows diversion of nuclear materials for naval reactors.

As the AUKUS nations hammer out details of the agreement over the next 18 months, the countries should consider two adjustments to make sure it sets a strong precedent. First, Australia should commit not to enrich uranium or reprocess reactor fuel domestically while it operates the reactors. Second, those nations should consider including France in the agreement in order to use its reactor designs, which run on low-enriched uranium — considered less of a proliferation risk than the highly enriched uranium in U.S. or British designs.

U.S. officials will also have to work hard to ensure the agreement does not cause problems with South Korea, another ally exploring nuclear-powered submarines and one where many politicians and nearly 70 percent of the public support developing nuclear weapons.

The Biden administration should take a breath and make certain it does not reflect a self-defeating, militarized concept of great power that pushes other potential partners away in bullheaded pursuit of agreement on one issue. It should institute strong nonproliferation safeguards, repair damage to other vital alliances and ensure that the plan isn’t throwing good money after bad strategy.

The administration should be investing in more cost-effective ways to thwart China’s ability to project military power, like long-range air defenses and anti-ship missiles, not expensive systems that stand little chance of overwhelming China’s forces near its borders. The administration also should recognize when military might is not the answer — and do more to raise the economic and diplomatic costs of Chinese aggression.

Mr. Biden should guarantee that agreements like AUKUS do not undermine the United States’ deterrence credibility, its alliances and partnerships and its long-term interests like nuclear nonproliferation. Too often, a narrow focus on great power competition just leaves America less competitive in the long run.

For more than a decade, Washington has struggled to prioritize what it calls great power competition with China — a contest for military and political dominance.

For more than a decade, Washington has struggled to prioritize what it calls great power competition with China — a contest for military and political dominance. President Biden has been working hard to make the pivot to Asia that his two predecessors never quite managed. The landmark defense pact with Australia and Britain, AUKUS, that Mr. Biden announced this month is a major step to making that pivot a reality. Under the agreement, Australia will explore hosting U.S. bombers on its territory, gain access to advanced missiles and receive nuclear propulsion technology to power a new fleet of submarines. On the surface, AUKUS provides a way to aid the deployment of advanced military hardware in Asia and draw a clearer line between countries standing with China and those standing against it. But the agreement also reflects the problems of great power competition. It’s not clear whether it will help address the security challenges posed by China — or be worth the costs. Although AUKUS made headlines about a united Anglophone front against China, it caused issues with other allies (namely France). It risks compromising long-term nonproliferation interests in favor of near-term militarism. It directs immense resources to ineffective strategies. It reacts to China’s military buildup but does not provide a credible deterrent or seriously alter the regional military balance against Beijing. Take the case of Taiwan, considered by many to be the most pressing challenge to the United States from China. The prospect of a Chinese attack on the island is preoccupying generals and policymakers and driving Pentagon budgets and planning amid concerns of aggression. War games inside and outside the Pentagon show that China’s massive military buildup has increased Beijing’s capability to rapidly gain control over Taiwan. It is far more difficult for the United States and its allies to project power thousands of miles to Taiwan than it is for China to project power 100 miles across the Taiwan Strait. U.S. aircraft simply cannot fly enough sorties to overwhelm both China’s aircraft and its missile defense systems. Allied ships are too few and too vulnerable to Chinese missiles to control the seas around the island. The AUKUS agreement does not change these facts. And any marginal gains are likely to be too little, too late. It will be at least a decade before the first new Australian submarine is put to sea. Meanwhile, according to U.S. naval intelligence, China will add six nuclear-powered attack submarines by 2030 and is expanding production facilities, in addition to its rapid construction of diesel-electric submarines. That doesn’t mean the United States and its allies should abandon Taiwan. But it does mean that we cannot expect to defend Taiwan by overwhelming China with superior firepower projected from distant bases and ports. Neither AUKUS submarines nor U.S. bombers flying from northern Australia are likely to tip the balance if they are dedicated to the same losing strategy. So the three nations in the AUKUS agreement are not more likely to intervene or more capable of doing so. This is a hallmark of great power competition: Competitive initiatives like AUKUS provide visible ways to counter or balance or complicate China’s military activities but don’t necessarily help allies meet defined objectives. More often, competition becomes an end in itself — an open-ended imperative that assumes everything an opponent dislikes must be good policy. Another common feature of competitive policies is that officials tend to overlook their costs. For one thing, AUKUS carries significant diplomatic costs at a time when the United States is in desperate need of credibility with its allies. France views AUKUS as “a knife in the back” because Australia sealed it by backing out of a 2016 deal worth $66 billion to purchase French diesel-electric submarines. That perceived betrayal could cause unnecessary friction in NATO and make it more difficult to cooperate with France on China. In Asia, the agreement exposes the Quad — an informal partnership of the United States, Japan, India and Australia — as thin multilateralism, willing to coordinate on issues from health to military exercises but apparently unwilling or unable to directly confront China. This much was evident when a White House statement after a meeting of the Quad last week did not offer much concrete help for Asian nations facing interference from China. There is also the risk that the deal spooks Southeast Asian nations that, despite facing threats from China, worry about getting caught in the middle of this great power competition and could become less likely to cooperate with U.S. initiatives that might anger Beijing, their biggest and most powerful neighbor. Moreover, the AUKUS agreement, with its sharing of nuclear propulsion technology, could do significant damage to nonproliferation interests. Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia rightly promised that the nation “is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability.” But that assurance won’t necessarily prevent or deter other countries from exploiting the loophole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that allows diversion of nuclear materials for naval reactors. As the AUKUS nations hammer out details of the agreement over the next 18 months, the countries should consider two adjustments to make sure it sets a strong precedent. First, Australia should commit not to enrich uranium or reprocess reactor fuel domestically while it operates the reactors. Second, those nations should consider including France in the agreement in order to use its reactor designs, which run on low-enriched uranium — considered less of a proliferation risk than the highly enriched uranium in U.S. or British designs. U.S. officials will also have to work hard to ensure the agreement does not cause problems with South Korea, another ally exploring nuclear-powered submarines and one where many politicians and nearly 70 percent of the public support developing nuclear weapons. The Biden administration should take a breath and make certain it does not reflect a self-defeating, militarized concept of great power that pushes other potential partners away in bullheaded pursuit of agreement on one issue. It should institute strong nonproliferation safeguards, repair damage to other vital alliances and ensure that the plan isn’t throwing good money after bad strategy. The administration should be investing in more cost-effective ways to thwart China’s ability to project military power, like long-range air defenses and anti-ship missiles, not expensive systems that stand little chance of overwhelming China’s forces near its borders. The administration also should recognize when military might is not the answer — and do more to raise the economic and diplomatic costs of Chinese aggression. Mr. Biden should guarantee that agreements like AUKUS do not undermine the United States’ deterrence credibility, its alliances and partnerships and its long-term interests like nuclear nonproliferation. Too often, a narrow focus on great power competition just leaves America less competitive in the long run.

Biden, you should be aware that your submarine deal has costs

Amid a row with US over the AUKUS deal, the EU is trying to improve ties with China. EU and China are at present discussing the indo-pacific strategy.

European Union tries to improve ties with China

Anger grows in the French town of Cherbourg as residents fear hundreds of job losses after Australia terminated a $40-billion submarine deal abruptly last week. The submarine design work was underway in Cherbourg. Watch this report for more details.

Anger grows in French town of Cherbourg over termination of France-Australia submarine deal

India says AUKUS is a security alliance and not relevant to the QUAD. The new alliance gives India some breathing room to implement military reforms and expand the QUAD agenda. Palki Sharma tells you how India perceives the rise of AUKUS.

Gravitas US Edition: How does India see the rise of AUKUS?

Will the AUKUS security pact displace the QUAD as the premier Indo-Pacific alliance? What are the key differences between the two groupings? Will they compete or complement each other? Palki Sharma tells you.

Gravitas US Edition: QUAD & AUKUS: Compete or complement?

During the Quad leaders’ summit, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga&nbsp;welcomed the establishment of the AUKUS deal to provide nuclear submarines to Australia, a Japanese government official reportedly said.

Answering whether the trilateral partnership between Australia, the UK and the United States was discussed during the meeting on Friday, Japan's foreign press secretary, Tomoyuki Yoshida was quoted by Reuters as saying, “Prime Minister Suga welcomed the initiative of the establishment of the security partnership forged by the three countries ... which is taking an important role for the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific region.”

The leaders of Australia, India, Japan and the United States met in Washington on Friday to discuss regional security, Covid, climate change and other issues.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/quad-joint-statement-underlines-need-for-open-indo-pacific-undaunted-by-coercion-415748">Quad joint statement underlines need for open Indo-Pacific 'undaunted by coercion'</a>

The three-way strategic defence alliance announced by Australia, the UK and the US includes building a class of nuclear-propelled submarines.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indian-pm-narendra-modi-set-to-address-unga-heres-what-you-can-expect-415827">Indian PM Narendra Modi set to address UNGA. Here's what you can expect</a>

As part of the deal, Australia will cancel a contract with France to buy diesel-electric French submarines and acquire US nuclear-powered vessels instead.

The deal angered the French government, saying that it felt betrayed by the deal. Consequently, France recalled its ambassadors to the United States and Australia to protest what the French said amounted to a “stab in the back” by allies.

In a phone call Friday, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron discussed the issue. Johnson reportedly promised their countries would cooperate closely around the world.

The AUKUS alliance also has angered China because it is focused on the Indo-Pacific region, where the rise of China is seen as an increasing threat.

(With inputs from agencies)

During the Quad leaders’ summit, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga welcomed the establishment of the AUKUS deal to provide nuclear submarines to Australia, a Japanese government official reportedly said.

During the Quad leaders’ summit, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga welcomed the establishment of the AUKUS deal to provide nuclear submarines to Australia, a Japanese government official reportedly said. Answering whether the trilateral partnership between Australia, the UK and the United States was discussed during the meeting on Friday, Japan's foreign press secretary, Tomoyuki Yoshida was quoted by Reuters as saying, “Prime Minister Suga welcomed the initiative of the establishment of the security partnership forged by the three countries ... which is taking an important role for the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific region.” The leaders of Australia, India, Japan and the United States met in Washington on Friday to discuss regional security, Covid, climate change and other issues. Also read | Quad joint statement underlines need for open Indo-Pacific 'undaunted by coercion' The three-way strategic defence alliance announced by Australia, the UK and the US includes building a class of nuclear-propelled submarines. Also read | Indian PM Narendra Modi set to address UNGA. Here's what you can expect As part of the deal, Australia will cancel a contract with France to buy diesel-electric French submarines and acquire US nuclear-powered vessels instead. The deal angered the French government, saying that it felt betrayed by the deal. Consequently, France recalled its ambassadors to the United States and Australia to protest what the French said amounted to a “stab in the back” by allies. In a phone call Friday, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron discussed the issue. Johnson reportedly promised their countries would cooperate closely around the world. The AUKUS alliance also has angered China because it is focused on the Indo-Pacific region, where the rise of China is seen as an increasing threat. (With inputs from agencies)

At Quad leaders’ summit, Japanese PM welcomed AUKUS deal: Official

The announcement of the new military alliance between the United States and United Kingdom has created quite a stir among the democratic alliances especially in France and Russia. Should India be concerned? Listen in to what Navdeep Singh Suri, a former diplomat has to say on this.

Is AUKUS a concern for other nations? How will it affect India? | WION-USA Direct

Australian trade minister Dan Tehan in an exclusive conversation with WION sheds light on the AUKUS row and how it can affect India and what to expect from the Indian PM Narendra Modi and his Australian counterpart at the bilateral meets.

Australian Trade Minister Dan Tehan exclusive on AUKUS row and more | WION-USA Direct

Giving a brief about the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s meetings with several government and corporate leaders, India’s Foreign Secretary Harsh Shringla conducted a press briefing.<o:p></o:p>

Talking about Modi’s meeting with the US Vice President Kamala Harris, Shringla said the two leaders appreciated the bilateral relationship between the US and India. Harris also acknowledged and appreciated India’s efforts of helping several other countries by providing them Covid vaccines and aid during the tough times of this pandemic.

<o:p>Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-us-natural-partners-say-indian-pm-narendra-modi-us-vice-president-kamala-harris-after-first-in-person-meeting-415338">'India, US natural partners,' say Indian PM Narendra Modi, US Vice President Kamala Harris after first in-person meeting</a></o:p>

The two leaders showed great appreciation for the idea and working of democracies in the two countries, FS Shringla said.

He also claimed that during her bilateral meeting with the Indian Prime Minister, Kamala Harris "suo motu referred to Pakistan's role" with regards to terrorism and assured that the countries should make sure&nbsp;"that these groups don't impact US and Indian secruity".

Shringla also reported that during Modi’s first bilateral meeting of the day with Australian counterpart Scott Morrison, the Australian Prime Minister briefly mentioned the rationale of "Australian side on Aukus alliance".<o:p></o:p>

This was the first time the two leaders have met face-to-face since the pandemic and the recently-established Aukus alliance. The meeting was important to show that the Indian side will be kept in loop about any developments regarding the Aukus alliance — a new defence pact established between the US, Australia and the UK.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/pm-modi-meets-australian-pm-scott-morrison-key-focus-on-indo-pacific-aukus-row-wion-usa-direct-415374">WATCH |</a>

<o:p></o:p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/pm-modi-meets-australian-pm-scott-morrison-key-focus-on-indo-pacific-aukus-row-wion-usa-direct-415374/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Shringla also reported that Indian Prime Minister thanked Morrison for taking care of the Indian community during the Covid crisis in the two countries.

Modi also met with the outgoing Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga. This was the first time the two leaders were meeting since Suga took control of the office. While the Indian leader congratulated Suga for successful hosting of Tokyo Olympics, the Japanese leader assured his commitment towards a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific region. They agreed to enhance bilateral security and defence cooperation, including in the area of defence equipment and technologies.<o:p></o:p>

The two leaders also discussed plans of advancing smooth and timely implementation of the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail (MAHSR) project.

<o:p></o:p>

Giving a brief about the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s meetings with several government and corporate leaders, India’s Foreign Secretary Harsh Shringla conducted a press briefing.

Giving a brief about the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s meetings with several government and corporate leaders, India’s Foreign Secretary Harsh Shringla conducted a press briefing. Talking about Modi’s meeting with the US Vice President Kamala Harris, Shringla said the two leaders appreciated the bilateral relationship between the US and India. Harris also acknowledged and appreciated India’s efforts of helping several other countries by providing them Covid vaccines and aid during the tough times of this pandemic. Also read | 'India, US natural partners,' say Indian PM Narendra Modi, US Vice President Kamala Harris after first in-person meeting The two leaders showed great appreciation for the idea and working of democracies in the two countries, FS Shringla said. He also claimed that during her bilateral meeting with the Indian Prime Minister, Kamala Harris "suo motu referred to Pakistan's role" with regards to terrorism and assured that the countries should make sure "that these groups don't impact US and Indian secruity". Shringla also reported that during Modi’s first bilateral meeting of the day with Australian counterpart Scott Morrison, the Australian Prime Minister briefly mentioned the rationale of "Australian side on Aukus alliance". This was the first time the two leaders have met face-to-face since the pandemic and the recently-established Aukus alliance. The meeting was important to show that the Indian side will be kept in loop about any developments regarding the Aukus alliance — a new defence pact established between the US, Australia and the UK. WATCH | Shringla also reported that Indian Prime Minister thanked Morrison for taking care of the Indian community during the Covid crisis in the two countries. Modi also met with the outgoing Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga. This was the first time the two leaders were meeting since Suga took control of the office. While the Indian leader congratulated Suga for successful hosting of Tokyo Olympics, the Japanese leader assured his commitment towards a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific region. They agreed to enhance bilateral security and defence cooperation, including in the area of defence equipment and technologies. The two leaders also discussed plans of advancing smooth and timely implementation of the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail (MAHSR) project.

Scott Morrison briefly talked about Aukus alliance with Indian PM: Harsh Shringla

Australian Trade Minister Dan Tehan has spoken with WION on AUKUS pact. Watch this report to know more.

WION-USA Direct: Australian Trade Minister Dan Tehan speaks with WION

The strategic alliance between UK, US, Australia has caught many by surprise. Southeast Asian countries are concerned about Australia's plan to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. Watch this report for more details.

South-East Asian Nations cautions over AUKUS Pact

Rubbishing several reports, France has denied rumours about the country giving up its seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to the European Union (EU).

Reports started making rounds in the western media after a British magazine The Daily Telegraph reported that France is ready to give up its permanent seat at the UNSC to EU.

The report claimed that French President Emmanuel Macron would be willing to give its seat at the UNSC to EU in exchange for some support from some of the EU nations for a European army.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Contrairement aux affirmations du tabloïd anglais Daily Telegraph relayées ce matin, non, la France n’a pas proposé de laisser son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Il est à la France et le restera.
— Élysée (@Elysee) <a href="https://twitter.com/Elysee/status/1440580690865655816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 22, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

However, France has categorically denied any such plans. "We formally deny this. The seat is ours and will remain that way," the spokesperson for the French government said. "We coordinate with the EU as much as possible and with complete sovereignty."

The news article has also been labelled as "extreme manipulation" by Sandro Gozi, a former Italian Europe minister.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-president-joe-biden-non-committal-on-us-uk-free-trade-deal-414913">WATCH |</a>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-president-joe-biden-non-committal-on-us-uk-free-trade-deal-414913/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

This news has come a little after France was angered by Australia snubbing off a submarine deal which was worth&nbsp;$66 billion for a new defence pact with the US and UK.

The announcement had taken France by surprise. Since then, Macron has been trying to bring European countries together for a closer military integration.

Rubbishing several reports, France has denied rumours about the country giving up its seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to the European Union (EU).

Rubbishing several reports, France has denied rumours about the country giving up its seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to the European Union (EU). Reports started making rounds in the western media after a British magazine The Daily Telegraph reported that France is ready to give up its permanent seat at the UNSC to EU. The report claimed that French President Emmanuel Macron would be willing to give its seat at the UNSC to EU in exchange for some support from some of the EU nations for a European army. Contrairement aux affirmations du tabloïd anglais Daily Telegraph relayées ce matin, non, la France n’a pas proposé de laisser son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Il est à la France et le restera. — Élysée (@Elysee) September 22, 2021 × However, France has categorically denied any such plans. "We formally deny this. The seat is ours and will remain that way," the spokesperson for the French government said. "We coordinate with the EU as much as possible and with complete sovereignty." The news article has also been labelled as "extreme manipulation" by Sandro Gozi, a former Italian Europe minister. WATCH | This news has come a little after France was angered by Australia snubbing off a submarine deal which was worth $66 billion for a new defence pact with the US and UK. The announcement had taken France by surprise. Since then, Macron has been trying to bring European countries together for a closer military integration.

'Seat is ours and will remain that way': France rubbishes reports about giving up UNSC seat to EU

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and French President Emmanuel Macron vowed to act jointly after Australia cancelled its submarine order worth $40 billion to Paris.

Modi and Macron discussed about cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region as well as the Afghanistan crisis during their telephonic conversation.

Opting out of its deal with France, Australia had formed an alliance with the United States and the United Kingdom, dubbed as Aukus, for eight nuclear-powered submarines.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/awkward-aukus-joe-biden-forgets-scott-morrisons-name-calls-him-that-fellow-down-under-413487">Also read |&nbsp;Awkward Aukus: Joe Biden forgets Scott Morrison's name, calls him 'that fellow down under'</a>

Calling it a ''stab in the back,'' France had recalled its ambassadors from the US and Australia.

During his phone call with Modi, Macron assured that France is committed to strengthening India's strategic autonomy.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/aukus-deal-recalled-french-envoy-leaves-embassy-in-australia-reaches-airport-414014">Also read |&nbsp;Aukus deal: Recalled French envoy leaves embassy in Australia, reaches airport</a>

As a part of close relations between the two countries, Macron said that France will collaborate with India on both industry and technology.

He also highlighted that India and France share a relationship based on mutual respect and trust and their shared approach will promote ''regional stability and rule of law while ruling out any form of hegemony.''&nbsp;

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and French President Emmanuel Macron vowed to act jointly after Australia cancelled its submarine order worth $40 billion to Paris.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and French President Emmanuel Macron vowed to act jointly after Australia cancelled its submarine order worth $40 billion to Paris. Modi and Macron discussed about cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region as well as the Afghanistan crisis during their telephonic conversation. Opting out of its deal with France, Australia had formed an alliance with the United States and the United Kingdom, dubbed as Aukus, for eight nuclear-powered submarines. Also read | Awkward Aukus: Joe Biden forgets Scott Morrison's name, calls him 'that fellow down under' Calling it a ''stab in the back,'' France had recalled its ambassadors from the US and Australia. During his phone call with Modi, Macron assured that France is committed to strengthening India's strategic autonomy. Also read | Aukus deal: Recalled French envoy leaves embassy in Australia, reaches airport As a part of close relations between the two countries, Macron said that France will collaborate with India on both industry and technology. He also highlighted that India and France share a relationship based on mutual respect and trust and their shared approach will promote ''regional stability and rule of law while ruling out any form of hegemony.''

After Aukus submarine dispute, India and France pledge to act jointly in Indo-Pacific region

The United States did not directly mention China in announcing its historic new security partnership with Australia and Britain last week, but it didn’t have to. The defense deal is a clear escalation and indication that Washington views Beijing as an adversary.

It also has thrust Australia into a central role in America’s rivalry with China. After hinting at a more self-reliant defense posture for the past several years, Australia’s government is now instead betting big on the future of its alliance with the United States with the new pact. Australia seems to be assuming that America will remain engaged in Asia for the long haul and will be prepared to face down China if necessary — but it shouldn’t.

The crux of the partnership, called AUKUS, is an agreement for the United States and Britain to share their technology to help Australia deploy nuclear-powered submarines. But this is no ordinary arms agreement, nothing like exporting fighter jets or howitzers. Only a handful of nations have nuclear-powered submarines, and Australia will be just the second country, after Britain, to benefit from the top-secret U.S. technology.

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australia-has-lost-30-of-its-koala-population-in-3-years-due-to-bushfire-deforestation-414883">Australia has lost 30% of its koala population in 3 years due to bushfire, deforestation</a>

Why is Australia worthy of such favorable treatment? It’s not just that it is one of America’s oldest and closest allies. It’s that for many American observers of China’s increasingly aggressive behavior, Australia is also the canary in the coal mine for great power competition with China.

Australia has been subject to economic coercion from China against its exports, such as barley and coal. Chinese hackers were implicated in a breach of the Australian parliament’s website in 2019. Its security agencies report widespread espionage and interference activities. And its ministers have been frozen out by their Chinese counterparts. Last year, a Chinese diplomat even released a list of 14 grievances Beijing holds against Australia — a document that featured in deliberations at the Group of 7 summit in June.

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/before-trade-talks-eu-seeks-apology-from-australia-over-frances-treatment-in-aukus-row-414641">Before trade talks, EU seeks apology from Australia over France’s treatment in Aukus row</a>

Those grievances reflect the tough line Australia has taken against Beijing, from barring Chinese telecom giant Huawei from competing for a 5G infrastructure project to introducing far-reaching legislation to curb foreign interference in politics and tearing up a state’s Belt and Road agreements with China. Australia also has increased its defense spending over the past five years, particularly its naval procurement. AUKUS takes this to a new level.

Like the United States, Australia’s government has watched with increasing alarm the rapid and extensive buildup of China’s military capabilities, particularly its naval forces.

For most of its history, Australia has relied on a friend or ally to help secure the Pacific Ocean. The only serious threat to Australia’s territorial integrity since European settlement more than 200 years ago was during World War II. If Chinese — not American — maritime power were to dominate Asia’s waterways, Australia would undoubtedly face a more uncertain future.

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/aukus-wont-impact-bilateral-cooperation-quad-us-to-india-414606">AUKUS won't impact bilateral cooperation, Quad: US to India</a>

So although the AUKUS initiative was a surprise to many around the world, the Australian government’s motivation is clear. Saddled with a late and over-budget French submarine project, the Australian government saw an opportunity not only to bolster its naval strength by getting the world’s leading submarine technology but also to bring the United States into a closer embrace.

The Biden team agreed because it, too, is worried about China. But there is a difference. The United States is in Asia by choice; Australia has no such luxury. Washington’s gesture, this commitment of American military and technological prowess, is hugely significant. But it is no guarantee the United States is prepared to enter into a new Cold War-style contest with China.

The United States is blessed by geography, friendly neighbors, a huge economy, an unrivaled military and a nuclear-weapons arsenal to help maintain its security. But China is strong too. The size of its economy alone makes it one of the mightiest adversaries the United States has faced in more than a century. So the United States would need a very good reason to take on a power as great as China.

The fact that China is authoritarian and bullies its neighbors should not be reason enough. Nor should the threats against U.S. allies like Australia, as alliances exist to further the aims of both partners — not just the junior one. Nor the fact that America would be somehow diminished if and when China attains global supremacy. There would need to be clear indications that China poses a threat to America’s core national security interests, to its territory and to its way of life. Since China does not clear that bar, there’s no urgent reason for the United States to undertake grievous risks to prevent its rise to regional leadership.

That doubt should be nagging at the minds of Australian decision makers who just staked their future on the alliance, and it should be on the minds of Americans, too. Why should the United States commit itself to a contest with China when the stakes are less than existential? Without a clear answer to that question, Australia must assume that it will ultimately need to ensure its security alone.

The United States did not directly mention China in announcing its historic new security partnership with Australia and Britain last week, but it didn’t have to.

The United States did not directly mention China in announcing its historic new security partnership with Australia and Britain last week, but it didn’t have to. The defense deal is a clear escalation and indication that Washington views Beijing as an adversary. It also has thrust Australia into a central role in America’s rivalry with China. After hinting at a more self-reliant defense posture for the past several years, Australia’s government is now instead betting big on the future of its alliance with the United States with the new pact. Australia seems to be assuming that America will remain engaged in Asia for the long haul and will be prepared to face down China if necessary — but it shouldn’t. The crux of the partnership, called AUKUS, is an agreement for the United States and Britain to share their technology to help Australia deploy nuclear-powered submarines. But this is no ordinary arms agreement, nothing like exporting fighter jets or howitzers. Only a handful of nations have nuclear-powered submarines, and Australia will be just the second country, after Britain, to benefit from the top-secret U.S. technology. Also Read: Australia has lost 30% of its koala population in 3 years due to bushfire, deforestation Why is Australia worthy of such favorable treatment? It’s not just that it is one of America’s oldest and closest allies. It’s that for many American observers of China’s increasingly aggressive behavior, Australia is also the canary in the coal mine for great power competition with China. Australia has been subject to economic coercion from China against its exports, such as barley and coal. Chinese hackers were implicated in a breach of the Australian parliament’s website in 2019. Its security agencies report widespread espionage and interference activities. And its ministers have been frozen out by their Chinese counterparts. Last year, a Chinese diplomat even released a list of 14 grievances Beijing holds against Australia — a document that featured in deliberations at the Group of 7 summit in June. Also Read: Before trade talks, EU seeks apology from Australia over France’s treatment in Aukus row Those grievances reflect the tough line Australia has taken against Beijing, from barring Chinese telecom giant Huawei from competing for a 5G infrastructure project to introducing far-reaching legislation to curb foreign interference in politics and tearing up a state’s Belt and Road agreements with China. Australia also has increased its defense spending over the past five years, particularly its naval procurement. AUKUS takes this to a new level. Like the United States, Australia’s government has watched with increasing alarm the rapid and extensive buildup of China’s military capabilities, particularly its naval forces. For most of its history, Australia has relied on a friend or ally to help secure the Pacific Ocean. The only serious threat to Australia’s territorial integrity since European settlement more than 200 years ago was during World War II. If Chinese — not American — maritime power were to dominate Asia’s waterways, Australia would undoubtedly face a more uncertain future. Also Read: AUKUS won't impact bilateral cooperation, Quad: US to India So although the AUKUS initiative was a surprise to many around the world, the Australian government’s motivation is clear. Saddled with a late and over-budget French submarine project, the Australian government saw an opportunity not only to bolster its naval strength by getting the world’s leading submarine technology but also to bring the United States into a closer embrace. The Biden team agreed because it, too, is worried about China. But there is a difference. The United States is in Asia by choice; Australia has no such luxury. Washington’s gesture, this commitment of American military and technological prowess, is hugely significant. But it is no guarantee the United States is prepared to enter into a new Cold War-style contest with China. The United States is blessed by geography, friendly neighbors, a huge economy, an unrivaled military and a nuclear-weapons arsenal to help maintain its security. But China is strong too. The size of its economy alone makes it one of the mightiest adversaries the United States has faced in more than a century. So the United States would need a very good reason to take on a power as great as China. The fact that China is authoritarian and bullies its neighbors should not be reason enough. Nor should the threats against U.S. allies like Australia, as alliances exist to further the aims of both partners — not just the junior one. Nor the fact that America would be somehow diminished if and when China attains global supremacy. There would need to be clear indications that China poses a threat to America’s core national security interests, to its territory and to its way of life. Since China does not clear that bar, there’s no urgent reason for the United States to undertake grievous risks to prevent its rise to regional leadership. That doubt should be nagging at the minds of Australian decision makers who just staked their future on the alliance, and it should be on the minds of Americans, too. Why should the United States commit itself to a contest with China when the stakes are less than existential? Without a clear answer to that question, Australia must assume that it will ultimately need to ensure its security alone.

Australia is making a risky bet on the US

The US on Monday briefed India on its new trilateral AUKUS military pact with the UK and Australia to take on the challenges posed by China in the Indo-Pacific, stressing it will not detract from either the bilateral cooperation with New Delhi or multilateral ones like the `Quad’.Watch this report for more details.

United States tells India: AUKUS won't impact QUAD

North Korea has warned that the United States' "double-dealing attitude" toward its recent security pact with Australia and the United Kingdom might "start a chain of nuclear weapons races" in the Indo-Pacific.

Last week, the United States and Britain formed a trilateral security alliance, with Britain assisting Australia in the development of eight nuclear-powered submarines.

The agreement was reached despite a rising security scenario in the region, as both North Korea and South Korea conducted missile tests.

The new arrangement, dubbed the Aukus agreement, is seen as a rebuke to China, which backs North Korea and maintains a strong presence in the South China Sea.&nbsp;

The nuclear-armed North has stated that if it perceives "even a slight" threat to its security, it will take "equivalent counter-action."

The new missile tests, as well as the Aukus agreement, have made it more difficult to denuclearise the region.

Former US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un agreed to cooperate toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Meanwhile, in a speech to the UN's atomic nuclear watchdog's annual general assembly on Monday, the chief of the UN's nuclear watchdog said North Korea's nuclear programme is moving "full steam ahead." &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

North Korea has warned that the United States' "double-dealing attitude" toward its recent security pact with Australia and the United Kingdom might "start a chain of nuclear weapons races" in the Indo-Pacific.

North Korea has warned that the United States' "double-dealing attitude" toward its recent security pact with Australia and the United Kingdom might "start a chain of nuclear weapons races" in the Indo-Pacific. Last week, the United States and Britain formed a trilateral security alliance, with Britain assisting Australia in the development of eight nuclear-powered submarines. The agreement was reached despite a rising security scenario in the region, as both North Korea and South Korea conducted missile tests. The new arrangement, dubbed the Aukus agreement, is seen as a rebuke to China, which backs North Korea and maintains a strong presence in the South China Sea. The nuclear-armed North has stated that if it perceives "even a slight" threat to its security, it will take "equivalent counter-action." The new missile tests, as well as the Aukus agreement, have made it more difficult to denuclearise the region. Former US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un agreed to cooperate toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Meanwhile, in a speech to the UN's atomic nuclear watchdog's annual general assembly on Monday, the chief of the UN's nuclear watchdog said North Korea's nuclear programme is moving "full steam ahead." (With inputs from agencies)

Aukus could trigger a 'nuclear arms race': North Korea

America's oldest ally, France, recalled its ambassador to the United States on Friday. The relationship appeared at a tipping point after the US, Australia and Britain shunned France in creating a new Indo-Pacific security arrangement.

France, recalls its ambassador to the United States

France has escalated its protest against the loss of a $66 billion dollar submarine contract with Australia. Watch this report for more details.

France cancels defence meeting with UK

France on Saturday said French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and his Indian counterpart S Jaishankar agreed to work on a common programme of "concrete actions" to jointly defend a truly multilateral international order.

After a phone conversation between Le Drian and Jaishankar, the French foreign ministry said the two ministers also decided to deepen their strategic partnership based on a relationship of "political trust" between the two "great sovereign nations" of the Indo-Pacific.

"Discussed recent developments in the Indo-Pacific and Afghanistan with my friend FM @JY_LeDria. Looking forward to our New York meeting," Jaishankar tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Discussed recent developments in the Indo-Pacific and Afghanistan with my friend FM <a href="https://twitter.com/JY_LeDrian?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JY_LeDrian</a> .Looking forward to our New York meeting.
— Dr. S. Jaishankar (@DrSJaishankar) <a href="https://twitter.com/DrSJaishankar/status/1439184722823761925?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 18, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The conversation between the two foreign ministers came a day after France recalled its ambassadors to the United States and Australia in protest against a trilateral security alliance among the US and the UK and Australia.

The alliance resulted in France effectively losing a multi-billion dollar deal to build 12 conventional submarines for Australia. France is also upset over its exclusion from the alliance.

India is yet to react to the formation of the trilateral security partnership.

"The two ministers decided to deepen their strategic partnership, based on a relationship of political trust between two great sovereign nations of the Indo-Pacific," the French foreign ministry said in a statement.

It said they also discussed the situation in Afghanistan, which is "deteriorating".

"The two ministers agreed to meet again in New York next week, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, to work on a common program of concrete actions to jointly defend a truly multilateral international order," the ministry said.

The AUKUS (Australia, the UK and the US) partnership was unveiled by US President Joe Biden, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and British PM Boris Johnson on Thursday.

Australia's High Commissioner to India Barry O'Farrell on Friday said China's massive military modernisation programme, challenging strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific and intensification of great power competition in the region prompted Canberra to become part of the ambitious AUKUS partnership.

In a statement, Le Drian on Fridays said he was recalling French ambassadors to the US and Australia for consultations following a request by President Emmanuel Macron.

"This exceptional decision is justified by the exceptional gravity of the announcements made on 15th September by Australia and the United States," the French foreign ministers said.

"The cancellation of the attack class submarine program binding Australia and France since 2016, and the announcement of a new partnership with the United States meant to launch studies on a possible future cooperation on nuclear-powered submarines, constitute unacceptable behaviour between allies and partners," he said.&nbsp;

France on Saturday said French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and his Indian counterpart S Jaishankar agreed to work on a common programme of "concrete actions" to jointly defend a truly multilateral international order.

France on Saturday said French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and his Indian counterpart S Jaishankar agreed to work on a common programme of "concrete actions" to jointly defend a truly multilateral international order. After a phone conversation between Le Drian and Jaishankar, the French foreign ministry said the two ministers also decided to deepen their strategic partnership based on a relationship of "political trust" between the two "great sovereign nations" of the Indo-Pacific. "Discussed recent developments in the Indo-Pacific and Afghanistan with my friend FM @JY_LeDria. Looking forward to our New York meeting," Jaishankar tweeted. Discussed recent developments in the Indo-Pacific and Afghanistan with my friend FM @JY_LeDrian .Looking forward to our New York meeting. — Dr. S. Jaishankar (@DrSJaishankar) September 18, 2021 × The conversation between the two foreign ministers came a day after France recalled its ambassadors to the United States and Australia in protest against a trilateral security alliance among the US and the UK and Australia. The alliance resulted in France effectively losing a multi-billion dollar deal to build 12 conventional submarines for Australia. France is also upset over its exclusion from the alliance. India is yet to react to the formation of the trilateral security partnership. "The two ministers decided to deepen their strategic partnership, based on a relationship of political trust between two great sovereign nations of the Indo-Pacific," the French foreign ministry said in a statement. It said they also discussed the situation in Afghanistan, which is "deteriorating". "The two ministers agreed to meet again in New York next week, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, to work on a common program of concrete actions to jointly defend a truly multilateral international order," the ministry said. The AUKUS (Australia, the UK and the US) partnership was unveiled by US President Joe Biden, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and British PM Boris Johnson on Thursday. Australia's High Commissioner to India Barry O'Farrell on Friday said China's massive military modernisation programme, challenging strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific and intensification of great power competition in the region prompted Canberra to become part of the ambitious AUKUS partnership. In a statement, Le Drian on Fridays said he was recalling French ambassadors to the US and Australia for consultations following a request by President Emmanuel Macron. "This exceptional decision is justified by the exceptional gravity of the announcements made on 15th September by Australia and the United States," the French foreign ministers said. "The cancellation of the attack class submarine program binding Australia and France since 2016, and the announcement of a new partnership with the United States meant to launch studies on a possible future cooperation on nuclear-powered submarines, constitute unacceptable behaviour between allies and partners," he said.

Jaishankar, foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian seek to deepen India-France strategic partnership

Aukus has created a full-fledged international dispute. An outraged France has called off an event in Washington DC. Paris is keen to recoup billions of dollars it lost after Australia broke a submarine contract. Palki Sharma tells you more.

Gravitas: Aukus has created a new problem for the United States

NATO military chief on Saturday played down the dispute between France and the US over the latter handing over a nuclear submarine contract, saying that the tensions between the two nations won’t have an impact on "military cooperation"&nbsp;within the group.

"There might be implications or consequences as a result of this agreement but I don't foresee for the moment it will have an impact on the cohesion within NATO,” Admiral Rob Bauer, chair of the NATO Military Committee, told reporters in Athens.

“First of all, as far as I know, Australia is a partner but it's not part of the NATO organisation. There are many agreements among nations that might have an affect on NATO on the political side.&nbsp;

"But for now, it will not have an affect as far as I can see on the military cooperation within NATO," Bauer added following NATO military chiefs of defence conference.

Watch

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-what-does-aukus-mean-for-india-413632/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

On Thursday, France accused Australia of “backstabbing” and Washington of “Donald Trump-era behaviour” after Canberra scrapped a huge submarines deal with Paris and went for nuclear subs from the US.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australia-kept-india-in-loop-regarding-aukus-at-the-highest-level-413782">Australia kept India in loop regarding Aukus at the highest-level</a>

France's Naval Group, partly owned by the state, had been chosen to build 12 conventionally-powered submarines for Australia, based on France’s Barracuda nuclear-powered subs in development.

However on Wednesday, US President Joe Biden announced a new Australia-US-Britain defence alliance (AUKUS), extending US nuclear submarine technology to Australia as well as cyber defence, applied artificial intelligence and undersea capabilities.

The pact, widely seen as aimed at countering the rise of China, infuriated France, which lost its contract to supply conventional submarines to Australia that was worth Aus$50 billion ($36.5 billion) when signed in 2016.

As a result, French President Emmanuel Macron recalled its ambassadors to the United States and Australia on Friday.&nbsp;

A White House official expressed "regret" over the French envoy's recall but added "we will continue to be engaged in the coming days to resolve our differences, as we have done at other points over the course of our long alliance".

(With inputs from agencies)

NATO military chief on Saturday played down the dispute between France and the US over the latter handing over a nuclear submarine contract, saying that the tensions between the two nations won’t have an impact on "military cooperation" within the group.

NATO military chief on Saturday played down the dispute between France and the US over the latter handing over a nuclear submarine contract, saying that the tensions between the two nations won’t have an impact on "military cooperation" within the group. "There might be implications or consequences as a result of this agreement but I don't foresee for the moment it will have an impact on the cohesion within NATO,” Admiral Rob Bauer, chair of the NATO Military Committee, told reporters in Athens. “First of all, as far as I know, Australia is a partner but it's not part of the NATO organisation. There are many agreements among nations that might have an affect on NATO on the political side. "But for now, it will not have an affect as far as I can see on the military cooperation within NATO," Bauer added following NATO military chiefs of defence conference. Watch On Thursday, France accused Australia of “backstabbing” and Washington of “Donald Trump-era behaviour” after Canberra scrapped a huge submarines deal with Paris and went for nuclear subs from the US. Also read | Australia kept India in loop regarding Aukus at the highest-level France's Naval Group, partly owned by the state, had been chosen to build 12 conventionally-powered submarines for Australia, based on France’s Barracuda nuclear-powered subs in development. However on Wednesday, US President Joe Biden announced a new Australia-US-Britain defence alliance (AUKUS), extending US nuclear submarine technology to Australia as well as cyber defence, applied artificial intelligence and undersea capabilities. The pact, widely seen as aimed at countering the rise of China, infuriated France, which lost its contract to supply conventional submarines to Australia that was worth Aus$50 billion ($36.5 billion) when signed in 2016. As a result, French President Emmanuel Macron recalled its ambassadors to the United States and Australia on Friday. A White House official expressed "regret" over the French envoy's recall but added "we will continue to be engaged in the coming days to resolve our differences, as we have done at other points over the course of our long alliance". (With inputs from agencies)

AUKUS row won’t impact military cooperation: NATO military chief

aukus

Aukus, News on Aukus, stories on Aukus, articles on Aukus, Aukus stories at Wion, Aukus news, Aukus latest news