A few snippets from the background briefing on AUKUS last night from senior US administration officials, specifically with reference to France, Europe and the Indo-Pacific 1/5
Considerable emphasis was placed on this being about bridging European and Asian allies and combining efforts in the Indo-Pacific. UK was framed as a European power... "The only states pivoting to the Indo-Pacific faster than the US are in Europe" 2/5
It was framed as a unique set of circumstances facing an Australia that felt "isolated". That it was an independent Australian decision to move away from the French program and to explore this capability with US/UK, not something DC/London initiated at the expense of Paris 3/5
It was also stressed that in all the US exchanges with other Europeans (and Asians) ahead of the announcement, France was exceptional in its unhappiness. They had expected that more concerns might be raised by other partners but the only "challenging" response came from Paris 4/5
Hope was expressed that the understandably "bruised feelings" on the French side will ease over time... And the value for US foreign policy of the wider partnership with Europe in the Indo-Pacific was emphasized beyond that 5/5
(Comments on this would require a far longer thread... see inter alia @morcos_pierre @BrunoTertrais @AntoineBondaz @mtdtl for immediate reaction on France / transatlantic China & Indo-Pacific cooperation)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Andrew Small

Andrew Small Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ajwsmall

17 Sep
It was hard this week not to think back to the CAI drama in December, when Germany/France jammed the agreement through in the window before the Biden administration took office, taking advantage of Xi's interest in pre-emptively spiking US coalition-building on China 1/
It was characterized by its advocates as a victory for "strategic autonomy". In numerous meetings at the time, the suggestion that waiting for consultations with the new US administration might be mutually beneficial was treated almost as an affront to European sovereignty 2/
I raise this not in the spirit of whataboutism, nor to suggest that the CAI and AUKUS are remotely like-for-like, nor to suggest that the manner in which the latter was handled stemmed at all from the former 3/
Read 17 tweets
18 Aug
A lot of China-Taliban questions have come up this week. An incident worth highlighting (with excerpts) that may help to illustrate why China will remain nervous about security around their economic projects even with Taliban assurances 1/4
There was a pervasive belief back in the 2000s that the Chinese projects in Afghanistan had a protected status. Then this attack took place. 2/4 ImageImage
The Taliban did actually stage a pro-Chinese demonstration to show that they were not behind the attack, which was ultimately attributed to Hekmatyar 3/4 ImageImage
Read 4 tweets
15 Aug
I can't post the full chapter from the book but a few disconnected snippets in this thread below capture the early China-Taliban interactions when they were last in power, and I hope provide some helpful context. Some of the central issues have not changed since. 1/4
2/4
3/4
Read 4 tweets
15 Aug
Whatever schadenfreude China may be experiencing around the way the withdrawal from Afghanistan has been handled by the US, this is not the outcome that China wanted. I give context here: china-global.simplecast.com/episodes/episo… and here: ecfr.eu/article/after-… 1/5
Yun Sun gives a good feel for recent thinking in Beijing on Afghanistan / Taliban: warontherocks.com/2021/08/a-relu… though it doesn’t capture how far back these exchanges go (I wrote about this way back in 2013: foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/21/why… and longer history here: amazon.com/China-Pakistan… 2/5
China wants “sustainable stability” in Afghanistan *before* moving forward with investments . Whatever political theatrics we may see on this, watch whether developments on the ground bear it out. Recent CPEC security issues have only increased wariness: wsj.com/articles/gunma…
Read 5 tweets
24 Sep 20
We - @gmfus and @GeorgetownLaw - have a new report out today on CPEC and the BRI. A few summary points from it in this thread, along with some of the photos for anyone who just wants to look at them instead… gmfus.org/publications/r… 1/17
The report tries to tell a story rather than just giving a single analytical snapshot, given that CPEC has been, and remains, a moving target. Significant momentum from launch to late 2017; then a major stalling and slowdown; now a modest revival 2/
Scored against the original objectives set by the Chinese and Pakistani governments, CPEC is a disappointment. It hasn’t been a “game-changer”, and it has been years since anyone on the Chinese side seriously talked about it in such transformative terms 3/
Read 17 tweets
20 Jul 20
. @d_jaishankar and I have a piece up for @WarOnTheRocks today. As others have also noted, even though Chinese foreign policy has been “assertive” for some time, what’s going on at the moment looks qualitatively different: warontherocks.com/2020/07/for-ou… 1/4
In discussions with experts (international and Chinese) in recent months there have been differing interpretations as to why China has opened up so many fronts at once - we lay them out in the piece (see Dhruva’s thread for a summary too):
There is a fair degree of convergence in the debates in many capitals on what a response to this latest variant of Chinese ”assertiveness” (even some European officials now just call it “aggressiveness”) should look like, regardless of how one interprets Beijing’s approach.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(