There’s inconsistency on both sides in the #AUKUS row. Anglos complain France not reliable / committed in Indo-Pacific yet begrudge its offense at being sidelined in that very arena; French preach European strategic autonomy yet are appalled when Anglos take them at their word.
Better to see AUKUS as the poorly handled realisation of new basic realities. UK and Aus both have strong impetus (Brexit & geography respectively) to move in lockstep with US on China policy; France & EU have grounds to seek a more nuanced form of alignment with US positions.
Recognising those differences, and the inevitable pluralism of any post-hegemonic Western alliance (“Westishness” as I’ve called this in @NewStatesman), would be a good first step to managing them more constructively in future and thus moving on from the AUKUS row.
Final thought in passing... the term “strategic autonomy” is clearly becoming more hindrance than help to the actually sensible French goal of a Europe better able to manage its own security (and to be a sovereign partner rather than surly supplicant to US). Time to ditch it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
