What the subs deal was about: Canberras willingness to align itself over the long term with Washington.
That's something Europeans should be able to relate to.
That's something Europeans should be able to relate to.
https://twitter.com/AntoineBondaz/status/1439157069794488324
If the competition with China is becoming the overall paradigm, Europeans should welcome the fact that Australia now may get something similar to what many Europeans got from the US during the Cold War and afterwards, vital support for their security.
A stronger US security role in the Indo-Pacific also helps discouraging China from challenging the status quo in the region -- something Beijing does since many years in the South China Sea.
That's something Europe cannot, and doesn't want, to provide to a country such as Australia.
A European role can only be supportive of the US and of US security partners in the region; but it will always be minor and often symbolic.
That does not excuse the heavy-handed way the US, the UK and Australia have dealt with France; which they have the obligation to repair (and maybe France could tone down its rhetoric).
But it would be a huge mistake for Europe to mix two different things: the ugly way the French subs contract was canceled, and the value the new Aukus pact brings to the Indo-Pacific.
At the end of the day, Europeans must figure out how they want to deal with China; and the Indo-Pacific is a central part of this.
What Aukus means, it seems, is that the US is finally getting serious with its "pivot to Asia" -- a move that was driven by Chinese neighbors getting nervous about China's new assertiveness.
Europeans should figure out to what extent they want to be part of this, what role they want to play in the Indo-Pacific. The new EU Indo-Pacific strategy does not seriously address security; that's something the capitals must sort out.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
