Three lessons of the alliance between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom

Editorial of “The World”. Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian is justified in dismissing Canberra’s agreement with France on supplying conventional submarines to Australia. The alliance between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia on Wednesday, September 15, to build Australian nuclear submarines to counter China’s uprising in the Pacific, generally said, as is well, “Blow back” From France, both Canberra and Washington have covered up all preparations for the operation.

After all, it is a blow that reveals the dangers posed by the forces playing above their abilities. One country can already learn three lessons from the birth of Aukus, the acronym given to this new defense agreement based on the abbreviation Australia-United Kingdom, as a friendly country, until the next announcement, beyond this awkward path. United States.

The first is about the Atlantic relationship. For those who still doubt it, the Biden administration is no different from the Trump administration: the United States comes first, whether it be in their strategic, economic, financial or health interests. “America First” Is the guide to White House foreign policy.

Alignment with Washington

The formation of the Axis is not against France, but it is causing a severe diplomatic and economic setback, of no importance to Washington, and its purpose is solely that of the Chinese. Some in the multidisciplinary businesses of Joe Biden and his Foreign Minister Anthony Blingen’s Francophilia saw the promise of more consistent cooperation: they have now been brought back to reality.

The second lesson is about London. For post-Brexit diplomacy, this agreement marks an important milestone. This puts Great Britain in the big Indo-Pacific bathroom, where it would not have come alone. But above all it puts the British back on the wheel of the Americans. “Global Britain” was looking for itself: it was aligned with Washington. The bitterness that erupted on the benches of the House of Commons at the time of the US exit from Afghanistan was arranged without consultation with allies who had been on the field for twenty years, and within a month, Aux was cleverly destroyed.

The third lesson is more important and more complex because it is addressed in Europe. Beyond the French sentiments, it really is Europe’s place and its role in the world that is being questioned here. Where should it be in the global reorganization taking place in the shadow of the Sino-US conflict? Will it be able to function as an autonomous force there, or will the European nations see this reorganization in a disintegrated order, sacrificing any hope of any influence and protection of their own interests?

Ironically, the announcement comes just days before the presentation of the EU Indo-Pacific Strategy in Brussels on the formation of the Axis. It seems, all of a sudden, pale. There is a good game in Paris to blame America “Lack of stability” : The European Union lacks unity and a backbone in its management, especially under the influence of China’s rise in Berlin. Today she pays so much for it.