From mid-August to mid-September, two major incidents took place to test how cohesive the Western alliance between the US and Europe really is. On August 15, the US announced that it was completing its withdrawal from Afghanistan by August 31, only to be criticized by its European allies for what they described as a unilateral decision, which Washington made without any prior consultation with them. One month later, on September 15, the US announced the creation of AUKUS, a new military and security alliance. The acronym was coined from the first letters of Australia, UK and the US. Under the tripartite pact, Australia will acquire 12 nuclear-powered submarines and will just become the seventh country in the world to operate nuclear-powered submarines, after the US, UK, France, China, India and Russia. The announcement sparked anger and indignation in France, both in the government and the media, with a number of European countries coming to express solidarity with Franc
The French were angry, President Emanuel Macron and high-ranking officials used harsh words such as ‘a stab in the back’ to describe the deal and slamming Britain’s role as ‘opportunistic.’ They also accused Australia of being in violation of the terms of its defense deal with France. Moreover, President Macron recalled the French ambassadors to the United States and Australia.
The unpredictable development raises serious questions about the nature of relations between allies: What are the limits of alliances? Are there economic and political competitions, or even conflict, between allies? Does rivalry impact mutual trust? How could such questions be addressed within the context of the current US-French row?
The 'Realism' Viewpoint
Two major theories are used today to analyze international relations.
The realist school was co-founded by Hans Morgenthau, professor of politics, in his book Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (1948). Realism holds that all states seek to maximize their power and interests, and that this necessarily pits them against each other in a state of potential conflict. Accordingly, international alliances represent one way of regulating inter-state differences of interests through dialogue, a search for common interests and the setting of limits and controls for differences of interests and goals.
From this standpoint, the US-French row broke out, because the French leadership recognized that ally states directly threaten its economic interests. That is, France stands to lose a major defense deal estimated between 65 to 100 billion dollars to provide Australia conventional, diesel-powered submarines. The deal would have created thousands of jobs and added a boost to France’s naval industry. The French also maintain that Australia violated the terms of the agreement, which includes penalty clauses that Paris will use against Canberra.
France was even more surprised by Australia’s decision to cancel the deal for diesel-powered submarines to agree instead to attain nuclear-powered submarines from the United States. France would have agreed to provide nuclear-powered submarines to Australia had Canberra expressed its desire.
France believes that the United States prioritized its own political and economic interests and direct influence in the Indo-Pacific Region to contain the threat of China and its influence in East Asia without any consideration of France’s interests. From the French standpoint, the development does not only cause economic loss but also means that France’s role in safeguarding security in the Indo-Pacific is being underestimated and taken for granted by Washington.
That is, France already had a long colonial presence in this region where about two million French people live on Indo-Pacific islands, and also has a 7000-strong military force deployed to the region.
The 'Idealism' Perspective
The second theory is the German philosopher Emanuel Kant’s Idealism. Woodrow Wilson, the American academic who served as the 28th president of the United States, was among the strongest believers in Kant’s Idealism in the 20th century. Kant’s democratic peace theory extols the role of ethical principles and ideals in the development of policies of democratic states. It posits that democracies are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies, and that because they are founded on transparency and peaceful transfer of power.
For example, it promotes the idea of democratic peace, which essentially means that democracies do not go to war against each other, and that because their systems are founded on transparency, plurality of opinion and peaceful transition of power, these states lay the foundations of international peace and cooperation where their shared belief in these principles creates mutual trust between them.
From this standpoint too, France’s indignation is justifiable. France believes that the United States wasted this mutual trust and entered into secret talks with Australia in March 2021 about the new alliance without informing its European ally of anything until a few hours before the creation of the alliance was officially announced.
For the French, this represents an example of betrayal that should not happen between allies, and especially so because the French-American relationship is one of old friendship and collaboration that dates back to 1776 when France backed the American War of Independence against the British.
Therefore, both idealist theory and the realist theory are valid for explaining France’s reaction to AUKUS. The US behavior did not take into consideration France’s interests nor the democratic values shared by both countries. President Biden, in a joint statement, seems to have admitted that during his phone call with President Macron that not enough consultations were made between the two countries before the new security alliance was announced.
The Uniqueness of Anglo-Saxonism
The AUKUS imbroglio also has a European dimension. French officials said that not only France but all Europe was underestimated and disrespected by the Americans. They also noted that Biden who criticized his predecessor for taking the European role for granted has in fact followed in his steps. In fact, Germany, the strongest and largest European economy, backed France and shared its concerns. The reason is that when it comes to trust between states, actions speak louder than words.
France warned that the lesson derived from this development is that Europeans must join forces and close ranks in foreign policy and security matters and bolster European sovereignty and independence away from the United States.
There is also a sense that French officials refrained from explicitly speaking about it, and left it to political analysts to elaborate on it. They wanted to say that US is working on reviving the ‘special relationship’ with Britain. Former President Donald Trump encouraged London to exit the European Union and promised to sign a free trade agreement to compensate for any losses that Britain may sustain when it walks away from the EU. Biden too, went to London last May before he visited Brussels. While in London, he signed a new Atlantic Charter, a new pact modelled on the August 14, 1941 accord signed by Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt and aims to emulate the original accord.
Others said that the three AUKUS countries are dominated by Anglo-Saxon language and culture that put them aside from European countries that do not share the same culture. Those also noted that the trio, together with Canada and New Zealand have been bound up in an intelligence sharing alliance for more than 50 years.
Unlike the case with enemies and opponents, disagreement between allies can happen, but it is governed by rules and controls. Washington, London and Canberra remained quiet in the face of the storm of French storm of anger, and made sure to reiterate their profound friendship with Paris, commitment to overcome this crisis through dialogue and quiet diplomacy. That is why, President Biden held a phone call with his French counterpart on September 22, one week after the crisis broke out. During the phone talks, France agreed to send its ambassador back to Washington. The two leaders agreed to use diplomatic talks to solve the issue. This shows that differences between allies are to be contained under a ceiling or the alliance would crumble. The best example from history is when the late French president Charles De Gaulle challenged American hegemony in Europe in 1966. But while he suspended France’s participation in NATO’s military integrated command, De Gaulle did not officially and legally abandon the alliance.
To address the current crisis, Macron adopted two approaches. In the first, which shows the French spirit of independence, and because he thought that India would back France, Macron held a phone call with the Indian prime minister on September 18. But his endeavor ended in deadlock at a meeting on September 24 with leaders of the Quad group, which includes the United States, Japan, India and Australia, on the margins of the United Nations meetings in New York. Consequently, he sought to bolster his country’s role in Europe, and the result was that France signed a non-aggression treaty with Japan, an agreement to provide submarines as well as an arms’ deal with the Czech Republic.
In the second approach, which embraces compromising and a desire not to further escalate the rift with the Americans, Macron received Biden’s phone call and returned the French ambassador to Washington, reducing the intensity of official remarks on the tension.
It is only natural that allies can have disagreements and even compete with each other due to their different interests and goals, but what makes things more dramatic is when an ally senses betrayal and deception by another ally. In this case, the issue goes beyond differences of interests to evolve into a threat to the mutual trust.
