« | Home | »

Entente Frugale

Tags: | | |

An alternative to Trident?

The two agreements struck by Britain and France on defence co-operation this week have not brought citizens out on the streets of Paris. There were worries – expressions of anger even – about Sarkozy’s decision to take France back into Nato’s integrated command structure last year, but this is different. The fresh-faced Cameron and the embattled, less rosy-cheeked Sarkozy are like two sons whose parents have frittered away their family fortunes: they must now find common cause and drastic economies, which means moving in together if they wish to remain in the ritzy part of town reserved for big military spenders.

Budget arguments will be minimal: there will be shared baths and no fussing about the eat-by date on the sandwich spread (‘you signed the treaties, Nico, so eat it up!’). The ‘South Atlantic question’, on the other hand, is very much in, but only for the British press: this is not a crucial issue in French eyes and with the Falklands war as remote from us as Crécy, perhaps there is a bigger ‘mid-Atlantic question’. This is the one that arises when the French wake up to find they’ve embarked on a military/nuclear alliance with a droid outfit and that we’re suddenly trying to blag an aircraft carrier because we’re under pressure from the US to deploy. A dispute at that point would be between two presidents, rather than a PM and a president, and the case would slide irresistibly into Nato’s jurisdiction. The ‘North Atlantic question’ is of no interest to the British, whose military commitments are tabled in Washington. But it matters to the French: reintegration with Nato still raises eyebrows in France, where the Gaullist ideal of a sovereign defence policy is not yet extinct.

What’s intriguing about the new realism is that none of these questions outweighs the financial nightmare, for both signatories, of running a full dress ‘great power’ military machine. There is, too, the ghost of an idea in the air: never mind Atlantic drag, imagine a common defence contingency to which the US couldn’t or wouldn’t rally. In a different register, the Daily Mail worries that some time post-2020 Britain may ‘have to plead with a Socialist government’ – yikes – ‘for the use of an aircraft carrier to defend our interests’ and Colonel Tim Collins (Mail again) laments: ‘The truth is that for years, the French have punched below their weight.’ But then they have some good clobber we can borrow, if they let us, especially when it comes to air power.

No advance, for now, on a shared maritime deterrent, even if the entente frugale may make it easier to avoid another accident involving French and British submarines equipped with nuclear warheads. Oh, and state-of-the-art detection systems, which should have averted the collision in 2009 between Le Triomphant and HMS Vanguard. That’s one for Sarkozy and Cameron to explore again on joint manoeuvres at bath time, after an online visit to Kelly Toys, where they’ll be able to procure two wind-up submarines – ‘ideal bath toy for all ages’ – and a couple of bicycle klaxons.

Comments on “Entente Frugale”

  1. A.J.P. Crown says:

    The good thing about the agreement is Britain & France would never agree on who to bomb. However, Britons should know there is no advantage to “running a full dress ‘great power’ military machine”, it just reminds the world of what Britain used to be. Why not take on a new role as a peacemaker, surely you can make money off peace? If taxpayers realised how much this so-called defence costs each of them (the opportunity of every family in Britain to buy a brand new Mercedes-Benz every ten years, say) there would be a lot less enthusiasm for defence spending amongst the Daily Mail’s readers. Cutting the spending is the one place where Britain is not bound to follow US orders.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement