« | 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

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Edward Said: The Iraq War
    17 April 2003

    ‘This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology.’

    David Runciman:
    The Politics of Good Intentions
    8 May 2003

    ‘One of the things that unites all critics of Blair’s war in Iraq, whether from the Left or the Right, is that they are sick of the sound of Blair trumpeting the purity of his purpose, when what matters is the consequences of his actions.’

    Simon Wren-Lewis: The Austerity Con
    19 February 2015

    ‘How did a policy that makes so little sense to economists come to be seen by so many people as inevitable?’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement