0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
581 $

The Anglo Unilateralists Strike

Support SouthFront

The Anglo Unilateralists Strike

Jean-Yves Le Drian

Written by Dr. Binoy Kampmark.

When President Joe Biden won the White House, he promised, with a facility of unceasing boredom, that diplomacy was back.  “Diplomacy is back at the centre of our foreign policy,” he stated on February 4.  “As I said in my inaugural address, we will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again, not to meet yesterday’s challenges, but today’s and tomorrow’s.”

The fact that such diplomacy had never gone away seemed to escape him.  In the simpleton’s view of politics, his predecessor had abandoned the jaw approach to international relations for muscular and mindless US unilateralism.  Allies had been belittled, ignored and mocked.  Strongmen had been feted, admired and praised.  It was now incumbent upon the United States, urged Biden, that “American leadership” confront “this new moment of advancing authoritarianism, including the growing ambitions of China to rival the United States and the determination of Russia to damage and disrupt our democracy.”

It would have been more accurate to say that President Donald Trump’s coarse, business board room model was simply too much of a shock for those familiarly comfortable with guile, deception and dissimulation.  But Biden’s return to acceptable hypocrisy did not mask the “America First” note in his temper.  Since then, that temper has seen a dramatic, ahead-of-schedule exit from Afghanistan, building on Trump’s undertakings to conclude open-ended wars and commitments.  US allies began to wonder whether the Biden model was that different from Trump’s cruder original.

With the announcement on September 15 of the trilateral security pact AUKUS, an agreement between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia to deepen military ties in an effort to contain China, the “diplomacy is back” cart was soiled and upended.  The European Union had not been consulted.  A furious France only received a few hours’ notice that the agreement they had made through the Naval Group with Australia to construct the next generation of attack class submarines had been dissolved.  Countries in the Indo-Pacific were also left in the dark.

France, in some ways even more than China, the primary target of AUKUS, is incandescent with rage.  On Franceinfo radio, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian was unsparing in his remarks.  “This brutal, unilateral and unpredictable decision reminds me a lot of what Mr Trump used to do.” He confessed to feeling anger and bitterness. “This isn’t done between allies.”

As recently as July, Le Drian had visited Washington, where he pointedly stated that France was “an Indo-Pacific nation with territories that give [it] the world’s second-largest exclusive economic zone” with a permanent military presence of 8,500 personnel in the region.  Paris, along with EU member states, was in the process of formulating a clear Indo-Pacific strategy.  Efforts were being made in creating “strategic partnerships” with Japan, Australia and India.  Regional organisations such as ASEAN were being brought into the fold.  Any “transatlantic pivot toward the Indo-Pacific” had to be taken “together”.

At the end of August, Australia and France held their inaugural Foreign and Defence (2+2) Ministerial Consultations. No hint was given that something was brewing.  As the joint statement outlined, “Ministers underscored the importance of the strong and enduring commitment of other partners, including the United States, and Indo-Pacific partners in upholding an open, inclusive and resilient Indo-Pacific in accordance with international law.”

With notions of sham togetherness shaken, retaliation in the old diplomatic tradition has followed.  President Emmanuel Macron has recalled the French ambassadors to the United States and Australia.  Britain was rebuked somewhat differently, being spared the same harsh treatment; being underhanded was the very sort of thing Paris expected from their historical enemy. In Le Drian’s words, its conduct had been “opportunistic”, with London being little more than “the fifth wheel of the wagon”.

In a joint statement, Le Drian and French Minister for the Army Florence Parly emphasised that this new security arrangement had been arrived at to the “exclusion of a European ally and partner … at a time when we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region.”  The move signalled “a lack of consistency which France can only notice and regret.”

Special words were reserved for Australia, a country now wooed by an unconvincing promise of eight nuclear-powered submarines that are only promised to enter service sometime in the 2040s.  The decision was “contrary to the letter and the spirit of the cooperation which prevailed between France and Australia, based on a relationship of political trust.”  Le Drian, in a separate observation, weighed on the theme of infidelity, calling the decision, “A knife in the back.”

None of this takes away from the fact that the original Franco-Australian contract, reached in 2016, was an ill-thought out undertaking to build 12 conventional Barracuda class submarines in imitation of the nuclear powered Suffren design.  It was vain, costly and promised obsolescence before viable performance. Then again, the French argument goes, the Australians wanted it.

The justifications for this episode of Anglophonic mischief have varied in their insolence and disingenuousness.  US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was all shine and floss in claiming that France remained “a vital partner” in ensuring security in the Indo-Pacific “and we want to find every opportunity to deepen our transatlantic cooperation” in the area.  To a question suggesting that France had been stabbed in the back, Blinken mechanically repeated the vital importance of a “transatlantic” association.

Australia’s simply disposed Defence Minister Peter Dutton preferred fantasy by way of explanation, claiming that his government had been “upfront, open and honest”.  “We can understand of course, the French are upset at the cancellation of a contract but in the end, our job is to act in our national interest.”  Britain’s Defence Minister Ben Wallace was of like mind, promising that, “Nothing was done by sneaking behind anyone’s back.”  But sneaking there was, and it was the Anglosphere, led by the United States, doing the sneaking.

AUKUS is less a trio than a hefty, bullying chief accompanied by a willing assistant and an enthusiastic supplicant.  It is a declaration of hostile intent in a region of the world that promises to be the Europe of 1914.  It has also encouraged the EU to formulate its own Indo-Pacific policy with haste and independence. “The regrettable decision which has just been announced on the FSP [Future Submarine Program] only reinforces the need to raise the issue of European strategic autonomy loud and clear,” observed Le Drian and Parley.  Policy makers in Beijing will be struggling to stifle their amusement.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com


Support SouthFront


Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Donald Moore

The thing is what type of sub will be made, are they going to build more Brit Nuke subs or design a different one. By building a design already in production will be the fastest and cheapest concept. If they are going to build a whole different one then it will cost more even if it is smaller and less capable and probably be obsolete by the time the last one is built. Next will the old subs the Aussy have will be operational still to 2040. The big question is who will pay for them, Australia won’t be able to by itself unless they scrap its surface fleet.

Edmund Burke

Australian big ticket hardware procurement has always been a political mess. They basically buy US to either gain US acceptance, believing they need foriegn protection, or because they actually believe the US marketing hype (ie, the little loved F-111). Occasionally, they go it alone, and actually build something (ie Collins Class subs). This occurs under a government, or a specific defense minister, seeking to award a domestic contract, and maximize its build and maintenance location, for domestic political gains (long term jobs in an electorate). The results have been very mixed, in terms of buying items that are way overpriced and over-hyped, and building items that are acceptable, but fraught with sustained development issues.

Last edited 9 months ago by Edmund Burke

Read HI Sutton’s covert shores to get an idea. The RN Astute or the Los Angeles will be rehashed for name sake. Both highly capable classes. Not that the short fin Barracuda’s (Attack Class) which DCNS proposed were any lesser in capability. Money is never an issue down under. Aussie gubment spends $70 billion per year on feeding just its 5 million dole bludgers out of a total pop of only 24 million. I believe this dumping of the French is more political than the announced misgivings on the Attack class’s lack of capabilities.

Last edited 9 months ago by Ahson

As for the “eternal Anglo”, there’s a phenomenon known as Crypto-Judaism. Jews have admitted to this, it’s when they pretending they aren’t Jewish to “avoid persecution”. In reality, it’s extend their reach through deception. Not all jews appear distinctly jewish, some can easily blend in with non-jews.

Jewish control of Russia https://odysee.com/@HladVitler:6/j-ru:7




Last edited 9 months ago by Marco

C’est malheureusement là la grande erreur du soi disant monde anglo-américain. Ils veulent contrôler le monde mais ils n’arrivent pas à être honnêtes avec leurs alliés. Rappelons que l’Europe a été une création de la CIA pour “brider” les pays européens, pourtant supposés être de “Grand Alliés”. Cet esprit pervers et de division est la preuve que l’AUKUS n’a aucun avenir et se trouvera un jour si isolées qu’ils reviendront courtiser à genoux ces alliés qu’ils ont trahi. mais il sera trop tard. La Russie et la Chine vont être des alternatives beaucoup plus intéressantes à l’avenir et sauront fédérer avec avantages beaucoup de pays avec eux


Well said. A bridge can only be broken once, and the rebuilding is always costly. If the politicians in AUS think, US will be of any help, if a hot conflict with China would occure, then they are not capable of heaving clear thoughts! US is far away, supplies will not be able to reach AUS in time, replenishment will not be possible, and any US installation on AUS territory will be a prime target whenever such hot conflict should occure. And based on recent events I would not trust US keeping their word.

Last edited 9 months ago by Selbstdenker
Damien C

A Pro Trump piece that drips with hared for anything non Trump (uncontrolled, undirected, uncaring, unexplainable, untaxed) The Globalists loved Trump because he was the dumbest President ever elected anywhere in the world at any time in history and most likely the future. He had no clue about policy, plans or politics his only drive in life was self enrichment at the expense of the poor and self promotion to enable his self enrichment.

The most corrupt President the USA ever had he made Nixon look positively honest! It will be his constant lying and the stupidity of his followers the rest of the world will remember them both for Trump and his cronies never had a plan for anything execpt let the globalists do what they want … Let the mega Corporations scam their workers and not pay taxes Let them price gouge and ignore legal and moral expectations. The energy companies were given free range to crucify the American public and hide from them trough Trump appointed judges field studies and chemical exposures to their workers and local populations.


Yeah, Trump so bad they replace him with president who has dementia.


Also a pervert and pedo degenerate. Search “creepy joe” on u~tuub


Appears like US can no longer support two-fronts (Europe and Asia). It is now one or the other. They throw France under the bus in front of world to pit remaining resources against China who is running economic circles around them. It is like desparate drug addict who now must steal from friends to keep their super-power fantasy going another day. So sad to see fall of once great nation..


The times this nation had been great are long gone. Not great for the last 70 years.


“including the growing ambitions of China to rival the United States and the determination of Russia to damage and disrupt our democracy.”

Aka, “the multipolar order is kicking the crap out of the americans and british.”

Rodney Loder.

AUKUS in reality is AFUKUS. France is the only pretending to be a malevolent outsider so Aussies will think there is something special about this deal, probably costing Aus. tax payer $4 billion per sub, we could have bought French nuclear subs built here in 2016 for much cheaper but didn’t want the stigma associated with nuclear without the real thing to back up becoming a high level target, now we know for sure that the US has got our back, very funny.

Ukraine went into attack mode for the US, Myanmar and Mubarak did the same it was the jew swine that installed Sisi the US couldn’t have done it, the US is impotent.


Australia the Ukraine of the indo pacific


We’ve seen with the covid scamdemic just how subservient, fawning and fascist Australia really is. It cares little for its population and will willingly offer it on any alter of expediency to ingratiate itself with its “masters”. It, cringingly behaves like a lovesick schoolgirl in the US/UK presence and constantly proves a lack of sovereignty. If war started with China, it would be quickly sacrificed and made a glass desert while the US/UK laughs from the other side of the world.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x