Brexit had put a brake on their understanding, not always cordial when Boris Johnson, with populist overtones, was in power across the Channel. France and the United Kingdom now intend to reinvigorate their partnership on the occasion of the bilateral summit organized in Paris, this Friday, March 10.
In addition to issues relating to energy and immigration, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and President Emmanuel Macron are expected to discuss defense cooperation, which had experienced a boost with the Lancaster House treaties of 2010. For the researcher Alice Billon-Galland, of the London think tank Chatham House, the possibilities of new rapprochements are not lacking.
L’Express: Has cooperation between the United Kingdom and France in defense matters been undermined by Brexit?
Alice Billon-Galland: Yes, this has had a negative effect on this bilateral relationship, in a climate of lack of trust between the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and the French President, Emmanuel Macron, especially since defense issues are settled at a level very high. That said, compared to other subjects, defense has been rather preserved, because dialogue also takes place through other structures, such as NATO, and also because military-to-military cooperation, depoliticized, continued. Capacity building programs have continued, but there has been a setback in the desire to go further in working together.
There is also AUKUS, the “surprise” military alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United Statesto the detriment of the sale of French submarines to Canberra…
Yes, that brought a real halt to Franco-British cooperation for a few months. But trade has improved with the war in Ukraine and the recent agreement between the European Union and the British government on trade to Northern Ireland. Paris and London now need and want to meet again.
What conclusions can we draw from the Lancaster House treaties of 2010, supposed to seal Franco-British cooperation in defence?
Among the real successes, there is cooperation on nuclear energy with the Teutates program for the joint operation of research facilities. Some capability projects have worked well, such as the one on maritime mines. At the operational level, there have been joint commitments in Libya, Iraq, the sharing of Royal Air Force helicopters for Operation Barkhane and France’s participation in NATO’s deployment in Estonia, led by the Kingdom -United. However, some major structuring projects have not seen the light of day, in particular concerning the aircraft of the future. On the one hand there is France with Germany and Spain for the SCAF, and on the other the United Kingdom, Italy and Japan for the Tempest program.
Lancaster House also provided for the creation of a Combined Joint Expeditionary Force (CJEF), capable of deploying 10,000 soldiers…
Yes, it has been operational for a few years. Both armies can work and deploy together. But there are still questions about how it might be used.
What could the French and the British do together again?
On the question of Ukraine, as important as it is structuring, we haven’t seen much Franco-British leadership. However, the two countries can do a lot of things together in terms of support, reflection, arms stocks, or training of Ukrainian troops.
They can also work together on security guarantees for Ukraine in the future. Operationally, there are opportunities for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, where the two countries have recently developed strategies. There could be coordinated patrols, joint exercises, more in-depth exchanges on Taiwan, China, Africa: there are quite a few subjects on which to reopen discussions.
Why does this seem complicated?
Yes, the Franco-British dynamic is both frustrating and fascinating. The two countries are close in their strategic culture, on the diagnosis of problems and the solutions to be provided. But they do not have the same tools to respond to it: France, very pro-European, wishes to go through the framework of the European Union, while the United Kingdom puts all its efforts into NATO, wants to be close to the United States and is seeking bilateral agreements. Since they therefore find it difficult to move forward together, they must be creative.