Britain ‘ready to fight' over Taiwan
John Healey was speaking on board the HMS Prince of Wales with Richard Marles, Australia's deputy prime minister, as the ship docked in Darwin to join war games with allies, including the US.
Asked by the Telegraph about what the UK is doing to help countries like Taiwan to prepare for potential escalation from China, Mr Healey said: 'If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together.'
His comments are among the most robust from a British official on the subject of possible engagement in a future war in the region.
Mr Healey, however, said he was speaking in 'general terms', and said the UK would prefer to see any disputes in the Indo-Pacific resolved 'peacefully' and 'diplomatically'.
He added: 'We secure peace through strength, and our strength comes from our allies.'
Xi Jinping, the president of China, has not ruled out the use of force in the 'reunification of the motherland'. Beijing maintains sovereignty over Taiwan, which the government in Taipei firmly rejects.
Experts have cautioned that an invasion of Taiwan could result in a conflict that would involve countries across the globe.
Mr Healey acknowledged that 'threats' are increasing in the Indo-Pacific region, where China's military has seized contested reefs and is accused of intimidating its neighbours.
The HMS Prince of Wales carrier group has sailed with advanced F-35 fighter jets from Singapore to northern Australia for the first time since 1997, and will continue towards Japan, where it is likely to sail close to Taiwan.
The British Government has previously refrained from commenting on whether it would intervene if a conflict were to break out. The Royal Navy has two permanent patrol vessels in the region.
Most countries follow the United States in its position of 'strategic ambiguity' where it generally refrains from commenting on whether or not it would come to Taiwan's defence in the event of a war.
Joe Biden, the former US president, had broken this rule of thumb on several occasions and had said that the US would support the island in pushing back against China. Donald Trump, the current president, has refrained from taking the same outspoken approach, but officials in the Pentagon are preparing for conflict.
The current US government has also said that it will be reviewing its part in the AUKUS agreement, a trilateral security agreement between the US, Australia and the UK, as part of the Trump administration's 'America first' strategy.
Regarding Taiwan, Australia has also taken a more cautious approach. Anthony Albanese, the country's prime minister, last week refused to comment on whether the country would join with the US and other allies in fighting back against China if a conflict broke out.
As part of its National Security Strategy published earlier this year, the UK Government recognised that 'there is a particular risk of escalation around Taiwan'.
Gavin Williamson, who served as the UK's defence secretary from 2017 to 2019, said that the UK is probably speaking more candidly as the increasing threat in the Indo-Pacific becomes clearer.
'I think there's a realisation that by being completely silent it doesn't make it more or less likely. Deterrence is about setting out the consequences that will come about as a result of other people's dangerous or malign actions,' Sir Gavin told The Telegraph.
'It's really important that people like the UK Defence Secretary is being clear about the consequences of actions.'
The decision to deploy the HMS Prince of Wales, which is the UK's largest strike carrier group, on a nine-month deployment through the Pacific is indicative of the UK's awareness of this rising threat level.
The ship's deployment to Darwin, a city in northern Australia, is also telling of the close ties between London and Canberra, which would be key to any potential future conflict in the Indo-Pacific.
Mr Healey noted 'as threats are increasing, the partnerships like the UK and Australia matter more than ever'.
This is the first time in nearly 30 years that a British carrier strike group has docked in Australia and the first time that a non-US carrier has participated in Australia's annual military drills known as Talisman Sabre, which were the largest ever this year.
The two countries also signed the Geelong Treaty this weekend, a new 50-year agreement cementing their part in the AUKUS pact and committing to build a new class of nuclear-powered submarines.
The arrival of the HMS Prince of Wales to Darwin is also part of the UK's effort to assert the right to freedom of navigation through the Taiwan Strait – the narrow body of water separating China from Taiwan.
David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary who was also on board the HMS Prince of Wales earlier in the day, has previously said that the UK plans to conduct more freedom of navigation operations in the Taiwan Strait.
'We have a direct interest in the international rules, the freedom of the seas, the freedom of navigation and the stability and security in the Indo-Pacific,' said Mr Healey.
Last month, the HMS Spey, a Royal Navy patrol ship, transited the Taiwan Strait, drawing praise from Taiwan and strong criticism from China.
The UK does not comment on its ships' future movements, but many suspect the HMS Prince of Wales will transit through the contested Strait as it sails to its next destinations in South Korea and Japan.
However, while the UK may be increasing its attention towards the Indo-Pacific, this will not involve greater engagement with Taiwan.
When asked whether the UK may engage more formally with Taiwan, Mr Healey said that 'there's no change in the UK's approach to Taiwan'.
Sir Gavin, who also faced the question of engagement with Taiwan while he was in office, said that the UK is only likely to shift its approach 'if China becomes ever more and more aggressive'.
Conflict over Taiwan would probably have massive global implications as the country produces much of the world's most advanced computer chips.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Global moral consensus is just wishful thinking
In his opinion piece (From Gaza to Ukraine, peace always seems just out of reach – and the reason isn't only political, 20 July), Simon Tisdall says 'ending major conflicts, and easing the suffering of millions, is a moral imperative that demands a determined collective response from all concerned. That way lies peace. That way lies salvation'. If that is really the case then all hope is lost. There already is a 'determined collective response' from all concerned, which is a pledge to fight to the bitter end, whatever the cost to their victims in lives or suffering. For Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, freedom from moral constraints, incorporating manifestly immoral behaviour and open contempt for international law, is an existential necessity. To expect either of them to abandon the territorial ambitions on which they have staked their political futures lies somewhere between naivety and sheer wishful thinking. Given that, all talk of 'moral imperatives', without enforceable international law when their noble aspirations are breached, is no more than impotent bleating from the sidelines. The treaty to establish the international criminal court in 1998 failed to sign up China, India or the Gulf states. Indeed the map of those countries that have ratified the ICC looks suspiciously like the former Commonwealth, with the addition of South America. More significant are those countries who signed up to the treaty, but which have refused to ratify it, for various stated reasons, but ineluctably because their current politicians need immunity from its rulings – the former superpowers US and Russia, and Israel. None of their leaders could survive in office if they were made internationally accountable to enforceable laws with a clear moral basis. Sadly but paradoxically, the only people with the political and military clout to bring the war criminals to justice in the name of morality turn out to be the ones perpetuating the war crimes. Alex WatsonStroud, Gloucestershire Simon Tisdall rightly argues that peace remains elusive not just due to geopolitics, but a collapse in global moral consensus. Yet we must ask: has that consensus ever truly been global – or has it been curated through western lenses? Britain recently announced an inquiry into violent policing at Orgreave in 1984 and the subsequent collapsed prosecution of 95 miners, but still refuses to apologise for Jallianwala Bagh, where hundreds of unarmed Indians were massacred under imperial command in 1919. Where is the moral clarity? Tisdall speaks of the 'rules-based international order'. But when Donald Trump bombed Iranian nuclear sites – installations once fostered by Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace programme – where were the rules? Would the same be done to Pakistan or China? The west routinely turns a blind eye when its allies commit horrors. Yes, Russians ignore Ukraine. But did the UK not join the US in Iraq, a war based on phantom weapons of mass destruction? Have we ever truly atoned for the destruction of Falluja, or the millions displaced in Afghanistan? I agree that peace demands moral revitalisation. But that renewal must begin at home: in Washington, London, Paris. A world that arms first and negotiates never cannot preach morality. Diplomacy has been replaced by drone strikes, and summits by air raids. The UN has become a mute witness, bypassed by the very powers that once built it. Until we stop dividing the world into 'worthy victims' and 'collateral damage', there will be no peace. There is no lesser life. And there is no moral order unless it applies to all. Let truth precede justice. And only then will peace KalyanasundaramChennai, India Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Russian Navy Day parade cancelled for ‘security reasons'
Russia's annual Navy Day parade has been cancelled for 'security reasons'. The large-scale, televised parade, due to take place on Sunday, usually features a flotilla of warships and military vessels sailing down the Neva River and is attended by Vladimir Putin, the Russian president. Russia has not released the specifics of the threat or concern, but Ukrainian drones targeted St Petersburg on Sunday, where the parade was due to take place, forcing the airport to close for five hours. Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said: '[The cancellation] has to do with the general situation. Security reasons are of utmost importance.' It is the first time the parade has been cancelled since its inception in 2017, according to state media. In 2024, Russia suspected Ukraine would target the parade, which prompted organisers to reduce the scale of the procession. Putin arrived at the city's historic naval headquarters on Sunday by patrol speed boat, from where he followed drills involving more than 150 vessels and 15,000 military personnel in the Pacific and Arctic Oceans and Baltic and Caspian Seas. 'Today, we are marking this holiday in a working setting, we are inspecting the combat readiness of the fleet,' Putin said in a video address. The parade was meant to be the highlight of Russia's Navy Day, which falls on the last Sunday of July each year and honours the country's sailors. The Russian Defence Ministry announced on Sunday that air defence units downed 291 Ukrainian fixed-wing drones, below a record 524 drones downed in attacks on May 7, ahead of Russia's Victory Day parade on May 9. A woman was injured by falling debris, on Sunday, when 10 drones were downed in the Leningrad region surrounding St Petersburg, Alexander Drozdenko, its governor, said. Pulkovo airport was closed during the attack, with 57 flights delayed and 22 diverted to other airports. It resumed operations later on Sunday.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Letter: Lord Lipsey obituary
Among his multiple accomplishments and achievements, the commitment of David Lipsey to classical music education stood out. Unlike too many politicians, who merely talk the talk about the arts, David walked the walk. He was chair of governors at Trinity Laban Conservatoire, 2012-17, leading its transformation into Britain's first university level college of both music and dance, and establishing Trinity Laban as the inclusive and innovative creative institution it is today. He often spoke up for the arts, and for music education in particular, in the House of Lords, where he chaired the all-party classical music group. He also put his money where his mouth was, supporting young pianists and other artists with generous endowments.
