SEOUL, South Korea — Reaction in the press and among analysts has ranged from stunned to skeptical after British Defense Minister John Healey said Australia and the U.K. would fight together with Taiwan against China.
The comments have stirred attention, given that the U.K. maintains a minimal military presence in the Indo-Pacific region and Australia has recently been restoring ties with China via a chummy meeting between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Some analysts say the audience Australia and Britain are aiming for may be less Chinese and more American.
London and Canberra are keen to proceed with a trilateral nuclear submarine deal that the two signed with the Biden administration in 2021. That deal, known as AUKUS, is being critically reviewed by the Trump administration.
While Canberra and London have invested both industrial and political capital, indications are that Washington is on the verge of nixing it.
AUK talk tough
Aboard the British F35 aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales, docked in Darwin, Northern Australia, on Sunday, Mr. Healey was asked by The Daily Telegraph what the U.K. is doing to help countries like Taiwan prepare for potential Chinese escalation.
“If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the U.K. are nations that will fight together,” he responded, “We exercise together and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together.”
Mr. Healey, standing alongside Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles, swiftly walked that back, saying peaceful and diplomatic outcomes are preferable, but adding, “We secure peace through strength, and our strength comes from our allies.”
By U.S. rhetorical standards — customarily, officials deploy “strategic ambiguity” over Taiwan — the comments were muscular.
They followed a joint Australia-UK ministerial statement two days earlier that expressed concern about the Chinese “threat of force and coercion” around Taiwan, and supporting Taiwanese inclusion in global organizations — which Beijing lobbies against.
Taipei responded on X. Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs tweeted, “We thank our like-minded partners for opposing coercion, supporting Taiwan’s global engagement and standing up for democracy, freedom and the rule of law.”
Chinese commentators seethed. Mr. Healey’s statement reflects an ’imperial-era specter,’” editorialized Chinese media Global Times.
“For a country that once took pride in colonizing many countries and regions and projecting power across the seas, flaunting its aircraft carriers in the Pacific and hyping up militarism over the Taiwan Straits is little more than self-indulgent nostalgia,” the paper wrote.
The reports caused ripples in the U.K. The Daily Express tabloid headlined its report, “WW3 fears explode as Britain vows to fight China over Taiwan.”
A Telegraph commentator was less alarmed, more downbeat about London’s capabilities.
“The once mighty Royal Navy surface [escort] fleet is now down to 14 frigates and destroyers, of which only around half are available at any time, plus the two carriers,” wrote retired Col. Richard Kemp. “After decades of cuts, the Army and Royal Air Force are in an equally enfeebled state … Healey’s words are unlikely to give Beijing’s political leaders or military planners furrowed brows.”
A widely-read Chinese commentator on X concurred. In a response to Mr. Healey, Zhao Dashuai posted, alongside a graphic comparing the two navies: “You and what fleet? The UK navy has more admirals than combat ships.”
The Prince of Wales has operated off India and Singapore, and in the Australia-based multinational drills, Talisman Sabre. Her next destination is Japan.
London’s two F-35 carriers are impressive, but are very occasional visitors to the Indo-Pacific, where British forces are spread thin.
An infantry battalion is stationed in Brunei, a small naval detachment is maintained in Singapore, and two offshore patrol vessels rove the region.
While neither Australia nor the U.K. could feasibly challenge China absent more powerful U.S. forces, both countries want AUKUS.
The AUKUS message
Under it, London and Washington committed to providing Canberra with long-range nuclear attack submarines, capable of deploying far from Australia’s coast.
The shallow Taiwan Strait is a high risk for submarines, but strategic channels that Chinese warships would have to transit to surround the island are ideal hunting grounds.
AUKUS, signed by all three governments in 2021, is under review by U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Eldridge Colby.
Mr. Colby, per reports from Washington, has demanded to know Canberra’s role in any future Taiwan contingency.
He is dubious of AUKUS on the grounds that the U.S. needs all the Virginia-class subs it can produce, so it cannot sell to Australia.
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, U.S. Adm. Daryl Caudle said America would need a “100%” improvement in submarine build rates before it could sell boats to Australia.
Meanwhile, London and Canberra have been upgrading Euro-Atlantic/Indo-Pacific ties.
On Saturday, Australian Defense Secretary Richard Marles wrote on X of a bilateral treaty signed that day to promote submarine technology transfers and training, saying, “It will enable us to collaborate closely to deliver AUKUS over the next fifty years.”
Key messages are a reassurance to the U.S. that both countries stand with Taiwan and that AUKUS spreads the deterrence load.
“London and Canberra definitely feel themselves sharing the same trench as they try to manage the Trump administration,” said Joel Atkinson, an Australian professor of international relations at Seoul’s Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.
Regarding comments from AUK officials, he said, “I see it as an effort to de-problematize the issue of Australia receiving American-made Virginia [class] subs in the public discourse.”
