Minister for the Indo-Pacific, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, delivered a keynote speech at the First Sea Lord’s Sea Power Conference 2023, held at Lancaster House, where she underscored the pivotal role of the UK’s maritime security in the global environment.
“As an island nation and a global trading power, the UK is constantly focused on the seas and oceans,” said the Minister.
She emphasised the crucial role of the Royal Navy in protecting maritime trade routes, which directly impact the daily lives of UK citizens, given that over a third of the country’s food is imported.
Highlighting the global reliance on the sea for food security, Trevelyan voiced concerns about the responsible stewardship of marine habitats, the defiance of large fishing fleets, and increasing intimidation faced by local fishermen in the Philippines due to the activities of Chinese militia boats.
She added that the maritime domain is facing levels of threat and coercion not seen since World War II, thus marking the advent of a ‘new maritime century’.
Guardian of National Security
Underscoring the role of the Royal Navy as the guardian of the nation’s security, Minister Trevelyan affirmed its global respect and trust. “The Royal Navy guards our national security and wider maritime stability,” she said, noting its significant role in NATO and in the forging of international alliances and partnerships.
Threats and Opportunities in the Indo-Pacific
According to Trevelyan, the Indo-Pacific region holds both significant risks and opportunities for UK interests. More than half of global growth is projected to come from this region by 2050, and the region is also seen as a potential source for clean energy resources.
However, maintaining the stability of this area, especially the South China Seas’ shipping routes, is crucial to prevent potentially dramatic economic shocks.
The UK’s Role in the Indo-Pacific
Minister Trevelyan emphasised the UK’s focus on supporting positive impacts in coastal communities and marine science expertise in the Indo-Pacific, while also ensuring the maritime environment is free from coercive shipping.
The UK Government’s £500 million Blue Planet Fund was highlighted as an important tool for supporting developing countries and protecting the environment.
The Challenge of Maritime Security
Highlighting the strategic link between maritime security in the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific, Minister Trevelyan stressed the need for collective efforts to counter threats to maritime stability.
She pointed to the AUKUS partnership, a trilateral agreement with the US and Australia, as a key initiative for supporting the security and stability of the Indo-Pacific. She also highlighted the potential for job creation and workforce development through this partnership.
A Call to Action
In her closing remarks, Minister Trevelyan called for an end to ‘seablindness’ in foreign policy and urged for greater integration of foreign policy priorities into naval planning. She called for collective commitment and a national endeavour to ensure maritime security.
“If we don’t get our deterrence posture right, coercion could become aggression all too quickly. But if we do, we can assure the security and prosperity not only for my constituents, but for all those who are banking on us,” she concluded.
It’s interesting that the Minister for the Indo-Pacific is a more senior position than the Ministers for Europe and for the Americas.
Does essentially every ruling party MP become the Minister of XYZ function or department? Presume Big Ben has to represent a constituency, in addition to this day job?
…his day…🙄
So your second point is right, every Minister and Secretary of State are constituency MPs including the Prime Minister and the Speaker – and technically the day job is the constituency and the addition is the ministerial position.
But the first point, no. The vast majority remain ‘back bench’ MPs. Front benchers (ie ministers and secretaries of state) are actually a relatively small proportion. But over recent years the proportion has been growing, there are currently 116 ministers of all sizes – so about 1/3 of the Conservative MPs.
More pay for more people then – I mean how can they possibly get by on their megre basic salaries….
Actually compared to their responsibilities their salary is terrible – even compared to senior civil servants. Personally I would double MPs pay, but not allow second jobs. I’m convinced that we have a complete rabble of terrible politicians because they are either not good enough to be successful in other careers, or they are just so rich that the salary is meaningless because of their other incomes.
As an example, CDS is paid WAY more than the PM.
Rubbish if you factor in the expenses they get on top of their wage it more then doubles their income.
Andrew, you show me a private sector job that doesn’t have the same. The only major thing is the housing allowance because they HAVE to be in London and their constituency. The base pay is rubbish.
Their pay is £85k a year. A director in a consulting firm is on about £150k plus bonus of about 50%. A partner is on about 2-3x that. All of their travel, food, entertainment costs etc is expensed.
Financial Services, oil and gas – even better pay and bonuses. Where do you think the talent is working?
Compare it to the commandant of RMAS – he’s a 2* so he’s probably on about 120k. He gets a house, a domestic staff and an entertainment budget. Plus he’ll get expensed travel to his own house (like everyone serving) twice a month. But that’s fine -he needs that to do his job. I can’t criticise MPs for legitimate expenses for their job.
Commandant RMAS of course pays rent, council tax and utility bills for his service-provided house – but I nitpick.
Government ministers of course get more pay tha n a back bencher MP – but it is far less than fat cats in Industry.
👌
Understand, thanks.
There are around 100 minsters for a government that has around 300 MP’s. So most get a chance at it. Only about 14 of these are in the cabinet though.
getting a govt XYZ post on top of just being an MP means additional pay and maybe a car service and PM gets their loyalty. the job means they have to go on telly and excuse the latest cock up.
😁
The ruling party in Parliament is of course the Conservative (Tory) Party so their party leader (Rishi Sunak) is automatically the PM of the UK (confirmed of course by the Monarch) and he/she forms a government (His Majesty’s Government).
Of the 650 MPs in the Commons, 354 are Tory (of which 88 are women). Tories therefore have an overall majority. (The Labour Party is the 2nd largest party with 196 MPs, so are officially termed His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition – got to love the old-school terminology!)
Only a minority percentage of ruling party MPs have a role in the Government. By no means does every one of those 354 MPs become the Minister of a Department!
There are currently 24 ministerial departments, 20 non-ministerial departments and 422 agencies and other public bodies.
All MPs represent a constituency whether they are part of the Government or not (if an MP is not in a Govt role, they are termed back-benchers) – Big Ben is MP for Wyre and Preston North, formerly Lancaster and Wyre, since 2005.
Even the PM has a constituency (because of course he is an MP) – Rishi Sunak is MP for the beautiful town of Richmond in (I knew it well as I was once stationed in nearby Catterick Garrison).
He still needs to meet his constituents and represent their interests in Parliament.
Having a constituency helps to ground even those MPs in Government – they know what ordinary people are thinking and experiencing. If the people of Richmond don’t overwhelmingly vote for Rishi at a General Election, he is out on his ear, no matter that he is/was the PM.
Our second Chamber, the House of Lords, debates weighty issues and improves/reforms/amends draft legislation (Bills) crafted by HMG (in the Commons) or by Private Members in the Commons, before they can become Acts of Parliament and granted Royal Assent. They are not allowed to hold up Finance draft legislation.
This must all be amazing for most Americans, I guess.
“Our second Chamber, the House of Lords, debates weighty issues and improves/reforms/amends draft legislation (Bills) crafted by HMG (in the Commons) or by Private Members in the Commons, before they can become Acts of Parliament and granted Royal Assent. They are not allowed to hold up Finance draft legislation.”
Yes, and they are busy sabotaging everything HMG tries to do.
If the figures of successful “amendments” is anything to go by after the Brexit referendum in 2016, which went through the roof after that date. Is the Commons able to overrule them when it returns to the Commons, or does it go back to the Lords again? No wonder nothing can get done.
Thanks for the comprehensive explanation. Indeed, intriguing to an American.
Hello united kingdom, HMS queen Elizabeth Il, f35B lightning II, Long King charles lll no, HM queen Elizabeth Il, iloveyou
Completely OT, just read an article that stated UK has declared an intent to purchase 14 extended range Chinooks to replace the C-130J fleet. Must admit, find the equivalency somewhat problematic. 🤔😳
That is quite bizarre.
Germany has also just purchased some 60 Chinooks with the re-fuelling probe, can’t remember which version it is, wonder if it’s on the back of that order?
Maybe they can help the French in Mali next time then instead of us. 😀
They would love to Jim, but they are trimming the edges of their mustaches that day and all the Rotor blades have been removed for polishing…
Also they can’t remember what they did with their Afrika Corps pithe helemets either, just can’t find them you see….
If it wasn’t for these ‘intractable problems’ they would be right there.
shouting encouragement from the back…
Behave yourself! 😂
Been on the cards for a while, it will replace some of the Special Forces capabilities of the C130. I just hope we start using A400M for AAR for helicopters.
Unlikely as Air Tanker have ‘ sole supplier ‘ status.
Modifying the contract would probably be extremely expensive.
I’ve always thought the Air Tanker contract wasn’t a well thought out one. It was fine saying that a core fleet of 9 would be used by the RAF and the rest on lease to civilian operators in theory, to off set the costs.
That was always only ever going to last 10 years tops, as airlines want to operate new efficient machines.
The A330 is starting to show its age in the airline world, so within the next few years, you can expect all 14 machines crammed into Brize Norton I suppose, unless the Mod sends some into desert storage….
Sole status for fixed with aircraft not helicopters.
I think the contract covers all UK operated AAR Jim….
We are clearly looking at a different approach I guess, C17 deployed Chinook I suppose.
🤔😳
That’s British government for you 🤔
That reminds me of the story that the late Queen leased a Sikorski helicopter following the decommissioning of the Royal Yacht Britannia.
That is someone ( MoD? ) moving the goalposts. That Chinook order was announced years ago and then delayed for financial reasons. They replace older examples of the 60 Chinook we have, not the Hercs!!!
🤔😳👍😱
Now than Mad Vlad and his band of rapists have proven incapable of going 40km into the first neural country it’s time to continue to focus on the navy and containing China.
We really need to sort the long term prospects for Diego Garcia and the British IO territory, it’s going to be the most important piece of real estate we own, bring the Chagos back and give everyone a British passport. With a bit of effort and reclamation I can’t believe it’s not possible to get another island on the archipelago that is fit for human habitation. Unless the US really is keeping the transformers there I can’t believe it’s so secret than British civilians can’t work at the base and use the runway for civilian flights like ascension or FI.
Need to keep Mauritius hands off it because all they want to do is rape the seas around it and pass it to China.
Mauritius is no where near Diego Garcia and it’s never been part of Mauritius, stupid handling by British government back in the day.
I think our main east of Suez enthesis from the 2030’s on, will be the expanded SSN fleet, rather than building up support facilities.
Support facilities in Oman and Australia will probably cover surface fleet deployments In the Indo Pacific region.
Yeah but Diego Garcia gives us soverign territory able to blockade Chinese vessels transiting the Indian Ocean, even the USA does not have that capability. In the event of hostilities with China you can guarantee everyone in the region will become very neutral very fast. Especially Singapore and India. No one in the gulf will be willing to help either. Australia is different sure but a nuclear threat has a way of making countries back down depending on the colour of the government of the day. Diego Garcia is the UK’s biggest asset.
Agree and it would make sense. Far more effective than having floating gin palaces asking for a hypersonic ASM or a torpedo up the arse.
…and yet a US admiral recently suggested that they do not want/need us to have a periodic carrier presence in the SCS/Pacific – and some of our number agree with him!
Unfamiliar w/ that specific quote, perhaps provide link or context?
There is a scenario in which that opinion could be considered relatively well reasoned, at least on a short-term basis–a general fleet battle between the PLAN and USN, before the 2030’s. (Peacetime ops, are of course an entirely different matter.) The RN is still working up the capabilities of two new carriers, after a hiatus of approximately a decade in carrier ops. In addition, RN/RAF have not yet taken delivery of the full initial tranche of F-35Bs, nor made a firm commitment for the follow-on order of aircraft. Further, the Block 4 F-35B update (including enablement of additional munitions), w/ commensurate increase in carrier capabilities, has been sliding to the right, and future, drone-based organic AEW and AAR capabilities will take time to mature. Additionally, the final Astute class sub will not be commissioned before 2026, and it will take time to upgrade TLAM to Block 5 capability. The list continues: NSM, although initial deployment will occur this year, will require time to achieve FOC, the T-45’s need time to complete PIP and upgrade Sea Viper, and the rollout of T-26 class, in due course, will surely be welcomed as an increase in fleet capability.
When, probably not if, conflict breaks out in the SCS, it will be the most intensive naval, amphibious and airborne warfare since WW II, and possibly the most intense in human history, w/ massive losses in personnel and equipment. The RAF, RM and RN are in the process of significant upgrades in capabilities; one would not choose to have them potentially in harm’s way until new capabilities are tested, incorporated and tempered by trials. The 2030’s appear to be a reasonable timeline, at this point. In the interim, there are sufficient tasks to occupy attention in the Atlantic and ME. Of course, there is a chance that this assessment could be partially or totally incorrect, but would bet accordingly.
The quote from the US admiral was a comment I saw in a UKDJ post but did not come with a reference or link or context – I cannot find it on a google search.
Certainly our carriers are not at FOC but I would have thought that if war breaks out in the SCS, it would be ‘all hands to the pumps’. The US would gain benefit from internationalising (ie by having UK assets there or ‘on the way’) in a conflict with China, very quickly.
Similarly if war with Russia happened in Europe, the British Army could hardly decline to participate on the grounds that CR3 and Boxer are not yet fielded.
May be an unduly pessimistic assessment, but there will probably be two types of naval vessels in an SCS conflict: predators and prey. The SSNs will be in the former category, everything else, to a greater or lesser degree, in the latter. Capital ships especially, as well as amphibious and logistics support vessels, and even surface escorts (unless incredibly well armed) would be well advised to give the area a wide berth, until some degree of all-domain dominance (aerial, surface, and subsurface) has been achieved. Recent open source simulations still predict heavy losses. 🤔😳 Never participated in mission planning for this particular scenario, but believe it will be an extremely lethal environment.
Many thanks. We’d better keep our warships away from the war then!