The recent public debate over the poor operational condition of the Royal Navy brought attention to the deployment of the Astute-class attack submarine HMS Anson to Australia.
Given the vessel was at the time the only such fully operational nuclear powered attack submarine (SSN) available to the UK and the ongoing threat from Russian forces in European and North Atlantic waters, this seemed an incongruous move at best.
Yet while the current UK Government has sought to move away from the ‘Indo-Pacific Tilt’ of the previous administration, the deployment of Anson served to highlight part of the UK’s underappreciated commitment to the region. This has implications for how the UK may find itself drawn into a potential conflict between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and a US-led coalition over the fate of Taiwan.
As I outline in my book War Plan Taiwan: OPLAN 5077 and the US Struggle for the Pacific, the territory now governed as the Republic of China has featured in US war planning for over a century: since 1950 in the form of contingencies to defend it from attack by the PRC. Following the end of the Chinese Civil War via the victory of the Communists on the mainland in 1949, Taiwan became the refuge of the defeated Nationalist government. While that government initially retained its status as the internationally recognised representatives of ‘China’, this fell away under the pressure of realpolitik until the US itself switched recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979.
While Washington’s plans for defending Taiwan were quietly maintained even after this point (and comprehensively reinvigorated after the turn of the millennium), the US officially refuses to fully commit to protecting the ROC as part of its stance of “strategic ambiguity”. For its part, the PRC maintains that unification – or as it terms it “reunification” – is a critical element of achieving the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”, and has not ruled out the use of force to accomplish this.
Like the US, the UK does not recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state (having withdrawn recognition from the Taipei government in January 1950), and while it “acknowledges” the PRC position that Taiwan is part of China, it does not explicitly endorse it. Today, the tensions over control of the territory is recognised as a security flashpoint, and London has emphasised that disputes should be solved “through dialogue, in line with the views of the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.”
None of this is an indication in isolation that the UK is consciously seeking involvement in any war. Politically, the impossibility of UN Security Council endorsement for intervention, the legal ambiguity of Taiwan impacting on its ability to participate in collective self-defense, economic reluctance in London and the already thinly stretched UK Armed Forces’ commitments in Europe would count against such a move. Yet Britain’s network of alliances and partnerships means that in the event of conflict, there is more potential for British participation than is generally appreciated.
At the most basic level are the responsibilities that come with the UK’s NATO membership. While the alliance in general and the UK government’s current “NATO First” approach conjures up visions of a European focus, Article 6 states that member territories or their military forces, vessels or aircraft under attack must be in Europe, North America, the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer to fall under the agreement’s Article 5 which stipulates that an armed attack against one member is an attack against all. This excludes the state of Hawaii and the US Pacific territories such as Guam. However, the continental US (including Alaska) is encompassed. Were China to launch a war for Taiwan, there is a meaningful risk that territory covered by NATO would be subjected to attack from Beijing – either as an opening ‘Pearl Harbour’-style gambit or as part of an escalation spiral should the US opt to become involved in defending the island (a decision ultimately made by the president). It should be recalled that the only invocation of NATO’s Article 5 reflected the alliance’s commitment to North America. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system aircraft based in Europe were deployed to support US air defence. While Article 5 does not mandate an automatic military response from the allies of a member state under attack, a refusal by the US’s European allies to render assistance (barring some extenuating circumstances such as an in-progress Russian attack) would likely be a death-blow to the alliance. Certainly, it is difficult to see how the UK could deny the US intelligence, cyber warfare, sanctions and basing support (including in Diego Garcia) were it to be subjected to an unprovoked attack.
Less formal commitments are also prominent. The visit by HMS Anson to Australia was in support of the AUKUS security partnership between the UK, Australia and the US, the submarine component of which will eventually see a new class of vessel delivered to the former two nations. Another component of this deal is the establishment of a forward deployment of US and UK submarines based at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia which will be known as Submarine Rotational Force – West (SRF-West). It is planned that one Astute-class boat will be part of this deployment from 2027.
AUKUS is not a mutual defence treaty. Nor is the Five Powers Defence Agreement between the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia. Yet cultural connections alone make it near-unthinkable that Britain would not render assistance to Canberra in the event of an attack, to say nothing of more practical path determinants such as the deep intelligence integration between the two countries. Given the basing of US forces in Australia and the country’s likely role of a semi-secure rear area for the US in the event of a war (replicating a similar role during World War II), such a requirement may easily materialise. Given the presence of a UK contingent in the country, an immediate British commitment to the protection of Australia is likely to be politically unavoidable. Yet even if the UK opted to simply support the securing of Australia’s territorial waters and sea lines of communication, this would constitute becoming a combatant. Given the recognised effectiveness of the Royal Navy’s SSNs, there would also be pressure to take a more offensive role. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine the UK standing by should Japan, the largest host of US forces in the Western Pacific, be subjected to attack as part of a Chinese effort to take Taiwan – not least given the around 20,000 British citizens living there who may need evacuating.
Beyond political commitments, it would also be impossible for the UK to escape the economic implications of a Taiwan war. The 2026 Iran War has underlined the entire world’s vulnerability to disruption of critical commodities production and the obstruction of sea lanes. The 2025 UK National Security Strategy treats peace in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait as a UK national interest in the context of trade and prosperity. The ROC is well-known as being at the centre of advanced computer chip manufacturing, and the likely wide scope of any conflict would create hazards for the sea lanes across East Asia. Restoring something approaching a status quo ante bellum in the aftermath of what would likely be the biggest global economic shock in over eighty years would not just be in the UK national interest, but an imperative of survival.
None of this is to ignore the current moribund state of much of the British Armed Forces, nor the more proximate threat posed by Russia. Yet a conflict over the fate of Taiwan is unlikely to occur tomorrow: my book provides an illustrative scenario set in 2029 – in my view, likely the earliest point where a PRC invasion would have any hope of success. We also know that the global situation can shift remarkably quickly: less than a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, tanks from the British Army of the Rhine were deploying to Saudi Arabia as part of the build-up of the force that would liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. While the prospect of a Pacific War in the near future dominates US defence discourse, in the UK, there is something of a petrified silence in public debate.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines
Rowan Allport is a deputy director at the Human Security Centre, a London-based foreign policy think tank. He has previously worked as a lobbyist in Westminster, and as a senior analyst for RAND Europe’s Defence, Security and Infrastructure team. Rowan has written for outlets including Foreign Policy, The Diplomat, and Defense One and is the author of the book War Plan Taiwan: OPLAN 5077 and the U.S. Struggle for the Pacific, published by the Naval Institute Press. He holds a PhD in politics from the University of York.
This is the problem with UK “think” thanks on the far east, they have no idea about the far east. If we took two seconds to listen to our five powers defence agreement Allie’s, the only people we are treaty bound to support in the far east we would know that none of them are willing to enter into a conflict over Taiwan and us entering into a conflict would make them a target.
The Trump administration has made this all very simple for us, we now have zero obligation to America over Taiwan.
Why does it have to be all based on Trump? Obligations could be directly to Taiwan. Whatever China’s claims over Taiwan are there are fundamental issues of respecting another country’s sovereignty, its democratic right to exist under international law and like Ukraine isn’t that what the West is defending and will fight to uphold anywhere? There’s huge potential acquistion of major microchip production, two top 10 shipping lines, Evergreen and Yang Ming, other IT industry and IP, other foreign investments, all up for grabs. It would be empowering for China and loss to the West and likely be non reverseable. Not sure hiw workd trade woukd adjust yo it. Might force more relocation of industries and investments. Got to show respect to China in the mean time, keeping talking and trading, participate in regional dialogue, trade forums and know what we stand for with like minded countries.
I don’t think Trump would ask! However, if Japan, South Korea and Australia become involved, that could tip the scales for the UK along with NATO.
Australia would for sure but only if it is attacked, not if it goes to war with China in support of the USA, we don’t have any treaty obligations to South Korea or Japan. South Korea was very slow to provide support to Ukraine. I feel for Japan for sure but not to get into a war with China over an island that’s legally still part of China. China is not making any territorial claims on Japan.
We can’t come running half way around the world to support a country that no longer supports us.
America has made its decision on NATO and we need to recognise that a move on, if anything Europe should be doing a deal with China.
We must make clear that Article 6 is in effect and its geographical limits will be respected. NATO is not the USA ‘s water boy, there to pick up the can in any Asian adventures the USA chooses to embroil itself in
Beyond Taiwan China appears to have no territorial ambitions, technically Taiwan is part of China by its own admission and it does not appear the people of Taiwan want there country turned into rubble to assert their independence. We can probably work with both sides to achieve a compromise (call Taiwan a Dominion and allow it to keep its armed forces for instance) the UK excels in this kind of ambiguity and if we can kick the can far enough down the road it’s likely China and Taiwan can eventually peacefully ratify their relationship.
If we can get past the Taiwan issue then no reason that China poses any kind of security threat to us and it can actually be a very valuable partner. A counter weight to an expansionist Russia and a US increasingly willing to throw its military weight around the world for nefarious reasons.
I get paid over $220 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. i never thought i’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 15k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. the potential with this is endless…,
This is what I do…..www.giftpay7.vip
I haven’t read the article just yet. Just up front on a practical level, does or will the RN ever have any spare vessels doing the rounds in the Indo Pacific? Does the UK want to be there even if the US at times gives the impression it doesn’t and that the UKs focus shoujd Euro North centric. As the RN rebuilds i hope indeed it spreads its wings, keeps up with its alliances, especially with like minded middle powers and strengthens its trade and military relationships. Doesn’t have to be blowing its trumpet but just to show it still is and can be there if needed. Might need a few more T31s to build up masse and deployable presence and get the MRSS happening.
I am slowly changing my mind on this.
First my view on the likely hood of war.
People first need to understand that the reunification of Taiwan and China is not considered “optional” by the CPC ( CCP) or the Chinese people. It is essentially none negotiable and an engraved part of Chinese identity.. “The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been”. To fully understand why China will inevitably go to war you much understand that essentially reunification is a national religion and belief system it is core to Chinese identity and national self belief.. it’s chinas version of the USAs manifest destiny but build up on the steroids of a communist education system. China even has a date 2045.. this is not a start date this is an all smiles and one loving country date.
The next bit is leadership, Xi Jinping. Forget every western leader, forget power grabbing opportunist authoritarian. This man is probably the most effective leader of the 21c, but at his core he is an extremist believe in Chinese destiny as dictated by the CPC. He’s intelligent, massively capable but an utter believer.. this man’s parents were CPC generals arrested for treason, as a child he and his siblings were cast onto the streets essentially, he was threatened by the state, in the end his sister killed herself, he was then rounded up in the cultural revolution and sent to be a child peasant labour on a farm, he escaped was captured and spent the first years of his adult life in the cultural revolution era political re education prison doing hard labour ( this was a time when 20 million Chinese people died in the cultural revolution) .. after that he went back to the farm with nothing but a box of political books and worked as a peasant, he kept applying to become a member of the CPC after a few years a rejection he was accepted and after a while sent to university as a peasant soldier to study chemical engineering and later communist theory to doctoral level. He then did every hard knock job the communist party had in the provinces.. until he controlled everything.. from political prisoner doing hard labour to absolute control through essentially hard work talent and belief.. this man is the Antithesis of the modern western leader like Trump.. or any western political leader.. the US naval institute called him the greatest navalist leader of his generation and one of the greatest of the modern era ( that’s the last 300 years). So if anyone thinks that man is backing away from chinese destiny they are bonkers he has the ability and solute will.. but does he have the power.
It’s actually quite likely that Xi is the most single powerful individual ever.. even absolutist monarchs had stops on their power and control ( mainly through poor communications and intelligence gathering), the modern democratic leaders have huge limits on their power, even Putin has to take care… Iran has diffuse power structures..
China has zero diffusion of power, Xi controls everything and he does for life.. he has total power because China has a number of bodies that balance each other and Xi individually heads and controls all of them. He is the general secretary of the CPC and has total control of the party.. he runs and controls the central committee every person is his and the central committee runs the CPC that’s 1100 million believers who are on the boards of every business and every organisation.
He is chairman of the central military commission and commander in chief of the PLA joint battle command.. and in this he has completed control of the armed forces
He is head of the national security commission and has direct control of all security and police forces.
He heads the central political and legal affairs commission.. overseeing legal and security enforcement
He heads the central commission for discipline inspection.. which oversees the activities of party members
Essentially Xi is the chair of any and all group’s committees and commissions that hold and power..
Finally power needs control..that’s the 5000 million security personnel he essentially directed controls and the 700 million surveillance cameras linked into “skynet” an artificial intelligence monitoring system.
Also most Chinese people have the same national belief as Xi does anyway.
So yes Xi will go to war and China will follow him to hell with flags waving and similes on their faces.. because the ones who really protested ended up in prison or executed.
Capability
The true is China does not see war as the west sees war, for China war is essentially societal and never ending.. it’s a continuum and shock horror China has been fighting a war with the west since Xi took power in 2012.. the 2012 Chinese dream was the start and belt and roads in 2013 was the first obvious move to attack.. for China kinetic war is essentially the very last step when you have done everything else when you have weakened your enemies political will, it’s economic power, split it internally by creating distention between the population and political leadership, even split it apart, destroyed its alliances, destroyed its industries, removed it from markets and resources… only when you have played all that out do you go kinetic.. and in the Chinese paradigm even then kinetic is not the point your simply using the kinetic battlefield to amplify your political, economic and industrial attacks.. and to do this kinetic warfare must make the other side suffer hard.. the civilians and politicians are the targets, by making the kinetic long and widespread and you must directly attack your opponents populations wellbeing.. killing armies and navies is a secondary effect.
So the question is not can China win individual battles its can China draw the US into a years long war of mutual suffering.. because China knows it has absolute control of its political systems, population and to a great extent its industrial systems ( it’s been war Harding its supply chain )..
Beyond that it now has more surface combatants than the US and is our building it surface combatant wise about 10 to 1, its planning to have 6-8 large carriers by 2035, as well as probably 5+ 55,000 ton small carriers and god knows how many 20,000 ton drone carriers.. its now got the capacity to launch about 6-8 SSNs a year and will have the type 095 which is essentially a preset generation SSN by the late 2020s.. by 2035 the US will face essential parity of carriers, almost parity of SSN numbers, as well at 60 AIP boats, at least double the number of destroyers and frigates.. and a ton of corvettes… as well as a nation that can throw 1700 merchants a year in the water.. and just for kicks it will essentially have near as does not matter parity of nuclear weapons ( it’s at MAD with the US already, it’s just making sure it can MAD the US, Europe and Russia all at the same time ).
No nation has ever in the history of humanity created such a naval power buildup.. even those at war.
China has essentially willingly cost itself 1-2% growth to shift its economy to a more war robust system over the last 5 years.
It practices its war drills using whole Provences the size of nations.. it’s practiced every single part of a war over Taiwan.. up to and including building replicas of US western pacific bases and firing missiles at them..
Taiwan will be part if mainland China one way or another that is the Chinese view they will go to war with Taiwan over this that is not in doubt, any nation that gets in the way of this will be at war with China again have no doubt. The only real doubts are will the US step in the way and if it does will it still be part of NATO when it does so.. because also have no doubt the Chinese paradigm of war means it will attack in anyway it can ( sub weapons of mass destruction) the US mainland and if NATO still exists as it does now we will be at war with China.. and it will be the most damaging since WW2 and possibly one of the longest in history.. how does China knock the US out of a war if it keeps its will ( it cannot ) and how does the US knock China out of a war if it keeps its will ( it cannot) .. so it will come down to pain. Years and years and years of pain.
Hi Jonathan, your perspective fails to take into account the biggest factor.
Would Taiwan fight to be independent?
I’m no lover of Xi or the CCP and I don’t see any great strategy on part of the man. However I don’t see China as necessarily war like or even that well prepared for a war.
Logic would dictate that Xi would be willing to prop up Allie’s in both Iran and Russia if he was soon preparing to go to war and yet he has done nothing.
With his major naval build up, the biggest in history apparently he has failed to send any kind of naval presence to the Indian Ocean where China is currently facing the biggest naval blockade affecting it in history.
I just don’t see the guy playing any 4D chess nor do is see him having much interest outside of the western pacific.