THERE'S a British navy strike force heading for the South China Sea: the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth, two frigates and two destroyers.
Well, actually one destroyer, because the other has put into port in Italy for repairs. Also, to be accurate, it’s not ‘a’ strike force but Britain’s only strike force.
What does strike force mean? It seems even the British Ministry of Defence thinks that’s a bit OTT and is now calling it a strike group; so that’s OK then?
They’re on their way to Japan take part in international naval exercises led by the US navy but the British contingent is the biggest, in fact their biggest naval force since the Falklands. Furthermore, the British intend to locate two warships permanently in the region.
Needless to say these manoeuvres haven’t pleased the Chinese who regard the British adventure as serious provocation.
China’s Ministry of National Defence said they “should never try to destabilise regional peace, including the latest military collaboration between the UK and Japan. The Chinese navy will take any necessary actions to counter-measure such behaviour.”
Already the Chinese aircraft carrier Shandong is under way from Hainan. China’s state-run tabloid Global Times said “the very idea of a British presence in the South China Sea is dangerous”.
Even the Americans have been a bit taken aback by the British behaviour. Last week, the US Defence Secretary, Lloyd Austin, currently touring Asian allies trying to them sell F-35 jets, said resources are scarce; “The UK could be more helpful in other parts of the world”.
Unfortunately Britain’s destabilising interference in the Pacific isn’t just driven by sucking up to America and generally thrashing about looking for post-Brexit trade, though that’s part of it.
It’s driven by incoherent post-imperial delusions at the heart of this British government. That’s apparent from the UK’s Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy published in March.
This paper includes a plan for an ‘Asia-Pacific tilt’, a pitiable copy of Obama’s, now Biden’s ‘Pacific pivot’. The difference is that the US has a Pacific coast thousands of miles long and an empire in the Pacific.
However, there’s more to the Integrated Review than delusional foreign policy. Also snuck in without any publicity is the decision to expand Britain’s nuclear weapons by 40 per cent, a decision which may be illegal under the Non-Proliferation Treaty which requires signatories to take ‘effective measures’ towards nuclear disarmament.
Instead of reducing to 180 warheads as promised in 2015, Britain will increase them to 260. Why? To enable two submarines to be permanently at sea each with 16 missiles armed with eight warheads apiece?
Why? To feed another fantasy; that sacred cow, the independent British deterrent, which is neither British nor independent, nor has it deterred anything in its existence.
There’s another alarming change to British policy in the document. The UK now ‘reserves the right to review’ its commitment not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states ‘if the future threat of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological capabilities, or emerging technologies that could have a comparable impact, makes it necessary’.
So Britain could use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear attack. Alarming but another fantasy for the Americans would never allow it and besides, that threat won’t deter chemical or cyber attacks which have been inflicted repeatedly on Britain in recent years.
What’s the plan? Fire a tactical nuclear weapon at some boys in Serbia or Smolensk for infecting the NHS with ransom ware? Seriously? To quote Johnson’s former chief adviser, someone has a screw loose.
Nevertheless, despite Britain’s diminished place in the world and its parlous economic state in the aftermath of the pandemic and the disaster of Brexit, feeding these fantasies is going to cost billions.
Obviously cutting £20 a week off Universal Credit will go a long way to paying for them, eh? This British government has a bizarre set of priorities.
