Originally Posted by
Not_a_boffin
Except that he's not, because he doesn't. This particular speech has been wildly misquoted/misinterpreted. I'm going to shamelessly steal someone else's excellent post from another forum which covers it in more detail.
I didn't have the means of copying the rough but largely accurate transcription done by someone on Twitter when responding earlier. This came about when Shashank Joshi queried whether this was the gist of what Austin had said:
From the IISS footage of Austin's answer to a question about the UK and US defence relationship
"I'm excited about what we're seeing with the interoperability that 's been demonstrated between the UK and our forces as we've made this journey from Europe to here. It's really been a successful endeavour and I look forward to more of that going forward. The UK and the US are global nations with global interests and so as we look to balance our efforts in various parts of the world.
We're not only looking to help each other in the Indo-Pacific but we're looking to ensure that we help each other in other parts of the world as well as if... if... for example, we focus a bit more here are there areas the UK can be more helpful in other parts of the world .I have a great relationship with the UK MoD and these are discussions that we've had a number of times and again it's a balancing act - resources are scarce, no matter which country you're talking about... and again, we have interests around the globe, and we want to make sure that we work together to address all of those those interests.
There are things, obviously that if... if nations are capable of providing resources and capability to help in this region we welcome that and we facilitate that where possible. But again, we have a global perspective and there are a number of places where we can help each other as we shift our stance."
So - 'if, for example, we focus a bit more here' - the 'here' is generic and not the Indo-Pacific specifically. It's 'Ok, so we'll do.... here, and you do... there, OK?'
https://youtu.be/w5zTv4-S98k
This was not Austin having a go at the UK sending a carrier to the Indo-Pacific. Within a couple of hours of it being questioned by Joshi and the transcript and link to the interview - the question is just after 45 minutes in to this -
- the FT had amended the original damning story since people were starting to suggest that it might fit in with a perceived editorial agenda at the newspaper regarding the UK and Europe (which I think might have been a bit tin-foil hatted from some of the comments).
The problem is that rather than do a wider search of Twitter, Tobias Ellwood helped perpetuate the original story's take, rather than going 'hang on. A number of people are suggesting that the story's take is a pile of poo'...
Thank you, that clears things up properly. I don't get the FT, so only saw the quoted excerpt.
Longer term though, it is hard not to see China prevailing in its push to dominate the South China Sea as well as Taiwan.
They are building the world's largest navy and rapidly expanding their nuclear strike force to be more comparable to that of the US, offsetting the perceived imbalance of forces..
They have more industrial capacity than their potential adversaries and they are using it to become locally preeminent.