Boris Johnson: Taiwan has better claim to statehood than Palestine
While there is an 'analogy' that can be drawn between the two places, the former prime minister said that Taiwan's claims for recognition are stronger.
'They actually have a recognised government. They actually have boundaries that they control. They actually have a proper democratic system, none of which you could say, with all due respect, about Palestine.'
Taiwan's claims are 'far more robust' he said at the Ketagalan Forum, a security conference in Taipei.
While there are certain commonalities between Taiwan and Palestine in that both seek international recognition, they also differ in many ways given their distinct histories and political systems.
Taiwan is an island nation located off the south-east coast of China, with a population of approximately 23 million people. It is recognised as a distinct country with its own democratic government, visa rules, airline and army. It is also largely integrated into the global economic system.
The island is under threat from China, which claims the territory as its own. China's defence ministry spokesperson Wu Qian said earlier this year: 'We will come and get you, sooner or later.'
Only 13 countries recognise Taiwanese statehood. Britain supports Taiwan's participation in international organisations where statehood is not a prerequisite, but does not have formal diplomatic relations with the island.
Palestine is a state under occupation, which has long sought sovereignty amid internal divisions and external threats from Israel.
Palestine is primarily managed by the Palestinian National Authority (PA), which runs the West Bank, but Hamas runs the Gaza enclave. Its borders remain contested, it has no army, no central government and does not recognise the state of Israel.
Som 147 countries out of the 193 UN member states recognise Palestine. Britain, France and Canada have all signalled their intentions to by September, putting pressure on Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, who is now considering full occupation of the territory.
In response to journalists in Taiwan, Mr Johnson also spoke about the global risk of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, drawing comparisons with Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Without naming either China or Taiwan, he seemed to make a veiled threat towards China that the use of 'force in situations like this can lead to utter disaster – not just for the world, but for you'.
The former prime minister then noted that neither the UK or the US 'want to see a change in the balance of power' in the Indo-Pacific or 'a change in the composition of the First Island Chain', referring to the group of islands that stretches from Japan down through Taiwan and to the Philippines.
While he didn't elaborate on what the UK can do to maintain the status quo, he noted that the UK trade office in Taiwan, which serves as the country's de facto embassy in the absence of formal diplomatic relations, has been 'very busy' and 'things are picking up'.
Last week, Defence Secretary John Healey told The Telegraph that the UK would be 'ready to fight' if a conflict broke out in the Indo-Pacific .
Mr Johnson is the third British former prime minister to visit Taiwan, following Liz Truss in 2023 and Margaret Thatcher in the 1990s.
It was his first time travelling to Taiwan and during his keynote address to the forum earlier in the day, he joked that before today he had 'only seen this country on my 'lockdown' Peloton machine', which had a screen showing one of Taiwan's virtual coastal paths.
During his speech, he also accused China of 'trying to bully Taiwan into submission' through its 'grey zone' coercion where it sends 'boats into Taiwanese waters and planes into Taiwanese airspace'.
China has increased these methods of intimidation against Taiwan in recent years, which experts say is likely a strategy to both demonstrate its capabilities as well as to erode trust in the government in Taipei.
Mr Johnson said that these incursions seem to be an effort 'to remind the world' of the 'might of the Chinese armed forces and thereby signalling their intention by 2027' – the year that Chinese president Xi Jinping reportedly told his military to be prepared for an invasion.
During her visit to Taiwan in 2023, Ms Truss had also urged Taiwan to stand up to the 'aggressive bullying' by China, while also calling the government in Beijing 'totalitarian'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
West Bank: The city locked down by armed troops - where what was law now has no place in reality
The first Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) soldiers emerge on to the streets of Hebron, through the pedestrian entrance to an Israeli settlement that has taken over a section of the old town. They are heavily armed and pass me sitting in the doorway of a shop where I had been sheltering from the burning hot West Bank sun. I murmur a greeting, but they ignore me and head inside, climbing to an upper balcony of the building to oversee the city's market area. 29:15 Within the hour, they're joined by dozens of military units of the IDF, on foot and in armoured jeeps, fanning out across the busy streets – ordering shops to shut and market traders to wheel away their stalls of fruit and vegetables. Groups of Palestinian journalists are shouted at and told to move back, and we are as well after I ask to be told in English what they want. While soldiers continue to close down stalls and shops around us, we are moved three times by them and then finally led away from an area where a green cloth screen is being unfurled by the soldiers. They're closing the whole area down, forcing cars to move on, and clearing the streets. Anyone trying to pass their lines is turned around. A young man in a motorised wheelchair approaches a group of three soldiers - two men and a woman - all heavily armed and imposing. He, too, is told he cannot pass; he's told to go back. An elderly woman attempts to retrieve cardboard boxes and the meagre goods she sells on the roadside, but she is shooed away. An agitated soldier stamps on the cardboard boxes she was trying to rescue, flattens them, and kicks them against a wall. It felt to me that everyone looking on, the press and public alike, collectively sighed "really?" It seemed so pointless to destroy her boxes. The green cloth screen the soldiers had strung up along a side street billowed in the wind so we could easily see beyond it. The army realised this and manoeuvred vehicles in front of the most exposed areas. This part of Hebron, a Palestinian city, was locked down. Some hours later though, groups of Orthodox Jews and Israeli settlers emerged from a settlement and made their way past the screen, staring occasionally into Hebron's streets, walking towards a tomb about 500 metres away. The tomb, they say, is a holy site for them, and they wanted to see it. 'I was born here' A young Palestinian man who runs his family's souvenir shop told me that settlers guarded by the military pass by his shop in Hebron weekly. Waseem Jabari told me he has many Jewish friends, but says when the settlers come, they do it to show the whole city of Hebron belongs to them. "But for me as a Palestinian who lives in Hebron, and I was born here, I grew up here, I don't like violence, I don't like the problem, because it's not a solution," he told me. Read more: Inside the West Bank conflict What are settlements and who are settlers? "For us, too many Palestinians have died, many Palestinians have been killed, many arrested, we are so tired of that, and for us, it's enough." 'We need justice' I told Waseem I had heard the settlers think the Palestinians want to kill them. He shook his head and told me what he wants is peace, that he doesn't like violence. "We need our justice, we need rights, and we need freedom, the same as other people and the same as other countries, we don't need any problems — Jewish, Christian, Muslim, we are all human people," he said. Hebron's city centre is classified as Area A in the West Bank, where under Israeli law it is stated that no Israelis are allowed. What I witnessed shows that the classification seems to have no place in reality any more. The military and the settlers it enables to enter places like Hebron simply ride roughshod over accepted norms. It's not normal here any more - for Palestinians in the West Bank, life has certainly got worse. The October 7th Hamas attack on Israel changed everything.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Edinburgh Book Festival round-up: Nicola Sturgeon Ilan Pappé Avi Shlaim
Sign up to our Arts and Culture newsletter, get the latest news and reviews from our specialist arts writers Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... A warm atmosphere greeted Nicola Sturgeon in the McEwan Hall on Thursday, and not just because of the soaring temperatures outside. When questions were invited from the audience, several people took the opportunity to thank her for her leadership. Nonetheless, as book launches go, the first official event for Sturgeon's memoir, Frankly, felt odd. The book has been combed over extensively in the press in the past week, leaving the question: what is left to say? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad One person convinced that there was still plenty to say was interviewer Kirsty Wark, who took Sturgeon to task on a wide range of issues. For the most part, she responded robustly, explaining that her aim in the book was to be honest about her achievements and her regrets, and - most importantly - explain the reasons which accompanied her decisions. Regarding regrets, she named a few, including not 'hitting the pause button' on gender recognition to 'find a more collegiate way forward'. Wark circled back more than once to Sturgeon's relationship with Alex Salmond, her mentor from whom she was later estranged. Sturgeon refused to accept Wark's suggestion that there was 'coercive control' in the relationship but said: 'I did realise that his approval mattered to me, and his disapproval knocked my confidence - that was my fault'. Asked if she regretted working opposite her husband, Peter Murrell, as SNP chief executive (something Salmond advised against doing) she withdrew behind the issue of live legal proceedings (against Murrell, from whom she is now separated) but said: 'The reason I include it in the book is that I do recognise this is probably something I got wrong.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad On her personal life, she refused to say anything beyond the book's headline-grabbing admission that 'I never considered sexuality, my own included, to be binary'. Adding: 'I'm just out of a marriage, I'm enjoying the single life,' she spoke of a new-found freedom since leaving office. 'I was in politics so young, I was so focused and single-minded, a lot of the things people do when they're young passed me by. I'm having a delayed adolescence.' On Wednesday night, a large crowd gathered at the Book Festival to listen to Ilan Pappé and Avi Shlaim, two distinguished revisionist historians of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Their calm, clear contributions to this most contentious of subjects was a salve in these difficult times. Understanding the historical context of current events in Gaza, however, brings us uncomfortably back to Britain, the colonial power which divested itself of Palestine after World War II when it became (in Pappé's words) 'a liability rather than an asset'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The colonisers withdrew, having made contradictory promises both to the Palestinians and the Jewish people, and did not intervene in the first expulsions of Palestinians, despite being responsible for law and order in the region until 1948. Britain, they concluded, is 'largely responsible' for today's conflict. Pappé said: 'Israel is a European project. Instead of dealing with racism against the Jews in Europe, Europe decided to help build a Jewish State at the heart of the Arab world, at the expense of the Palestinian people. It could only be done by force, and needs continued violence to sustain it.' And Shlaim added: 'Britain and America are not just complicit in Israeli war crimes, they are active partners in the genocide happening in Gaza.' Their event followed a fascinating hour in which Jim Swire, the veteran campaigner on the Lockerbie bombing, was interviewed by Allan Little along with Peter Biddulph, with whom he has written a new book. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Lockerbie Bombing: A Father's Search for Justice brings together in one volume, for the first time, Swire's own story (he lost his daughter, Flora, on Pan Am flight 103) and the complex evidence he has gathered about the case - too complex to detail here - pointing to inconsistencies in 'the official version of events' explored in the trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2000.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Former Trump national security advisor warns Australia on China
Donald Trump 's former national security adviser has warned Australia needs to clarify its position on China, which had grown ambiguous under Anthony Albanese. John Bolton this week said the Albanese government was 'less vocal about what the problem is' in comparison to its predecessors. 'It is a little hard to get used to,' Bolton said in an interview. Just a few weeks ago, while Albanese was on Chinese soil, the Pentagon demanded to know if Australia would support the US if China attacked Taiwan. Bolton warned that the US could treat its quieter allies with suspicion as tensions in the Pacific persist. The Trump administration is already reconsidering the AUKUS deal, which would provide Australia with nuclear submarines. The ex-national security advisor, who was fired in a tweet by Trump during his first term in 2019 after repeated clashes, said that 'back in the Cold War days, Labour governments in Great Britain were just as anti-communist' as the right wing. 'When you see a leftist government that's not willing to talk as openly about what the real threat is, it does make some people nervous,' Bolton told The Sydney Morning Herald. 'Why the hell are we worried about talking about what the threat is? The struggle is on, and we ought to be candid about it,' he said. Tensions between China and the West have significantly grown since the communist superpower began ramping up efforts to grow influence over the Indo-Pacific in the 2010s. Chinese President Xi Jinping claimed in a recent speech that: 'No one can stop China's 'reunification' with Taiwan'. The continued pressure from Washington for Australia to make its stance on China public comes in spite of the US growing guarded over its own position. While former president Joe Biden repeatedly said the US would defend Taiwan from Chinese invasion, the Trump administration's style has been described as 'purposeful strategic ambiguity' to keep both friends and foes guessing. So why should Australia, which sits much closer to the disputed region, be the first to stick its neck out? Naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, believes it boils down to AUKUS. In 2023, Australia announced it would buy three American-made nuclear submarines. Those subs are set to be delivered in the early 2030s. From there, the US and UK will share knowledge with Australia to help it be able to build its own nuclear submarines, SSN AUKUS subs. That submarine construction yard will be built in Adelaide's Osborne Naval Shipyard, which South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas toured alongside US congressmen on Wednesday. Mr Clark explained the US wanted clarification on whether the submarines it sells to Australia would be used to back America, should it find itself in conflict with China. He said Australia had been 'reticent' to explicitly say they would be used against China, which had raised some questions in Washington about why the government was not more straightforward about the reason for purchasing the submarines. Australia is spending billions to procure the submarines, but there is not a guarantee they will arrive. The AUKUS deal contains a clause that the US can only supply Australia excess submarines not needed by its own navy. Australia has so far paid the US two installments of $800 million twice this year, in February and July. By the end of 2025, Australia will have paid USD$2 billion to help expand America's nuclear submarine production, which is already worryingly behind schedule. All up, Australia plans to spend $368 billion over 30 years on the AUKUS submarine pact. The pact is currently being reviewed by US defence under Secretary Elbridge Colby, a vocal AUKUS skeptic. While it's widely believed AUKUS will remain intact when the review concludes in the coming months, it has only served to further strain relations between the US and Australia following Trump's trade tariff spree. Bolton conceded it was detrimental for America to expect Australia to publicly call out China while it remained tight-lipped. However, he supported Washington's calls for Australia to lift its defence budget to three per cent of GDP. Labor's existing policies promise just 2.33 per cent of GDP by 2033. 'Everybody is going to have to go up, I just think that's inevitable. It's not because of Trump's pressure, it's because of what's going on in the real world,' Bolton said. In response to the US' earlier demands for an official stance on Taiwan, Albanese said he would not bow to pressure to make 'private' discussions public. 'The sole power to commit Australia to war, or to allow our territory to be used for conflict, is the elected government of the day,' he told the ABC. 'That is our position. Sovereignty will always be prioritized and that will continue to be our position.' Albanese has still not had a sit-down meeting with President Trump since his January inauguration. The pair were due to meet in June but the Trump left Canada's G7 summit early citing urgent developments in the Middle East, preceding the bombing of Iran.
