UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius — NEWS ONLY —

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given sea level rise predictions they will barely be above sea level by 2123, so I'm not going to sweat about it too much.

It had to be resolved one way or the other.
 
Consider the case of France, Mayotte, and the Comores (a few hundred miles south, same ocean : Indian)
Of the nine Comore islands, only Mayotte told the others to go frack themselves and married France - almost 50 years ago.
The end result ? a colossal clusterfuck, certainly not helped by a very premature decision to declare Mayotte a french department - like Creuse or Côtes d'Armor (Sarkozy, you asshole)
Except they are stuck at Madagascar level of poverty and chaos.
 
zen said:
A stupid decision and one likely to have consequences well beyond the lifetime of the Starmer Regime.
Click to expand...
I'd presumed that we'd end up handing them back without the 99 Year Lease, so by that measure it's a pretty good result.

And if it's taken 13 rounds of negotiation, starting in 2022, then it's not a Starmer deal, it's a Sunak/Cleverly/Starmer deal.
 
The problem is, the current government of Mauritius is literally bought and paid for by the People's Republic of China. Which means in all likelyhood, that upon the handover or soon afterwards said 'government' will denounce the lease, order the U.S. and any residual British presence to depart forthwith, and invite their 'allies' in Beijing to come in and take over the base.
 
Two court decisions from the recent past. This case has some history.

A 2019 judgment by the International Court of Justice:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47358602
The UK should end its control of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean "as rapidly as possible", the UN's highest court has said.
Mauritius claims it was forced to give up the islands - now a British overseas territory - in 1965 in exchange for independence, which it gained in 1968.
The International Court of Justice said the islands were not lawfully separated from the former colony of Mauritius.
Click to expand...
A 2021 judgment by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55848126
The maritime law tribunal of the United Nations has ruled that Britain has no sovereignty over the Chagos Islands.
It criticised London for its failure to hand the territory back to Mauritius.
The judges' decision confirms a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and a vote in the UN General Assembly.
Click to expand...
 
DWG said:
I'd presumed that we'd end up handing them back without the 99 Year Lease, so by that measure it's a pretty good result.

And if it's taken 13 rounds of negotiation, starting in 2022, then it's not a Starmer deal, it's a Sunak/Cleverly/Starmer deal.
Click to expand...
1. Presume all you like. There was no need to conceed anything.
2. My words were chosen with care "one likely to have consequences well beyond the lifetime of the Starmer Regime".
 
Grey Havoc said:
The problem is, the current government of Mauritius is literally bought and paid for by the People's Republic of China. Which means in all likelyhood, that upon the handover or soon afterwards said 'government' will denounce the lease, order the U.S. and any residual British presence to depart forthwith, and invite their 'allies' in Beijing to come in and take over the base.
Click to expand...

Theyve been saying tonight there is a clause in the agreement which prevents Mauritius allowing China to set up any bases in the islands.
 
Oh don't be so negative :) the 99 year exrension agreement clause has it that Mauritius will not allow militarization or indeed resale to a foreign state without agreement of the signatory parties. (what would be more likely are multi billionaire types buying up various islands with agreed 'environmental exclusion zones' to create safe havens as has happened elsewhere)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GTX
DWG said:
Torygraph running true to form!
Click to expand...
What part of the idea that this is one of the worst strategic blunders of all time do you find fault with, may I ask?

In further news:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/04/politics-latest-news-starmer-labour-chagos-security/
Sir Keir Starmer has refused to say whether he would sign away other British overseas territories after handing the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

The archipelago was British-owned from 1814 but was signed away by the Government in a deal that it claimed would safeguard global security by ending a long-running dispute.

The islands include Diego Garcia, which hosts a strategically important US-UK military base.

The Prime Minister was asked to guarantee that under Labour no other British overseas territories will be signed away.

He told reporters in response: “The single most important thing was ensuring that we had a secure base, the joint US-UK base; hugely important to the US, hugely important to us.

“We’ve now secured that and that is why you saw such warm words from the US yesterday.”

A spokesman for No10 told GB News: “Chagos does not change our policy or approach to other overseas territories.”

His remarks came just hours after Argentina pledged to gain “full sovereignty” of the Falkland Islands in the wake of the Chagos deal.

The country’s foreign minister, Diana Mondino, welcomed the step taken by Sir Keir’s Government on Thursday towards ending “outdated practices”.

She pledged “concrete action” to ensure that the Falklands – the British territory that Argentina calls the Malvinas and claims as its own – are ceded to Buenos Aires.

Grant Shapps, the former Tory defence secretary, told The Telegraph: “The decision by Starmer to give up the British Indian Overseas Territory proves he cannot be trusted to protect British interests.

“We are lucky that Starmer wasn’t in charge when Argentina invaded the Falklands, he would have handed them over on a silver platter.”

Sir Keir has been criticised by a number of Conservative figures for the decision, including by Boris Johnson, who claimed that the decision was out of “sheer political correctness”.

The former prime minister told Camilla Tominey on GB News: “What is this claim? It’s nonsense, it’s total nonsense. Why are we doing this? Sheer political correctness, desire to look like the good guys, a desire to look as though we are unbundling the last relics of our empire. It’s nonsense.”

Meanwhile, Nigel Farage demanded that there be a vote in Parliament on the decision, saying that no Government “should be able to surrender sovereignty without debate”.
Click to expand...
 
Grey Havoc said:
What part of the idea that this is one of the worst strategic blunders of all time do you find fault with, may I ask?

In further news:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/04/politics-latest-news-starmer-labour-chagos-security/
Click to expand...
1) I think it was inevitable and that the negative consequences of not doing it significantly outweigh the negative consequences of doing it. And the deal we got is far better than the deal I expected.

2) The only thing the Tories are concerned about is making political hay and distracting people from the utter mess they're in, they couldn't give a damn about the strategic value of Diego Garcia. Hence the Torygraph churning out the Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells pieces.

And to be honest, Diego Garcia is a strategic asset for the US, I'm far from convinced it's a strategic asset for the UK.
 
We will agree to disagree then, but I am quite certain you are not going to like the consequences going down the line.
 
DG is ...sorry...was part and parcel of the package of US-UK intelligence sharing and cooperation. Which is why the UK cleared the islands of it's population to meet US needs.
Now US doesn't need to consult the UK but rather Mauritius......The new owner. The UK just undermined itself for some ephemeral 'virtue' to support a 1990's conception of the International Rules Based Order.

What does this say to our AUKUS allies that we give away to a China influenced government, sovereignty over a key strategic location?

Even Lord Cameron (very pro-China) shut down the FCO led process and it's pretty clear the Truss government was just doing what the FCO 'experts' had wanted to do all along. Who have jumped on Starmer....not that Starmer doesn't have suspect links to this business via old Matrix Chambers members.
FCO is legendary for 'going native' and prioritising other Regimes over the UK. I'm sure they feel virtuous.
But this smells of another humiliation and one paid for by British taxpayers. This is not going to play well at home.

As for the Chagosians...
The 426 forcibly-deported families were paid £1,525 per family in 1972, but Mauritius withheld that money until 1978. (Nb the average house price in the U.K. in 1972 was around £4,500; the average annual wage was £1,900 per annum, so the families were getting around 2 years’ wages.)
That's before we consider what a Chagosian earned or what value their island home had at that time......
 
I still think all this is way overblown.

There are less than 50 British personnel of Naval Party 1002 there, the US has at least 1,700 personnel plus 1,500 civilian contractors - all of which are from US firms: KBR Inc. runs the operations support services at Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, while Serco Inc. operates the Ground-based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance site.

All the facilities were built by the US, the only thing on the eastern (British) side of the island is a derelict coconut plantation that the Yanks visit for recreation. We get intel sharing sure, but we didn't build the facilities to do it, we only get it because of the wider intel cooperation and the fact that we're the landlord.

The US lease deal with the UK was due to expire in 2036 (20 year extension to the original 50 year deal), so the new 99 year lease brings a very handy bonus to the US - which is why they are pretty happy about the outcome, a far better deal than the UK was offering. Would you rather have another 20 year extension or 99 years?

This is what the 'Welcome to Diego Garcia' pack given to incoming US personnel says (doc attached):
Although it is a British Territory, there are fewer than 50 British personnel (or Brits as they are commonly known) on the island. The majority of these personnel form Naval Party 1002 (NP 1002). Split between Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel, the Naval Party forms the civil administration on Diego Garcia. Its members are tasked with either policing the locality or carrying out the duties of Port/Airport Customs officers. In addition, the Royal Marines form a detachment that provides security for the Chagos Archipelago.
The figurehead for the B.I.O.T. Administration, and Commanding Officer of NP 1002, is a Royal Navy Commander. As the British Representative (BRIT REP), he represents the British Foreign Office for this territory. To that end, he fulfills a number of functions that include the Magistrate, Coroner and Register of Marriages.
The Brit Rep and his team take a great deal of interest in conservation issues. Diego Garcia and the other islands within the Chagos Archipelago are largely unspoiled and will remain so. On Diego Garcia the East Point Plantation area remains completely untouched since the days of the early copra plantation. Development and construction are not permitted in this area and so it serves as a beautiful retreat. Please remember that entrance to the plantation is restricted and therefore requires a pass from the B.I.O.T. Police Station.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty idyllic to me, the Brits bumbling around marrying people, doing conservation work and giving out tourist passes with some RM's on hand in case anyone gets too rowdy.

Even the Royal Navy admit that is rarely visits the area and when HMS Tamar did, it was to check up on the local turtles and illegal fishing. Again, rather quaint compared with Military Sealift Command's Maritime Pre-positioning Ship Squadron Two.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news/2...e-in-rare-visit-to-uks-indian-ocean-territory
Even BIOT's own website talks more about plastic pollution and humanitarian aid than it does about any other defence interest.
https://www.biot.gov.io/about/defence/
It is all shades of Ascension Island - yes we can use it in dire need/public relations exercises if we don't take up too much space or get in the way of the tenants who have a real job of work to do.
 

Attachments

  • WELCOME_ABOARD_JAN 2011_.pdf
    225.6 KB · Views: 5
From today's telegraph

Joe Biden pushed the UK into giving up the Chagos Islands over concerns the US would lose control of an important air base, The Telegraph understands.

Days after the general election in July, senior officials from the White House’s National Security Council and State Department told the incoming Labour government that refusing to sign away the islands would jeopardise the “special relationship” with Washington.

Sir Keir Starmer was criticised last week for his decision to give up the archipelago of more than 1,000 tiny islands, a UK overseas territory since 1965 known officially as the British Indian Ocean Territory.

It was suggested the deal could give China access to the Diego Garcia air base, which is on the largest island in the chain.

Under the deal, Mauritius will take control of the islands, but Britain and the US will rent the base for 99 years.

The Telegraph understands that American officials pushed the UK toward the deal, fearing that if it was not signed, Mauritius would successfully apply for a binding ruling at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to take control of the islands, effectively shuttering the air base.

The base is considered strategically important because it puts some bomber aircraft within range of the Middle East. Diego Garcia was previously used by the US to conduct bombing runs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

US officials told the Foreign Office that a quick deal should be signed before the American and Mauritian elections next month, agreeing to give up UK territory in exchange for the base.

The officials argued that handing over the islands would safeguard Britain’s special relationship with the US, and that a binding court ruling would make it more difficult to fly aircraft to the base, conduct repairs, and cooperate with UN agencies.

Since announcing the deal on Thursday, the Government has faced criticism from MPs, who argue that Britain should not have agreed to give up territory and to rent a military base it already controls.

Boris Johnson said the “terrible” deal made the UK look “pathetic”.

Some also argued that the base would come under threat from Chinese spyware, because Mauritius and China are economically aligned.

The Telegraph understands that the full terms of the deal, which has not been made public, contain protections against Chinese influence in the islands without the agreement of Britain and the US.

On Monday, Robert Jenrick said David Lammy had signed the deal so that he could “feel good about himself at his next north London dinner party”.

In a debate discussing the decision in Parliament, the Tory leadership contender said: “We’ve just handed sovereign British territory to a small island nation which is an ally of China – and we’re paying for the privilege.

“All so that the foreign secretary can feel good about himself at his next North London dinner party.”

However, the Foreign Secretary told MPs on Monday that the dispute between Britain and Mauritius was “clearly not sustainable” and that Labour faced a choice between “abandoning the base altogether or breaking international law”.

Friends of the British Overseas Territories, a charity dedicated to British-owned islands abroad, called Mr Lammy’s statement “shameful”.

“Proceeding with the transfer of [the island] goes against our national interests and must be stopped at once,” it said.

The ICJ had already issued a non-binding ruling that the islands belong to Mauritius, and a further ruling that forced the handover of the base was likely, he said, because of the “regrettable” removal of indigenous islanders by the UK in the 1960s.

Downing Street insisted the deal to give up sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) was due to the “unsustainable” legal position and had no impact on other disputed territories including the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman would not be drawn on the cost to the UK taxpayer of the deal which will see Mauritius being given sovereignty over the islands, with a 99-year agreement to secure the strategically important UK-US military base on Diego Garcia.

The spokesman said: “The Government inherited a situation where the long-term secure operation of the military base at Diego Garcia was under threat with contested sovereignty and legal challenges, including through various international courts and tribunals.

“You will be aware that the previous government initiated sovereignty negotiations in 2022 and conducted a number of rounds of negotiations. This Government picked up those negotiations and has reached an agreement, which means that for the first time in over 50 years, the base will be undisputed, legally secure, with full Mauritian backing.”

Asked why the Islands should not be seen as a precedent for other sovereignty disputes such as the Falklands and Gibraltar, the spokesman said: “It’s a unique situation based on its unique history and circumstances, and has no bearing on other overseas territories.”

The spokesman added: “British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar is not up for negotiation.”
 
It seems the various U.S. Government departments aren't talking to each other, even more than usual that is, given that the Department of Defense (or the British Ministry of Defence for that matter) had no idea that the US State Department and UK Foreign Office were cooking up this absolute disaster. Which also begs the question exactly who on the NSC knew about this. Indeed, there are reports that indicate even major parts of the State Department was cut out of the loop. One does get the impression from this story that the blame game is already well and truly under way on both sides of the Atlantic.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: zen
Oh the comedy just writes itself these days.

But....wouldn't it be lovely if Parliament rejected the Government Bill to approve this....

Imagine the egg on so many faces, the clutching of pearls, the many denouncements in the Guardian, if Parliament went "we're not giving it away".
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom