Britain has a rock solid defence against the shifty Chagos giveaway

ROBERT MIDGLEY

The fight for the Chagos Islands has always been an uphill struggle. For those of us who believe in safeguarding Britain’s long‑term national interest and defending the principle of self‑determination, the path has been anything but straightforward. Now, after months of evasions and half‑answers, the Government’s true justification for its £47 billion “Chagos deal” with Mauritius has finally emerged — and it is as flimsy as it is dangerous.

The United States, whose military presence on Diego Garcia is central to Western security in the Indo‑Pacific region, has been conspicuously silent. The UK Government, meanwhile, has kept the public in the dark about why it is pressing ahead. On the face of it, the proposal is baffling: to give away sovereign territory we hold in perpetuity, and at cost, to a foreign nation that has never held sovereignty over these islands. After the Napoleonic Wars, a legally binding treaty ceded the Chagos Islands — formerly French — to the UK. Mauritius did not even exist as a nation at that time. For months, ministers hinted at “confidential” legal risks. This week, during the deal’s Second Reading in Parliament, the real reason slipped out quietly.

The supposed legal threat simply does not exist

The entire case rests on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adopted in 1982. UNCLOS governs maritime zones, navigation rights, seabed resources, and dispute resolution between states. It has 168 member countries, including the UK, and allows disputes to be referred to arbitration or to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). By these conventions, the Chagos Islands have been targeted by adversaries seeking to wage “lawfare” — the use of legal mechanisms to achieve strategic goals — against us.

But here’s the crucial fact ministers have failed to emphasise: Article 298 of UNCLOS allows states to opt out of compulsory dispute settlement for certain categories, including disputes concerning military activities. The UK has formally exercised this opt‑out. In plain English, UNCLOS cannot be used to challenge the UK’s military operations at Diego Garcia. The supposed legal threat simply does not exist.

Despite this, the Government’s narrative has centred on a claim that, without a deal, the UK would lose control of the electromagnetic spectrum around Diego Garcia. This is extraordinary for several reasons: the area in question is under UK sovereignty; the US operates the communications infrastructure at the base; and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which coordinates global radio frequencies, has no authority to adjudicate sovereignty disputes or disrupt existing military spectrum operations. The ITU’s own regulations explicitly state they “do not imply the expression of any opinion … on sovereignty or the legal status of any territory.” Defence analysts have dismissed the spectrum claim as baseless. Yet it has been allowed to drive a policy that would irreversibly weaken Britain’s strategic position.

This raises serious questions about the role of the Attorney General. As the Government’s chief legal adviser, he is duty‑bound to protect the national interest. He must have been aware of the Article 298 defence. If so, why was it not deployed to dismantle the UNCLOS argument before it reached the Commons? Was Parliament misled by omission? These are questions that demand answers — and if ministers will not provide them voluntarily, Parliamentary Privilege and other levers should be used to compel disclosure.

Diego Garcia is not just another Overseas Territory. Its capabilities underpin long‑range surveillance and reconnaissance, satellite communications and navigation, rapid deployment of forces across the Indo‑Pacific, and joint UK — US deterrence operations. The UK’s own Strategic Defence Review has designated cyberspace and electromagnetic operations — “CyberEM” — as a distinct operational domain, with a dedicated command planned by the end of 2025. To surrender sovereignty over such an asset on the basis of a legal argument that collapses under scrutiny is to gamble recklessly with national security.

There is still time to change course. The Government can right a historic wrong and engage directly with the Chagossians, whose right to self‑determination has been denied for decades; enable resettlement of the outer islands, ensuring that civilian life and military operations can coexist — as they do in Akrotiri, Gibraltar, and the Falkland Islands; and maintain the security and sovereignty of Diego Garcia as a cornerstone of Britain’s global defence posture. These steps would honour both our strategic and defence interests and our moral obligations.

The Chagos Islands are more than some dots on a map. These precious islands have been crucial and will be crucial in the years and decades to come. They are a test of whether Britain will stand by its legal rights, its strategic responsibilities, and its duty to its own people.

If ministers cannot defend this deal on the facts, they must abandon it. Britain’s sovereignty, security, and credibility are not bargaining chips — and the taxpaying public will not forgive those who trade them away under the cover of a false legal threat.

---

This article (Atoll protected) was created and published by The Critic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Robert Midgley

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.