Chagos, China, and what was set to be a British betrayal
TALI FRASER
How would you have felt about an estimated £9bn bill heading in taxpayers direction only to hand over British territory?
Because that moment almost came this morning as Sir Keir Starmer was set to, in a virtual ceremony, sign a deal surrendering sovereignty of the Chagos Islands – officially known as the British Indian Ocean Territory – to Mauritius at taxpayers’ expense.
It would have marked a cowardly arrangement done in a cowardly manner: signing the deal and providing a statement to the Commons only the day before recess, scrambling to avoid real parliamentary scrutiny.
This would not have been new, of course. MPs seem to have found out more about the deal through a slow trickle of second-hand information from Mauritian politicians rather than actual details from the British government
But this morning a High Court judge intervened and in the eleventh hour temporarily blocked the deal after Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrie Pompe, native Chagossians, objected to the plan – and the Government has been barred from proceeding with the deal pending a further hearing later in the day.
The arrangement that was set to be signed off by former human rights lawyer Sir Keir would have given away sovereignty of the archipelago and leased back Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands which hosts the strategic British-American military base, for 99 years.
It would have marked the first significant loss of British territory since the independence of Hong Kong in 1997 – and we would have been paying for the privilege with a package of financial support.
The security risks posed by surrendering a strategic military asset to Mauritius, a close ally of China (who has always supported Mauritius’s claim to the islands, hoping to secure a foothold in the Indian Ocean) and Russia (with recently strengthened relationships on fishing and “marine research”), are well documented.
The Government maintains that the deal would strengthen national security, but the last Tory Foreign Secretary, David Cameron, concluded otherwise – and critics say it will allow Mauritian allies to build listening posts around Diego Garcia, compromising the security of the base and leaving it vulnerable to a geopolitical competitor.
The military base was first created as a way of countering Soviet power in the Indian Ocean during the Cold War, albeit in a severe manner, with medical facilities closed and supply ships withdrawn to force the 1,800 residents of the Chagos Islands to move, settling either in Crawley in West Sussex, or Mauritius.
Somehow the Mauritians have been able to successfully argue – with the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) acceptance – that Britain giving away the Chagos Islands would be an act of “decolonisation”. (That same ICJ whose vice-president in the Chagos ruling is a former Chinese government official who backed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.)
The ICJ’s finger-wagging ruling set out that Britain has an “obligation” to end its administration of the Chagos Islands – having been under British sovereignty since 1814, before which they were occupied by the French, and before that they were entirely uninhabited.
When it comes to the ownership of the Chagos Islands, Mauritius (more than 2,000km away) does not have, and never has had, sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Why the ICJ’s non-binding ruling on the issue needs to be respected with any authority is a reasonable question to ask, at least if you’re not just putting blind faith in international law.
There had been rumours that Labour’s “decolonisation” deal was set for the scrapheap, after being branded too “toxic” by some in the party in the context of their other policy decisions (if you can afford to pay Mauritius millions of pounds a year, rising with inflation, why are you making welfare cuts at home?), but unfortunately – unlike winter fuel – it seems there is no U-turn to be found, at least from within Labour’s camp.
Instead, if the deal goes through, we would be set to pay Mauritius a hefty sum while surrendering territory; placing a 99-year lease on Diego Garcia, home to an important military base, while Mauritius will be free to lease the other islands to whomever; on the basis of an advisory opinion from the politicised judges of an international court, while native Chagossians speak of feeling “betrayed” by the decision.
Oh, and it was all set to be introduced to parliament using the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which limits MPs’ power to try and block it by setting a 21-day deadline for ratification. Unless either the Commons or Lords passed a resolution rejecting the deal within that time, it would automatically be ratified.
So there you go. Nothing questionable going on at all in Labour’s dodgy handling.
See Related Article Below
STARMER PEDDLES DISINFORMATION TO SELL CHAGOS SURRENDER
GUIDO FAWKES
Starmer’s press conference on the Chagos surrender was packed full of excuses for the handover. They don’t wash…
- The ‘electromagnetic spectrum’ at Diego Garcia could be restricted by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), “rendering it practically useless” “if “our right to control it is put into doubt.”
- ITU does not engage in territorial disputes, and would not act against a crucial US base.
- Labour has admitted: “The ITU cannot challenge the UK’s use of civilian or military spectrum.” It is not within its remit…
- “If we did not agree this deal… we would not be able to prevent China or any other nation setting up their own bases on the outer islands or carrying out joint exercises near our base.”
- If the UK did not agree the deal it would still have sovereignty over all of the islands and foreign powers’ attempts to set up bases would be repelled by the UK military.
- China is allied to Mauritius, which now has sovereignty over the islands.
- “In favour are all of our allies, the US, NATO, Five Eyes, India. Against it, Russia, China, Iran and, surprisingly, the leader of the opposition and Nigel Farage are in that column alongside Russia, China and Iran, rather than the column that has the UK and its allies in it.”
- A Chinese former Chinese Communist Party official, while serving as the ICJ’s vice president, ruled that that the UK must give the islands to Mauritius “as rapidly as possible.“
- A Russian international judge and Putin ally also pushed for the handover of the islands.
- China and Russia voted in favour of a 2019 UNGA motion calling for “the decolonisation of Mauritius in accordance with the advisory opinion of the Court.“
- A US judge was the only one to vote against the 2019 ICJ advisory ruling.
- “The average £100 million per year is about the same, or slightly less than, the running cost of an aircraft carrier, minus the aircraft… measured against an aircraft carrier running costs that this is very good value for money.”
- The UK can only currently afford two aircraft carriers. Fancy another? Sorry, that cash is for Mauritius now…
- “International legal proceedings would have rendered the base inoperable.”
- There is no evidence for this assertion.
- “What’s the net cost today? And that is £3.4 billion. Obviously, over time with inflation, then that is the net cost.”
- The net cost of the Chagos deal is £30.3 billion.
- £165 million in a year for first three years plus £120 million a year for the next ten years, then £120 million with (say 2% average) inflation for the remainder.
- £45 million per year development fund for 25 years, and a £40 million one-off payment to a fund for Chagossians.
- The net cost of the Chagos deal is £30.3 billion.
Documents show that the UK will pay £495 million to Mauritius over the next three years in front-loaded cash for the deal. Taxes are going up at the next budget…
SOURCE: Order-Order
*****
‘EMBARRASSMENT?’ Chagos Deal BLOCKED Last Minute By Judge In Latest Blow To Keir Starmer
The Chagos Islands deal will not be signed off after an injunction was granted in the early hours of today by a High Court judge.
In the injunction granted at 2.25am, brought against the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Justice Goose granted “interim relief” to Bertrice Pompe, who had previously taken steps to bring legal action over the deal.
Featured image: x.com

••••
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.





Leave a Reply