Gascoyne House,
Moseleys Farm Business Centre,
Fornham All Saints,
Bury St. Edmunds,
IP28 6JY
Send us a message
pd@broadwayintel.com
Give us a call
+447444234194
Author: Paul Doran
When it comes to the Chagos Islands, who are the real Quislings?
Credit: Associated Press
You can practically feel the eager anticipation within Britain's Conservative Party and its marginally further-right cousin, the Reform Party, as they hope that a foreign leader, US President Donald Trump, will veto the agreement brokered by Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government to transfer the Chagos Islands back to Mauritian sovereignty. For some, like Trump's unofficial ambassador to the UK Nigel Farage, the prospect that the President might even punish the UK with tariffs if it does not renege on its agreement with Mauritius is making them positively giddy with masochistic delight.
While one can expect opposition political parties to resort to cynical opportunism, it is – to say the least – highly unbecoming for the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice Robert Jenrick to accuse the Prime Minister of being a "quisling, colluding against the British people to surrender the Chagos Islands".[1] Not to be outdone, Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel chipped in with, "[Starmer has] the audacity to tell the British people they will foot the bill and pay for the indignity of his surrender of the Chagos Islands, as he isolates the new US administration by bending the knee to Mauritius and emboldening our enemies with his disastrous surrender deal." [2] Meanwhile, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch displayed all the backbone of an amoeba when she said she "wasn't responsible for what [Jenrick] says . . . and is not in the business of policing tweets".[3] Real moral fibre and authentic leadership from the woman who wants to be Prime Minister.
And yes, it is the same Robert Jenrick who funded his failed campaign to lead the Conservatives with a £75,000 "donation" from a firm with no employees, which had never made a profit, had £300,000 in debt, and was in receipt of a loan from a completely opaque British Virgin Islands-registered company. And again yes, the same Priti Patel who in November 2017 was forced to resign as the Secretary of State for International Development after she misled the public about her undisclosed and unofficial meetings with Israeli officials while she was apparently "on vacation".
But I digress.
Hyper-ventilating Tory MPs and their always helpful Jeremiahs in the right-wing media would do well to look at the history of the UK – Mauritius negotiations over the future of the Chagos Islands. It shouldn't be too difficult as they began less than three years ago. Negotiations over the legal and constitutional status of the islands began in November 2022 under then Tory Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Foreign Secretary James Cleverly. In a written ministerial statement, Cleverly said:
"Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwest Norfolk [Elizabeth Truss], and [Mauritius] Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago.
Through negotiations, [ . . . ] it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues, including those relating to the former inhabitants of the Chagos archipelago. This will allow the UK and Mauritius, as close Commonwealth partners, to work even more closely together to tackle the regional and global security challenges that face us all. [. . . ] The UK and Mauritius have reiterated that any agreement between our two countries will ensure the continued effective operation of the joint UK/US military base on Diego Garcia, which plays a vital role in regional and global security."[4]
Key phrase: "negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago". The Conservative government was willing to negotiate the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius in return for the UK's ability to ". . . continue[d] effective operation of the joint UK/US military base on Diego Garcia, which plays a vital role in regional and global security."
Or in other words, exactly the same deal which the current Labour government is trying to complete. No doubt if they had won the 2024 general election [and had Kamala Harris won the US presidential election] Sunak and Cleverley would have completed the deal as part of an unspectacular but necessary piece of diplomatic housekeeping.
At this point, it is worth (re)stating the substance of the proposed UK-Mauritius treaty.
The UK and Mauritius have agreed that Mauritius is sovereign over the Chagos archipelago, including Diego Garcia. At the same time, the UK will, for a 99-year initial period [which can be extended], exercise "the sovereign rights and authorities of Mauritius required to ensure the continued operation of the [Diego Garcia military] base well into the next century".
In other words, Mauritius will formally hold sovereignty over the islands, but for a period of at least 99 it would not exercise that sovereignty. Instead, it would continue to be exercised by the United Kingdom. In turn, the United Kingdom would allow the United States to operate its military base on Diego Garcia, in the Chagos archipelago.
[Readers with a good memory of Britain's diplomatic history will remember that a 99-year leaseback arrangement for the Falkland Islands was pushed by Mrs Thatcher's Foreign Secretary, the moderate Lord Carrington, and his reliably more Thatcherite Minister of State at the FCO Nicholas Ridley. In 1980, Ridley visited the Falklands and attempted to persuade the islanders that leaseback was a practical compromise. The stupidity of the Argentine junta's ill-conceived idea to seize the islands by force in 1982 effectively scuppered any chance of what they might have achieved through negotiations].
But why the need for the formal transfer of sovereignty anyway? As Cleverly's Ministerial Statement of November 2022 makes clear, even Liz Truss acknowledged that the legal status quo as it affected the Chagos Islands was untenable because – simply put - Britain's continued sovereignty over the islands was challenged successfully under international law.
On 23 June 2017, the United Nations General Assembly voted to refer the dispute between the UK and Mauritius over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to the International Court of Justice [ICJ] in order to clarify the legal status of the islands.
On 25 February 2019, the ICJ issued its Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.[5] In its opinion, the court stated:
". . . the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence and that the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible."
On 22 May 2019, the United Nations General Assembly voted 116 to 6 to adopt Resolution 73/295 welcoming the ICJ advisory opinion. The UK House of Commons subsequently considered this resolution on 3 July 2019, when Sir Alan Duncan, Minister of State for Europe and North America, stated that ". . . the UK remains committed to seeking resolution of this bilateral sovereignty dispute with Mauritius through direct, bilateral dialogue."[6] The British government decided to comply with international law by transferring control of the islands, contingent upon an agreement that allows continued military use of Diego Garcia under a long-term lease arrangement.
In the same statement, Minister of State Duncan also said: "The UK recognises the important role that the UN has played, and continues to play, on the issue of decolonisation, including in territories formerly administered by the UK. We will continue to engage fully in the UN General Assembly and to be a staunch defender of human rights institutions and norms. We will also continue to support the role of international courts when states have failed to meet their responsibilities".
Why did the UN and the ICJ rule against the United Kingdom with regard to the sovereign status of the Chagos Islands? Basically because the Chagos Islands were deliberately excluded by the UK when it granted Mauritius its independence in 1965. Further, from 1968 to 1973 the UK removed the local population of the Chagos Islands to allow for the establishment of the UK-US military base. Many Chagossians were resettled in Mauritius, the Seychelles, and the in UK. Laws made by the UK's Commissioner for the British Indian Ocean Territory made it illegal for Chagossians to stay on the islands or return to them without permission.
It is difficult in 2025 to justify that kind of colonial arrogance, unless of course you are politician or journalist who is both comfortable with the arbitrary stripping of human and civil rights of an indigenous population [however small], and a flagrant disregard for international law. Regrettably, it seems there are many such politicians and journalists in the UK.
With the UK judged to be on the wrong side of the legal and moral argument, even Liz Truss recognized that some form of accommodation had to be found that would satisfy both the Mauritian claim to sovereignty and the UK and US's wish to maintain Diego Garcia as a military base. Hence, Sunak and Cleverly's decision in November 2022 to reverse Britain's previous policy of not negotiating the status of the Chagos Islands and to open direct discussions on the future of the islands.
What has changed since then is not the strategic calculus in the Indian Ocean. What has changed is that it fell to a Labour government to complete the negotiations started by the Conservatives. It is Keir Starmer’s supreme misfortune to seek to conclude a deal at a time when the US is led by an unabashed ultra-nationalist, and the Tory Party has decided that the way to electoral redemption is to transform itself into the "respectable" version of Reform [or the British National Party]. Sadly, such is the nature of right-wing politics in the UK these days, that any notion of partisanship stopping at the water's edge is for the birds. Of course, this is only to be expected from a collection of newly minted hard-right populists who thrill at the abandonment of the traditional Tory values of pragmatism, restraint, and cross-party cooperation on matters of national security.
The deal which the Labour government is trying to finalize represents the best outcome for all stakeholders. It enables Mauritius to complete its sovereignty over territory unfairly excised from it in 1965, it aligns the UK with international law, it secures for at least 99 years – and perhaps longer – the status of the Diego Garcia base, and it allows for natural justice to be served by allowing the return of the Chagossian people to parts of the archipelago after decades of displacement. In yesterday's world of an international rules-based order, that might have been lauded as a skilful piece of diplomacy which at least partially satisfied the demands of all concerned.
Nonetheless, despite the obvious merits of the agreement, hard right opposition remains strong. Arguments are frequently made that Mauritius has no claim to the Chagos Islands, something which former Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said was justified based on the 1,600 miles of distance between Mauritius and the Chagos Islands. It is strange that Johnson rejected the same distance argument when it was pointed out that London is 6,000 miles from Diego Garcia.
Additionally, critics in both London and Washington have attempted to cast Mauritius as being unduly influenced by China, despite a lack of any substantive security ties between the two nations. Such claims are politically motivated rather than based on any fact [though of course Mauritius is entitled to manage its own foreign relations as it sees fit, being an independent and sovereign state].
There is zero rational argument against a formal treaty. It represents the most reliable means of ensuring the US retains unfettered use of the base. Baldly stated, and perhaps a point missed by his British admirers, Trump ultimately cares as much [or as little] about the UK as he cares about Mauritius. His overriding concern should not be the question of who exercises sovereignty over the Chagos Islands but rather the operational continuity of Diego Garcia as a military hub. The terms secured in the Anglo-Mauritian negotiations provide precisely this assurance. Under the agreement, Britain will retain the necessary administrative authority over Diego Garcia to fulfill its defense obligations to the U.S., while Mauritius will govern the remaining islands of the archipelago, territory that has no relevance to the base.
What is the alternative to the treaty proposed by Conservatives or Reform? Naturally, it is conspicuous by its absence. Or more accurately, policy is replaced by brain-dead "patriotic" soundbites. The Tories know, of course, that Britain's continued sovereignty over the islands is unsustainable and the best outcome is to forego sovereignty in return for de facto control of the islands.
Similarly, rational, realpolitik thinkers on the US National Security Council, in the State Department and at the Pentagon ought to recognize that Starmer's treaty with Mauritius [or to be fair, Sunak and Starmer's treaty] is good for the US. The Trump administration would do well to recognize its advantages and offer unequivocal support. Prompt backing of the deal would guarantee the US' strategic predominance in the Indian Ocean by solidifying Diego Garcia's role as a critical military asset for the foreseeable future.
But what are the chances of that based on the evidence since 20 January 2025? Probably minimal as Trump clearly prefers punishing "enemies" and tickling the tummies of subservient, sycophantic foreign "friends". It is much more likely Trump will seek to boost his British groveller-in-chief Nigel Farage, and the ever-biddable Kemi Badenoch, rather than think like a statesman and support a deal which clearly benefits the long-term strategic interests of the United States.
Who, then, are the real quislings and traitors in this picture? Not Keir Starmer or David Lammy. Rather, they are the right-wing populists who prioritize political grandstanding over legal, diplomatic, and strategic realities. Instead of acting in Britain’s best interests, they indulge in performative patriotism, undermining the nation’s credibility on the global stage. And they do so while doubting the patriotism of their opponents.
[1] https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1886809541448204487
[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czj3w9k7gxxo
[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/badenoch-jenrick-starmer-traitor-chagos-b2692785.html
[5] https://www.icj-cij.org/case/169
+447444234194
Send us a message
pd@broadwayintel.com
Created by Sambort Digital Dynamics