Chagos Islands Deal: A Complex Negotiation
The proposed deal concerning the Chagos Islands will hinge on the approval of US President Donald Trump, as emphasized by Foreign Secretary David Lammy. He expressed his belief that the agreement to transfer the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius represents the most favorable arrangement possible, but underlined the necessity of US support for it to proceed.
During an interview on ITV’s Peston program, when asked if President Trump held a veto over the agreement, Mr. Lammy stated, “If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward.” He elaborated, “The reason for that is because we have a shared military and intelligence interest with the United States, and of course they’ve got to be happy with the deal, or there is no deal.”
These remarks come ahead of the first in-person meeting between Sir Keir Starmer and President Trump in Washington, as Starmer aims to maintain strong relations with the US amidst ongoing geopolitical challenges. This situation is further complicated by questions regarding the funding for a potential lease-back of the military base in Mauritius, which is rumored to cost around £9 billion, and whether this expenditure would impact the recent increase in defense spending that Starmer announced.
Under the terms of the proposed agreement, the UK would lease back the strategically crucial Diego Garcia military base, which is also utilized by the US. Speaking from the US, Lammy noted that the UK’s military and intelligence operations are “very intertwined with the United States,” adding, “We struck a deal. After striking that deal, there was a change of government in Mauritius, and the new government in Mauritius had to have time to examine the deal closely.”
He continued, “And there has been a change of government here in the United States, and the current administration has had ample time to review the proposal. I still believe it’s the best deal.”
In a contrasting view, former Tory minister Simon Clarke expressed his reluctant hope that President Trump would reject the proposal, labeling it a “wretched deal.” He stated, “It is absolutely outrageous that we should even consider giving money to a Chinese ally in exchange for our own territory; that is sheer madness.”
During a recent session in the Commons, Kemi Badenoch pressed Sir Keir to clarify whether the Chagos deal would be financed from his proposed increase in defense spending to 2.5% of GDP. The Prime Minister responded, “The additional spending I announced yesterday is for enhancing our defense and security capabilities in Europe, as I made unequivocally clear.” He added, “The Chagos deal is of utmost importance for our national security and that of the US. The US is rightly scrutinizing it. Once it is finalized, I will present it before the House along with the associated costings.”
Earlier on the same day, Defence Secretary John Healey refrained from confirming whether the funding for the Chagos deal was included in the defense budget when questioned by Times Radio. Following Prime Minister’s Questions, a spokesperson for Mrs. Badenoch remarked, “This all points to a potential cover-up regarding the origins of the funding for the Chagos agreement.” He also hinted that the US president should intervene if the deal appears unfavorable.
In another development, the Conservative party’s attempts to secure greater transparency in the Chagos negotiations were unsuccessful. The Opposition had tabled a motion demanding the Government to disclose a timeline of the negotiations between the UK and Mauritius since July 4 of the previous year, and to validate recent statements made by the Prime Minister of Mauritius regarding the deal’s terms. The motion also sought clarity on how the deal would be funded, the involvement of Attorney General Lord Hermer, and the reasons for expediting negotiations.
However, MPs voted against the motion, with a tally of 298 to 147, resulting in a majority of 151 votes. Shadow Foreign Secretary Dame Priti Patel declared, “The Government has obscured the true nature of this deal—one we would never have pursued from the outset. Tonight, the Conservatives afforded Labour MPs the opportunity to annul the deal and halt the funding, yet they chose to capitulate.”
Additional reporting by the Press Association
