The government’s latest difficulties in the House of Lords over plans to surrender the Chagos islands is another humiliation for Keir Starmer, but it is also one last opportunity to avert a historic mistake.
The Prime Minister proposes to hand over the Chagos to Mauritius, which has never exercised sovereignty over a cluster of Indian Ocean islands which have been British for two centuries. Starmer has agreed to pay Mauritius £101 million every year for 99 years to lease back one of the islands, Diego Garcia, which is home to a joint UK-US military base.
On Monday, peers outvoted the government on four key amendments. These would require ministers to publish a breakdown of payments to Mauritius, give MPs oversight of these transactions, and stop paying if the island base becomes unusable. (Paying billions for a base we’ve been told we can’t use would be the most British thing ever.) A fourth amendment, from the Lib Dems, would give UK-based Chagossians a referendum on Starmer’s plan.
The deal now goes back to the Commons. MPs should welcome this as a chance to apply an eleventh-hour handbrake on an ill-conceived and wholly unnecessary treaty that is bad for Britain’s national security, bad for its financial resources, and bad for the indigenous Chagossians.
There is no reason whatsoever for the UK to gift its lawfully held territory to a foreign power. The reason Starmer insists on doing so is predictably lawbrained: an advisory judgment from the International Court of Justice – the Model UN of global tribunals – ruled that Britain’s 1965 severance of its Indian Ocean territory from its Mauritian territory was unlawful. Any normal country would thank the ICJ for its non-binding opinion, note that it enjoys all the legal force of a politely worded email, and proceed as before.
Naturally Britain under the Tories chose to cave and once Starmer was in No. 10 it was an all-you-can-eat buffet for the Mauritians, who not only got all the British territory they wanted but got paid to the tune of £10 billion to take it off Britain’s hands. Britain, meanwhile, got the best end of the bargain: all those domestic and international elites who hate it will welcome its self-abasement then continue hating it all the same. Bask in that sweet, sweet soft power, baby.
Accepting the Lords amendments, in particular the referendum for Chagossians, is the best option for Labour MPs, representing a setback rather than a comprehensive defeat for the government. The time required to hold a referendum would give parliament more time to scrutinise the treaty and in particular its national security implications. Several regional and global powers (read: China and India) will almost certainly become very good friends of the Mauritians the minute Port Louis becomes the legal sovereign over a UK-US military base. This is why the transfer shouldn’t happen at all, but if it must happen, parliament should at least be able to cut off payments to Mauritius if its government begins behaving in a manner contrary to Britain’s national interests. (We’ve got our own government to do that for us, thank you very much.)
On a point of principle, if we are to hold a referendum on ceding sovereign UK territory, it ought to be a referendum of all British citizens, not just a subset, but Chagossians undoubtedly harbour a unique and profound connection to these islands. That so many are fiercely opposed to handing them over to Mauritius ought to have been accorded more weight than it has by a government more concerned with winning a Good Global Citizen of the Month certificate than with considering the practical and moral implications of its proposals.
Labour MPs should ask themselves if they really want to be a party to this
A survey of Chagossians last year commissioned by the House of Lords International Relations Committee found widespread ‘mistrust of the Mauritian government’ because of ‘historical marginalisation, neglect and mismanagement’. This included ‘allegations of racism and human rights abuses against Chagossians resident in Mauritius’. Many Chagossians long to return to the islands, but Starmer’s deal places no resettlement obligation on Mauritius and denies Chagossians a say over the future of their homeland. The committee warned ministers: ‘Disregarding these voices risks repeating past injustices; true redress can only be secured with Chagossians at the centre of every decision affecting their homeland.’
Labour MPs should ask themselves if they really want to be a party to all this. Loyalty to a struggling leader is one thing, but when the price is the rights and dignity of an already dispossessed people, their leader is surely asking too much of them. Britain has already done the Chagossians dirty once before. Is a repeat performance really necessary? And while Chagossian self-determination is unlikely to come up on the doorstep, they can expect their Reform opponent to make noise about them voting to send £10 billion overseas when their constituency needs a new school or hospital.
Keir Starmer’s premiership is probably beyond saving, but on the Chagos sellout he needs saving from himself.
Comments