By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Due to US backlash and warnings of a treaty breach, Sir Keir Starmer has withdrawn the Chagos Islands bill. The legislation, which aimed to transfer the archipelago to Mauritius while leasing back the Diego Garcia Military Base, faced criticism from Donald Trump. Concerns arose because the proposed deal potentially violated a 1966 UK-US treaty and threatened the base’s operation. The government has criticized the move and maintains its commitment to the deal, citing its importance for national security.
Read the original article here
Starmer ‘withdraws Chagos Islands bill’ in face of US backlash over deal, and it’s quite the situation, isn’t it? The headlines make it sound like a simple case of the UK caving to pressure, but the reality is much more nuanced. It seems the US, particularly, actually *wanted* this deal to go through, primarily to solidify the legal basis for their strategic Diego Garcia military base.
Now, here’s where it gets interesting. The UK was essentially going to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and then *lease* the base back from them. This was partially driven by international court rulings that favored Mauritius’ claim to sovereignty. The proposed deal, however, has faced strong opposition, particularly in the House of Lords. This legislation was designed to ensure the base’s future, as it’s strategically vital.
The crux of the matter appears to be this: the US wanted the deal, but then former President Trump, seemingly out of the blue, expressed disapproval. Perhaps he was annoyed about something else, like the lack of enthusiasm for selling Greenland. His comments then provided an unexpected opportunity for Starmer, who was already facing internal resistance in parliament, to reconsider the whole arrangement. The legislation was always facing an uphill battle and the whole thing seemed like a favor to the Americans.
There’s a clear sense that this deal was unfavorable for the UK. The UK was going to pay a hefty sum to keep a military base on the island, which many found unpopular, especially considering the current economic climate. And let’s be frank, it’s not a straightforward case of the islanders themselves clamoring to be part of Mauritius. Some, in fact, oppose the transfer. A referendum would offer a more balanced and fair resolution, allowing them to choose between independence, unification with Mauritius, or remaining a UK territory.
So, instead of just assuming this is another instance of British weakness, think about the context. The UK was in a bind, with international rulings challenging its claim, and the US wanting to maintain its strategic base. The original deal seemed designed to help the US, and now that Trump is making noises about it, it appears that the UK now has a perfect excuse to back away from a deal that, frankly, didn’t make much sense in the first place.
The Diego Garcia base is undeniably important for both the UK and US, functioning as a floating aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean. The island is leased by the US. The initial deal would have given the islands back to Mauritius, only to have them lease it back to the UK, allowing the US to continue its operations. However, this raises the question of why the UK was essentially footing the bill. If the US wanted the base so badly, shouldn’t *they* be the ones paying the lease?
There seems to be a general agreement that the deal was a bad idea from the outset. The UK was going to be paying for a base they’d leased to the Americans in the first place. It also seems like Starmer didn’t initiate this process. The whole arrangement was set in motion by the Conservatives, making it even more perplexing that they are now criticizing Starmer for taking an opportunity to extract themselves from it.
Now, with Trump’s comments, the entire situation has changed. It gives Starmer the ammunition to back out, saving potentially significant taxpayer money and avoiding a deal that many viewed as unnecessary. If the US doesn’t like the deal, what’s the point of the UK paying Mauritius?
It’s also important to note that the deal wasn’t just about the UK caving in. The UK and US wouldn’t have lost access to the base as it has a lease for the next 99 years. The US absolutely wanted this deal to happen and are now the reason the whole arrangement could be scrapped, which is ironic, but also beneficial.
The headline might suggest a simple surrender, but the situation is more complex. The UK was facing international pressures, the US wanted a deal, and the internal political landscape was proving challenging. Now, the UK can walk away. They can reconsider handing over the islands and can decide who will pay for the base.