Donald Trump can still stop Starmer's shameful Chagos surrender
Thankfully, there is hope that the deal can still be torpedoed at the twelfth hour. As the Chagos agreement is a treaty that cedes sovereign British territory, legal experts note that it must be ratified first by Westminster. And it would surely be extremely difficult for the Prime Minister to defend the agreement in Parliament if Britain's closest friend and partner stepped in to oppose it.
The US President's upcoming state visit to London on September 17-19 has added a new sense of urgency, with growing concerns in the United States over the implications of the deal for the future of the vital Anglo-American military base at Diego Garcia, which is capable of hosting America's long-range B-2 bombers. Diego Garcia sits at the heart of the Indian Ocean, and will play an increasingly important role for the United States in combatting Communist China in the Indo-Pacific region, a huge strategic priority for the Trump administration.
A growing number of US policymakers fear that the Chagos deal will hand Beijing an unprecedented win at the expense of the United States and the United Kingdom, undermining the long-term future of Diego Garcia and significantly weakening the strategic position of the West in the region. Indeed, the Chagos issue is far from over in Washington, and major red flags are being raised in the US, despite a large-scale PR offensive waged by the Foreign Office earlier this year.
The stakes are incredibly high. There is a very real possibility that Mauritius could, a few years from now, break the agreement with the UK over Diego Garcia under pressure from Beijing, find a reason to end the lease with London, and cut an even more lucrative deal with Communist China. What if the Chinese offered Mauritius double or triple what the British Government is offering to pay? This would be a nightmare scenario for the US, resulting in the loss of an incredibly vital American base.
Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana has been a prominent opponent of the UK giving the Chagos Islands away, and other Members of Congress are now weighing in. In a highly significant development this month on Capitol Hill, the powerful Republican-led House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations directly raised the issue of the Chagos Islands deal between the UK and Mauritius, urging the US Secretary of State to engage further with the British Government on assurances that vital US strategic interests are protected.
In the 'National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2026', the Committee recognised 'that with the growing challenge from the PRC the military facilities on the island of Diego Garcia are central to Anglo-American power projection and relative control of the Indian Ocean. Recognising the invaluable strategic importance and geographic relevance of Diego Garcia to the United States, the Committee encourages the Secretary of State to engage with His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom to ensure our long-term access to the facilities and that they remain integral to allied security.'
Meanwhile in the UK, the full cost of the Chagos deal to the British taxpayer is only now seeing the light of day. As The Telegraph recently revealed, the total cost to the British taxpayer to lease the Diego Garcia military base from Mauritius will be almost £35bn if fulfilled, 10 times more than the Labour government originally claimed. This is one of the biggest deceptions by a British government in modern times, and also one of the most dangerous, with massive implications for US and British national security interests on the world stage.
In the weeks ahead, we can expect significantly increased scrutiny of the Starmer Government's Chagos Islands deal on Capitol Hill as well as from the administration, especially in advance of the upcoming presidential state visit to the UK next month.
Significantly, the US State Department backed the Chagos deal in a statement in May, but there has never been an official declaration issued by the White House. A last-minute intervention against the deal is not out of the question.
President Trump still has an opportunity to weigh in directly on the issue, and can and should send the Chagos deal to the depths of the Indian Ocean where it clearly belongs. By doing so, he would be defending vital American strategic interests, denying China a major long-term victory, and protecting a crucial military base at the heart of the US/UK Special Relationship
Nile Gardiner is Director of The Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
44 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Suranne Jones details 'rambunctious' experience shadowing Keir Starmer for thriller role
Suranne Jones has opened up about her 'rambunctious' experience shadowing Keir Starmer for her new Netflix thriller and detailed one fiery moment in particular Suranne Jones has opened up about her 'rambunctious' experience shadowing Keir Starmer for her new Netflix thriller. The former Coronation Street actress, 46, is now starring as fictional Prime Minister Abigail Dalton in Hostage, and follows the events that unfold after her character attends a summit with the French president Vivienne Toussaint (Julie Delpy) and her husband is kidnapped. As part of her research for the role, Suranne took a trip to Downing Street and ventured into the House of Commons, where she managed to catch a heated moment with the real-life Prime Minister. Speaking on Wednesday's edition of This Morning, she told hosts Sian Welby and Craig Doyle: "I did go to the House of Commons. It was great because when we then built our set, I'd been in the actual place. We did see Keir Starmer having a...[debate] it was quite rambunctious." The actress noted her disbelief at watching it all take place in front of her as she added: "There was a lot of shouting in there. You don't believe it til you see it!" The UK has only seen two female Prime Ministers in its time, with the late Margaret Thatcher having served a leader of the Conservative party from 1979 until 1990. In October 2022, Liz Truss became the shortest-serving Prime Minister in the country's history having managed to survive just 50 days in office. Suranne noted the lack of females in such a role of power but approached the role with a 'fresh' perspective, which she believes was necessary when taking into account the current political climate. She said: "We haven't got a lot of women to look at, have we? But that's another great thing. What I did and women in power, I wanted Abigail to be a fresh set of eyes, and the political landscape as it is, we needed that as it is." However, Suranne, who has carved out a stellar career in drama since leaving her role as Karen McDonald on ITV's flagship soap more than two decades ago, recently admitted she wouldn't want to take on the top job at number 10 in real life, mainly because of the amount of 'baggage' her new alter-ego has to carry round. She said: "A woman, before she's even put on her very high, hurty shoes, she has a lot of baggage and a lot of things that she is carrying: the way she looks, the way she dresses, the way she's been educated. "All of those things. How she behaves with her family or her background, everything, before she starts to go out into the world and getting judged for it. "Obviously, I'm well known. People recognise me. I try to keep a private element to my life, but then I do want to show support of the charities I work for and all of that stuff, and the community theatre that I like to give elevation to, so I drew on a lot of that stuff. But I wouldn't want to be a prime minister." She continued: "The early name for the show was The Choice and I think that's the thing, the choice of wanting a job like that, the choice of your family or your country. "It blows my mind, I can't even imagine... obviously, I had to because I play the prime minister, so I did have to imagine. But these big, big choices, they're huge and so it's just making people think." The five-part political thriller witnesses Dalton being blackmailed following her husband's kidnapping whilst he's working overseas, with the captors threatening his murder unless she steps down from office.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Closing hotels won't stop the migrant crisis
After yesterday's landmark decision on the Bell Hotel in Epping, the next question must be: where do we go from here? What is essential to understand is that yesterday's High Court judgement was what might be called an 'Al Capone reckoning'. One ultimate actor, the state, and by extension the government, has been humbled on a mere technicality. The Essex hotel was deemed in breach of contract for using its rooms to accommodate refugees, rather than paying guests. The state was not brought to heel on its ethically unsound and socially corrosive laws on immigration and re-settlement. That the Home Office sought to block Epping Forest council's application for an injunction is important. Campaigners and the public will still face an elite establishment – especially, despite yesterday's judgement, a judiciary – that has an intransigent and indulgent attitude to migrants, and a slavish, literal-minded adherence to human rights laws. The fundamentals of the migrant crisis, then, have not been resolved by the closure of the Bell Hotel. They will not be resolved by the closure of other hotels, either. Illegal migrants will still come to Britain, and they will still be housed. This crisis will end in the same way it was always going to: with changes in policy and attitudes. We have already witnessed the effectiveness of one stern response. That was the Rwanda scheme. Although the plan for its establishment was fraught with difficulties, when it did briefly come into law last April many illegal immigrants responded by taking flight to the Republic of Ireland, as complaints by the Dublin government at the time attested. This principle of deterrence must be re-visited. Keir Starmer's plan to 'smash the gangs' has not worked. A government that really wanted to stop illegal migration would consider more stringent measures, such as automatic deportation of illegal immigrants or those with criminal convictions languishing in our prisons. These policies would prove popular, but Starmer isn't going to enact them. One might imagine that only a Reform government would. The ultimate 'uncompassionate' policy is the unsayable one: stop picking up migrants from their boats in the first place. Return them to France, with or without the French government's cooperation. This would most likely contravene maritime law and cause legal challenges and a diplomatic fallout with our neighbours. Lurking behind so many of these preventative measures are not legal or political obstacles, but rather intangible ones, those which can't be revoked or reversed by diktat, legislation, court ruling or vote. In order for matters to change for good, attitudes need to change and lazy assumptions need to be dismantled. The first is the one parroted by those with no imagination, no will or just no wish: this is that there is 'no solution' to this fundamentally global problem. There is, as outlined above. It just takes determination and the willingness to risk the opprobrium of bien-pensants. Passive and defeatist mantras should have no place anywhere in political discourse. The second is to confront the idle axiom that British people today increasingly hate foreigners. This is mostly untrue. Rather, many are angry at the increasing number of immigrants and their decreasing quality. If there is ire directed against one group of people, it is the liberal elite and those who have favoured cheap labour in their factories and homes. It is imperative that the thought-terminating accusation of 'xenophobia' is ignored or rebutted. A third shibboleth contains other weedy platitudes: that migrants who force their way onto our shores are 'fleeing persecution' and 'are only seeking a better life'. That first bromide is refutable. Those who come by boat are arriving from France, a democracy where no-one is persecuted by the state for their beliefs or ethnicity. The second statement represents a worrying detachment from reality. Of course illegal immigrants are seeking a better life. We all want a better life. The ultimate mindset which demands the most patience and perseverance in overturning is the embedded belief and unspoken truism that 'compassion' is inherently good. Sometimes it manifestly isn't. Sometimes, voicing compassionate sentiment only improves the feeling of well-being among those who voice it. Immigration policies based on compassion have so far only served to increase feelings of resentment and anger among the native population. Yesterday's judgement about the Bell Hotel matters, but real change will only come when we upend the conceit that compassionate beliefs or saying nice things necessarily correlate with or result in positive outcomes. Only an unfashionable attitude and 'uncaring' policies will solve the migrant crisis.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Boomers behaving badly: Why the over-60s are the wildest generation
Gransnet, the popular social networking site for grandparents, is aflame. Not with disputes over how to roast a chicken or subdue a pack of feral toddlers, but with the question of whether joining Palestine Action is morally acceptable or not. And this, rather than student unions or the bars of Dalston in east London, is the place to be debating it, as baby boomers take up the cause of an organisation that was banned under terror legislation last month. New figures from the Met Police reveal that of the 532 people arrested for supporting Palestine Action in London earlier this month, the average age was 54 but the largest group was people in their 60s (147 arrests), closely followed by 97 arrests of those in their 70s. Twentysomethings, long thought to be the natural foot soldiers of protest, trailed in third place with just 54 arrests. 'It's important to remember these people came of age in a period obsessed with social justice,' says Bobby Duffy, an academic and author of The Generation Myth: Why When You're Born Matters. 'They had the spirit of May 1968, [a period of civil unrest in] France, behind them, and experienced regular protests against the status quo in the UK and US. Retirement also gives you more time – there's a squeezed middle of people too busy with work, children, mortgages and ageing parents to look outward. But when you're young and when you're old, you have the space to focus on what you really care about.' Patricia, 75, has spent decades on the picket line protesting against nuclear weapons and the Iraq war, and for abortion rights and marriage equality. Joining Palestine Action, she believed, would have been the logical next step. 'We're the right people to be doing it,' she says. 'I'm not planning to become a lawyer or travel to America, so the worst-case scenario of a criminal record doesn't really affect me.' But in the end it was her millennial children that intervened. 'My daughters were so upset by the idea I might be arrested that I reconsidered.' Increasingly, we are all having to upend our notions that protest is the preserve of idealistic undergraduates. Many of the marches against Donald Trump have seen retirees outnumber students, while the Extinction Rebellion protests have been almost as thick with grey hair as pink. Who could forget the photographs of a then 60-year-old Emma Thompson perched on a boat in Oxford Circus a few years ago? 'I have often said that baby boomers are going to fundamentally reshape what ageing looks like,' says Jennifer Ailshire, a professor of gerontology at the University of Southern California. 'We had the stereotype of a grandma knitting or an old fellow gardening because we have associated ageing with frailty and ill-health and a lack of ability to be out in social spaces. Boomers are the first generation in the history of the world to have really benefited from new medical interventions and advice on how to stay fitter for longer, and as a result a great number feel younger and seem younger than those who came before them.' Duffy agrees that health is the largest reason for this culture-changing shift. 'Life expectancy in the UK is now over 80; for many, that means a second act spanning decades,' he says. Another important factor is wealth. 'This generation of retirees has far more disposable income than any other. They benefited from rising house prices, golden economic conditions, generous final-salary pensions and free higher education. That creates the means to have an unusual level of freedom.' The third is attitudes. 'This is the post-war generation that drove changes in gender equality, sexual behaviour and individual freedom,' says Duffy. 'They're distinct from their parents in almost every social measure so it's no wonder they are approaching old age with a very different mindset.' This last point is evidenced by the fact that boomers are wilder in their politics – and their pleasures. This is in comparison to both the silent generation and (somewhat shamingly for anyone under 40) their own adult children. Around Britain, millennials and older Gen Zs – who have largely moderated their drinking and swapped clubbing for 6am yoga classes – are quietly watching their parents' social calendars and holiday plans completely outpace their own. Lucy, 33, now refuses to have dinner with her parents during the week. It's not because she is too busy, or because she has too much on to leave work on time. It's not even because they live too far away – after they retired, her parents sold the family home in Wimbledon and bought a two-bedroom flat in Bloomsbury so they could be closer to the best restaurants and bars in the capital. 'I can't see my parents because I can't take the hangovers at my desk the day after,' says Lucy. 'My friends and I tend to stick to one or two drinks, or we meet up to exercise if it's a Monday or Tuesday, but my parents ply me with cocktails and wine and when I refuse they joke about me being pregnant. I love them to bits but I've realised I need to limit my time with them to weekends. They're just too much for me.' This isn't just anecdotal. Baby boomers now drink more alcohol than any other age group, according to figures from the now defunct Public Health England. Studies show that three in 10 boomers drink five days or more a week, while less than 1 per cent of Gen Z does the same. 'Alcohol drinking is incredibly generational,' says Duffy. 'It's about what you were socialised into, but also other changes: it is more difficult and more expensive for young people to get alcohol, whereas boomers were brought up on the idea that going out means drinking. Back then, there was massive sponsorship of big events by alcohol companies, and the advertising of alcohol was embedded everywhere; now young people tend to associate heavy drinking with health problems.' As for going out, Ailshire argues that boomers have always been a particularly social generation. 'Younger adults today have far less time for leisure, and the idea of a single-earner household has almost completely gone out the window,' she says. As a result, millennials are struggling to pay childcare bills and mortgages, and simply don't have the money for babysitters and restaurants. Similarly, those in cities often don't have space in their houses for dinners and parties. 'Then there is the fact that phone addiction eats up so much of younger generations' free time,' says Ailshire. 'It all adds up to a picture where over-60s are socialising much more than those coming up behind them.' And where drinking goes, other traditionally 'bad' behaviours often follow. The over-65s have experienced a 20 per cent rise in STIs in the UK in the last five years, while in Australia, a government report this year found that alcohol, tobacco and drug use among the over-60s had doubled in a decade. Globally, the pattern repeats itself. In France, Les Papy Boomers have become a political force, organising environmental protests from Marseille to Paris. In the US, the 'Raging Grannies' have made headlines for turning up at demonstrations in feather boas and floppy hats, singing protest songs rewritten to target companies in the fossil fuel industry. In Japan, a wave of 'silver start-ups' has seen retirees launching fashion brands, dance studios and even underground nightclubs. Boomers, in other words, are not quietly retiring to potter around the garden and watch Midsomer Murders. And while younger generations may be physically fitter and more socially progressive on paper, they are finding it difficult to match the heady mix of financial freedom and healthy, work-free years their parents are clearly benefiting from. What remains to be seen is whether this is a generational anomaly – the final flourish of a cohort born into a rare period of post-war prosperity who went on to dominate the culture of nearly every decade they have been adults in – or whether it is the new template for ageing in the 21st century. 'I think sadly this is unique to the boomers,' says Ailshire, who was born in 1981. 'I just don't think we will be able to retire at the age baby boomers have, and nor will many of us have the same level of wealth when we are no longer working. The boomers are the aberrant generation – and I'm not confident that the concept of a wild retirement will endure much beyond them.'
