Chagos outrage! Extraordinary pledge that could help our enemies is buried in smallprint of £30billion surrender deal
Britain will be forced to tell Mauritius about any military attacks launched from the Chagos Islands under Sir Keir Starmer 's £30billion surrender deal, it emerged yesterday.
MPs and ex-military chiefs lined up to warn that the 'grotesque' and 'dangerous' clause, buried in the treaty's small print, risked aiding Britain's enemies.
The deal to hand over sovereignty of the archipelago states that 'the United Kingdom agrees to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State directly emanating from the Base on Diego Garcia '.
Mauritius is an ally of China and it is feared that any sensitive information passed on could end up in the hands of Beijing or other states hostile to Britain.
In recent months, Mauritius has also been deepening ties with Iran.
Armed Forces minister Luke Pollard yesterday insisted the deal was 'good value' and that Washington will be paying 'many multiples more' to jointly operate the Anglo-American military base on Diego Garcia, the largest of the Chagos atolls which the UK will lease back from Mauritius.
But two former defence secretaries, Sir Grant Shapps and Sir Gavin Williamson, led a fresh chorus of outrage as more details of the deal became clear.
Sir Grant told the Mail: 'Now we learn that we're not only paying Mauritius for continued access to our own territory, we've actually potentially signed away the right to act there without their say-so.
'In effect, we're bankrolling our own strategic retreat. It's a grotesque surrender of both sovereignty and responsibility.'
Sir Gavin said: 'They've effectively given China, through the back door, a pretty amazing and unique position to have insight into what we're wanting to do – our objectives and motivations – which is very dangerous.
'The idea that we have to effectively kowtow to an irrelevant island nation in order to be able to ask permission for things that are strategically important to us I think is a very dangerous move by the government.
'The assumption will have to be that every time you do inform the Mauritians, China will also know.' Former head of the Army Lord Dannatt said: 'I think this is the most bizarre defence arrangement I have ever come across.'
Last night the Government insisted the treaty does not necessarily require details to be given in advance of military operations.
However, this is not written into the legal text of the treaty, nor is the level of detail that needs to be given, leaving it open to interpretation and possible challenge.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch also hit out at the pact, saying Donald Trump will be 'laughing' because he's got a 'great deal at the expense of the UK'.
The US is not contributing towards the deal but will continue footing the bill for operating the military base.
The Chagos Islands have been a British territory since 1814 but thousands of Chagossians were deported, most to Mauritius, when a US military base was built on Diego Garcia in the 1960s.
In 2019 the International Court of Justice ruled the UK's occupation of the archipelago was unlawful, prompting the Tory government to begin negotiations on a deal – but they later blocked progress amid concerns from former Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron.
Labour restarted talks after the 2024 election and an agreement was struck this year. Critics say ministers should have ignored the ICJ ruling because it was advisory and non-binding.
But Labour finally signed the deal this week. It must now be ratified by both houses of Parliament.
Sir Keir said this week the average annual cost of the deal would be £101million. This figure over the deal's 99 years would equate to £10billion.
But the prime minister claimed that the total 'net cost' over a century would be just £3.4billion, sparking accusations that he was misleading taxpayers.
This is because the Government performed calculations that factor in 'the value society attaches to present as opposed to future consumption' and an estimated rate of inflation over time.
The Tories said the 'surrender tax', assuming inflation of 2 per cent, actually amounted to £30billion. The Ministry of Defence was contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's Chagos deal reported to UN human rights chiefs
Sir Keir Starmer's Chagos deal has been reported to UN human rights chiefs over claims it ignores native islanders' desire to return to their homeland. Campaigners have asked the UN's human rights committee in Geneva to examine the deal, under which the UK will give up the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and rent back a military base there. If successful, the request could result in a UN ruling in direct contradiction to the body's International Court of Justice, which said in 2019 that the UK should hand over the islands to Mauritius. Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrice Pompe, who are British citizens but native to the islands, launched an eleventh-hour bid to stop the deal last month, resulting in a dramatic injunction from the High Court in the middle of the night. But their legal challenge was rejected the next day, and the deal went ahead, including a commitment for the UK to pay Mauritius up to £30 billion over the next 99 years. Ms Dugasse and Ms Pompe are now taking their fight to the UN by writing to the committee asking for an advisory opinion that the UK should not sign the deal over human rights concerns. They allege the deal breaches five articles of the UN's international covenant on civil and political rights, including the right to self-determination, freedom of movement and right to return, and minority rights. The deal agreed by Sir Keir has been opposed by MPs from the Conservative and Reform parties, and Tory peers have since launched a campaign to block the deal from the House of Lords. But the Government insists that the deal is vital for national security and will allow the military base on the archipelago's biggest island, Diego Garcia, to continue to operate legally. It follows years of negotiations between Britain and Mauritius, which claims it should have been given sovereignty over the islands when it was given independence from the UK in 1968. The population of the islands, between 1,400 and 1,700 people, was removed in the late 60s and early 70s to make way for the military base. The displaced Chagossians claim that they were not consulted before the Starmer deal was signed, and complain that under the terms agreed between the UK and Mauritius, they will not be allowed to return to Diego Garcia. Ms Pompe said: 'The fight is not over. There is nothing in that treaty for Chagossians and we will fight.' The UN does not have the power to block the deal, but the committee could issue an advisory opinion that would inform Downing Street it could be in breach of international human rights obligations if it proceeds. The campaigners told the committee in a letter, seen by The Telegraph, that the deal 'would amount to a definitive and irreversible endorsement of a continuing violation originally initiated by the colonial power'. It goes on: 'By excluding the Chagossian people from the process and de facto accepting their permanent displacement, the agreement entrenches the denial of their right to return and the effective exercise of their cultural, spiritual rights.' Toby Noskwith, who coordinated last month's legal action, said: 'I pity the poor souls in the No10 press office who are being ordered to justify Keir Starmer's betrayal of the Chagossian people. 'We're looking forward to the explanation of why the UN human rights committee doesn't matter. Not pausing the Chagos deal until the Committee rules is indefensible.'
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Terrorism the only issue Starmer handling well, poll finds
Terrorism is the only issue that British people think Sir Keir Starmer is handling well, new polling suggests. In a damning audit of Labour's first year in office, voters gave the Government bad marks on 14 out of 15 key policy areas, from taxation to immigration. The YouGov survey, conducted over the past month, makes grim reading for the Prime Minister, who has struggled with plummeting approval ratings since entering No 10. It indicates the scale of the challenge he faces to win back the public's trust amid the rise of Reform UK, with Labour still reeling from disastrous results at last month's local elections. Asked how the Government was faring in 15 key policy areas, voters indicated that terrorism was the only one they thought Sir Keir was handling well, with a net score of +3. The 14 other issues all received net negative ratings, with immigration the lowest at -60, followed closely by taxation on -58 and welfare on -53. Sir Keir also got bad marks on the economy, with a net score of -52, as well as housing, the NHS, crime, inflation, unemployment, Brexit, the environment, education, transport and defence. The survey, published on Thursday, was conducted between May 3 and June 2, using a representative sample of 8,538 British people. It will come as a blow to the Prime Minister before the spending review next week, at which the Chancellor is expected to unveil cuts to day-to-day spending to keep within her self-imposed fiscal rules. The positive feedback on Labour's handling of terrorism will be encouraging for the Government, suggesting Sir Keir is broadly trusted to keep the country safe. But the lack of confidence in the Prime Minister's ability to tackle the small boats crisis will concern No 10 as Reform storms ahead in the opinion polls. A similarly dire score on welfare suggests Sir Keir has work to do to win back Labour's traditional supporters on the Left, many of whom were dismayed by his sweeping cuts to benefits earlier this year. No 11 will also be disappointed by the lack of faith in Labour's ability to handle the economy, despite Rachel Reeves's attempt to put fiscal responsibility front and centre of her plans. Sir Keir declared Reform his main opposition last month, setting him up for a battle with Nigel Farage on highly charged issues such as migration and net zero. Meanwhile, the Reform leader parked his tanks on Labour's lawn by promising to reverse the cut to winter fuel payments for pensioners in full and lift the two-child benefit cap. The YouGov poll found that nearly three-quarters of voters thought Sir Keir was doing 'very badly' or 'fairly badly' on immigration, compared to just 13 per cent who thought he was doing well. Labour has been accused of losing control of Britain's borders after close to 1,200 small boat migrants crossed the Channel in a single day.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Russia is about to suffer its millionth casualty. For Putin, that's a price worth paying
Almost two centuries ago, the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz cautioned against the temptation to 'shut one's eyes to what war really is from sheer distress at its brutality.' One milestone betrays the sheer scale of the butchery in Ukraine: by the end of June, Russian forces will, in all probability, have suffered their millionth casualty in this war. When Vladimir Putin sent some 200,000 Russian soldiers into Ukraine in February 2022, he expected to seize Kyiv by the third day of a lightning offensive. Today, his troops remain hundreds of miles from the capital, while the number of Russian dead and wounded has grown to nearly five times the size of that initial invasion force. 'Overall, a high of 250,000 Russian soldiers have died in Ukraine, with over 950,000 total Russian casualties,' notes a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), an American think tank based in Washington, DC. Those numbers conjure an image of Putin casting the entirety of his first invading army into a furnace, then gathering another and doing the same – over and over again. On an average day in April, about 1,200 Russians were killed or wounded on Ukraine's battlefields, where killer drones and heavy artillery have together created the most lethal expanse of territory on Earth. If this casualty rate is sustained, the CSIS study concludes, 'Russia will likely hit the 1 million casualty mark in the summer of 2025.' By way of comparison, the combined death toll in every Soviet or Russian conflict since 1945 – from the invasion of Hungary in 1956 to the Second Chechen war in 1999, including the Afghanistan campaign of 1979-89 – came to less than 50,000. Putin has sacrificed about five times that number in the space of three years and four months in Ukraine. Having been thrown back from Kyiv, Putin is now waging what the CSIS calls a 'grinding contest of attrition', in which Russia loses 'vast quantities' of men and materiel for 'mere metres of ground'. Since January 2024, Putin has captured about 1 per cent of Ukraine at the cost of between 800 and 1,600 Russian casualties per day. By comparison, 179 British military personnel were killed during six years of combat operations in Iraq. Yet Putin's frame of reference is almost certainly not the conflicts since 1945. He is steeped in the history of what Russians call the Great Patriotic War – the Soviet Union's epic struggle against Hitler's invasion between 1941 and 1945. That titanic confrontation claimed the lives of at least 24 million Soviet or Russian citizens, amounting to 12 per cent of the entire population of the Soviet Empire. The Battle of Stalingrad alone, lasting less than six months, killed almost 675,000 Russians. The siege of Leningrad – the city of Putin's birth – was even more deadly. His parents lived through those harrowing years from 1941 to 1944; his father fought in the city's defence, while his elder brother was among the children who died of hunger and privation. In total, over 1 million Russians gave their lives to save Leningrad from the Nazis. If that is your perspective, then 250,000 dead and a million casualties in Ukraine become far more acceptable. Putin will doubtless see these figures as just a fraction of the cost of preserving his home city from Hitler. And that is not even to consider earlier episodes of suffering. The Russian civil war that followed the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 claimed some 10 million lives, mainly from starvation, while Stalin's Great Purge, between 1936 and 1938, is estimated to have claimed between 700,000 and 1.2 million. If, like Putin, your historical memory is dominated by events before 1945, then you take a different view of a million Russian casualties in Ukraine. And the Kremlin's propaganda campaign is designed to ensure that the Russian people think like their leader. Not even the prospect of Putin soon having sacrificed a million of their sons in the country's bloodiest war in 80 years appears to be stirring popular discontent. In March, polling by the Levada Center, a Russian independent, nongovernmental research organisation, found that a 'majority of respondents support the actions of the Russian military and believe that the special military operation is progressing successfully.' For Western policy-makers, by contrast, Putin's cold indifference to suffering presents a strategic dilemma. Effective deterrence depends on an adversary believing that any act of aggression will incur an overwhelming and unacceptable cost. But what constitutes an unacceptable cost in Putin's eyes? Given that a million Russian casualties in the crucible of Ukraine seem to leave him unmoved, sustaining effective deterrence becomes far more difficult. Hence the continued importance of nuclear weapons – perhaps the only price even Putin would be unwilling to pay. Meanwhile, his dogged assault on Ukraine has forced his neighbour to defend itself with ever greater force, vindicating the bleak words of Clausewitz: 'If one side uses force without compunction, undeterred by the bloodshed it involves, while the other side refrains, the first will gain the upper hand. That side will force the other to follow suit; each will drive its opponent towards extremes.' Russia's extreme violence has killed between 60,000 and 100,000 Ukrainians, according to the CSIS, inflicting around 400,000 casualties in total – an astonishing toll reminiscent of the pre-war era. Given that Ukraine's population is less than a third of Russia's, the target of the invasion has endured a heavier toll per capita – a butcher's bill greater even than that of its aggressor. Ukrainian soldiers on the front line know better than anyone that the prospect of a million Russian casualties will not deter Putin. The only counterweight is still greater force.
