logo
#

Latest news with #DiegoGarcia

Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss
Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss

The Independent

time30-06-2025

  • Business
  • The Independent

Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss

Britain is paying the 'going rate as a tenant for… the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean', a former Foreign Office chief has said as he backed the Chagos Islands deal that is set to cost the taxpayer billions of pounds. Hitting out at critics who argued the UK should ignore a legal ruling to hand over the archipelago to Mauritius, Lord McDonald of Salford argued this was what 'the powerful and unprincipled do', such as Russia. The independent crossbencher, a former ambassador who headed the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, spoke in support of the agreement in the face of strong objections at Westminster, with opponents branding it a 'surrender' and 'gross folly' funded by the public. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations, started under the previous Tory administration, returns sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the strategically important military base on Diego Garcia. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which said the UK should cede control. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians expelled from the islands, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million annually during the duration of the 99-year agreement, a total cost in cash terms of at least £13 billion. The Government, however, estimates the bill will be lower at around £101 million a year, while critics argue it will be much higher. The deal could also be extended in the future for an extra 40 years, provided agreement is reached. In a recent report, the House of Lords International Agreements Committee (HLIAC) said although 'not perfect', the treaty must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of the military base. Its members warned Mauritius was 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement was approved and concluded the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting Britain's right to run the joint UK-US site in jeopardy. Speaking at Westminster as peers debated the controversial accord, Lord McDonald said: 'The most damaging blow to any country's international reputation is a justified charge of hypocrisy. 'The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law in all circumstances. We lose credibility when we seek exceptions to this principle for ourselves.' He added: 'Opponents dislike the expense of the deal. 'Well, we're paying the going rate as a tenant for a base in the wider Indian Ocean, somewhat more than the French in Djibouti, but we're getting more for more. 'Diego Garcia is the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean. 'Even though £101 million per year is a lot, it's a lot less than the Americans pay to run the base. 'It's a joint base, and we're paying our way in the joint effort.' Lord McDonald also disputed the agreement would bolster China's presence in the Indian Ocean, arguing that 'our partner in Delhi looms much larger in Mauritian calculations than our challenger in Beijing'. He went on: 'Confronted by a charge of double standards, some opponents of this agreement shrug their shoulders. They think they can get away with it, tough it out. But that is what the powerful and unprincipled do. That is what Russia does.' The peer added: 'It gives the UK and our American allies a secure presence in the archipelago for the next 140 years. 'It enhances our security and restores our reputation as a country respecting international law, even when inconvenient and costly.' But Tory shadow foreign minister Lord Callanan said: 'This agreement amounts to a retreat, a surrender of sovereign territory that serves as a linchpin of our defence architecture at a time when authoritarian threats are rising and alliances matter more than ever. 'Handing control to a government who align themselves ever more closely with Beijing – a regime that actively undermines international norms and our national interests – is not only unwise, it is positively dangerous. 'To compound the error, the British taxpayer is being made to foot the bill.' He added: 'This whole affair has been a gross folly. There is no strategic gain here, no credible guarantee for the future of Diego Garcia and no reassurance for our allies. 'Instead, we send a message to adversaries and allies alike that British sovereignty is indeed negotiable. It is capitulation and we must reject it.' Pointing out the Tories in office had opened negotiations to cede sovereignty, Liberal Democrat Lord Purvis of Tweed said: 'The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative government's policy.' Foreign minister Lord Collins of Highbury said the agreement secured the future of the military base and had the support of key allies. He told the chamber: 'This deal will protect the safety and security of the British people for generations, making sure that the United Kingdom retains the unique, important capabilities we need to deal with a range of threats in the months and years ahead.' Peers rejected by 205 votes to 185, majority 20, a Tory attempt to get the House to oppose the treaty's ratification, which would have forced the Government to make a statement on why the deal should still be approved.

Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss
Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss

Yahoo

time30-06-2025

  • Business
  • Yahoo

Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss

Britain is paying the 'going rate as a tenant for… the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean', a former Foreign Office chief has said as he backed the Chagos Islands deal that is set to cost the taxpayer billions of pounds. Hitting out at critics who argued the UK should ignore a legal ruling to hand over the archipelago to Mauritius, Lord McDonald of Salford argued this was what 'the powerful and unprincipled do', such as Russia. The independent crossbencher, a former ambassador who headed the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, spoke in support of the agreement in the face of strong objections at Westminster, with opponents branding it a 'surrender' and 'gross folly' funded by the public. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations, started under the previous Tory administration, returns sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the strategically important military base on Diego Garcia. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which said the UK should cede control. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians expelled from the islands, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million annually during the duration of the 99-year agreement, a total cost in cash terms of at least £13 billion. The Government, however, estimates the bill will be lower at around £101 million a year, while critics argue it will be much higher. The deal could also be extended in the future for an extra 40 years, provided agreement is reached. In a recent report, the House of Lords International Agreements Committee (HLIAC) said although 'not perfect', the treaty must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of the military base. Its members warned Mauritius was 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement was approved and concluded the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting Britain's right to run the joint UK-US site in jeopardy. Speaking at Westminster as peers debated the controversial accord, Lord McDonald said: 'The most damaging blow to any country's international reputation is a justified charge of hypocrisy. 'The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law in all circumstances. We lose credibility when we seek exceptions to this principle for ourselves.' He added: 'Opponents dislike the expense of the deal. 'Well, we're paying the going rate as a tenant for a base in the wider Indian Ocean, somewhat more than the French in Djibouti, but we're getting more for more. 'Diego Garcia is the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean. 'Even though £101 million per year is a lot, it's a lot less than the Americans pay to run the base. 'It's a joint base, and we're paying our way in the joint effort.' Lord McDonald also disputed the agreement would bolster China's presence in the Indian Ocean, arguing that 'our partner in Delhi looms much larger in Mauritian calculations than our challenger in Beijing'. He went on: 'Confronted by a charge of double standards, some opponents of this agreement shrug their shoulders. They think they can get away with it, tough it out. But that is what the powerful and unprincipled do. That is what Russia does.' The peer added: 'It gives the UK and our American allies a secure presence in the archipelago for the next 140 years. 'It enhances our security and restores our reputation as a country respecting international law, even when inconvenient and costly.' But Tory shadow foreign minister Lord Callanan said: 'This agreement amounts to a retreat, a surrender of sovereign territory that serves as a linchpin of our defence architecture at a time when authoritarian threats are rising and alliances matter more than ever. 'Handing control to a government who align themselves ever more closely with Beijing – a regime that actively undermines international norms and our national interests – is not only unwise, it is positively dangerous. 'To compound the error, the British taxpayer is being made to foot the bill.' He added: 'This whole affair has been a gross folly. There is no strategic gain here, no credible guarantee for the future of Diego Garcia and no reassurance for our allies. 'Instead, we send a message to adversaries and allies alike that British sovereignty is indeed negotiable. It is capitulation and we must reject it.' Pointing out the Tories in office had opened negotiations to cede sovereignty, Liberal Democrat Lord Purvis of Tweed said: 'The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative government's policy.'

Chagos Islands deal must be ratified to secure Diego Garcia, peers say
Chagos Islands deal must be ratified to secure Diego Garcia, peers say

The Independent

time25-06-2025

  • Politics
  • The Independent

Chagos Islands deal must be ratified to secure Diego Garcia, peers say

The Chagos Islands deal is 'not perfect' but must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of a vital military airbase, peers have said. Mauritius is 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement is rubber-stamped, the House of Lords International Agreements Community (HLIAC) warned. In a report published on Wednesday, the peers concluded that the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting the UK's right to run a joint UK-US base in jeopardy. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations returns sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the military site on Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice which said the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. Critics argue it comes at too high a cost to the taxpayer, which is expected to run to billions of pounds, and that the retention of the base will interfere withh Chagossians right to resettle. Islanders were expelled from the archipelago between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the military site and have not been allowed to return. Chairman of HLIAC Lord Goldsmith said that 'like all treaties, the agreement reflects a compromise' and highlighted that there was no guarantee it would be extended after the initial 99-year term agreed between the two countries. 'However, the UK cannot ignore the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which found that the Chagos Archipelago had been unlawfully detached from Mauritius at the time of its independence in the 1960s,' he said. 'If the agreement is not ratified there would be a greater risk from the adverse ruling of an international court to the future of the military base.' As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. The deal also includes provisions preventing development on the rest of the archipelago without the UK's consent, which the Government has argued will prevent countries such as China setting up their own facilities. The agreement has also been backed by the United States.

Starmer's Chagos deal faces new legal challenge
Starmer's Chagos deal faces new legal challenge

Telegraph

time25-06-2025

  • Politics
  • Telegraph

Starmer's Chagos deal faces new legal challenge

Sir Keir Starmer's deal to give away the Chagos Islands is facing a fresh legal challenge. Campaigners have launched a High Court judicial review, which aims to stop the Government from signing away the archipelago to Mauritius without consulting the Chagossian people. The case is expected to be heard next month and is being backed by the Great British PAC, which was also behind an injunction from the High Court last month. The Conservatives backed the judicial review on Wednesday night and said the Chagos deal was a 'damning indictment of Keir Starmer'. The deal, which will cost British taxpayers up to £30 billion, means the Government will have to give notice if it plans to launch an attack from the joint Diego Garcia UK-US military base. The Great British PAC said the High Court case would be led by James Tumbridge, a barrister, and Philip Rule KC. The case is expected to directly challenge David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, for 'excluding Chagossians from a process that directly impacts their land, identity and future'. Misley Mandarin, who is bringing the legal challenge alongside his father Michel Mandarin, is an Army veteran who came to Britain 23 years ago as a British citizen. Michel Mandarin told The Telegraph: 'We are not Mauritian, we are Chagossian. The Government cannot lawfully decide our fate without us.' The claimants will argue that any agreement struck behind closed doors, without input from the Chagossians, is not only unjust but unlawful. The case is set to cite failures under the Equality Act and a duty to consult under common law as well as international legislation, including protections under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said: 'British Chagossians have been neglected and betrayed by the Labour Government as part of their £30bn Chagos surrender treaty. 'In their desperation to follow the whims of their Left-wing lawyer and activist friends, Keir Starmer and David Lammy have ignored the British national interest, betrayed British Chagossians and left British taxpayers picking up a £30bn bill. 'It's also a damning indictment of Keir Starmer – a man who boasts of his time as a human rights lawyer – that serious questions have been raised about how he treated British Chagossians.' Sir Keir has repeatedly insisted the Chagos deal represents value for money and has warned British national security would have been at risk had he not signed it. He announced the agreement to give away the Chagos Islands to Mauritius on May 22 despite concerns about how the deal could harm the UK's national security. The Telegraph disclosed last week that once the deal comes into force, Britain will be required to inform Mauritius about any future air strikes on Iran because of Sir Keir's deal. When the agreement was first announced in October, it was heralded by Mr Lammy as proof that Britain upholds its commitments under international law. Sir Keir and Mr Lammy have both claimed that, if Britain had not agreed to give the islands away, it would have been weeks before Mauritius began a successful legal challenge. They said this would have endangered Diego Garcia and put British and American control of the base at risk. Ownership of the Chagos Islands, known officially as the British Indian Ocean Territory, has long been disputed in the international courts. Multiple findings, including one by the United Nations, have claimed ongoing British ownership of the territory was unlawful. The US government, under previous administrations, has actively sought to resolve the issue to protect its assets in the Indian Ocean. In an article for The Telegraph last month, John Healey, the Defence Secretary, said Diego Garcia acted as a necessary 'launchpad to defeat terrorists'. Claire Bullivant, the chief executive of the Great British PAC, said: 'This is not just a legal challenge – it's a moral reckoning. 'The UK Government cannot in good conscience or lawful practice sign away the homeland of the Chagossian people without first speaking to them. To exclude them yet again is to rewrite history with the same pen of injustice. 'The Great British PAC stands firmly behind this challenge because true democracy demands consultation, not quiet deals behind closed doors.'

Lammy urges Reform's newest MP to ‘get some help' over ‘conspiracy theories'
Lammy urges Reform's newest MP to ‘get some help' over ‘conspiracy theories'

The Independent

time23-06-2025

  • Politics
  • The Independent

Lammy urges Reform's newest MP to ‘get some help' over ‘conspiracy theories'

David Lammy has urged a Reform UK MP to 'get some help' because she is 'swallowing conspiracy theories'. Sarah Pochin had asked the Foreign Secretary whether the US felt unable to use the UK-US airbase on Diego Garcia, following the Government's deal with Mauritius over the Chagos Islands. Responding during a statement on the Middle East, Mr Lammy said the MP for Runcorn and Helsby should 'get off social media'. The UK-operated base in the Chagos Islands was not used in the US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty has said. He added that the US did not ask to use it, as he answered questions from the Foreign Affairs Committee on Monday. Speaking in the Commons, Ms Pochin said: 'Is he (Mr Lammy) able to explain to the House whether the United States felt unable to use the Diego Garcia base and have to refuel, in a highly dangerous operation three times because of that, because of your deal that you did with the with the Mauritians, that would then tell the Chinese, that would then tell the Iranians?' Mr Lammy replied: 'The honourable lady has got (to) get off social media, has got to get some help… because she is swallowing conspiracy theories that should not be repeated in this House.' The deal over the Chagos Islands follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice which says the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. During the statement on Monday, Mr Lammy was pressed by MPs on the UK's position following the US military action. Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) said: 'Does His Majesty's Government support or oppose US military action against Iran at the weekend?' Mr Lammy replied: 'His Majesty's Government will continue to work with our closest ally, as I was last week in Washington DC.' Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) said: 'What is UK Government policy on whether regime change should be pursued in Iran?' Mr Lammy replied: 'It is not our belief that it's for us to change the regime of any country, that it must be for the people themselves.' SNP MP Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) said: 'We've been here for an hour, and still the Foreign Secretary appears incapable of saying whether he supports or condemns America's actions, or whether he regards them as being legal or not. 'And nowhere in this statement does the role of international law even merit a mention. So will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity now to tell us whether he believes that America's unilateral action was compliant with international law?' Mr Lammy replied: 'I've got to tell (Mr O'Hara), I qualified and was called to the bar in 1995, I haven't practised for the last 25 years. 'It is not for me to comment on the United States' legal validity. I would refer him to article 51 and article two of the UN Charter, and he can seek his own advice.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store