Latest news with #DiegoGarcia
Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Times
Strategic defence review: Britain must be ready for war, says PM
Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, has dismissed the Starmer government's strategic defence review, saying it wasn't properly funded. In a post on X, she said: 'Labour can't even hold a defence policy together for 48 hours — how can they be trusted to defend Britain?' She added that the UK was in the 'most dangerous era in a generation' and she took aim at the recently signed Chagos deal, where the UK handed over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, retaining control of a UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. The Conservative leader said Labour found ' billions for the Chagos surrender — but can't commit to properly funding our armed forces … Scrap Chagos. Fund defence.' By Larisa Brown The defence review is at risk of being unaffordable after Sir Keir Starmer clarified spending 3 per cent of national income on defence in the next parliament was still an 'ambition'. John Healey, the defence secretary, told The Times on Thursday there was 'no doubt' Labour would reach the pledge by 2034. 'In the next parliament this country will spend 3 per cent of our GDP on defence,' he said. However he backtracked on the remarks on Sunday, with Whitehall sources saying the policy had not changed. The external reviewers conducted the review on the basis that the 3 per cent target is a certainty. Projects that have been given the go-ahead are only affordable with the spending boost, it is understood. • A £15 billion investment in nuclear warheads• Plans to create a hybrid Royal Navy, blending drones with warship, submarines and aircraft12 attack submarines, developed under the Aukus partnership with the US and Australia• Better housing and equipment for members of the armed forces Sir Keir Starmer had earlier thanked the authors of the strategic defence review, and said: 'What you've delivered is a blueprint to make Britain safer and stronger. A battle-ready, armour-clad nation with the strongest alliances, and the most advanced capabilities, equipped for the decades to come.' Sir Keir Starmer said increased defence spending would not come at the cost of health, education or welfare spending. He said the war in Ukraine had shown the impact of a European conflict on the UK's economy. 'There is no argument, avoiding talking about conflict will hurt the economy,' he told reporters at a shipyard in Glasgow, and added: 'The first duty of the prime minister is to keep your country safe.' He said the strategic defence review would also deliver a jobs boost for both Scotland (25,000 jobs) and the UK (400,000 jobs). Sir Keir Starmer said he was '100 per cent confident' the UK's defence spending would hit 3 per cent of GDP in the next parliament. While Nato has called for member states to increase defence spending to 3.5 per cent by 2032, the prime minister said it was a significant step to increase the UK's funding to 2.5 per cent by 2027-28, then 3 per cent in the next parliamentary term. 'I'm 100 per cent confident this can be delivered,' he said. 'We are committed to spending what we need to deliver this review. I am not putting arbitrary dates on that.' Sir Keir Starmer said the UK must 'learn the lessons from Ukraine' to build an army ten times more lethal by 2035. The prime minister said the rise of drone warfare and innovation — which Ukraine had mastered in its three-year war with Russia — must become part of an overhaul of the UK's defence force. 'We need innovation at wartime pace,' he said. He said the government would build six new munition factories in the UK, creating thousands of jobs and new submarines as part of the Aukus defence pact. Sir Keir Starmer said the defence strategic review will 'mobilise the nation in a common cause' as the UK moves to 'warfighting readiness'. At a shipyard in Scotland, the prime minister said the global environment had changed and was the most precarious in 70 years. He said: 'Recognising in defence of the realm … nothing works unless we all work together. Every citizen has a role to play because we have to recognise the threat has changed. The threat is more dangerous than any time since World War Two.' Starmer said the UK now had to end the 'hollowing-out' of the defence force. 'We will build a fighting force that is integrated and more lethal than ever,' he said. Mike Martin, a Lib Dem MP who is on the defence select committee, said: 'The SDR is all jam tomorrow. Three per cent by 2034 is totally inadequate. The PM talks of a grave current threat to our security — in which case he should convene crossparty talks on how to get to 3 per cent ASAP — something the Lib Dems have been calling for for ages. 'The SDR is a nice vision piece. But without any money it will remain just that, and the UK will be less safe as a result' Sir Keir Starmer, who is on a visit to Scotland, will deliver a short speech on the defence strategic review this morning, before a press conference. At about 3.30pm, John Healey, will make a statement to MPs in the House of Commons about the strategic defence review. Ben Wallace, the former defence secretary, told The Times: 'Most defence reviews start out funded and as time passes cost pressures hollow them out towards the end. Without 3 per cent by (20)30 this review is hollow before it has begun.' It is understood that the previous government was warned by the Treasury that if the Ministry of Defence was going to finance 12 submarines as part of Aukus, plus the Trident nuclear deterrence and the GCAP, Tempest fighter jet programme then it would need to 'spend more than 3 per cent and there would be nothing left over'. Britain faces a 'new era of threat' including the 'immediate and pressing' danger of Russia, the long-awaited strategic defence review will warn on Monday. The report, which will be published after nearly a year, consists of 48,000 words and is about 130 pages long. The government is expected to accept all 62 recommendations in full. John Healey, the defence secretary, said Britain must be prepared for a military attack by Russia. The review will also focus on other countries, including China, which is not described as an enemy but as a 'sophisticated and persistent challenge'. • Read in full: The measures we already know will feature The prime minister said he 'very much' hoped he would not need to send British troops into Europe in the future to deter Russian aggression. Asked by BBC Radio 4's Today programme if UK armed forces could be deployed in the defence of a Nato ally, Sir Keir Starmer said: 'In order to make sure that that isn't the case, we need to prepare.' The UK 'cannot ignore the threat that Russia poses,' he added. 'Russia has shown in recent weeks that it's not serious about peace, and we have to be ready.' Sir Keir Starmer said he was buoyed by the footage of Ukraine's mass drone attack in Russia overnight which is reported to have destroyed 40 Russian planes. '[It shows] Ukraine is not defeated,' he told the BBC. 'It shows they are still there and fighting . That is a tribute to Ukraine.' The prime minister said the three-year war between Ukraine and Russia had turned the Ukrainian army into one of Europe's toughest fighting forces. Sir Keir Starmer rejected suggestions his Labour government could not commit the extra £13 billion to reach the 3 per cent defence funding figure because it was being forced to back down on other measures such as the winter fuel allowance. The government is preparing to reverse its tough cuts to fuel subsidies for pensioners, but the prime minister said it would not come at the cost of defence and security. He said he had fixed the 2.5 per cent defence funding figure to 2027, but the 3 per cent figure would not be tied to a particular date. 'I am not going to indulge in the fantasy of plucking dates from the air,' he told the BBC. 'I take the defence and security of our country very seriously. It's the most important task I have.' The prime minister said he was hopeful of reaching the 3 per cent defence funding figure, but made no promises. Sir Keir Starmer said that all Nato countries needed to 'step up' to boost defence spending in the current geopolitical environment. He said that defence spending would reach 2.5 per cent by 2027-28, but denied it was 'wishful thinking' to hit 3 per cent by next parliament. 'Yes, that 3 per cent [is the target]. But I am not going to make a commitment to the exact date until we can make good on that commitment,' he told the BBC. Sir Keir Starmer said the defence strategic review was needed because the 'world has changed', especially since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. 'We have to recognise the world has changed and if the world has changed we have to be ready,' he told the BBC. If you want to deter conflict, then you have to prepare for conflict.' The prime minister played down the prospect of a future nuclear warfare, but said nuclear deterrence had been an effective tool since the end of the Second World War. 'We need to ask how Nato can preserve the peace for decades to come,' he said. Luke Pollard, the armed forces minister, has refused to guarantee that defence spending would reach 3 per cent of GDP, saying it would only happen when 'economic conditions allow'. Before the release of the strategic defence review today, Pollard said he hoped to top the 3 per cent figure by the next parliament. 'Well, we've set out that we are spending 2.5 per cent by April 2027 with the ambition to spend 3 per cent in the next parliament when economic conditions allow,' he told Times Radio. 'I agree with the defence secretary that thanks to the chancellor getting our economy back on track by having the highest growth in the G7 that I have no doubt, just as a defence secretary doesn't, that with the growing threats that we're facing that we will be spending 3 per cent in the next parliament.' Please enable cookies and other technologies to view this content. You can update your cookies preferences any time using privacy manager. Britain will build up to a dozen nuclear-powered attack submarines, Sir Keir Starmer is expected to announce as the government unveils its strategic defence review on Monday. The long-awaited review will set out the UK's defence plan for the next ten years. The boats will replace the UK's seven Astute class submarines, which are armed with conventional weapons, and will be in operation from the late 2030s, joining the four Trident submarines that carry the nation's at-sea nuclear deterrent.
South China Morning Post
27-05-2025
- Business
- South China Morning Post
UK's Chagos deal puts spotlight on strategic contest in the Indian Ocean
Decades of dispute over the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean, rooted in colonial history and international legal challenges, have been addressed after the United Kingdom agreed to transfer sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius. Under the May 22 deal , the UK retains a 99-year lease on the UK-US military base on Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands. Under British colonial rule, the island chain was separated from Mauritius in 1965, three years before Mauritius was granted independence. Around 2,000 Chagos residents were forcibly removed to make way for the building of the military base on Diego Garcia. In 2019, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued its 'advisory opinion' that the continued UK administration of the Chagos Archipelago was unlawful and should end 'as rapidly as possible'. The UN General Assembly subsequently passed a resolution affirming Mauritius' sovereignty over the archipelago. The UK government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer defended the deal as necessary to comply with international law and maintain strategic security interests. The deal includes a 24-mile buffer zone around Diego Garcia where nothing can be built without UK consent. It also prohibits foreign military and civilian forces from the Chagos Archipelago, with the UK retaining the power to veto any access. Mauritius hailed the agreement as a significant victory in its long-standing campaign to regain the Chagos Archipelago. Under the terms, the UK will pay Mauritius £101 million (US$137 million) annually to lease the Diego Garcia base for at least 99 years and establish a £40 million trust fund for the benefit of the Chagos community.
Telegraph
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Outdated Foreign Office dogma makes Britain weak. Chagos proves it
Future historians should not waste time arguing about when exactly it became inevitable that Britain would surrender its sovereignty over one of the world's most formidable military bases. I can tell them now: 12.55pm Eastern Daylight Time on May 22 2019. At that moment, the United Nations General Assembly in New York passed a Resolution demanding Britain's withdrawal from the Chagos Islands, including the base on Diego Garcia. This decision, endorsing an earlier opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), made Britain's departure a racing certainty. Why? Not because either measure carried the full force of international law. The whole point about General Assembly Resolutions and ICJ opinions is that they are not binding. No, the real reason why we were sure to yield eventually is that the sacred dogma of British diplomats allowed for no other outcome. I spent nearly eight years in the Foreign Office and Downing Street, including five in the Foreign Secretary's Private Office, witnessing British diplomacy in action. I can tell you that your representatives really do believe in what they call the 'rules-based international system', meaning the assembly of laws and institutions created after 1945 to restrain the behaviour of states. If the UN and an international court say that Britain should relinquish this or that territory, then our diplomats will advise that we must obey. Can the Foreign Secretary overrule them? Of course, but Foreign Secretaries come and go. Eventually there will be one who gives way and David Lammy is clearly that man. His officials will have told him that we cannot preserve the international order unless we are prepared to live by its strictures. They will have cautioned that defiance would invite the charge of double standards from the countries of the 'Global South'. They will have warned that if we are going to rally these nations against Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a breach of international law, then we have to obey the law ourselves. So don't fall for Sir Keir Starmer's claim that the deal handing the Chagos Islands to Mauritius is really about guaranteeing the future of the military facility or protecting national security. That argument has been retro-fitted to a decision based above all on a sincere devotion to the international system. What should we make of this venerated dogma of British diplomacy? In my former life, I would ask our officials: is upholding the system and obeying the rules an end in itself? What about the national interest? They would reply that there was no contradiction. We have an interest in preserving this world order because, alongside America, we built it. The system gives the UK outsized influence, through permanent membership of the Security Council. And now that we are no longer a superpower, the rules protect our safety too. But look where this rigid thinking has led us. We have just agreed to relinquish sovereignty over a military asset described by the Prime Minister as 'unique and vital' and 'right at the foundation of our security'. And we have done it without being under any legal obligation. Has any other country in history been doctrinaire and purist enough to give up sovereign territory on this basis? Which other nation would change the status of a crucial military facility for this reason? Do not underestimate how extraordinary Britain's behaviour is. Many states refuse to negotiate over what they consider sovereign territory. Some, like Ukraine, have constitutions that forbid governments from sacrificing even a square inch, no matter what the UN might say. Will Britain's purism make us uniquely virtuous or uniquely vulnerable? Anyone who has endured the self-serving cant of the nations of the 'Global South' will know the answer. They cannot fail to see how the Chagos agreement has lowered the bar for challenging the UK. A country with a grievance does not need to get a binding judgement against us; an advisory opinion plus a General Assembly Resolution will do. That is not as hard as you might think: Africa and the Caribbean together are close to a majority of the UN. If Mauritius could extract 58 islands and one military base without even winning a definitive ruling, then the message is that British diplomats will not resist a former colony on a mission, however extravagant the demand. And what about Russia and China? What does it say about Britain's resolve if two non-binding international decisions are enough to make us terminate our sovereignty over a 'unique and vital' base? The great irony is that our diplomats think they are being modern and forward-looking, yet all around them the world has changed. It made sense to uphold the 'rules-based international system' when America was with us. But today our biggest ally no longer even pretends to believe in this cause. There might once have been a case for winning international support through scrupulous obedience to global courts and conventions. Yet Russia is now tearing Europe's largest country to pieces. Faced with Putin's aggression, purity and virtue get you nowhere. All that counts is power and will. Never mind preserving the entire international order, if we get through the next 20 years without Russia waging general war on Europe, or China coming to blows with America, that will represent success. Preserving peace will require the West to subordinate everything else to deterring Russia and China. How does it help when Britain sacrifices sovereignty over a base that commands the Indian Ocean while making itself more vulnerable to endless new challenges from the 'Global South'? The truth is that the Chagos agreement is the last gasp of the old world, when the West was dominant after the Cold War, and we could afford to sign up to every international court and convention. Remarkably, our diplomats still cling to the mindset of that era. Unless they change, the danger is that our adversaries will be bolder and fiercer and we might end up in a war that we could have avoided if we had been stronger earlier. If so, there will be absolutely nothing left of the international order. By striving to preserve perfection, our outdated diplomats increase the risk that we will lose it all.
Telegraph
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Chagos islanders flee to Britain over Starmer's giveaway
Chagossian migrants are moving to Britain en masse over Sir Keir Starmer's deal to hand their homeland over to Mauritius. Major airports have seen a 'significant' influx of incoming families over recent months, many of whom appear to have rushed through their decision to move to the UK. One council has warned that dealing with the surge will require financial support from the Government. Chagossians were granted British citizenship by Sir Tony Blair in 2002, meaning that they have the right to move to live and work in the UK. Sir Keir was this week accused of betraying the islanders as he signed away the Indian Ocean archipelago after 200 years of British rule. Under the deal, No 10 has handed control of the islands to Mauritius, which has never previously owned them and is 1,500 miles distant. Britain will then lease back the biggest island, Diego Garcia, which is home to a joint UK-US military base, for 99 years at a cost of £30 billion. The pact has attracted criticism over both security concerns and the lack of consultation with Chagossians who hope to ultimately move home. Hillingdon Council, which covers Heathrow, said it had seen a surge in Chagossians arriving since talks on the deal started in October. It said that some 187 people from the islands arrived in the last quarter of last year, whilst a further 156 have come in since the beginning of this year. Many are arriving without any plans for employment or housing, suggesting that they have chosen to leave in a hurry over concerns about their future. The revelations will prove embarrassing for Downing Street and will further add to negative publicity around the deal, which critics say was unnecessary. Cllr Ian Edwards, the leader of Tory-run Hillingdon, said the influx was so great that it needed more support from the Government to cover its costs. He said that anecdotal evidence from those arriving was that they had left Mauritius because of 'the decision around the transfer' of the Chagos Islands. 'Increasingly we are hearing, and it's being evidenced, that they don't wish to become Mauritian citizens so the alternative is come to the UK,' he said. Chagossians were awarded British citizenship in recognition of the fact that they were forced to leave their homeland in the 1960s to make way for the Diego Garcia military base. Many of those evicted moved to Mauritius, with others going to the Seychelles. Hillingdon Council said it was 'seeing a significant number of families arrive from the Chagos Islands via Heathrow without onward travel plans and seeking housing support'. Because they are British citizens the council has a duty to provide them with support, but central funding only covers 10 days of housing costs. Many families are having to be put up in private rented accommodation for six months or more until they have settled, with the council picking up the tab – projected to be £1.2 million a year with further arrivals expected. It is understood that significant numbers of Chagossians have also been arriving at Manchester and Gatwick airports in recent months. Whilst some Chagossians have opposed the handing over of the archipelago others based in Mauritius have supported the agreement. The Mauritius based Chagos Refugees Group said in response to the deal that 'the majority of island-born Chagossians and their descendants' backed it. Olivier Bancoult, its president, said: 'This agreement marks the end of colonial occupation, but it must not herald the start of a new silence. 'Alongside Mauritian sovereignty, there must now be clear guarantees for Chagossian rights – for memory, for justice, and above all, for the future.' Mauritius passed a law in 2021 which criminalised 'misrepresenting the sovereignty of Mauritius over any part of its territory' including Chagos.
Free Malaysia Today
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
UK court gives govt green light to reach Chagos Islands deal
Thousands of Chagos islanders, like Bertrice Pompe and Bernadette Dugasse, were forcibly removed from 1967 to 1973. (AFP pic) LONDON : A British court on Thursday paved the way for a government deal on returning the remote Chagos Islands to Mauritius, lifting a temporary ban which had forced an 11th-hour halt to an accord being signed. The agreement would see Britain hand back the Indian Ocean archipelago to its former colony and pay to lease a key US-UK military base on Diego Garcia, the largest island. Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer had been due to conclude the agreement in a virtual signing ceremony with Mauritian representatives earlier on Thursday. But, in a last-minute pre-dawn court hearing, two Chagossian women, Bertrice Pompe and Bernadette Dugasse, won a temporary injunction from London's High Court on the deal's progress. It was an embarrassing turn of events for Starmer, whose government has faced huge criticism over the plan. After a morning hearing, judge Martin Chamberlain lifted the injunction, saying there was a 'very strong case' that the UK national interest and public interest would be 'prejudiced' by extending the ban. He said any further challenges would have to be heard by the court of appeal. The government was expected to announce the deal later on Thursday. A spokesman said: 'We welcome the judge's ruling today.' But, speaking outside court, Pompe said it was a 'very, very sad day'. 'We don't want to hand our rights over to Mauritius. We are not Mauritians,' she said. Britain kept control of the Chagos Islands after Mauritius gained independence in the 1960s. But, it evicted thousands of Chagos islanders, who have since mounted a series of legal claims for compensation in British courts. Pompe, a Chagos Islands-born British national, said in court documents she had been living in exile since being 'forcibly removed from the Chagos Islands by the British authorities between 1967 and 1973'. Others had been forced into destitution in Mauritius, where they had suffered decades of discrimination, she said. The deal would 'jeopardise' the limited the rights she currently enjoyed to visit the islands, including to tend the graves of relatives, she added. Britain's opposition Conservatives have condemned the accord as 'British sovereign territory being given away' in a 'bad deal' for the UK. Pompe and Dugasse applied to the court to impose the injunction after a leaked newspaper report late on Wednesday indicated the government planned to unveil the agreement. As around 50 protesters gathered outside the court, the two women's lawyer, Philip Rule, alleged the government was acting 'unlawfully' and argued there was 'significant risk' that Thursday could be last opportunity the court had to hear the case. But, Starmer has said that international legal rulings have put Britain's ownership of the Chagos in doubt and only a deal with Mauritius can guarantee that the military base remains functional. The base on Diego Garcia is leased to the US. It has become one of its key military facilities in the Asia-Pacific region, including being used as a hub for long-range bombers and ships during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 'The deal is the right thing to protect the British people and our national security,' a government spokesperson told AFP ahead of the ruling. The opposition Conservatives, however, described the deal as a 'sellout for British interests'. 'You're seeing British sovereign territory being given away to an ally of China and billions of pounds of British taxpayers' money being spent for the privilege,' said senior Tory politician Robert Jenrick. 'This was always a bad deal,' he added. In 2019, the International Court of Justice recommended that Britain hand the archipelago to Mauritius after decades of legal battles. The proposed deal would give Britain a 99-year lease of the base, with the option to extend. The UK government has not said how much the lease will cost but has not denied reports that it would be £90 million (US$111 million) a year. Mauritian Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam has said his country will pursue its fight for full sovereignty over the islands if Washington refuses to support the return.
