That makes it a serious strategic prize for any global power. And without control over the outlying islands, we have less control over what happens next door.
Swapping our existing ownership for a 99-year lease because of a decision that was, at best, open for debate, weakens our commitment to defending our interests. Who would claim they were more secure swapping a home they own for a house they rent?
And where Britain is on the wane, others are on the rise.
The outlying islands would be a welcome prize for others looking for a base in the region.
China’s island interests in the Indian Ocean have been clear for many years. The Belt and Road Initiative links many together in new trade routes and has seen Beijing putting money into infrastructure from ports in Sri Lanka to rail in Kenya. In Mauritius they invested more than $1 billion last year.
In the past few years, China’s efforts to achieve naval supremacy have grown. That’s what makes it so unwise.
This isn’t just about a remote island chain. It is a demonstration of Britain’s waning resolve on the world stage and a clear indication of the deeper malaise within the British state – a bureaucracy more focused on managing legal risk and recycling old, failed ideas than in driving coherent and impactful policy.
We need to have leaders who can set the direction and stop the rot. That is what Boris Johnson did, and what Lord Cameron did when he arrived at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
They both rightly saw the strategic folly and put an immediate stop to these talks. They understood that the islands hold enormous strategic importance. Under their leadership, the decision was clear: not only should we hold the line, but we should set the agenda.
Labour have let all that go.
This pattern is clear: political weakness allows legalism, not interests to push forward initiatives that should remain buried.
As Sir Humphrey, from the television series Yes Minister, has shown, some ministers have always rubber-stamped what’s put in front of them, but the best know when to say “no”. They are the representatives of the British people in office to deliver for our country.
When ministers fail to lead, the bureaucracy seizes control, advancing policies with no vision or accountability. The result is a leadership vacuum and drift that undermines our global credibility and weakens the national interests.
Failure there, as we’ve seen with the Chagos Islands, cannot be corrected with good rhetoric or comforting words. The consequences are real and lasting, and the damage is tangible – not only to us but to our friends around the world. If our leaders aren’t willing to defend what matters most, then it’s no wonder the public loses faith.
Sir Keir Starmer has forgotten what government is for and some in the Civil Service think they work for NGOs, not the taxpayer. As political leaders we are not here to follow the rules set by others, or to wait for international lawyers to grant us permission to act, we are here to deliver for the British people.
It seems some of our leaders have forgotten that.
The Prime Minister has set a dangerous precedent that undermines our centuries-old rights to territories overseas
The answer should have been a clear “no”.
No, the UK does not accept the advisory judgment of the court.
No, the UK does not recognise Mauritian sovereignty over islands it sold in 1965 and that are more than 1,300 miles away from their country.
No, the UK will not undermine its security by questioning our rights to the Chagos Islands and the jointly operated UK-US airbase.
That’s what the US and France would have said. Even Spain has consistently said no to discussions over its North African enclaves. That’s what British prime ministers and foreign secretaries have said for generations and should have been said in November 2022, and again last week.
The choice to say “yes”, to accept that the court had jurisdiction over this dispute between states, has set a dangerous precedent that undermines our centuries-old rights to territories overseas.
That’s a failure of leadership that will cost us all. We know what will come next.
In the 1980s, Britain’s failure to be clear led to the Falklands Conflict. In 1982, the same year, Mauritius began to claim the Chagos Islands.
Claims from around the world are already being exercised and Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, failed to be clear that the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar are not up for negotiation. He’s putting disputed concepts of international law over the security and prosperity of the British people.
That’s what this deal really shows. Without leadership, the culture of regulation, not interests has seen civil servants lead ministers into undermining Britain. No other global power would even enter into these talks, but too many in Britain’s bureaucracy no longer believe in our national interests.
That doesn’t just make Britain weaker, it puts the world at greater risk. It won’t be another democratic country replacing us – but one ready to challenge and undermine the system we have built over generations.
The islands’ Diego Garcia air base is not just strategically important – it sits in the middle of the Indian Ocean and operates as a fixed aircraft carrier giving us strategic reach over Afghanistan and eastern Iran and dominates the sea lanes and sits at the heart of a maritime conservation zone.
That makes it a serious strategic prize for any global power. And without control over the outlying islands, we have less control over what happens next door.
Swapping our existing ownership for a 99-year lease because of a decision that was, at best, open for debate, weakens our commitment to defending our interests. Who would claim they were more secure swapping a home they own for a house they rent?
And where Britain is on the wane, others are on the rise.
The outlying islands would be a welcome prize for others looking for a base in the region.
China’s island interests in the Indian Ocean have been clear for many years. The Belt and Road Initiative links many together in new trade routes and has seen Beijing putting money into infrastructure from ports in Sri Lanka to rail in Kenya. In Mauritius they invested more than $1 billion last year.
In the past few years, China’s efforts to achieve naval supremacy have grown. That’s what makes it so unwise.
This isn’t just about a remote island chain. It is a demonstration of Britain’s waning resolve on the world stage and a clear indication of the deeper malaise within the British state – a bureaucracy more focused on managing legal risk and recycling old, failed ideas than in driving coherent and impactful policy.
We need to have leaders who can set the direction and stop the rot. That is what Boris Johnson did, and what Lord Cameron did when he arrived at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
They both rightly saw the strategic folly and put an immediate stop to these talks. They understood that the islands hold enormous strategic importance. Under their leadership, the decision was clear: not only should we hold the line, but we should set the agenda.
Labour have let all that go.
This pattern is clear: political weakness allows legalism, not interests to push forward initiatives that should remain buried.
As Sir Humphrey, from the television series Yes Minister, has shown, some ministers have always rubber-stamped what’s put in front of them, but the best know when to say “no”. They are the representatives of the British people in office to deliver for our country.
When ministers fail to lead, the bureaucracy seizes control, advancing policies with no vision or accountability. The result is a leadership vacuum and drift that undermines our global credibility and weakens the national interests.
Failure there, as we’ve seen with the Chagos Islands, cannot be corrected with good rhetoric or comforting words. The consequences are real and lasting, and the damage is tangible – not only to us but to our friends around the world. If our leaders aren’t willing to defend what matters most, then it’s no wonder the public loses faith.
Sir Keir Starmer has forgotten what government is for and some in the Civil Service think they work for NGOs, not the taxpayer. As political leaders we are not here to follow the rules set by others, or to wait for international lawyers to grant us permission to act, we are here to deliver for the British people.
It seems some of our leaders have forgotten that.