The ongoing discussions regarding the UK’s potential transfer of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius have drawn international attention, particularly due to the strategic importance of Diego Garcia, a critical military installation in the Indian Ocean.
During a recent press briefing hosted by the Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), I asked the experts about the possible ramifications of such a deal on US-UK relations and global strategic alignments.
Kurt Volker, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and a senior figure in the previous Trump administration, addressed the issue directly, stating, “I think you’re going to see the Trump administration try to reverse this. They’re going to oppose handing [the Chagos Islands] back.”
However, Volker stressed that despite potential differences over sovereignty, the broader strategic relationship between the US and UK would likely remain intact. “It’s not going to impact strategic cooperation between the US and the UK. I think that cooperation is going to be very closely aligned,” he added.
Volker’s remarks suggest that while the Chagos sovereignty issue could be a point of contention, it is unlikely to undermine the strong defence and security collaboration that defines the US-UK alliance.
The discussion also highlighted the Trump administration’s likely focus on redistributing global responsibilities among its allies. Volker explained, “The Trump administration’s general orientation is that they want Europe to do more to take care of Europe so we can focus elsewhere… including the UK helping with that.”
This reflects a broader “division of labour” approach, where the US expects European allies to take greater responsibility for regional security, particularly as the US pivots its strategic focus towards the Indo-Pacific and countering China.
Volker further noted that the Trump administration would likely push Europe to take a firmer stance on Iran, holding the country accountable for destabilising activities in the Middle East. “Most of the problems we are seeing in the Middle East are caused by Iran funding and supporting its proxies,” he stated, adding that the administration would expect Europe to play a more active role in addressing these challenges.
Gordon “Skip” Davis Jr., former NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary-General for Defence Investment, expanded on the expectations for NATO allies, particularly the need for visible progress in defence spending and capability development.
Davis noted, “We have headquarters, but not necessarily the forces. There’s an opportunity to require some real, hard defence structure targets that can be filled… to show real progress in NATO Allies organising and assuming greater responsibility for the defence and security of Europe.”
Davis emphasised the importance of NATO allies, including the UK, fulfilling commitments made in the NATO defence planning process. He pointed to the need for increased forward presence in key regions and the development of concrete plans to bolster NATO’s collective defence posture.
As Volker remarked, “They want support from Europe on things like pushing back on China, but this is where the administration is prepared to lead, whereas in Europe, they want Europe to lead more.”
As Volker noted, any disagreements over the sovereignty transfer are unlikely to disrupt the broader partnership, which is rooted in shared security objectives and global responsibilities.
Luke Pollard, Armed Forces Minister, outlined the UK position in Parliament, stating:
“The Defence Secretary is regularly in touch with the US on a range of matters including the British Indian Ocean Territory/Chagos Archipelago. We look forward to discussing these matters with the incoming Administration in the usual way.”
About CEPA
The Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institution headquartered in Washington, DC, with additional hubs in London and Brussels. CEPA focuses on strengthening the transatlantic alliance through research, analysis, and programmes that address democracy, security, and defence.
This chagos island deal is pathetic 🙈 giving up sovereignty over such a important base it’s not in our national interest to give it up
I hope trump cancels this deal
I suspect there is now a lot of geopolitical manoeuvres going on and I think Mauritius may have fallen into just where the UK really needed it to go.
Let’s be very clear Diego Garcia is profoundly important for the USAs geostrategic position in the indopacific, it actually does fuck all for the UK geostrategic goals in the indo Pacific infact has actually been significantly harming the UKs geopolitical position across the third and second world and especially those in the indo Pacific region ( we cannot maintain significant power in the region so our geostrategic goals need to be around good relations and access).
The problem the UK has is that the US has been profoundly two faced and completely incongruent…it alway sends out an anti colonial message especially in regards to European “colonialism and colonies” and does not support the Uk in the international stage in regard to its sovereign territories ( infact its been happy undermining the UK in regards to all its territories on the international stage)…but it’s the US that essentially forced the UK to keep the chagos Islands and deport all the islanders.
This whole giving the islands to Mauritius and especially now Mauritius is playing hard ball means that the US has to both, admit it’s position on the international stage and support the UKs sovereign territory, it also will probably need to “ quid pro quo” on all the hassle the UK takes as well as the international damage, just so the US gets its airbase…
Personally I think it’s evens that the deal gets scrapped, with the US has to throw its weight behind the UK and not “ subvert the imperialists” while our backs are turned.
Very well said. The ‘yanks’ started their shenanigans after WWII, with regard to the ‘Brits’ should ditch their foreign territories. Now to cap it all, the incoming dude want to ‘buy’ Greenland.
One rule for one, and another completely different set of rules for the good ol US of A.
Well said
I’m not entirely sure what the issue about sovereignty is. Do we maintain control of the base,?
Yes we have sovereignty over the base and 50 personnel stationed there but all the assets are US.
Why are we paying £9 Billion for what is really a US Base, we hardly use it. So we owned the place then we decided to give to people who where not locals and from there and give them £9 Billion to take it? Makes sense.
The problem is that the Trump administration may well decide “why do we need to take any notice of what the Brits want?”, especially when we apparently want to surrender sovereignty. The USA might decide to try and lease the base directly from Mauritius, without U.K. involvement. Or they might even just decide to take unilateral control of Diego Garcia. It’s not like either the U.K. or Mauritius could stop them.
Billions to rent back what is ours, billions in reparations for giving land to a country that never had it and their beat mates the Chinese building and watching the base…. By the centre the buffoon is almost unbelievable isn’t he, what a dense idiot, no doubt taken in by the anti British foreign office that tried to give away the Falklands and has even tried to offload Gibraltar. Tossers the lot of them