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
Trump should put a Naval blockade round Mauritius till they give up this extorsion !
Is the US also trying to extort the UK over this?
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.
Yanks havw always been the same since Suez…Stabbed their WW2 Colleagues in the back so they could have more power in the Middle East….Maybe not Colonial as such but certainly exhert their economic ( and military) strength’ to garner the influence they require.
Samoa would also like the rest of their islands back. US seems to forget they have external territories of their own.
Well said
I totally agree with your comments about the US undermining the U.K. but I do think our political elite seem to be under some kind of illusion that allies do not compete with one another. The US seized their chance to do this after WWI, through WW2 and into the 1950s with the watershed moment of Suez in 1956.
Hypocrites 100% yes but with the military and economic might to back it up.
The importance of Diego Garcia to the US is obvious but given the rise of China I am not convinced that it has no importance to the U.K. even in our current much diminished state. The Chineses are not a friendly state to the U.K. and the west in general so anything that keeps them in check is important.
As for damaging our geopolitical position across the third and second world I would suggest the deal has already set a terrible precedent in our agreement to pay them anything. Whilst the U.K. might argue it is for the lease of the base it is start of the slippery slope of the U.K. eventually paying reparations to ex colonies.
Equally as bad many of the countries and cultures in this part of the globe respect strength and we are now seen as politically, military and morally weak. They are spot on and they will dislike us even more for it.
So what to do with Diego Garcia? Well as a country without a fully independent foreign policy we will do what the Americans tell us to do, for good or for bad. That is reality.
Just ask Keir Starmer Rachael Reeves and now Emma Reynolds (worst of all 3) about Chinese influence and how they are ‘balancing’ that against their short term investment in UK infrastructure. As Cameroon and Osborn did with the Red Carpet treatment so will these 3 Labour wise monkeys do – to the detriment of long-term Uk growth & security.
The Conservatives goverment started us down this path to give up the island, so there is no domestic polictics here, other than Mr Russia farage trying to look relevant to his mate trump.
You are right about the Tories starting this process but Labour have compounded the issue by suggesting we pay £90m per year for 99 years for something we already have in our possession.
I accept an international court has found in favour of the Mauritians but how we manage to extract ourselves from the situation is a domestic political issue that shows neither Labour or Tory have much idea in how to deal with important geo political matters. That the situation is now on hold until Mr Trump is not a good look.
We now have our PM signing a 100 year agreement with the Ukrainians but who knows what might happen next week when Trump is in power because you can be sure he has not told our PM. We will have to follow the American lead because we do not have the military capability with the rest of Europe to act independently. That agreement might as well be hung in strips in the smallest room in the house.
Btw I am no fan of Mr Farage.
We don’t know who proposed the £90m. All we know is Labour was at the end of the negotiations. That could have been agreed informally years ago, as I would guess these negotiations have likely been ongoing for a decade or more.
Net zero seems to be ignored with trading with China, they over 1160 coal power stations which enable cheap energy and goods.
Absolutely ..I suggest to my mate years ago that there should be a carbon tax imposed on imported goods…of course that will.never happen.
Sorry Jonathan. Quite frankly the population of the third world doesn’t give flying fish about the Chagos, they are more concerned about their immediate prospects ie getting food onto the table than a small group of island 1000s of miles from nowhere. And their politicians are more focused on domestic politics. Further more the developing world is more than happy to deal with China who have there own territorial disputes and there’s a que of countries wanting to join the BRICS even with Russia invading a Ukraine in a major land grab that makes the Chagos look like fence dispute with your next door neighbour. If anything, the government has actually drawn attention to the Chagos Island by trying to make a deal.
Hi expat, the issue is that the people may not but in the of geopolitical influence it matters, we have been handed our arse on this case in the UN for about the 6 years now and literally the entire world has voted against us. Only 5 nations have actually supported the Uk in this..even all about Europe allies abstained. We have a number of outstanding UN resolutions regarding this and we don’t even have the defence of a population that supports us….it’s a proper problem..the conservative government actually started the process because they were forced into it via lawfare…
Hi Johnathan you are so right that we have been hung by our own petard with our statements on the rules based system of world order. Where we have not been clever enough is using the Chagos Islanders to subvert this process by suggesting that if they seek self determination from Mauritians we would financially back them with the US.
Cynical absolutely and we use to be good at that but alas no more it seems.
Sorry I spelt your name wrong.
Jon, I hope the deal gets scrapped as it is awful. Embarrrasing if it is Trump pressure that has to get it scrapped. We should give the Chagossian people some sort of deal – they should have been consulted i n this whole process. They apparently wanted a Falklands-style arrangement – Chagossian self-governance with UK handling Foreign Affairs and Defence.
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.
I agree, total waste of money, no way we get that kind of benefit. I suspect the treasury shot this down as much as anyone.
M, where do you get this £9 Billion figure from?
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.
In the end, my question would be so what, the UK does not get any value out of the Diego Garcia…just all the backlash, while the US gets its lovely base in place it really needs a base.
£9billion “so what”
You could build your own Island for that !
As do the Chinese in the South China Seas to extert their ‘sovereign influence’.
You miss my point…the US would be paying, in effect we have sovereignty because the U.S. needs the island not because we need it. Essentially we have been a badly treated middle man who gets all the blame and none of the gain…personally if we left it to the US and Mauritius to sort out between them it would be little to no skin off our nose.
Jon, perhaps we should just give the islands to the US – not so crazy. More advantages than disadvantages.
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
Starmer only believes in his warped idea of rules which are alien to most people, he banned machetes but has no intention of searching the people who use them as an offensive weapon, he would rather arrest some pensioner who happened to have one in his shed!
Utter nonsense this but it did make me think, will it be relevant in hundred years time. The pace technology is changing will surface ships even be a thing? Will fighter aircraft need an airfield? They certainly won’t be manned. Probably be colonies on the moon and elsewhere. Could have underwater cities who knows. Tomorrow’s world won’t be the same as today’s.
It would be cheaper to build a new island than pay billions in rent, Starmer’s chum has been advising Mauritius on legal issues. The evicted islanders should be allow to vote about their future, expect they would choose USA after being shafted by the UK for the second time. Perhaps he will give St Helena to South Africa next or Pitcairn island to Tahiti with billions of compensation. Clearly he hates this country !
Today we should keep what we have intact. But I fear all this will become a mute point if the UK does not become serious about AI, robots, drones, fusion energy development. AI (UK based), robots and fusion energy research should be the government’s top priority to develop and keep it local to the UK. I know the current government has thrown in a few quid in this direction but it is just not enough. Imagine if we purchased & became reliant on Elon Musk’s (or anyone else) tech and one day he just decided to switch it all off remotely, the UK would be up the swanny without a paddle. This tech is evolving so, so fast and the UK government seems to be stuck in the mud over these issues.
Honestly, and I can’t believe I’m typing this, thank goodness for Trump.
The ‘deal’ just got worse and worse, and latest demands are a security threat.
Not that it matters. The islands are our territory and to hand them over would be treason. Starmer, Lammy, and co. are being treasonous just so they are less embarrassed at embassy soirées and Islington dinner parties.
Yes but think of all.those scrumptious Canapés…
Mauritius has already offered to lease the base to the USA a few years back when/if they get control. They want the income. The UK has no need or funds for it. Compensating Mauritius will open a black hole of claims from all over previous colonies. Many of these places had very small indigenous populations, some none at all, with the bulk of the population coming from immigrants wanting jobs, then wanting the country, now wanting compensation as well.
The Chinese will exploit the seas round this area and deplete all the fish damaging the eco-system.
I don’t get why we giving a flying stuff what Trump thinks. It’s uk territory and the last 2 democratically elected agreed that a handover was justified. As such signing or not signing this should just be a uk demonestic decision. US should stay out of our polictics.
A handover is not justified and all governments who have agreed with one should be locked up for treason.
It’s very sad that we’re relying on Trump tonsave us from ourselves.
The irony is the costs of Chagos deal to HM Government could have instead funded some of the capabilities that were cut recently, so it does impact our ability to do what US wants which is for the UK to have more military capability.
When will Starmer give the Isle of Wight to Malta because one of his mates works for the Maltese government?
Shabby all along the line.
I hope Trump ends this before it happens.
Starmer and Lammy should stick their thumbs up their asses and run to the Americans on their elbows to beg them to continue putting up with our bollox.
I guess there isn’t going to be a problem because Trump will twist Starmer’s testicles so much that there won’t be a deal.