The government has pushed back against proposed changes to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, arguing they are unnecessary and could undermine long-term security arrangements for the joint UK US facility, the UK Defence Journal understands.
In a letter dated 5 January and deposited in the House of Lords library, defence minister Lord Coaker responded to peers following the committee stage of the Bill, addressing amendments linked to security oversight, legal authority and treaty termination that were debated in November. He said the government had already considered many of the issues raised and did not believe further statutory requirements were justified.
On amendment 20G, which would have imposed additional reporting obligations, Lord Coaker said the impact of the treaty not being ratified had already been examined. He wrote that “the consequences of the Treaty not being ratified have already been studied in detail by this government and by two committees of this House”, arguing that further reports would add little value.
Addressing amendment 20H, which sought a formal report on the legal basis for continued operation of the base, Lord Coaker said this was unnecessary given the treaty’s wording. He stated that “the Treaty is entirely clear that the UK has all rights and authorities for the effective operation of the base and that it may authorise the United States of America to operate the Base jointly with it”. He added that the UK was “working closely with the US on the procedures to continue to operate and govern the joint UK US base effectively over the next 99 years and beyond”.
Amendment 20R, tabled by Lord Lilley, focused on termination provisions. Lord Coaker reiterated that the treaty allows for termination only on extremely limited grounds. He wrote that “there are extremely limited grounds for termination once the Treaty is in force, both of which are within the UK’s control”, and argued that this prevented Mauritius from ending the agreement unilaterally. Reopening negotiations on this point, he said, would weaken terms “already secured and endorsed by our US allies” and would not serve the UK’s national security.
Responding to amendment 81J, proposed by Baroness Foster, which would have required mandatory consultation with the US government on security risks, Lord Coaker said such a requirement was unnecessary. He noted that “the protections in the Treaty were designed and tested at the highest levels of the US security establishment who supported the UK proceeding with the deal”. He also pointed out that the US would have a role on the Joint Commission overseeing the base and stressed that defence and intelligence cooperation with Washington was “completely intertwined” and not suitable for statutory obligations.
The letter also addressed concerns over so-called standing authorisations within the treaty. Referring to points raised by Baroness Goldie, Lord Coaker highlighted language defining “unrestricted” access as “not requiring permission or notification, subject to the standing authorisations and notifications separately agreed between the Parties”. He said this wording did not allow Mauritius to impose additional restrictions or gain access to sensitive operational information.
Basically.. this is what the Americans want so this is what it’s going to be.
Is it? The US Secretary of State doesn’t seem pleased. Neither do the Chagossians, or (for the same reason) the UN. The only people who do seem happy are the Mauritians, the Chinese and David Lammy.
No one seems particularly pleased which probably means it’s the best all round deal possible.
£100 million a year is small potatoes for a base that dominates and entire ocean and the majority of the worlds energy supplies and manufactured trade goods. Now it’s ours for two years and no one can legally take it from us.
With hypersonic anti ship missiles and radar satellite constellations these island bases will be more important than ever.
True… but it was ours anyway? I mean international law (disregarding the UN ruling was advisory only) might not have agreed, but until there’s an international police to worry about, I see little need to acquiesce. On the face of it, it is a horrible deal
Problem is it wasn’t ours, we were daft enough to pay Mauritius for it with the promise of returning it to them one day but with no set date.
We f**ked up, while no one was coming to take it off us Mauritius could and would launch a series of court actions in the UK and internationally especially against private companies that service the base. India would also increasingly become a problem. We would be operating an illegal base off their coast as they become one of the largest most powerful countries in the world.
Eventually we would be forced into an humiliating climb down at some point (years from now)
This way we get a 200 year lease that’s legally recognised by everyone for £100 million a year. That’s not much for such a facility especially given the US pays for most of its running.
What would China pay for such a facility? The French pay something similar to Djibouti and it’s not even sovereign French territory. From Diego Garcia we can launch aircraft, ships, missiles and control space craft from a piece of 100% sovereign British territory with no need for permission to use it. It covers an area with the largest population in the world and the coasts of three continents.
That’s a fair write-up and very interesting, thanks
Djibouti is an interesting place all of It’s own, French, Italian, US, Japan and Chinese bases.
Great Takeaways though. 😁
Thanks. An informative summing up of the situation. Also highlighting the fact that in the long run, lawyers are far more powerful than missiles!
Thanks. An informative summing up of the situation. Also re-highlighting the fact that in the long run, lawyers are far more powerful than missiles!
Erm nope. Chagos is pretty low on India priorities. They have far bigger things to worry about around them. If they were really had issues they would be protesting about having the base the full stop even leased. Here’s my prediction we’ll see news within a year of this deal of China moving in with its Maritime Militia or so called grey fleet.
You know what’s a better deal, £0 a year
Did the human rights lawer ever consult Chagossians?
No and that’s why there is a UN report saying they should have done!
Unfortunately the “UN” is full of shit, their report recognises the Chagosians and that the island is Mauritius owned but does not highlight the fact that Mauritius does not recognise the changosians.
It’s just more UN bull shit of Britain bad everyone else good. This is why the UN will soon not exist.
He can’t have it both ways can he? One UN ‘court’ says hand them over another says hold on this isn’t right!
It’s the UN, that’s exactly what they can do as long as the message is Britain bad white people bad.
No he didn’t, despite the fact that we believe (as the UN does) in the principle of self-determination. He didn’t have far to go to get their views; most of the Chagos diaspora live in Crawley! They did talk to a local reporter and said that this was not the deal they wanted – they would have preferred to have limited self-government backed by British security guarantees and for the UK to handle their external relations….just like the Falklands!
I’m amused by the number of times HMG push the “joint” line and that HMG “authorise the Americans.”
Last time I looked into DG there is a RN shore party there, that’s it.
The place is 99.99% American. I understand it has a GPS Ground Station, a USN Ocean Surveillance Groundstation, and possibly some GCHQ/NSA ( uncertain) elements, which is the reason for our figleaf “Joint” statements, as we benefit from it.
A new Middle East to Australia undersea cable has been routed through there, answers on a postcard as to why the US paid for that.
Is that worth the costs we are paying? Not for me. I’d have either handed to Trump on a plate and said you want, you pay, as we should still be beneficiaries of it’s take by virtue of our 5 Eyes status.
As for what happened in the 60s to the Chagossians, forcefully evicted and their pets exterminated? Disgraceful.
We say we are a force for good in the world, all that crap is discarded when geopolitics comes into play.
I fear our current political class populated by lawyers have zero idea how to play that game.
Yep as I have always said, nation states are amoral.. anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. We sometimes try and dress it up, but if 1 million people had to die for a nation state to survive, you know very well a million graves will be dug.
As for chagos, this was and has always been US led, we are doing this for the US pure and simple, because from a purely UK geostrategic point of view chagos is essentially irrelevant.The best move, would have simple been handing over the deeds to whoever the UN told us to and let the US sort out leasing the base directly… as it is we are now spending billions on a base for the US, but more importantly reducing the legitimacy of the government at home.
How long before Twump and Hegseth get bored of these legal niceties and just seize it as a new US unincorporated territory like Guam?
Frankly, the best option would be for America to just buy the place from Mauritius.
I don’t think anyone in the world would want to sell territory to America now.
We are a much more trustworthy power 😀
I think it’s very very clear now from the answers that this was essentially the US telling the UK what to do about chagos.. which I have always said, the chago deal was announced when the UK got some unusual level of relief from some of the tariffs.
It’s almost like we were in an alliance and did things to help each other out in exchange for favours from the other partner 🤔
US tariff relief is a hell of a lot more than we got from the EU for extending fishing rights.
All they gave us was a €6 billion bill to join SAFE.
It’s good to have things other people want, this is what makes a country powerful.
We just happen to have the world’s best string of sovereign islands at the centre of every ocean and strategic choke points around the world.
The USA just happens to have a massive military budget and is willing to share some of the more expensive toys with us and only us.
That’s why it’s a special relationship
It’s not really a special relationship though is it Jim, it’s a relationship of convenience nothing more nothing less… anything we do is give or take and in this case do we actually want the hassle of that lease and its costs as well as strategic engagement in the eastern Indian Ocean….. questions we should be asking ourselves… because any geostrategic move we make should only be for the overall benefit of the UK.
Yet more government bullshit. If Starmer hadn’t been so keen to do his so called human rights act we wouldn’t be arguing about it.
Who benefits from this facility, let me guess. I am not convinced it is us.
Who benefits?
Why are the Americans not paying? If it is that important they could just ‘take it’.
Apologies for the multiple, badly typed posts. Ihe first did not appear to appear! I’ll wind it in now.
This government doesn’t seem to be concerned about the Mauritians allowing China to build outpost in the flight path to the airbase.
Have they okayed the new Chinese Embassy right next to the City’s underground infrastructure yet?
Labour are just working out what they can afford to pay them 🤔😉
This “Deal”.
Subject to manipulation or speculation of Inflationary predictions, I see figures of “At Least” £13 Billion, all the way to £35 Billion.
Some Deal. 🤦♂️
I suspect that this government is working on a deal with China, the Chargos deal (Mauritius consulting China for lots of the deal), dropping all of the charges against the spies, and even entertaining the idea of the super embassy. I imagine these are some of the demands that are being placed in exchange for receiving a large investment from China or perhaps some discounts on goods.
Stamer government back tracking again ? Does deals were our Country is worse off and benefits other’s ,no idea how to run the Economy. And no intention of sorting out .UK defence budget out 😟 him and is government are a absolute shambles .
The £35 bn (£48 bn allowing for inflation) that we will start paying the Mauritius, probably from next week, for the privilege of giving them the BIOT, will be taken straight from the defence budget – at Starmer’s orders. And he then wonders why the Defence Chiefs are complaining that the defence budget is £7 bn a year less than needed to implement SDR. It looks like 2026 will see cuts everywhere. E.g. Hopes for a River Class Batch 3 are dead. HMS Spey and Tamar will return to the UK this year. They will then get a refit before replacing Tyne and Mersey for the patrol of UK waters. With no RN ships left in the Arabian Gulf and Indian Ocean, the rapid closure of HMS Juffair in Bahrain and UKJLSB in Oman is surely inevitable. Only two years ago Juffair was the home of 6-7 RN/RFA ships, whilst the later seemed about to finally become the homeport for LSG(S).
Except for SSBNs and aircraft carriers (until they sell one of them), the United Kingdom is already almost irrelevant militarily; it is a middle power and with this government it will fall even further than with the Conservative disaster.
So now Starmer and Lamy will be off tell China to hand back islands in the South China sea or pay a lease. Because we have shown them how to do the right thing. You can all stop laughing now. 😃.