The future of Diego Garcia and its place in UK defence accounting came under scrutiny during questions in the House of Commons on Monday, as MPs pressed ministers on the cost and implications of the recent UK-Mauritius agreement.
Mid Buckinghamshire MP Greg Smith asked what estimate had been made of the Ministry of Defence’s costs under the deal. In reply, Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard said, “As the Defence Secretary has said, the cost of the agreement represents less than 0.2% of the annual MOD budget. This has secured unrestricted access to and use of the base on Diego Garcia, control over movement of all persons and goods on the base, and control of all communications and electronic systems. It is a good deal.”
Smith responded with concerns over both the cost and its classification under NATO metrics. “I do not know that I agree with the Minister that this is a good deal,” he said. “Although I am curious about the £30 billion. Does it count towards the new NATO target of 3.5%, or the additional 1.5% on top of that? As we have to inform the Mauritian Government before we do anything particularly useful from that base, should that cost actually be counted in the defence numbers at all?”
Pollard dismissed that interpretation of the treaty arrangements. “Let me squash the hon. Gentleman’s last comment, which is wrong: we do not have to inform Mauritius before taking any military action,” he said. “Under the treaty, we have to provide notification after the event. I have explained this 13 times in written answers to Members on the Conservative Front Bench.”
He contrasted the current government’s progress with that of its predecessors. “They could not do a deal after 11 rounds of negotiation, whereas this Government did it after two rounds, securing the future of that vital base for UK and US operations.”
Labour’s Luke Akehurst noted that a number of international partners had supported the arrangement. “Is it not the case that our closest allies—the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and even India—have all welcomed this deal, precisely because they recognise the irreplaceable role of Diego Garcia in global security?”
Pollard replied, “This is important, because the future of Diego Garcia is absolutely vital. Having accepted the principle that sovereignty could be secured only by a negotiated settlement—that was the decision taken by the last Government—it is right that we secured a deal.”
He added, “The deal is good value for the UK taxpayer, because it secures the most valuable piece of military real estate on the planet, and keeps it under UK control for the next century and beyond.”
I am not sure I would ever boast about the success of ceding sovereignty of U.K. territory in just 2 rounds of negotiations compared to the previous Government’s 11 failed attempts.
We are actually paying for the privilege of doing so and as for Chogassians they have been largely forgotten by our Human Rights lawyer PM and his cronies in their haste to do this deal.
Apparently the Mauritian KC is one of Starmers best buddies! So a little buddy buddy talk goes a long way it seems.
This should preclude any negotiations. You want someone to negotiate on your behalf find a lawyer outside the U.K.
Unfortunately the chance to ever label it as UK territory or have the Chagosians live there was lost in 1971 by the under handed actions of the British government. This is just picking up the pieces.
There should have been a referendum for the Chagosians on the following:
(a) Do you want your territory to be an overseas protectorate of the UK.
(b) Do you want to be an overseas protectorate of the US.
(c) Do you want to be part of Mauritius which has human rights abuses and is over 1000 nautical miles from the Chagos Islands.
This is called democracy and representing the wishes of a native people…I forgot that Labour and the Tories don’t do that even with native English people.
I forgot to add these payments with everything else being shoved into the budget.
Pensions. SIA. Ukraine money. DNE.
Is this in the 3% or the1.5% it isn’t clear?
Baes leasing is in the 3%.
One of the worst voluntary international deals in the post war world. I’m sure China or Iran will set up tracking equipment on the nearest island not covered in the deal.
Funny enough there was a Chinese video that did appear of said KC on the Chagos islands waving a Mauritius flag before the deal was completed!
Didn’t last long but it was out there,so the Chinese are very much involved here!
Weirdly enough neither the British government or American government is daft enough to sign an agreement that allows such a thing.
The agreement comes with a veto on any military participation on the entire island chain. Nearest sight such surveillance can be set up is the Maldives which is already a Chinese puppet.
I absolutely believe Starmer and co are daft enough. The Chinese will just claim they’ve set up fish / environmental monitoring equipment or some other excuse and then claim the British are interfering with Maritian sovereignty if challenged.
Ok, do you think the US government is also daft enough? What do you think they are going to do if the Chinese set up an illegal monitoring station outside their super secret base, what’s do you think the Indian government will do about an illegal Chinese monitoring station off their coast.
I think anything is possible with Trump in charge. I can’t see the US or Britain going to war with China over a ‘climate monitoring’ station on the sovereign territory of a 3rd country. I suspect we’ll object via the UN and that will be it.
Anyone know what it was costing the UK tax payer before this £30 billion bill landed on the floor ?
“Proof one can be Educated to Stupid levels”.
As the yanks were covering the cost of running the base probably not a lot!
Cost a one of payment of £4 million to Mauritius back in 1971 and a promise to return it when it was no longer needed for military purposes. There was no ongoing payment and no final term limit. All of which were reason to find it was a colonial land grab against international law (a law the UK wrote)
If we had out a term limit in it like Hong Kong then it would not have been a problem
Oh.
So let me get this straight, “We” in our colonial days, were gifted them after Napoleon’s defeat, after they were uninhabited and first Colonised by Africans and indians, they became part of the “British overseas Teritories” with no end term, then sold for a paltry £30 billion to Mauritious without any Chagos Islanders input and a Term has been applied allowing the US to use them at UK tax payers expence ?????????
“The lunatics have taken over the Asylem”.
Maybe we can pay Argentina a similar amount to allow us to carry on in the FI’s ?
We were ceded Mauritius and Chagos by France, France administered Chagos from Mauritius so we continued to do the same. At independence most Chagosians were trying to leave because life in the island was hard and brutal.
We could have recognised their independence from Mauritius and set them up as a British territory but that would have been expensive and the Americans wanted somewhere super quiet.
So we paid Mauritius validating their claim to the island and preventing legally the Chagosians being recognised as an independent people (which they are clearly not under international law as they were always a transplanted population)
We caused these issues back in 1971 to save a few quid. The current government and the last conservative government were asked to sort the issues out by both the USA and India.
That’s why we are where we are.
The French pay nearly $100 million a year for a small base in Djibouti and China pays a similar amount, neither base is sovereign like DG or as large or as strategic.
It’s the best of a bad situation.
Yes, I read all that too.
Still think it’s a massive mistake, not to mention the £30 Billion.
“It’s only Tax Payers money”.
You can build an Island like China does in the Taiwan straights for less money on a coral reef.
The UK bought and closed down the coconut plantations depriving the islanders of a living, would not employ them on the base and deported them.
Jim, Under the Treaty of Paris in 1814, France ceded Isle de France (later named Mauritius) and the Chagos Islands to the United Kingdom. Is that the land grab you refer to?
I understood we paid Mauritius that money in 1971 for them to administer the Chagos Islands on our behalf.
Have they had a formal handover ceremony? With the BIOT Ensign and the Union Jack lowered and the Mauritian flag raised all to the playing of their respective national anthems?
No, because Mauritius is not allowed any access to the islands.
Interesting. In the case of Cyprus the Brit bases are UK sovereign territory. Arguably Hong Kong was not, most of it being leased from China in theory with the small British sovereign territory portion of Hong Kong being the lessee. However, even if Mauritius is not allowed access to the base island and surrounds, in theory it is only leased from Mauritius and sovereignty De jure, now lies with Mauritius. Thus the Mauritian flag should fly there, the BIOT flag should cease to be flown and the UJ may be flown next to the flags of Mauritius and the USA! 🙂
Regards from Geoff the Pedant but also flag buff and member of the Flag Institute of the UK( although I have to say that these views are my own and nothing to do with nor endorsed the FI)
No Hong Kong new territories was leased from China they still were not allowed to access it nor would it fly their flag until 1997. That’s how a lease works, Mauritius has no right of access by the treaty they signed.
Cyprus’s is a permanent territory of the UK same as Gibraltar and Falklands all recognised by the UN.
The BIOT flag was a scam because the BIOT never really existed even by our own cliaim which was intentionally vague especially when 50 asylum seekers showed up on the island wanting to claim asylum.
Suddenly the BIOT didn’t really exist from our standpoint despite having a flag.
We can’t have it both ways although we tried for 50 years,
Hi Jim. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Notwithstanding the lease (and I do know how leases work!) the islands are now De Jure Mauritian territory. They have leased the territory to the UK but not relinquished ownership. I also, as I said know that the Sovereign bases in Cyprus are as the name implies-er sovereign UK territory along with Gib and the FI. Of course the BIOT flag was a scam but from my interest in Flags I was just noting that the Ensign should now cease to be! As for Hong Kong, the Island was ceded to the UK per a Treaty in the good old bad old days of Force majeure one sided agreements “a la Bottles of Whisky and a few gold coins”:) so yes, ‘China’ and its successor the PRC had no rights over the leased portion until 1997 but in theory the UK could have held onto to the Hong Kong Island portion of the territory as it had been ceded to the UK. Realpolitiek prevailed however as the Brits no longer had a fleet of Dreadnoughts to enforce their Sovereignty!
Kind Regards from Durban
Interesting. In the case of Cyprus the Brit bases are UK sovereign territory. Arguably Hong Kong was not, most of it being leased from China, with the small British sovereign territory portion of Hong Kong being the lessee in theory. However, even if Mauritius is not allowed access to the base island and surrounds, again in theory it is only leased from Mauritius and sovereignty De jure, now lies with Mauritius. Thus the Mauritian flag should fly there, the BIOT flag should cease to be flown and the UJ may be flown next to the flags of Mauritius and the USA! 🙂
Regards from Geoff the Pedant but also flag buff and member of the Flag Institute of the UK
( although I have to say that these views are my own and nothing to do with nor endorsed by the FI)
👍 mate.
Worth noting that if the UK had formally annexed the islands as many on here advocate we would have a lovely piece of British territory in an area surrounded by all the biggest refugee crisis centres. I’m not convinced anyone on here would want that, refugees showing up on the island was one of the main reasons for this deal. Now they can get sent to Mauritius.
“Now they can get sent to Mauritious”.
Yes and we all know which country they will still end up at.
I have a great Idea, Let’s ask Starmer to buy Buck House so we can turn it into a Hotel.
FFS, you couldn’t make this shit up.
The last group spent two years living in tents on DG, in the end there was nothing to be done but bring them to the UK. Now they would go straight to Mauritius just like asylum seekers showing up in Akritoni go straight to Cyprus’s as you can’t claim asylum at a foreign military base,
Oh well that’s simple then, Make UK a Military Base.
There, that’s the dinghy invasion ended.
Wish we had Emoji’s on here 😁
As left in tents no more came to the islands.
Sorry repeat post above. 2nd one is the edited version
To my mind, the excellent coverage in the article “Chagos – Strategic realignment or sovereignty surrender?” Explains the myriad of issues surrounding no deal being done. Other historical aside, An unforseen byproduct of Brexit and the government of the day “playing tough” afterwards was the Europeans abstained from a vote in the International Court of Justice meant that meant any country could legally sail into the waters and anchor off the base (hence the flag waving on nearby islands referred to by others previously) if the uk / us attacked them, it would have been them in the wrong and an act of war. Such a predicament was clearly not a way forward and the payments are a way to resolve it.we can try and be as jingoistic as we like after the event and claim this as ours and we shouldn’t pay but that’s the predicament we were in. Now those interlopers will be breaching the law and therefore our right to defend, should they enter the area.
The Islands should have been given to the Chagos islanders as a independent protected country. This would have protected the sea bed from China removing metals and all the fish.