Earlier this week the Mauritian prime minister claimed that the British government had made a new offer for the Chagos islands where Britain will pay £18 billion, instead of £9 billion, and hand full sovereignty of the island of Diego Garcia over to Mauritius, but taking into account interest payments and the inbuilt inflation, the deal will actuall cost over £50BN over it’s life.
To put this in context, the US bought much of its current mainland in three big purchases (the Louisiana purchase, the Alaska purchase and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo) which, even combined, were almost nine times less expensive than the £9 billion Chagos deal in real terms. It gets worse when compared with other projects such as the Transpennine Route Upgrade, the Affordable Homes Programme and the Universal Credit Upgrade Programme as well as the Lower Thames Crossing, with a whole life cost of £8.9 billion less than the lower Chagos deal.
Under Labour, the UK has a flatlining economy, a lack of housing, is reliant on foreign energy suppliers, a shortage of teachers and an ageing infrastructure, can’t pay the pensioner’s winter heating allowance but can justify this unbelievable expenditure? A deal so expensive that it eclipses even our most ambitious and most needed major projects. The government is currently undertaking hundreds of major infrastructure projects too, such as the New Hospital programme which will rebuild and maintain five hospitals that were made with RAAC, the Towns Fund which seeks to regenerate high streets, the Midlands Rail Hub which will expand national rail capacity across much of England and Wales, the Low Cost Nuclear programme which funds research and development into small nuclear reactors and the Freeports scheme which will create new freeports in the UK. Remarkably, all of the schemes mentioned combined cost the same £9 billion as the lower cost of the Chagos deal.
But there are some horrible other matters to be considered:
1. Why is the Mauritian Government now wanting a huge upfront payment, front loading the deal?
Simple, This is because Reform, the UK’s likely next Government will rip up the deal because it breaches the 1960 Treaty. This is the same Government that has recently been investigated for massive corruption. Arguably it wants as much money up front as it has no intention to keep to any agreement, just as it didn’t under the 1960 treaty, as will quickly renege on the deal and hand the Islands to China.
2. Starmer, who in our opinion doesn’t understand basic treaty law, has a material conflict of Interest via Philip Sands
One of his great friends is Philippe Sands, an international lawyer with a long history of representing Mauritius in its legal battle against the UK over the Chagos Islands. Despite his legal representation of Mauritius, Sands remains a trusted ally of Starmer, describing him as “generous, humorous, and empathetic.” (Source: Friends of the British Overseas Territories FOTBOT). In 2023, Sands outlined a completely farsical legal argument in The International Legal Order in the 21st Century, stating that the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a United Nations agency, could rule that UK-US telecommunications operations in Chagos are unlawful – somethign parroted by Starmer’s government to justify the controversial deal. A former official in the negotiations stated that the Government’s real concern is optics, not national security., so the FO (Foreign Office) is trying to find a rationale to give it away. According to FOTBOT he also made an unauthorised entry into the Chagos Island swith Mauritian officials, Chagossians, and journalists and participated in the hoisting of the Mauritius flag over UK-administered Island. (Although his tweet about this was deleted, it remains accessible via Chinese state-owned China Daily).
3. Starmer, who in our opinion doesn’t understand basic treaty law, has a material conflict of Interest, having very close connection with the former Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam.
In 2013, Starmer attended a high-profile legal conference in 2013, hosted by the Mauritius Bar Association where he delivered a keynote speech and was honoured with a wooden model of a warship. and according to FOTBOT, engaged in discussions on the Chagos issue with Mauritian legal and political figures about how they could seek the possession of the Islands in what Ramgoolam described as “a moment of shared values and mutual understanding”. Another prominent Mauritian lawyer and friend of Starmer, Satyajit Boolell, has stated that he “cleared things up” for him regarding the Chagos issue. This trip took place just a year before Starmer was selected as the Labour candidate for Holborn and St Pancras. Draw your own conclusion about whether Starmer really has Britain’s interests at his heart in this respect and how far that conflict of interest goes.
4.There is no Court Judgment, just a non-binding Advisory Opinion by Chinese Judge Xue Hanqin, a judge that said that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was justified, and supported China’s position that the Island should be handed to Mauritius (because China has invested heavily in Mauritius and has stated over many years that it wants a military base on the Chagos Islands.
(In 2019, as vice-president of the ICJ, Chinese Judge Xue Hanqin ruled that the UK should give islands to Mauritius ‘as rapidly as possible’..this is the same judge that said that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was justified. From 1980 to 2003, Xue served in the Department of Treaty and Law of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs , eventually rising to the position of Director-General. In 1991 she went to Columbia Law School where in 1995 she obtained a Doctorate in Judicial Science. She was then appointed the Chinese ambassador to the Netherlands in 2003 and served until 2008 when she became the first Chinese ambassador to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. She was elected to the International Court of Justice in June 2010. For those that don’t know (take note Starmer), an Advisory Opinion is simply an opinion of a single lawyer based on unargued paperwork. In very many cases, Advisory Opinions are often overturned by Courts on an Appeal. So, in effect, she is a lacky of the Chinese Government. Hardly surprising therefore that when she was asked to write an Advisory Opinion, she came down in favour of China’s position. It is no secret that China has invested heavily in Mauritius and wants a base on the Island. (See the case at Chagos Case Pages.))
Starmer said in the House that “Without legal certainty, the base cannot operate in practical terms.”
This was immediately condemned by military chiefs as nonsense. What legal challenge could there possibly be to Britain operating a military base on our own sovereign territory?
This kow-towing to China mirrors the Net-Stupid Zero stance of the Labout Party and teh proposed £8.3 billion spend on GB energy, where all the Net Zero has to be bought from China, via illegal working practices of slave labour, and where British Net Zero is practically irrelevant when our emissions are compared with countries like China and India that continue to Pollute how they please.
Philippe Sands KC’s tweet on raising the Mauritian flag
Keir Starmer 2013 receives a wooden ship model on a visit to Mauritius
The UK’s surrender of Chagos is not a legal technicality or essential diplomatic relations – it affects national security, taxpayer funds, the Chagossian community, and the future of British sovereignty.
This is the epitome of Keir Starmer – someone who appears to hrepeatedly fail to protect British self-interest in favour of his fetish for the international legal community, trying always to keep the cabal of human rights lawyers happy, even if this is to the tremendous financial, strategic and reputational cost of the country he has been elected to lead.
The Chagos Archipelago was separated from Mauritius in 1965, when Mauritius was still a British colony when Britain purchased the islands for £3m, and Mauritius waived all rights in relation to the Island but has since argued that it was illegally forced to give away the Chagos Islands as part of a deal to get independence from Britain, despite the entire process being overseen by the United Nations.