Don't Vote Labour Again (Part 4)
The Chagos Islands and overseas territories
Something that raised eyebrows recently was the arrangement made over the Chagos Islands, a remote British territory in the Indian Ocean. The seven islands lie nearly 1,400 miles from the African island of Mauritius. They are closer - only 1,200 miles - from Sri Lanka in South West Asia. They make up what is currently known as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Mauritius (which the Chagos Islands were governed from) and the Seychelles were part of the French empire, but were ceded to the British in the Treaty of Paris of 1814. They had been militarily seized in 1810, 1786 and 1794 respectively. Seychelles and Mauritius were ruled as separate colonies from 1903.
Mauritius got independence from the UK in 1968, but not before Britain had relieved the Mauritians of the Chagos Islands, giving £3 million for them in 1965 (£49 million today). They also split three islands from the Seychelles, and together with the seven Chagos islands this formed the BIOT. The Seychelles gained independence in 1976 and those three islands were returned.
The UK wanted to create an Anglo-American military base on one of the Chagos Islands, Diego Garcia. All of the land on the BIOT was owned by the company that ran the coconut plantations, which were the area's main industry. No natives owned anything. The UK purchased this company for £660,000, meaning they now had full control of the islands. Shamefully, the British evicted the 2,000 Chagos natives and sent many of them to Mauritius. Since the 1980s Mauritius has claimed the islands belong to it, despite the British purchase in 1965.
I don't condone what the British and Americans did, and they should at least have allowed the natives to stay on the other islands if they wanted to. This was a different time, though, when the British Empire and the tactical concerns of the Second World War were in recent memory. Cold War realities also necessitated doing anything to give the West the upper hand. The Americans made even worse moves in the South Pacific.
In 1971 the land for the Diego Garcia base was leased to America, who built the facility. Named 'Camp Thunder Cove', it is used as a naval base and an airfield for long-range bombers, with a small contingent of British military also present. The initial lease was for 50 years, but in 2016 it was agreed the Americans would stay until 2036. Since 1965 the UN have refused to give their blessing to British control of the Chagos archipelago. In 2019 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognised the Mauritian claim, urging Britain to give the islands up.
The poor treatment of the Chagossian natives aside, why should Mauritius have the islands? The actual Chagossians have not been consulted at all, and continue to be cut out of the loop, despite what David Lammy has claimed in Parliament. If you advocate the British pulling out, should the Chagossians not run their homeland?
The Conservatives, until quite recently, did not want to obey the UN and ICJ demands. It was only in 2022, under Sunak and Foreign Secretary James Cleverly (later David Cameron), that proper negotiations began. The Foreign Office made some headway, but it was reported in December 2023 that the Defence Secretary had blocked the discussions from continuing. As a result the negotiations were abandoned. Perhaps this was because of fears from growing Chinese influence in the region, or perhaps because the election was coming.
But have no fear, because on his way was everyone's favourite anti-British wet, Keir Starmer. He was backed up, of course, by the walking A Level politics essay known as David Lammy. Perhaps that is a little harsh on sixth formers - I take it back. They keenly took up the negotiations, and within only four months they announced complete capitulation. The formal treaty is yet to be signed in 2025, but Britain will now give up everything except the base on Diego Garcia. We will be able to keep it for 99 years, until 2123. Keeping the facility was deemed to be some sort of great achievement by Labour, which shows how far British power has fallen.
Not only have we surrendered territory, but we've agreed to pay Mauritius for the privilege, sending them annual tranches of money and pledging to invest in infrastructure projects. It's like getting ripped off when selling your classic car, then making sure you give Boycie a full tank of petrol and a thorough valet service.
Lammy also declared that because the Americans are happy, and specifically because Joe Biden is impressed, this shows the negotiations have been a success. Firstly, Biden hates the British and his judgement is dodgy at the best of times. Secondly, why wouldn't the US be happy? They've got what they wanted, and have plenty of overseas territory around the world. Everyone is pleased except patriotic Brits and the Chagossians. China, cosy with the Mauritian government, will be the ones really laughing. Since 1972 they have had a strong relationship, with a free trade agreement since 2019 and major Chinese investments, including a £200 million loan for Mauritius to build a new airport terminal. Mauritius is an ideal gateway into Africa for the rising world power.
Lammy of course has a chip on his shoulder about British colonialism, and this informs his every move. Everything is an excuse to talk about being black and being 'the descendent of slaves' (we get it, Dave). It's his dream come true to be able to dismantle what remains of our former empire. Like Starmer he is also a lawyer, with a deference to anything 'international law' and 'rule based'. That is why the pair are so pro-EU, why they refuse to assert themselves against the ECHR, and why a withering look from the ICJ will snap them into compliance.
It has just been announced that the man who helped negotiate the Chagos deal, Jonathan Powell, former Chief of Staff to Blair, is going to be Starmer's national security adviser. It has not been a good start to his tenure - to give away strategically important territory to a Chinese-backed nation.
The question, inevitably, is whether other territories will now sense blood in the water and move to break away. Perhaps countries with claims to those outposts, however tenuous, will try to expand their landmass. As there is so much emotion tied up with the Falkland Islands, that of course has been the go-to when questioning Labour on the issue.
Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the Falklands had long been a contested territory, with various settlements and governorships established by France, Britain, Spain and Argentina (after seceding from Spain in 1816). Like the Chagos islands, they have a strategic importance, allowing British ships a place to resupply and be serviced in the South Atlantic area. They are also a stepping stone to UK-claimed territories in Antarctica.
In 1833, an Argentine-backed German merchant was the governor of the 'Malvinas', but he was ousted when British forces seized the archipelago. Since then the issue has rankled between Argentina and Britain, with the UN yet again pushing for a compromise from 1965. In fairness it did seem that the dispute would come to blows, with both sides increasing military activity in the area. Labour and Conservative governments did try to address the matter over the next 17 years.
Bizarrely the Thatcher government came closest to surrendering British control in 1980. The proposal would have seen Britain take out a 99 year lease (Argentina wanted 30) and govern the exclusively British population. This plan unravelled when the junior foreign minister in charge of the scheme travelled to the Falklands and attempted to promote it to the locals. There was a negative reaction to say the least, and soon there was political opposition to the move in Westminster as well as Port Stanley. The military seizure by General Galtieri (who became the Argentine dictator in 1981) of course destroyed any hope of such a plan. Thatcher redeemed herself by robustly repelling the invaders, going against the Americans and international opinion to do so. It was the last time the British really asserted themselves as a major power.
On October 4th, Starmer was asked at a press conference "can you confirm no other overseas British territories will be signed away?". He didn't answer the question, merely saying how we'd kept the Diego Garcia base and leaving it there. It was alleged GB News had clipped this on Twitter unfavourably, but watching the full video proves otherwise. Again, it was a monumentally unwise answer from the man, which probably revealed what he really thinks. See also when he said he preferred Davos to Westminster. Realising how this looked, Labour figures have since taken great pains to say they are fully committed to the Falklands. To this end, Starmer talked about his naval uncle getting torpedoed during the 1982 war (despite the fact no British ships were torpedoed, only air attacked).
Whether Labour are to be believed is another matter. Argentina is certainly agitating for a return of the 'Malvinas', and they have been even keener since the discovery of extractable oil on the islands in 2010. However, given the current leader is Javier Milei, despised by the likes of Starmer, the Falklands will probably be safe for a while.
Gibraltar is the other high profile overseas territory. Taken from the Spanish in 1804 and officially made British in the 1830 Treaty of Ultrecht, it was a vital stepping stone from Britain to the Suez Canal and thus Africa and the Far East. As with the Falklands, British ships could refuel, be serviced and resupply. In 1967 Gibraltarians voted in a referendum to stay British. This was enshrined in a new constitution of 1969, which made Gibraltar a self-governing UK protectorate.
In 2002 there was a plan, under Blair's Labour government, for Britain and Spain to share sovereignty. This was most unpopular on the island, with crowds reportedly shouting 'Judas' at Jack Straw when he visited. Incensed, the Gibraltar government held an advisory referendum and the notion was roundly rejected.
The issue is never far away from any discussion about Anglo-Spanish relations, or indeed about Anglo-European politics in general. The Lammies of this world doubtlessly loathe a strategic outpost of 'gammons' sunning themselves among the apes (or sheep, on the Falklands). They probably see it as a museum exhibit like the Elgin Marbles, which must be returned to the aggrieved country, even though in this case Spain were even worse imperialists than we were. This doesn't mean Starmer and Co would dare to do so, and a surrender of The Rock is unlikely. However, it hardly fills you with confidence when you consider a much more 'based' Labour government than Starmer's planned to share it with the Iberians. The same goes for the other thirteen territories that make up the remains of our once vast empire. How secure are they under the 'lefty lawyers'?
The last pink bits
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Antarctic Territory
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Cyprus sovereign bases (two)
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar
Montserrat
Pitcairn
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Turks and Caicos Islands
All rights reserved, Ed Pond, 2024