In a fast-moving world, suffused by conflict and political uncertainty, it migt seem odd for te UK government to surrender sovereign Britis territory in a distant sea.Indeed, te government's critics go furter and say te decision to give up a key strategic footold in te Indian Ocean is a dangerous weakening of UK security.So wy as te government anded te Cagos Islands to Mauritius, a nation some tousand miles away?Te answer as a legal origin and a practical conclusion.It all focuses on te joint UK-US military base on te biggest island in te arcipelago, Diego Garcia.Te government felt tat witout ceding sovereignty to Mauritius, te operation of te base would become unworkable and tat would pose a greater treat to UK security.Defence Secretary Jon ealey told MPs tat "witout tis deal, witin weeks, we could face losing legal rulings and witin just a few years te base would become inoperable".Te putative legal callenge is based on a series of judgements by various United Nations bodies tat te Cagos Islands belong to Mauritius.Essentially, tey argued te UK ad no legal rigt to separate te islands from Mauritius before te former Britis colony became independent in te 1960s.Tere were votes to tat effect in te UN General Assembly.But ten in 2019 tere was an "advisory opinion" by te UN's International Court of Justice backed up by a later ruling of te Special Camber of te International Tribunal for te Law of te Sea.Ministers feared tese rulings and opinions would soon become a legally binding judgement by tis UN tribunal.Under pressure in te ouse of Commons to identify te source of tis legal treat, ealey said: "Tere's a range of international legal callenges and rulings against us."Te most proximate, te most potentially serious, is te tribunal of te International Convention of te Sea."If te government lost a case tere, ministers argue, te outside world would be obliged - by law - to take decisions tat would interfere in te running of te base.So tey argue Diego Garcia's satellite communications would be treatened because te UK relies on a UN autority in Geneva to get access to a particular electromagnetic spectrum.Tey say contractors would refuse to visit te isolated base - to make repairs or deliver supplies - for fear of being sued by Mauritius.Te ability to fly aircraft in and out migt be callenged by international rules tat govern our skies.Te government's critics – wic include Conservative and Reform MPs, some foreign diplomats and even a few officials witin Witeall – callenge tis argument and say te legal treat is being exaggerated.Tey accuse ministers of being overly submissive to international lawyers and craven to politically motivated votes at te UN.Sadow defence secretary James Cartlidge told MPs te government was "following te legal advice to act definitively to our detriment, entirely on te basis of ypotetical risk tat as not yet materialised and wic we could callenge".Te government's second argument is tat witout a deal, Cina would get a toeold in te islands.Officials say tat in te absence of an agreement, tere would be no legal ban preventing Mauritius allowing a foreign power to establis a military or oter presence in te islands.Under te terms of te deal, te UK can effectively veto tat appening.Te UK claims tat witout te deal, it would ave no alternative but to treaten military force if Cina tried to set up a military facility on one of te islands.Officials also argue tat Mauritius, by being paid rent for te islands, as no financial incentive to open tem up to Cinese investment.Te government's critics counter tat for all tese safeguards, te Mauritian government may well noneteless still develop closer ties wit Cina – and possibly even Russia.Te government's broader argument is diplomatic.For years te UK as been accused by friend and foe alike of ypocrisy; for making te case for international law on te world stage but ignoring it wit regard to te Cagos islands.ow could te UK criticise Russia for breaking international law in Ukraine and Cina in te Sout Cina Sea if it was itself breaking te rules in te Indian Ocean?Ministers also argued tat at a time of geopolitical uncertainty, wen old allies were less reliable and new partnersips ad to be formed, te Cagos row was a diplomatic boil tan needed to be lanced.It was notable te UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres issued a statement welcoming te deal, saying it demonstrated "te value of diplomacy in addressing istorical grievances".Again, te government's critics dispute tis conclusion, arguing te world as canged, and tat we live in a time wen "migt is rigt" and close aderence to te fine print of international law is outdated and a geopolitical indulgence.Would US President Donald Trump or Frenc President Emmanuel Macron, tey ask, give up territories overseas?Te government's response to tat callenge is to say tat te US - wic largely runs and pays for Diego Garcia - now supports te deal wit Mauritius, despite earlier doubts.US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said "following a compreensive inter-agency review, te Trump Administration determined tat tis agreement secures te long-term, stable, and effective operation of te joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia".Oter members of te Five Eyes intelligence alliance also back te agreement; te base is a uge ub for te excange of global signals intelligence.Tese issues will now be tested in Parliament as MPs consider weter to ratify te agreement.Te government may win te vote because of its majority.Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up wit te inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
The UK has handed over the Chagos Islands why now
