For those of us who grew up during the Cold War, it’s heartbreaking to watch the western countries fail to defend the interests of liberal democracy. The free world is being challenged on three fronts, by Russia, Iran and China, all of whom threaten the international order established so painstakingly after the second world war. The West should be standing up for its values, yet even Britain, the great bastion of democracy, the country that heroically held out alone in 1940-41, seems to have lost the will to fight.
The fact that the government has transferred sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius is symptomatic of a country that no longer has geopolitical perspective. Britain is obsessed with its own shame over its imperial history – and has been for quite some time. During Gordon Brown’s premiership I held the position of UN special adviser on Cyprus. In that role I called on a senior aide to Brown to discuss the progress we were making in negotiations between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots to reunite the island. One of the issues was the 99 square miles of British sovereign bases there. Much to my astonishment, the official at No. 10 told me that the PM would be happy to give up those bases as part of a settlement.
Britain is obsessed with its own shame over its imperial history
The official conceded that there would be huge resistance from the intelligence and defence establishments to such a surrender. It would clearly limit any UK capacity to contribute to peace in the Middle East: not only because those bases act as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for the RAF (as demonstrated by their role in shooting down the Iranian missiles heading for Israel recently), but also because to give them up would deny the western alliance access to intelligence.
British security policy seems to be lost in a post-colonial torpor. The government claims in its defence that it has retained a 99-year lease on the vital Chagos island of Diego Garcia with its military base, but a lease is not the same as sovereignty. What happens if Diego Garcia is to be used for an operation of which Mauritius does not approve? And Mauritius, as you may know, is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, which is far from being an unequivocal supporter of the West.
The Policy Exchange thinktank made the legal and strategic case against ceding the Chagos Islands to Mauritius almost a year ago, pointing out that international law simply does not require the British government to hand over Diego Garcia.
The Navy Support Facility Diego Garcia is critical in enabling US power projection into the Indian Ocean, Africa and the Middle East. Its infrastructure supports military activities, including heavy-bomber aircraft resupply, nuclear attack submarine tending, military supply pre-positioning and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. While nominally a US base, Diego Garcia is used by allied militaries, including Australia, which deployed it as a staging post for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
If the western alliance is to unite to deter adversaries, ceding sovereignty in the Indian Ocean is just folly. The ocean is contested territory. China has established what is known as its ‘string of pearls’ there: among them port facilities in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Djibouti. If the West is to maintain a balance of power with China, it needs the ability to deploy forces quickly and effectively in the Indian Ocean – and Diego Garcia is critical to that.
Put another way, the presence of US and allied forces in the middle of the Indian Ocean underwrites the peace of the region. The Chinese understand the huge capacities that can be channelled through Diego Garcia to stabilise the area, and so its very existence as a major military base helps to deter Chinese adventurism. Without it, expect China to try to reduce many of the Indian Ocean littoral states to tribute status – and, as it does so, to end up (at best) in an intense diplomatic competition with India.
Mauritius, for its part, doesn’t want to upset China or be seen to be collaborating with the West to tame Beijing’s ambitions. On the contrary: in recent years Mauritius has been investing substantial diplomatic capital in China. In 2019 it signed a free-trade agreement with China and is part of China’s Belt and Road initiative. Many in China see Mauritius as a gateway to investment and economic activity in Africa. Mauritius is an investment entrepôt and the free trade agreement foreshadows the establishment of a Yuan clearing and settlement facility for the continent. And if you’re flying to Mauritius, note that the new airport terminal was built by the Chinese government.
In the event of conflict erupting between China and the United States and its allies, what will the Mauritian government’s reaction be to its territory being used to launch attacks on Chinese assets? What sort of pressure would Beijing put on Mauritius to guarantee that its territory is not used for hostile intent towards China? Although we don’t know the answers to these questions, we can easily imagine them: in these dire circumstances, lawyers would be briefed and the UN activated by the Mauritian government – at the urging of Beijing – to limit the use of Diego Garcia.
It’s hard to think of a worse time for the British government to have created this uncertainty. Under Xi Jinping, Beijing has become robust and aggressive in the South China Sea, the East China Sea and in its threats to Taiwan. Meanwhile, its ally Russia is at war with Ukraine and its friend Iran is at war with Israel – putting the West under more pressure than at any time since 1945. Britain’s actions have now raised questions about whether it will be prepared to maintain its sovereign bases in Cyprus and Gibraltar. There are also negotiations going on with Spain over the airport in Gibraltar. It seems the government feels that the territory is just a legacy of Empire and that it would be best to at least cede the airport, although it is first and foremost an RAF base and therefore critical to Gibraltar’s strategic role. Meanwhile, the Cypriots would like the British to give up their sovereign bases there, because they, too, are an Empire legacy.
The sentiment expressed to me by Gordon Brown’s adviser all those years ago seems still to reign supreme in the Foreign Office. Why is the political establishment so traumatised by the British Empire? My country, Australia, was created by the British Empire and is one of the most successful in the world. The UK government should understand there were both good things and bad things about this period of history.
In recent years, Britain wisely embarked on a policy known as the ‘Tilt to the Indo-Pacific’. This made perfect sense if we were to continue participating substantially to the defence of the West. The UK is a permanent member of the UN security council and still has more force projection capability than any other European country. It also has substantial soft power in the Indo-Pacific.
Defending western interests, maintaining the balance of power in the Indo–Pacific region and deterring rogue behaviour by Iran, Russia and China will require involvement by more countries than just the US. But Britain is sending a message to the world: that it no longer has the desire or the energy to be a major contributor to world peace. For those of us who love Britain this is deeply troubling. It is also very sad.
Comments