It has been in the background for a few months, but it seems Keir Starmer has now decided to resurface and sign his deal to pay Mauritius billions to take ownership of a British territory.
The Chagos Islands, and the broader British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), are strategically significant. On Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands, the only population either staffs or supports a joint British-American base. A base which is often used by the Americans; the base from which the B-2s ordered to bomb Iran’s nuclear programme might take off.
But all of this is to be surrendered to Mauritius and then rented back by Britain. Why? Because international courts, and the pretence of arbitration, say so. Mauritius has never owned the Chagos Islands, never had real claim to them. But Britain’s diplomats believe foreign courts and the United Nations are sacrosanct, and that the country secures its victories not by a strong economy and strong defences, but instead giving up and surrendering with style.
Thus the islands must be given over to Mauritius. And because the leaders of Mauritius actually love their country, they drive a hard bargain. Keir Starmer says this will cost £101 million per year – about £3.4 billion over the 99-year lease that Britain will sign for territory at present it possesses.
But in reality Britain will, according to the Telegraph’s calculations, pay up to £30 billion in its surrender of the islands. Up front money to Mauritius for development totalling £40 million plus £45 million per year for 25 years), an additional £165 million per annum for the first three years, £120 million per annum for the fourth to thirteenth year, £120 million plus inflation per annum for the remainder of the 99 years. Daylight robbery. Disaster.
Britain has never in its history signed a worse deal than this. This country has never been worse served by its diplomats, by its politicians – politicians of two parties, because much of the groundwork for this disgrace was done by Conservatives. The country has never seemed weaker or poorer or more apt to be pushed around. Britain has never looked as much of a failure, its eclipse as much of a sure bet, as it does today.
Abdicating hard power creates soft power, we are told
Why on earth is this happening? This is a fair question. Many politicians and creatures of the civil service have been brought up in the sewers of polite opinion. Polite opinion says that a bad deal is better than no deal; that there are no military solutions; that talking is always preferable to silence. Polite opinion insists that if an international agency, or a foreign court, or anything associated with the United Nations tells Britain to do anything, it must comply like whipped dog. Abdicating hard power creates soft power, we are told. We are respected not for our agency and our capacity, but in our restraint. These are lies.
If ruling the BIOT was so objectionable, Britain could always have leased the islands to the United States, or sold them outright – to America, India or China, all of whom might be interested. It would not have been honourable, it might not even have made any money in the long term, but it would have been better than abject surrender. Better than what Keir Starmer, David Lammy, Jonathan Powell and their Tory predecessors propose to do. Better than the insane spectacle we are now confronted with, put to us as an evil fait accompli.
Comments