Well, I suppose one of several silver linings of the current arguments about whether the UK should transfer ownership of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius (the legal case is weak, the strategic case is absurd) and the USA should buy Greenland from Denmark, is that those of us who are a bit off the pace with our geography have had a chance to remind ourselves where these places are, and why they matter.
The Chagos Islands have been what are rather grandly called a British Indian Ocean Territory. The UK government, claiming that it is required to do so under international law (debatable), is to hand the islands to Mauritius – which is hundreds of miles away to the west of Chagos – and will pay Mauritius (a tax haven, by the way) for the ability to have control of said islands for a leasehold period of several decades. That means the UK can no longer decide if other countries – such as China – should be excluded, for example, from putting listening posts in the vicinity. The US military uses the Diego Garcia military base to operate long-haul flights, such as of the B2 stealth bomber and B52 bomber varieties, often to vital strategic effect.
In 2025, when the Starmer government was pushing this arrangement to pass over the islands to Mauritius – and pay Mauritius billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money for the purpose (which is itself a disgrace) – the newly elected Trump administration appeared to be content with the deal, although some in the defence establishment appeared to be worried about the geo-strategic implications of opening a potential door to China in that part of the Indian Ocean. The Chagos transfer remains caught up in UK parliamentary wrangling, but I fear that it will go through – but maybe not if Trump’s comments in the past 24 hours have an impact.
Mr Trump, who is angry at the UK for things such as allowing the Chinese to build a massive new embassy in London (with enhanced spying capabilities, no doubt), and about the UK’s criticism of his Greenland purchase demand (the UK is on firmer ground, if not entirely) has hit at the UK for the Chagos situation. Arguably, Trump’s move gives Starmer, if he is wise enough (is he, ed?) an “off-ramp” excuse to axe the Chagos transfer and put it down as a bad idea. (That would be the smart course, in my view.) Maybe even a smarter course would be for Starmer to let the US buy a stake in the Chagos Islands with a promise to let the UK still use the base on a joint basis. That would deal with America’s concerns about long-haul base access in the Indian Ocean and countering Chinese mischief-making, and perhaps take a bit of sting out of the Greenland issue.
I haven’t space to go into the Greenland case, but suffice to say that I think a US invasion of land that is under Danish rule (Denmark is in NATO) is unlikely to happen and would be outrageous if it did. I think Trump will pull back and over time, some sort of arrangement will be reached once tempers cool. Greenland, given some icecap melting etc, is going to be easier for surface ships and submarines to navigate around, and that makes it an important place for the US/Canada/others to want to protect, given where it is on the map.
But where the Greenland case is relevant in the Chagos case is that the US has a lease of a military base there (signed in 1951 – there were several attempts by the US to buy the place). And Trump has said that leaseholds aren’t enough – the US must own it. The logic he uses is similar to the logic that critics of the Chagos transfer have used – leaseholds aren’t enough because you must have the ability to exclude. Exclusion is the key issue here.
Maybe, therefore, a way forward for Trump and other NATO powers is to insist that US/Western leases in Greenland must involve no such leases for China, Russia and others potentially hostile to NATO members, and that such leases should be reviewed, such as once every 10 years to account for changing geopolitics.
The ability to show a measure of maturity on all sides – including ours in the UK – is critical. I worry that the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing pact between the UK, US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia is likely to end unless matters change. Starmer, who has been a clanking disaster of a Prime Minister, should stop goading the US by foolishly, and in my view fecklessly, giving every impression that the UK is becoming a useful idiot for Beijing. Whatever criticisms one might make of Trump’s recent foreign policy moves, on this occasion, he is more on the side of the angels than some might admit.
Recently, I flicked through James C Bennett’s The Anglosphere Challenge, written more than 20 years ago, a few days ago. Reading it in light of recent events show what’s changed in the world, and what hasn’t. Recommended.
The legal case is also absurd.
The distance between Diego Garcia and Sri Lanka (1700km) is considerably shorter than the distance to Mauritius (2200km). The only connection between Mauritius and the Chagos Islands is that
* When Britain governed both, for our own convenience we placed them both under the same colonial administrative unit; and
* When we forcibly removed the indigenous Chagossians from their islands, we removed them to Mauritius.
In other words, far from being part of decolonisation, Mauritius’ connection rests entirely on colonial claims. It is wholly spurious, generated by a Chinese “judge” to advance that nation’s interests.
What Hermer and Starmer are going is tantamount to treason. And while I doubt Starmer has been literally paid off personally, I think Hermer and Powell should be investigated to see if there is any Chinese connection tainting their advice. If there is, charges for treason would be fully justified.
MC, I agree 100%.
I think they’re acting as if they’re Chinese assets.
It also undermines any claims the U.K. makes that Trump is an asset of Putin or that the Russians have kompromat on him.
We need to get our own house in order. On that, Trump is absolutely right.
1. Chagos deal is bullshit, but the Americans, including Trump have previously expressed being satisfied with it, so the current flip flopping looks more like opportunism now they’ve been criticised over Greenland.
2. American designs and rationalisations for wanting to possess Greenland are pathetic.
3. Britain needs to become more autonomous away from the United States. Unfortunately economic weakness and deindustrialisation makes that hard but I think at a minimum we urgently but quietly need to move towards a fully independent nuclear weapons program, like pretty much every other nuclear power and away from one that ultimately the Americans effectively control.
If you’re going to transfer the Chagos Islands to anyone, it should be to The Maldives, not to Mauritius. Chagos is geographically the southern end of the Maldive archipeligo, and historically settled and fishing grounds of Maldivians.
The notion Greenland is being threatened by Russian or (even more absurdly) Chinese takeover, and that can only be forestalled by making Greenland sovereign US territory, is so preposterous it has become a litmus test for a person’s ability to think coherently (or at least speak truthfully).
Just look at a map and ponder each nation’s power projection capabilities… then tell me how Russia, let alone China, could sustain sea lines of communication with Greenland. Even just European NATOs naval capabilities would make that impossible, let alone the USN.
Martin, once more I must agree with much of what you say. It is blatantly dishonest for any UK government to prate about our having an independent nuclear deterrent if there is even the slightest chance of Washington DC having an over-ride. (This is the “kill switch” problem that comes up also with buying certain tech from China.) Having such a programme is going to be costly, but it is imperative. We used to have one. France has been astute on this – De Gaulle was a shrewd old fox. We could use a bit more of folk like him today.
Perry, I am sure much of what you say is true. I am to some extent trying to give the Trump position the benefit of the doubt on the issue. I think that the pros and cons of leashold vs outright ownership is something for policy experts to think about, because there are inconsistencies.
In the main, I think Trump wants Greenland to add to his place in American history. I see very rough parallels between Trump and people such as Andrew Jackson, or to some degree, Teddy R.