George Barnes is a member of Conservative Friends of the Armed Forces and has just completed a course in War Studies and Command.
According to a recent Telegraph article, Grant Shapps is leading the charge for the Government to drop plans to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Such a policy reversal goes against a recent ‘Cyprus-style’ agreement that James Cleverly had proposed as Foreign Secretary. It also runs against a succession of UN judgements calling for the islands to be returned.
Surely, then, this is one of the last things the Government would want to do. Why open yourself up to multiple political attacks over an issue so obscure?
The answer is simple – such a policy reversal would be in Britain’s best interests. Although it may feel uncomfortable, the strategic benefit of holding onto these islands outweighs the moral benefit of their return.
This strategic necessity can be broken down into two parts: countering China’s growing global influence, and our relationship with America.
Keeping control of the Chagos Islands enables the UK to project significant military power into the Indian Ocean and beyond. The ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ that is Diego Garcia gives us the ability to protect and control the critical shipping lanes that link Europe with Asia. China is particularly reliant on these external arteries for its economic health. It is therefore both sensitive and vulnerable to their disruption.
If tensions over Taiwan continue to escalate over the coming years, as many commentators believe, Diego Garcia will become an important launchpad for the UK to credibly deter Chinese military action. Giving them up will severely weaken our hand.
Even if a ‘Cyprus-style’ agreement is reached, the strategic and geopolitical consequences of handing the Chagos Islands back to Mauritius are grave. China would have the opportunity to leverage its concerningly close relationship with Mauritius – the first African country to sign a Free Trade Agreement with Beijing – to expand its own regional influence.
Even if China cannot get the UK airbase shut down, the Mauritian Government would still likely succumb to Beijing’s infamous debt diplomacy, enabling the eventual construction of a rival airbase on the Islands. In a heartbeat, this would negate a significant slice of the UK airbase’s strategic value. It would also present a valuable overseas base for China to turbo-charge its nefarious influence campaign in East Africa. More Chinese military firms exploiting Africa’s population and resources is not in the UK’s or Africa’s long-term interests.
The US element of this argument also cannot be ignored. Although flawed, our relationship with the United States is critical. Although we share the same core values, we do not share America’s power to protect and project them across the globe. It is clearly in the UK’s best interests to maintain and prioritise the ‘special relationship’.
The US Government is increasingly agitated about the threat Beijing presents to liberal democracies. Unlike the ambiguity found in the UK, Washington is clear that China is a threat. As a result, the US sees the Diego Garcia airbase as a critical part of its military efforts to contain and counter China. This has been made crystal clear to our government.
We must prove to the US that European allies like the UK are dependable and worth cooperating with on global strategic issues. Returning the Chagos Islands will only increase American domestic rhetoric about European unreliability, and the benefits of isolationism. This narrative cannot take root.
There is also a moral aspect to this case. As a proud liberal democracy, the UK mustn’t become too dominated by hard-nosed Realpolitik. Britain’s historic treatment of the Chagos is rightfully held up as one of the more shameful acts of our imperial legacy. In the 60s, for example, the British Government displaced every single inhabitant to make way for a military base. It was not our finest hour.
So by handing the islands back, would we not be helping make amends for wrongs of the past? In short, yes. But that’s not the question here. The question is how seriously we should take this moral argument.
In the past ten years, we have seen a growing focus on Britain’s imperial legacy. In some quarters, this has resulted in an obsession with atoning for every imperial action or consequence, regardless of context or culpability. For these groups, anything associated with the Empire must be in principle criticised and destroyed. Decolonisation trumps all other arguments.
We should not shy away from facing the many unsavoury episodes of imperial history. The consequences of Britain’s historical actions are still shaping world events negatively. But that doesn’t mean the moral wrongs of our ancestors should necessarily dominate and guide our actions today. Each case is steeped in complex contexts, which must be taken into account.
Moreover, some practical considerations dampen the force of the moral argument for the Chagos Islands. Firstly, it is highly unlikely the exiled Chagossians (many of whom have happened to have settled near Gatwick airport) willreturn to the islands.
They have made their homes in Britain, and are no doubt used to the standard of living here. The drop in the quality of life by returning to the islands will be mind-bogglingly vast – they will need to start from scratch. To develop, support, and sustain modern living on these remote islands, the Mauritanian Government will face a financial burden that is likely to prove too much, dooming island inhabitants to a threadbare existence.
Secondly, the Chagossians are arguably ancestors of colonisers themselves. There were no indigenous people settled on the islands when they were first ‘discovered’ by European explorers – the Chagossians are largely descended from those who came to settle after the first permanent colony was established in 1793. The situation is not comparable to other areas of the world where indigenous populations were expelled having occupied lands for millennia.
To stress once more, the moral argument for decolonisation should not be dismissed. It must be contextualised and balanced against other factors. Yes, returning the Chagos Islands would be a powerful statement against the wrongs of our imperial past.
But, simultaneously, it would reduce UK strategic leverage in a critical area of the world, and allow China to spread its poisonous ideologies further into the Indian Ocean and East Africa. It would also undermine our relationship with the US, at a time when continued American participation in the Western alliance is more important than ever.
Incessant hand-wringing over our colonial past cannot disproportionately dominate our actions today. Although it will feel uncomfortable, keeping the Chagos Islands British priorities our national interest and the future of liberal democratic values. Although this may add some crackle to the UK’s global narrative, this broadcast will still be heard across the world.
George Barnes is a member of Conservative Friends of the Armed Forces and has just completed a course in War Studies and Command.
According to a recent Telegraph article, Grant Shapps is leading the charge for the Government to drop plans to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Such a policy reversal goes against a recent ‘Cyprus-style’ agreement that James Cleverly had proposed as Foreign Secretary. It also runs against a succession of UN judgements calling for the islands to be returned.
Surely, then, this is one of the last things the Government would want to do. Why open yourself up to multiple political attacks over an issue so obscure?
The answer is simple – such a policy reversal would be in Britain’s best interests. Although it may feel uncomfortable, the strategic benefit of holding onto these islands outweighs the moral benefit of their return.
This strategic necessity can be broken down into two parts: countering China’s growing global influence, and our relationship with America.
Keeping control of the Chagos Islands enables the UK to project significant military power into the Indian Ocean and beyond. The ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ that is Diego Garcia gives us the ability to protect and control the critical shipping lanes that link Europe with Asia. China is particularly reliant on these external arteries for its economic health. It is therefore both sensitive and vulnerable to their disruption.
If tensions over Taiwan continue to escalate over the coming years, as many commentators believe, Diego Garcia will become an important launchpad for the UK to credibly deter Chinese military action. Giving them up will severely weaken our hand.
Even if a ‘Cyprus-style’ agreement is reached, the strategic and geopolitical consequences of handing the Chagos Islands back to Mauritius are grave. China would have the opportunity to leverage its concerningly close relationship with Mauritius – the first African country to sign a Free Trade Agreement with Beijing – to expand its own regional influence.
Even if China cannot get the UK airbase shut down, the Mauritian Government would still likely succumb to Beijing’s infamous debt diplomacy, enabling the eventual construction of a rival airbase on the Islands. In a heartbeat, this would negate a significant slice of the UK airbase’s strategic value. It would also present a valuable overseas base for China to turbo-charge its nefarious influence campaign in East Africa. More Chinese military firms exploiting Africa’s population and resources is not in the UK’s or Africa’s long-term interests.
The US element of this argument also cannot be ignored. Although flawed, our relationship with the United States is critical. Although we share the same core values, we do not share America’s power to protect and project them across the globe. It is clearly in the UK’s best interests to maintain and prioritise the ‘special relationship’.
The US Government is increasingly agitated about the threat Beijing presents to liberal democracies. Unlike the ambiguity found in the UK, Washington is clear that China is a threat. As a result, the US sees the Diego Garcia airbase as a critical part of its military efforts to contain and counter China. This has been made crystal clear to our government.
We must prove to the US that European allies like the UK are dependable and worth cooperating with on global strategic issues. Returning the Chagos Islands will only increase American domestic rhetoric about European unreliability, and the benefits of isolationism. This narrative cannot take root.
There is also a moral aspect to this case. As a proud liberal democracy, the UK mustn’t become too dominated by hard-nosed Realpolitik. Britain’s historic treatment of the Chagos is rightfully held up as one of the more shameful acts of our imperial legacy. In the 60s, for example, the British Government displaced every single inhabitant to make way for a military base. It was not our finest hour.
So by handing the islands back, would we not be helping make amends for wrongs of the past? In short, yes. But that’s not the question here. The question is how seriously we should take this moral argument.
In the past ten years, we have seen a growing focus on Britain’s imperial legacy. In some quarters, this has resulted in an obsession with atoning for every imperial action or consequence, regardless of context or culpability. For these groups, anything associated with the Empire must be in principle criticised and destroyed. Decolonisation trumps all other arguments.
We should not shy away from facing the many unsavoury episodes of imperial history. The consequences of Britain’s historical actions are still shaping world events negatively. But that doesn’t mean the moral wrongs of our ancestors should necessarily dominate and guide our actions today. Each case is steeped in complex contexts, which must be taken into account.
Moreover, some practical considerations dampen the force of the moral argument for the Chagos Islands. Firstly, it is highly unlikely the exiled Chagossians (many of whom have happened to have settled near Gatwick airport) willreturn to the islands.
They have made their homes in Britain, and are no doubt used to the standard of living here. The drop in the quality of life by returning to the islands will be mind-bogglingly vast – they will need to start from scratch. To develop, support, and sustain modern living on these remote islands, the Mauritanian Government will face a financial burden that is likely to prove too much, dooming island inhabitants to a threadbare existence.
Secondly, the Chagossians are arguably ancestors of colonisers themselves. There were no indigenous people settled on the islands when they were first ‘discovered’ by European explorers – the Chagossians are largely descended from those who came to settle after the first permanent colony was established in 1793. The situation is not comparable to other areas of the world where indigenous populations were expelled having occupied lands for millennia.
To stress once more, the moral argument for decolonisation should not be dismissed. It must be contextualised and balanced against other factors. Yes, returning the Chagos Islands would be a powerful statement against the wrongs of our imperial past.
But, simultaneously, it would reduce UK strategic leverage in a critical area of the world, and allow China to spread its poisonous ideologies further into the Indian Ocean and East Africa. It would also undermine our relationship with the US, at a time when continued American participation in the Western alliance is more important than ever.
Incessant hand-wringing over our colonial past cannot disproportionately dominate our actions today. Although it will feel uncomfortable, keeping the Chagos Islands British priorities our national interest and the future of liberal democratic values. Although this may add some crackle to the UK’s global narrative, this broadcast will still be heard across the world.