Tolga Inanc: The entire saga of the Chagos deal shows the naivety at the heart of Starmer’s government

Tolga Inanc is Co-Chair, of the Conservative Friends of Turkey.

Starmer’s Chagos deal has been delayed in Parliament following backlash from President Trump. While the UK government’s position remains unchanged, the deal’s fate hangs in the balance.

Chagos is rarely an issue for most of the public.

An archipelago in the Indian Ocean 5,800 miles away, it has been controlled by Britain since 1814. Despite being one of the most remote places on Earth, it houses Diego Garcia – a top-secret US military base vital to UK defence, intelligence, and security.

The agreement to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius while leasing Diego Garcia back for 99 years offers a fascinating insight into Starmer’s worldview. However laudable his intentions, the deal and its justification reveal an extreme naivety at the heart of our government.

Starmer’s first justification is international law. Labour ministers claim the Diego Garcia base was threatened by court decisions challenging UK sovereignty. Yet the legal ruling they cite is non-binding and advisory. On 25 February 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an Advisory Opinion disputing Chagos’s separation from Mauritius in 1965. This opinion was requested by the UN General Assembly in 2017. Starmer must know the ICJ’s advisory function was never intended to settle disputes between states.

Furthermore, he has forgotten his history. Mauritius agreed to the separation of the Chagos Islands in 1965 and reaffirmed this during its 1968 independence. Britain made a binding commitment to cede sovereignty only when the islands were no longer needed for “defence purposes.” Mauritius respected this until the 1980s, when it began demanding a sovereignty transfer. Britain, meanwhile, has stood by the 1965 agreement.

Starmer also cites national security, claiming the deal protects Diego Garcia from ‘malign influence’. It is unclear how surrendering sovereignty 5,800 miles away and leasing back a site housing top-secret assets increases security. The best guarantor of security is the status quo, where Britain maintains sovereignty for defence. Sovereignty should only pass when that defensive need ends – as it did with the Seychelles in the 1960s.

That moment has not yet come, especially as great powers jostle for leverage, best gained through assets in key locations. With 40 per cent of global trade passing through the Indian Ocean, British sovereignty is vital to its strategic advantage and prosperity. Ceding control is an unforced error in an age of geo-economic competition.

As hostile states target democracies, this deal sets a dangerous precedent for British Overseas Territories and Sovereign Bases such as the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar or Akrotiri. Having worked in the Civil Service on hostile states and seen how they undermine the West, I anticipate Russia, China, and Iran using this deal to weaponize other bilateral disputes from history.

Starmer claims this deal addresses “past wrongs,” yet this is deeply misleading.

If he truly cared about past wrongs, he would listen to the majority of Chagossians in the UK who oppose the transfer. Mauritius has made only passing references to the Chagossian cause. Starmer could have shown leadership and diplomatic dexterity by offering practical support: reviewing resettlement options, improving livelihoods in the UK and abroad, and reconciling with families expelled in the 1960s. We could have deepened security ties to give Mauritius a greater stake in its relationship with Britain, counter-balancing Chinese influence.

Special Envoy Jonathan Powell – who negotiated the deal – claims China could not develop a base in Chagos. He forgets China’s disregard for bilateral treaties over Hong Kong and the fact that Mauritius is now free to resettle the Chagos Archipelago. What recourse does the UK have if such resettlement allowed under the deal is used for military purposes?

A 99-year lease won’t stop Mauritius from signing a defence treaty with China in a decade or allowing a Chinese surveillance site to monitor and disrupt UK-US operations in Diego Garcia. Beijing will not respect non-binding advisory notes when Diego Garcia undermines its vested interests. To our adversaries, this lease means as little as the 1968 treaty now means to Mauritius.

Some Labour figures note that negotiations began under the Conservatives. However, initiating discussions and formally ceding sovereignty are two very different things. Any minister using this talking point reveals how out of depth they are on diplomacy.

Whether driven by dogmatic idealism or poor advice, Starmer’s justifications show a lack of judgement. While our adversaries in Moscow and Beijing plan for leverage decades ahead, Britain’s resolve to maintain its strategic advantage and operate effectively in a realpolitik world continues to wane.