Keir Starmer has had a change of ^heart^

Ive just read:

"A senior official in Mauritius’ government has vowed that the Chagos Islands will be “decolonised” after Keir Starmer was forced to shelve legislation to hand the islands back to Mauritius.

On Friday, UK government officials acknowledged that they had run out of time to pass legislation within the current parliamentary session, which ends in the coming weeks, after a lack of support from Donald Trump.

After the collapse of the plan to hand the islands over voluntarily, Dhananjay Ramful, the Mauritian foreign minister, told an Indian Ocean conference in Mauritius that his government would regain control over the territory.
“We will spare no effort to seize any diplomatic or legal avenue to complete the decolonisation process,” he said, in comments that were first reported in the Sunday Telegraph. “This is a matter of justice.”

Thank you DAR Good summary.

There’s a lot of debate right now around the UK’s decision not to hand over the Chagos Islands, and it’s easy to frame it as simple “U.S. interference”, especially given reports that the U.S. President urged caution.

But the reality is more complex, and there is another side to this argument.

The Chagos Islands, particularly Diego Garcia, are one of the most strategically important military locations the UK and U.S. share. From a defence perspective, they’re a key hub for operations across the Middle East, Africa, and the Indo-Pacific. At a time of rising global tensions, some argue that giving up control could weaken Western security.

From that angle, if Donald Trump (or any U.S. leader) weighed in, it’s not necessarily “interference", it’s what close allies do. The UK/U.S. relationship has always involved behind-the-scenes pressure and coordination.

There’s also a legal grey area. While international bodies have supported Mauritius’ claim, those rulings aren’t strictly binding. So some see the UK’s position as defensible, not outright unlawful.

On top of that, there are longer-term concerns about stability and influence in the region, including who ultimately benefits from a transfer of control.

And finally, it’s worth remembering that reports from organisations like the BBC, while credible, are often based on partial information. Big geopolitical decisions like this rarely come down to a single conversation or source of pressure. So while one view is that this is an example of overreach by the U.S., the other is that it’s a strategic, coordinated decision shaped by security, law, and long-term global interests.

Like most foreign policy issues it’s not black and white. The framing of the OP is designed to present only one view as if it is a given truth. It isn't.

Oreo

I’m glad it isn’t happening at the moment and hope that it won’t in the future, to pay eye watering amounts for land we already have ( since the early 1800’s I read) is madness.
What we could do is pay the Chagossians reparations and not give any to Mauritius.

So go against a previous agreement and the decision of The International Court Of Justice? Sounds very Trumpian to me.

I’m glad it isn’t happening at the moment and hope that it won’t in the future, to pay eye watering amounts for land we already have ( since the early 1800’s I read) is madness.
What we could do is pay the Chagossians reparations and not give any to Mauritius.

I repeat my view that Trump's about turn has enabled, emboldened, provoked and strengthened the case of both Mauritius and the Chagossians.

Predicted legal claims have already started- the Chargossian representatives first out of the block.

UK Government officials are seeking alternatives the current treaty/ Mauritius deal on Chagos Islands. The Foreign Office is looking at an alternative plan behind the scenes to allow the Chagossians to resettle them.

The Independent has just reported it has seen a submission by the legal representatives of the Chagossioan representatives in which they have asked the United Nations to intervene over the deal the UK (and US) previously signed to prevent Starmer "creating a crime against humanity" naming Starmer specifically in the document.

As predicted, Trump has scuppered the treaty ratification but it won't stop legal claims from others. This quick legal action is a first example.

Jaberwork 16.44: "And the rights of the Chagossian people?"

Indeed not the Uk's finest hour. The UK government removed the Chagossian people between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the military base on Diego Garcia. Many came to the UK and sought citizenship. They now have until a 2027 deadline to apply for citizenship if they so wish.

As of 2026 the community is advocating for their rights as an indigenous group (recognised by the United Nations and other International Bodies) with many seeking the right to return and reparations from the UK Government (for the loss of their homes, culture and livelihood) which has largely been denied by the US and UK by way of the 2025 signed treaty as it that lacks a guarantee for their return to all islands.

And the rights of the Chagossian people? Do they count for nothing, bearing in mind they were forcibly and disgracefully removed? Mauritius will have to tackle Trump over D.G, and he has already said he will just take it if necessary! Why? Because realistically he can, no matter what anyone else thinks or says.

Cossy 15.37.

Well we do seem to have moved on to discuss the deal, Trump's current veto actions, what that might mean etc so no harm lost 😊.

Trump's veto actions alongside his recent denigration of Starmer, Macron and others plus his genocidal statements earlier in the week gives the UK and the government room to reflect recalibrate what is in the UK's best interests going forward. Some reflection and careful diplomacy needed....🤞

LemonJam

GrannyGravy 11.20- you decided to title your post "Keir Starmer has had a change of heart" Not sure why as KS has not had a change of heart. You then went on to open your post discussion:

"The BBC are reporting that the PM has decided not to surrender control of the Chagos Islands. Their reporter went on to say it was after POTUS had put pressure on him saying it was not a good idea strategically. (I cain inky assume that the BBC is correct in this and has had inside information)"

Posters responded it was not only factually incorrect to post that Starmer "has had a change of heart" but was also not the case that the BBC was reporting that "the PM has decided not to surrender control of the Chagos Islands".

The BBC article stated in its opening paragraph " Sir Keith Starmer has shelved his Chagos islands deal amid worsening relations with Donald Trump after the US failed to formally confirm the approval".

I guess if your wording had been less misleading and more accurate the focus of replies would then focus on the Chagos island deal itself, Trump's actions in prevent the treaty agreement being ratified and the implications of that not happening rather than focussing on the claim Starmer had had a change of heart?

Great post, succinctly put.

👍👏👏👏

GrannyGravy13

I didn’t read it CossyI watched the BBC News (Breakfast) this morning and that is how it was being reported.

Bottom line is it isn’t going to happen because Trump has changed his mind and withdrawn his previous approval of the deal

POTUS is acting like he is ^King of The World^

He is acting like he is, but he isn’t and please will someone, somewhere take him somewhere quiet where he can play with his toys harming no one! Remember only crayons and no scissors.

The US has vetoed this treaty deal going through. This US veto however will not stop Mauritius taking legal action to claim.

This year Mauritius maintains its sovereignty of C islands, already has significant international rulings in its favour. It said it expected the transfer treaty to proceed despite opposition for Trump. If I was a betting person I would put money on Mauritius continuing with its legal actions to finalise this handover independently.

The UK currently has no legal right to sovereignty, to the contrary it has rulings against that.

Jaberwork 15.10.

The US and UK in 1966 Agreement was an exchange of notes between US and UK for the Chagos islands as part of the British Indian Ocean Territory available for joint defence purposes. It was for 50 year term initially.

However the rulings as set out above change the sovereignty situation. The 1966 agreement was controversial from the outset and violated UN resolution that warns against the dismemberment of Mauritius before independence.

There is an agreement between the U.S and UK signed in 1966 concerning Deigo Garcia. Valid for 50 years, with a 20 year automatic extension , unless terminated with two years notice. Part of the deal is that the UK retains sovereignty over the Island. So if we want to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius we have to have a new signed agreement with the US allowing us to do this. President Trump is not prepared to allow this deal to be altered so obviously isn't signing anything. Without this new agreement, the deal can't be ratified and so is now dead in the water until such time as the 'President ' agrees, if one ever does?! Hopefully they won't.

For example- when you buy a house in the UK- there is the stage of Exchanging Contracts ( after all terms have been agreed) then next stage Completion when funds are transferred and ownership officially handed over.

The UK and US signed the treaty, agreed lease terms and payments thus deemed to have completed exchange of contracts stage. Completion not taken place due to Trump changing his mind.

Mauritius, supported by the evidence of UN, ICJ and ITLOA rulings alongside the evidence of UK's declared accepted position it wants to hand over the islands to Mauritius that strengthens to a very high degree the Mauritius legal claim to sovereignty. Once it ratifies this legally- with or without the UK it has the upper hand to charge whatever it likes- for any country in the world to set up a military base and access its maritime waters should it so choose. That may or not be the UK in or without partnership of the US.

Thanks for explaining that Jane43.
Sounds like DT is a bigger flip-flopper than KS 🤣

France ceded Mauritius in 1814 not 1014- typo

The previous "owner" of Mauritius Islands was France from the early 19th century until ceded to Britain in 1014 after Britain captured them during the Napoleonic wars through the Treaty of Paris. Ie this territory became part of the British Empire. The Chagos islands were a part of that Mauritius territory.

However the UK decided and took action to separate the Chagos islands from Mauritius (for military base advantage) in 1965 when Mauritius became independent in 1965 but the International Court of Justice found that move to be invalid/illegal in 2019.

The previous Conservative government decided it was in Britons best interests to comply with international law but wanted to maintain Diego Garcia as a key strategic military asset for the UK and secondly to reinforce its relationship with the US. So the Conservative government began negotiations for a treaty to hand the islands back to Mauritius. The Labour government continued the negotiations when it came to office. A deal was agreed (with a lease payment for a designated period for the UK and US to maintain a military base) and the treaty was SIGNED in May 2025 with US support and US treaty terms agreement. The treaty has yet be ratified but Trump has now changed his mind and refuses to sign the treaty off.

The UK declares it respects and upholds international law but maybe some posters don't share that previous Conservative and now Labour government view.

A ruling by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea-ITLOA- strengthened Mauritius claims to the Chagos islands in 2023 by endorsing the opinion issued by the International Court of Justice-ICJ- in 2019. There is nothing in law to evidence the UK has a legal right to continue to lay claim to "own" the Chagos Islands. The UN General Assembly resolution on sovereignty also supports Mauritius sovereignty.

How many posters believe that the UK should ignore these legal rulings and continue to "own and administer" the Chagos islands. How many believe If the UK takes that stance there most likely will be adverse consequences whcih merit some consideration.

It is less likely that Mauritius will "sue the UK" for failing to finalise and ratify the already signed treaty. It is more likely that Mauritius will simply take legal action to finalise its full independence and sovereignty right to claim ownership of the Chagos island, with likelihood of success due to previous rulings as set out plus the evidence of the signed treaty 2025.

In such circumstances the UK will then be on the back foot. It will need to begin a new round of negotiations with Mauritius seeking its permission to have a military base and have access to Maritime waters around the Chagos islands. It will be for the UK, in such circumstances to determine in the new world order whether it wishes to do that in partnership with the US or not. The US after all has/never had any territorial rights.

The first treaty of Paris in May 1814 was after the abdication and exile of Napoleon to Elba and ended the war between France and the Sixth Coalition. The defeat of Napoleon was in June 1815 after the battle of Waterloo and his subsequent surrender to the British, leading to the second treaty of Paris in November 1815.

GrannyGravy13

I think the waters are somewhat muddied.

If the agreement as laid down by the ICJ is between the U.K. and Mauritius, why has POTUS got so much sway?

I thought the deal included the continuation of the US’s base on Diego Garcia?

If the US are officially sharing the base, there must be a signed agreement setting out the terms. The US is being more pernickety over their rights in this than they were over the agreed requirements of their NATO treaty membership.

David49

All this talk of legalities is nonsense in reality, if the US said we are taking over the base it would just happen, there is no local population and nobody is going to start a war over Diego Garcia

Compared to Trumps threat about taking Greenland over it's a total non issue

You think it is OK for the US (or Trump alone) to break a treaty when the other parties are not in a position to obstruct him? Or when it suits them/him to misunderstand the terms and ignore them, as they/he did over the NATO treaty? It seems that all international agreements are now mere scrap paper to be torn up, because it is not convenient or profitable for the US to comply.

Which will be the next to go? Which ally will find themselves classed as an enemy?

I think the waters are somewhat muddied.

If the agreement as laid down by the ICJ is between the U.K. and Mauritius, why has POTUS got so much sway?

I thought the deal included the continuation of the US’s base on Diego Garcia?

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I’m with Bodach on this
Mauritius has never owned the Chagis islands.

This is the situation, it dates back to a deal made in 1968.

“What are the Chagos Islands?
They are an archipelago in the Indian Ocean, located about 5,800 miles south-east of the UK and 1,250 miles north-east of Mauritius. They became British territory along with Mauritius in 1814 as part of the treaty of Paris after the defeat of Napoleon. The group of islands were designated as British Indian Ocean Territory in 1965 and detached from Mauritius, which became independent in 1968. The deal then was that the islands would return to Mauritius once they were no longer needed for Britain’s defence. A joint UK-US military base was built on the largest of the islands, Diego Garcia. Displaced residents were resettled in Mauritius and Seychelles, while some were relocated to the UK in 2002.”