Giving up the British territory was a ‘profound failing of judgement’, warns expert

In an era where global power is increasingly shaped by strategic military presence, economic influence, and geopolitical alliances, the UK’s decision to surrender sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius reflects a profound failure of judgment.

At the heart of this decision is Diego Garcia, a vital US-UK military base in the Indian Ocean that is indispensable in safeguarding Western security interests. 

The Chagos Archipelago, home to Diego Garcia, has been a linchpin of Western security architecture for decades.

The base is critical for US and UK military operations, allowing the West to project power across the Indo-Pacific, Middle East, and beyond.

Its central location enables long-range air and naval missions, surveillance, and logistics support for global military operations, including the US’s ability to counter Iranian and Russian aggression and monitor Chinese naval activities.

Given the rising threats from authoritarian powers like China, which continues its largest peacetime military build-up, handing over control of this vital region to Mauritius—an ally of China—undermines UK national security and Western influence in the Indo-Pacific.

The decision to grant Mauritius sovereignty while maintaining a 99-year lease for the base is framed as a diplomatic resolution to a long-standing dispute.

However, China’s strategy has always been to use economic engagement as a precursor to gaining security and political influence, particularly in key geopolitical regions.

Mauritius, a country where Chinese investment and influence have grown significantly since their 2021 free trade agreement, is becoming an increasingly crucial player in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Exports from Mauritius to China rose by 73% after the deal, a telling indicator of China’s expanding economic and political sway.

While the current agreement allows the US and UK to maintain Diego Garcia, the real question is for how long and under what conditions. Just as we saw with Hong Kong, where a seemingly rock-solid 99-year lease was eventually compromised, China could degrade the operational capacity of the Diego Garcia base without breaching formal agreements.

China could pressure the Mauritian government to restrict military operations, reduce access, or complicate logistics at the base through its economic and political leverage over Mauritius. This would severely undermine Western power projection in the region.

China’s economic ‘strategic salami slicing’ tactic is well-documented. For example, China provided $1.1 billion in loans to Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port.

When Sri Lanka could no longer repay the debt, Beijing took control of the port through a 99-year lease. This gave China control of a vital shipping lane and a potential military foothold in the Indian Ocean.

Similarly, in Djibouti, where China has invested $1.4 billion in infrastructure, China established its first overseas military base in 2017, right next to a US military installation.

Djibouti’s massive debt to China, which amounts to over 70% of its GDP, gave Beijing the leverage to expand its military presence in the region, further eroding Western influence.

It is staggering that the Labour government does not recognise this peril. By ceding sovereignty to Mauritius, the UK has opened the door for China to entrench its influence in a critical region. 

Why has David Lammy, the UK’s Foreign Secretary, pushed forward with this ill-advised decision? A closer look suggests several reasons.

First, Lammy’s ‘progressive realism’ seeks to position the UK as a champion of international law and restorative ‘decolonisation’. Lammy has argued that this agreement resolves a long-standing legal and diplomatic dispute, securing the future of the Diego Garcia base while adhering to the principles of international law.

A second reason is a new attitude toward China. As with Labour’s repeal of the University Academic Freedom Act to protect the massive Chinese student market in UK higher education or its push for Net-Zero, which deepens UK reliance on Chinese supply chain monopolies, there are increasing signs that Starmer seeks to increasingly sacrifice British prosperity and its commitment to freedom to instead kowtow to authoritarianism.

The progressive decolonial virtue signalling is a helpful fig leaf to cover this deeper anti-freedom China reset and an offering that will undoubtedly help Lammy’s upcoming visit to Beijing.   

In the broader context of global competition between democratic freedoms and authoritarianism,  China has shown, time and again, that it is willing to exploit the weaknesses of liberal democracies to advance its agenda of expanding authoritarian influence.

The more China extends its reach into regions like the Indian Ocean, the more it can challenge the existing global order that has, until now, been safeguarded by Western powers. 

In a world where authoritarian regimes are on the march, and the Starmer government remains on one knee,  Lammy’s decision will have profound and lasting consequences for the global balance of power.