GB News
The future of the Chagos Islands has re-emerged as a point of tension between London, Washington and Port Louis, with new developments in the United States raising questions about the long-term security of the territory. In January, I travelled to Washington DC to urge the US State Department to withdraw its support for the UK-Mauritius agreement. Despite the advanced stage of the legislation in the British Parliament, many of the American officials were unaware of how urgent the situation had become. One adviser remarked the US had identified weaknesses across Western allies and was looking to reinforce strategic vulnerabilities. I warned another person, who was directly involved in the Chagos negotiations, saying: “The Foreign Office will ask you to change the 1966 Agreement. That is your veto - do not change it.” Had Donald Trump's administration agreed to amend that agreement, it would have enabled the UK Government to push the Bill through Parliament. TRENDING Stories Videos Your Say Their refusal was one of several factors that contributed to the Bill’s collapse. This week, a list of US policy options concerning the Chagos Islands surfaced, reflecting Washington’s growing concern the UK has not met expectations in defending its own territories. Over the past six months alone, the UK has faced a drone attack on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, the Gibraltar agreement, renewed threats to the Falkland Islands and an attempted Iranian missile strike on Diego Garcia. Combined with decades of Mauritian legal and diplomatic pressure, these events have raised doubts about the UK’s ability to protect its realm. US officials have examined the legal position and found no compelling reason for the Chagos Islands to be transferred. Given Diego Garcia’s strategic sensitivity, it is unsurprising one option on the list (though far from the top) includes a potential US purchase of the territory. The leading options remain maintaining the status quo, recognising that no legal fault exists, and renegotiating the current deal. The remaining options have yet to be released. Any purchase by the Trump administration would require Washington to agree to amend the 1966 Agreement, effectively removing its own veto. That change would satisfy the final international requirement the Foreign Office needs to reintroduce the Bill to Parliament. With a Labour majority, the Bill would likely pass the Commons with ease, though it would face resistance in the House of Lords. Labour MPs would also find themselves in the unusual position of voting for a measure that ultimately enables the President to acquire the islands — a prospect that could trigger internal rebellion. Once ratified, the UK would hand the territory to Mauritius, which would then be positioned to negotiate a sale to the US. LATEST DEVELOPMENTS Donald Trump considers BUYING Chagos Islands in effort to crush Keir Starmer's surrender Labour may be spying on Americans, top Trump ally warns in fresh attack on Keir Starmer's Britain Donald Trump refuses BBC’s 'improper' request for financial details in bitter $10billion lawsuit Mauritius would undoubtedly seek to maximise revenue, particularly given its existing post‑deal arrangements with the European Union and India on fishing and mineral rights. If the US were to acquire the islands, it would almost certainly purchase the entire territory outright and steel-fence the entire territory. Such an outcome would be devastating for Chagossians who have fought for decades to return home. It would also be damaging for the UK, which would lose access to Diego Garcia and any military role in the region. The only beneficiaries would be the US, securing its strategic interests, and Mauritius, which would gain significant income. A coordinated effort to prevent this scenario is now emerging on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Lord Weir of Ballyholme has introduced legislation in the House of Lords aimed at protecting British sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Across the Atlantic, Senator Kennedy is preparing a Bill that would require Senate approval for any change affecting British sovereignty, effectively giving Congress a role in blocking a transfer. The long‑term British solution is clear: enable Chagossians to resettle the outer islands. A recognised, settled population establishes self‑determination, which the United Nations cannot override. Resettlement is the only route that protects Chagossian rights, secures British sovereignty and the base and stabilises the future of the territory. Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter
Go to News Site
Ruptly 
The Independent 
Grimsby Live 
The Mirror 
KentLive 
