Geopolitics - Chagos: The Reversion Agreement Suspended by Washington's Veto

The reversion of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, signed last May but already hindered by successive delays, now explicitly depends on Washington's approval. This also relies on the willingness of the American president to renegotiate a strategic treaty that has been in place for sixty years.

The return of the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius, announced by London as a key agreement to secure the future of the joint military base at Diego Garcia, is now explicitly conditioned on the agreement of the United States. Over the weekend, the British government acknowledged that the process cannot progress without a prior renegotiation of the 1966 treaty binding London and Washington. This admission places the final decision in the hands of the American administration.

According to The Times, Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, states that President Donald Trump's team "will not support Keir Starmer's agreement on the Chagos," adding that the American administration believes that the return of the islands to Mauritius "is not in their interest."

Meanwhile, The Independent reports that the Labour government has admitted that the agreement risks collapsing if Donald Trump refuses to amend this 60-year-old treaty, which affirms British sovereignty over the archipelago. The legislation needed to implement the agreement – which was set to be debated in the House of Lords yesterday – has been delayed after warnings that it could conflict with the 1966 treaty established with the United States.

While Keir Starmer had received American support last year, Washington's position has dramatically shifted. In February, during a visit to Washington, the American president assured him that he was "inclined to go along with your country" and felt that "this would go very well." However, last week, Donald Trump made a stunning reversal, calling the agreement "an act of great stupidity" on his Truth Social platform. This statement sent shockwaves through Downing Street and also in Port Louis, where such a shift was not anticipated.

In a letter sent Friday evening, British ministers conceded that it would not be possible to ratify the Chagos agreement "without the cooperation of the United States" to revise the 1966 treaty. This response came after Lord Callanan, the opposition's Foreign Affairs spokesperson in the House of Lords, questioned whether the agreement would be legal without an amendment to the existing text. The minister responsible for Africa, Lady Chapman, confirmed that ratification was impossible "without the relevant domestic law and international arrangements in place."

A spokesperson for the British government stated over the weekend: "The government remains fully committed to the agreement to secure the UK-US joint base at Diego Garcia, which is vital for our national security." They also accused some peers of showing "irresponsible and reckless behavior," stating that their role is to oversee legislation "and not interfere with our national security priorities."

According to The Telegraph, the reversion will not take place for several weeks regardless. The planned debate in the House of Lords has been postponed after Conservatives warned that the proposal could violate the 1966 treaty. Lord Callanan reminded in a letter sent Sunday to Lady Chapman that British law requires a minimum delay of 21 parliamentary sitting days between the presentation of an amended treaty and its ratification. Even if the text were to return to Parliament quickly, it could not be formally adopted "before March 7 at the earliest."

Political pressure is mounting. Dame Priti Patel, the shadow Foreign Secretary, condemned what she termed the "surrender of the Chagos for £35 billion," accusing the government of "misleading the public and Parliament." According to her, "this surrender by our weak Prime Minister is entirely unnecessary, jeopardizes our security and defense, and hands our sovereign territory and taxpayer money over to an ally of China."

At Downing Street, officials claim that the bill will be rescheduled and that it is "fully compliant with international law," while blaming Conservatives for "playing parliamentary games." Whitehall, the traditional seat of the UK government, indicates that British and American officials "continue to work together to ensure that the necessary arrangements are in place for the future operation of the base."