Stephen Doughty, British Minister in the House of Commons: 'We are committed to the agreement that protects the military base at Diego Garcia'

In response to criticism and diplomatic tensions, British Minister Stephen Doughty confirmed in the House of Commons the UK's commitment to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius while ensuring the enduring protection of the strategic UK-US military base at Diego Garcia.

The British government remains firmly committed to returning the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius in order to protect the UK-US joint military base on Diego Garcia, despite parliamentary controversies and international criticism. On Monday evening, during an urgent question in Parliament, Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Stephen Doughty, reaffirmed this position clearly: 'The Government is committed to the agreement that protects the UK-US joint military base on Diego Garcia. We are focused on implementing this legislation to safeguard our national security.'

The debate centered around the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, which aims to implement the treaty signed on May 22, 2025, between the UK and Mauritius. This treaty transfers sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory) to Mauritius while ensuring long-term leasing (often referred to as 99 years) of Diego Garcia for the shared military base with the United States.

Stephen Doughty emphasized the vital importance of this base: 'The base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, including the United States. It is crucial for ensuring the safety of Britons. It is also one of our most significant contributions to the transatlantic defense and security partnership, enabling rapid deployment of operations and forces across the Middle East, East Africa, and South Asia, helping to combat some of the toughest threats, including terrorism and hostile states. Its unique strategic location provides a real military advantage in the Indo-Pacific. The facility has also aided in data collection used to support counter-terrorism operations against, for example, high-value Islamic State targets in recent years.'

He insisted that the government would never compromise on national security: 'As we have clearly stated repeatedly in the House, the UK will never compromise on our national security,' and 'the agreement we have reached is vital to protect our national security, ensure the long-term future of a base that is vital for the UK and the US, and which was under threat.'

The treaty was initially welcomed by the United States, Australia, Five Eyes partners, as well as India, Japan, and South Korea. However, recent tensions arose, particularly following statements from President Donald Trump criticizing the agreement as an 'act of total weakness' and 'an act of GREAT STUPIDITY,' claiming that 'China and Russia have noticed' this concession. The British government maintains that daily discussions are ongoing with the United States to address concerns and finalize the update of the 1966 UK-US exchange of notes agreement (which has been updated several times in the past: 1972, 1976, 1987, 1999).

Stephen Doughty explained that ratifying the treaty requires several steps: 'Before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US agreement — the exchange of notes; and establish arrangements regarding the environment, maritime security, and migration.' He refuted accusations of neglect or violation of the 1966 agreement, labeling Conservative attacks as 'simple political stunts' and 'deeply irresponsible.'

The debate was marked by lively exchanges. Priti Patel (Conservative) accused the government of 'capitulation' and breaching international obligations, citing the 1966 agreement stating that the British Indian Ocean Territory 'shall remain under the United Kingdom's sovereignty.' She questioned the minister about recent contacts with the US administration and the implications of the US's changing position.

Stephen Doughty responded by highlighting that negotiations to update the UK-US agreement had been ongoing for a long time and had been communicated to Parliament (notably in December 2025 in the House of Lords). He condemned the tactics of the opposition in the Lords, who filed a 'destructive' amendment delaying the examination of the text: 'This is irresponsible and reckless behavior from the official opposition in the second Chamber, using procedural tactics to obstruct the implementation of a treaty on a critical national security issue.'

Other interventions focused on costs (estimated at a net present value of £3.4 billion, averaging £101 million annually), the rights of Chagossians (who were expelled in the 1970s-1980s), as well as Liberal Democrat amendments calling for a Chagossian referendum or annual parliamentary oversight of payments to Mauritius. Stephen Doughty acknowledged the historical wrongs and commitments to the Chagossian communities (through a trust fund) but reminded that the courts and the ICJ's advisory opinion from 2019 view the right to self-determination as belonging to Mauritius in this context.

Despite internal criticisms (including from Labour MP Dan Carden, who opposed the deal on grounds of sovereignty) and external ones, the minister concluded that the treaty offers better protections than those previously negotiated (buffer zone, restrictions on foreign forces present on the outer islands) and safeguards the base's operations against existing threats.

The British government, Stephen Doughty concluded, remains 'focused on passing the Bill to secure the base,' which is deemed 'an invaluable national security asset.' Debates in the Lords will resume in due course, and exchanges with the United States continue daily.