Why did the federal government signal the Chagos deal now?

In a fast-moving global, suffused through struggle and political uncertainty, it could appear abnormal for the United Kingdom executive to give up sovereign British territory in sea.

Indeed, the federal government’s critics cross additional and say the verdict to surrender a key strategic foothold within the Indian Ocean is a perilous weakening of UK safety.

So why has the federal government passed the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, a country some thousand miles away?

The solution has a criminal beginning and a realistic conclusion.

It all makes a speciality of the joint UK-US army base at the greatest island within the archipelago, Diego Garcia.

The executive felt that with out ceding sovereignty to Mauritius, the operation of the bottom would develop into unworkable and that might pose a better risk to UK safety.

Defence Secretary John Healey informed MPs that “without this deal, within weeks, we could face losing legal rulings and within just a few years the base would become inoperable”.

The putative criminal problem is in accordance with a sequence of judgements through more than a few United Nations our bodies that the Chagos Islands belong to Mauritius.

Essentially, they argued the United Kingdom had no criminal proper to split the islands from Mauritius earlier than the previous British colony become unbiased within the 1960s.

There have been votes to that impact within the UN General Assembly.

But then in 2019 there used to be an “advisory opinion” through the UN’s International Court of Justice subsidized up through a later ruling of the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Ministers feared those rulings and reviews would quickly develop into a legally binding judgement through this UN tribunal.

Under power within the House of Commons to spot the supply of this criminal risk, Healey stated: “There’s a range of international legal challenges and rulings against us.

“The maximum proximate, essentially the most probably severe, is the tribunal of the International Convention of the Sea.”

If the government lost a case there, ministers argue, the outside world would be obliged – by law – to take decisions that would interfere in the running of the base.

So they argue Diego Garcia’s satellite communications would be threatened because the UK relies on a UN authority in Geneva to get access to a particular electromagnetic spectrum.

They say contractors would refuse to visit the isolated base – to make repairs or deliver supplies – for fear of being sued by Mauritius.

The ability to fly aircraft in and out might be challenged by international rules that govern our skies.

The government’s critics – which include Conservative and Reform MPs, some foreign diplomats and even a few officials within Whitehall – challenge this argument and say the legal threat is being exaggerated.

They accuse ministers of being overly submissive to international lawyers and craven to politically motivated votes at the UN.

Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge told MPs the government was “following the criminal recommendation to behave definitively to our detriment, totally at the foundation of hypothetical possibility that has no longer but materialised and which shall we problem”.

The government’s second argument is that without a deal, China would get a toehold in the islands.

Officials say that in the absence of an agreement, there would be no legal ban preventing Mauritius allowing a foreign power to establish a military or other presence in the islands.

Under the terms of the deal, the UK can effectively veto that happening.

The UK claims that without the deal, it would have no alternative but to threaten military force if China tried to set up a military facility on one of the islands.

Officials also argue that Mauritius, by being paid rent for the islands, has no financial incentive to open them up to Chinese investment.

The government’s critics counter that for all these safeguards, the Mauritian government may well nonetheless still develop closer ties with China – and possibly even Russia.

The government’s broader argument is diplomatic.

For years the UK has been accused by friend and foe alike of hypocrisy; for making the case for international law on the world stage but ignoring it with regard to the Chagos islands.

How could the UK criticise Russia for breaking international law in Ukraine and China in the South China Sea if it was itself breaking the rules in the Indian Ocean?

Ministers also argued that at a time of geopolitical uncertainty, when old allies were less reliable and new partnerships had to be formed, the Chagos row was a diplomatic boil than needed to be lanced.

It was notable the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres issued a statement welcoming the deal, saying it demonstrated “the price of international relations in addressing ancient grievances”.

Again, the government’s critics dispute this conclusion, arguing the world has changed, and that we live in a time when “may is correct” and close adherence to the fine print of international law is outdated and a geopolitical indulgence.

Would US President Donald Trump or French President Emmanuel Macron, they ask, give up territories overseas?

The government’s response to that challenge is to say that the US – which largely runs and pays for Diego Garcia – now supports the deal with Mauritius, despite earlier doubts.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said “following a complete inter-agency evaluate, the Trump Administration decided that this settlement secures the long-term, solid, and efficient operation of the joint US-UK army facility at Diego Garcia”.

Other members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance also back the agreement; the base is a huge hub for the exchange of global signals intelligence.

These issues will now be tested in Parliament as MPs consider whether to ratify the agreement.

The government may win the vote because of its majority.

But it has yet to win the argument.