Latest news with #ChagosIslands
The Independent
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Chagos Islands deal must be ratified to secure Diego Garcia, peers say
The Chagos Islands deal is 'not perfect' but must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of a vital military airbase, peers have said. Mauritius is 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement is rubber-stamped, the House of Lords International Agreements Community (HLIAC) warned. In a report published on Wednesday, the peers concluded that the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting the UK's right to run a joint UK-US base in jeopardy. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations returns sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the military site on Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice which said the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. Critics argue it comes at too high a cost to the taxpayer, which is expected to run to billions of pounds, and that the retention of the base will interfere withh Chagossians right to resettle. Islanders were expelled from the archipelago between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the military site and have not been allowed to return. Chairman of HLIAC Lord Goldsmith said that 'like all treaties, the agreement reflects a compromise' and highlighted that there was no guarantee it would be extended after the initial 99-year term agreed between the two countries. 'However, the UK cannot ignore the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which found that the Chagos Archipelago had been unlawfully detached from Mauritius at the time of its independence in the 1960s,' he said. 'If the agreement is not ratified there would be a greater risk from the adverse ruling of an international court to the future of the military base.' As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. The deal also includes provisions preventing development on the rest of the archipelago without the UK's consent, which the Government has argued will prevent countries such as China setting up their own facilities. The agreement has also been backed by the United States.
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Starmer's Chagos deal faces new legal challenge
Sir Keir Starmer's deal to give away the Chagos Islands is facing a fresh legal challenge. Campaigners have launched a High Court judicial review, which aims to stop the Government from signing away the archipelago to Mauritius without consulting the Chagossian people. The case is expected to be heard next month and is being backed by the Great British PAC, which was also behind an injunction from the High Court last month. The Conservatives backed the judicial review on Wednesday night and said the Chagos deal was a 'damning indictment of Keir Starmer'. The deal, which will cost British taxpayers up to £30 billion, means the Government will have to give notice if it plans to launch an attack from the joint Diego Garcia UK-US military base. The Great British PAC said the High Court case would be led by James Tumbridge, a barrister, and Philip Rule KC. The case is expected to directly challenge David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, for 'excluding Chagossians from a process that directly impacts their land, identity and future'. Misley Mandarin, who is bringing the legal challenge alongside his father Michel Mandarin, is an Army veteran who came to Britain 23 years ago as a British citizen. Michel Mandarin told The Telegraph: 'We are not Mauritian, we are Chagossian. The Government cannot lawfully decide our fate without us.' The claimants will argue that any agreement struck behind closed doors, without input from the Chagossians, is not only unjust but unlawful. The case is set to cite failures under the Equality Act and a duty to consult under common law as well as international legislation, including protections under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said: 'British Chagossians have been neglected and betrayed by the Labour Government as part of their £30bn Chagos surrender treaty. 'In their desperation to follow the whims of their Left-wing lawyer and activist friends, Keir Starmer and David Lammy have ignored the British national interest, betrayed British Chagossians and left British taxpayers picking up a £30bn bill. 'It's also a damning indictment of Keir Starmer – a man who boasts of his time as a human rights lawyer – that serious questions have been raised about how he treated British Chagossians.' Sir Keir has repeatedly insisted the Chagos deal represents value for money and has warned British national security would have been at risk had he not signed it. He announced the agreement to give away the Chagos Islands to Mauritius on May 22 despite concerns about how the deal could harm the UK's national security. The Telegraph disclosed last week that once the deal comes into force, Britain will be required to inform Mauritius about any future air strikes on Iran because of Sir Keir's deal. When the agreement was first announced in October, it was heralded by Mr Lammy as proof that Britain upholds its commitments under international law. Sir Keir and Mr Lammy have both claimed that, if Britain had not agreed to give the islands away, it would have been weeks before Mauritius began a successful legal challenge. They said this would have endangered Diego Garcia and put British and American control of the base at risk. Ownership of the Chagos Islands, known officially as the British Indian Ocean Territory, has long been disputed in the international courts. Multiple findings, including one by the United Nations, have claimed ongoing British ownership of the territory was unlawful. The US government, under previous administrations, has actively sought to resolve the issue to protect its assets in the Indian Ocean. In an article for The Telegraph last month, John Healey, the Defence Secretary, said Diego Garcia acted as a necessary 'launchpad to defeat terrorists'. Claire Bullivant, the chief executive of the Great British PAC, said: 'This is not just a legal challenge – it's a moral reckoning. 'The UK Government cannot in good conscience or lawful practice sign away the homeland of the Chagossian people without first speaking to them. To exclude them yet again is to rewrite history with the same pen of injustice. 'The Great British PAC stands firmly behind this challenge because true democracy demands consultation, not quiet deals behind closed doors.'
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Labour's under fire top legal adviser faces fresh calls to be sacked over claims he is trying to set Government policy
Labour's top legal adviser has sparked fresh anger and calls for his removal by saying that adhering to international law 'goes absolutely to the heart' of the Prime Minister's foreign policy aims. Attorney General Richard Hermer said ministers were 'united' on the need to comply 'with all forms of law', saying it was vital to revitalising the UK on the world stage. It comes as questions swirl over the influence of the human rights lawyer on the Government headed by his old friend Sir Keir Starmer, with claims he is trying to set policy rather than provide advice. The Prime Minister is currently under pressure to beef up his administration's lukewarm support for the US strikes authorised by Donald Trump against nuclear targets in Iran. Critics warned that ministers had been left 'paralysed' over the issue after Lord Hermer advised that joining Israel 's attacks on Iran, which began on June 13, would break international law, something that is disputed. Foreign Secretary David Lammy repeatedly refused to say on Monday that the strikes were the 'right thing to do' and told MPs the issue of British support was not a 'binary question'. Although Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden toughened up the Government's stance on Tuesday, Nato and Germany offered full-throated backing from the start. And Lord Hermer has been accused of a major role in 'surrendering' the Chagos Islands, the UK's last territory in the Indian Ocean, to adhere to a non-binding ruling by the International Court of Justice. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said Lord Hermer should be sacked, saying: 'Attorneys general are legal advisers, not policy makers. 'Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary couldn't answer basic questions, but Lord Hermer is waxing lyrical well beyond his brief. The attorney is not there to run foreign policy or call people Nazis. His position is untenable.' Speaking to the BBC before the latest Middle East conflict, Lord Hermer said: 'Is international law important to this Government and to this Prime Minister? Of course it is. 'It's important in and of itself, but it's also important because it goes absolutely to the heart of what we're trying to achieve, which is to make life better for people in this country. 'And so I am absolutely convinced, and I think the Government is completely united on this, that actually by ensuring that we are complying with all forms of law – domestic law and international law – we serve the national interest.' He added: 'No one wants to do deals with people they don't trust. No one wants to sign international agreements with a country that's got a government that's saying, well, "We may comply with it, we may not". 'We do. We succeed. We secure those trade deals, which are essential for making people's lives better in this country. 'We secure deals on migration with France, with Germany, with Iraq, that are going to deal with some of the other fundamental problems that we face, and we can do that because we comply, and we're seen to comply and indeed lead on international law issues. 'Being a good faith player in international law is overwhelmingly in the national interests of this country.'
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Labour law chief says international law 'at heart of UK foreign policy under Starmer' amid row over tepid support for US attack on Iran's nukes
Labour's top legal adviser has sparked fresh anger and calls for his removal by saying adhering to international law 'goes absolutely to the heart' of Keir Starmer 's foreign policy aims. Lord Hermer said ministers were 'united' on the need to comply with 'with all forms of law', saying it was vital to revitalising the UK on the world stage. It comes amid ongoing questions about the influence of the human rights lawyer on the government headed by his old friend Sir Keir, with claims he is trying to set policy rather than provide advice. The PM is currently under pressure to beef up his government's lukewarm support for the strikes by Donald Trump's US against nuclear targets in Iran. Critics warned that ministers had been left 'paralysed' over the issue after Lord Hermer advised that joining Israel 's attacks on Iran, which began 11 days ago, would break international law, something that is disputed. Foreign Secretary David Lammy repeatedly refused to say yesterday that the strikes were the 'right thing to do' and told MPs the issue of British support was not a 'binary question'. Although Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden toughened up the government's stance this morning, Nato and Germany offered full-throated backing from the start. And Hermer has been accused of playing a major role in 'surrendering' the Chagos Islands, the UK's last territory in the Indian Ocean, to adhere to a non-binding ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said Lord Hermer should be sacked, saying: 'Attorneys General are legal advisers, not policy makers. 'Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary couldn't answer basic questions, but Lord Hermer is waxing lyrical well beyond his brief. 'The Attorney is not there to run foreign policy or call people Nazis. His position is untenable.' Speaking to the BBC before the latest Middle East conflict kicked off, Lord Hermer said: 'Is international law important to this government and to this prime minister? Of course it is. 'It's important in and of itself, but it's also important because it goes absolutely to the heart of what we're trying to achieve, which is to make life better for people in this country. 'And so I am absolutely convinced, and I think the government is completely united on this, that actually by ensuring that we are complying with all forms of law - domestic law and international law - we serve the national interest.' He added: 'No one wants to do deals with people they don't trust. No one wants to sign international agreements with a country that's got a government that's saying, well, 'we may comply with it, we may not'. 'We do. We succeed. We secure those trade deals, which are essential for making people's lives better in this country. 'We secure deals on migration with France, with Germany, with Iraq, that are going to deal with some of the other fundamental problems that we face, and we can do that because we comply, and we're seen to comply and indeed lead on international law issues. 'Being a good faith player in international law is overwhelmingly in the national interests of this country.' Mrs Badenoch earlier said it was 'quite extraordinary' that ministers were unable to side with the United States against a regime which MI5 says has attempted 20 plots on British soil in the past three years. The Tory leader said Labour's attempt to sit on the fence showed 'a complete absence of moral clarity and, in fact, moral courage'. She said she was clear that the US bombing raid was legal, after the shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson advised that aiding Israel was in line with international law because a key ally was facing a 'genocidal threat' from Iran's nuclear programme. Nato chief Mark Rutte said the US bombing raid did not break international law – and said that his 'biggest fear' was that Iran's murderous regime would acquire a nuclear weapon. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said there was 'no reason to criticise what America did at the weekend,' adding: 'Yes, it is not without risk. But leaving things as they were was not an option either.'
The Independent
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Lammy urges Reform's newest MP to ‘get some help' over ‘conspiracy theories'
David Lammy has urged a Reform UK MP to 'get some help' because she is 'swallowing conspiracy theories'. Sarah Pochin had asked the Foreign Secretary whether the US felt unable to use the UK-US airbase on Diego Garcia, following the Government's deal with Mauritius over the Chagos Islands. Responding during a statement on the Middle East, Mr Lammy said the MP for Runcorn and Helsby should 'get off social media'. The UK-operated base in the Chagos Islands was not used in the US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty has said. He added that the US did not ask to use it, as he answered questions from the Foreign Affairs Committee on Monday. Speaking in the Commons, Ms Pochin said: 'Is he (Mr Lammy) able to explain to the House whether the United States felt unable to use the Diego Garcia base and have to refuel, in a highly dangerous operation three times because of that, because of your deal that you did with the with the Mauritians, that would then tell the Chinese, that would then tell the Iranians?' Mr Lammy replied: 'The honourable lady has got (to) get off social media, has got to get some help… because she is swallowing conspiracy theories that should not be repeated in this House.' The deal over the Chagos Islands follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice which says the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. During the statement on Monday, Mr Lammy was pressed by MPs on the UK's position following the US military action. Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) said: 'Does His Majesty's Government support or oppose US military action against Iran at the weekend?' Mr Lammy replied: 'His Majesty's Government will continue to work with our closest ally, as I was last week in Washington DC.' Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) said: 'What is UK Government policy on whether regime change should be pursued in Iran?' Mr Lammy replied: 'It is not our belief that it's for us to change the regime of any country, that it must be for the people themselves.' SNP MP Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) said: 'We've been here for an hour, and still the Foreign Secretary appears incapable of saying whether he supports or condemns America's actions, or whether he regards them as being legal or not. 'And nowhere in this statement does the role of international law even merit a mention. So will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity now to tell us whether he believes that America's unilateral action was compliant with international law?' Mr Lammy replied: 'I've got to tell (Mr O'Hara), I qualified and was called to the bar in 1995, I haven't practised for the last 25 years. 'It is not for me to comment on the United States' legal validity. I would refer him to article 51 and article two of the UN Charter, and he can seek his own advice.'
