Unlock the White House Watch watch newsletter for free
Your guide on what the US elections of 2024 mean for Washington and Le Monde
Sir Keir Starmer will try next week to sell his disputed agreement from the Chagos islands to the American president Donald Trump, in the midst of an increasing dispute on the justification of a agreement affecting the US military base in Diego Garcia.
British officials claim that criticism of the agreement is based on “wild speculation” and insists that there are multiple national security reasons to conclude an agreement under which the United Kingdom will give in the sovereignty of the islands From Chagos to Mauritius.
But security justifications for the agreement affecting British Indian Ocean territory (Biot) was denounced this week in a report on the exchange of policies, a central-law group, stressing the risk of tense discussions when the Prime Minister and his team arrive in Washington.
The White House said this month that it continued to “examine the agreement of the British government with Maurice and the potential implications for the naval support establishment Diego Garcia”.
Jim Risch, republican president of the Senate’s foreign relations committee and Trump ally told Policy Exchange this week that the agreement represented a “dangerous surrender” in Beijing because it would allow Chinese influence to grow in the region.
Jonathan Powell, National Security Advisor to Starmer, had interviews this month With its American counterpart Mike Waltz On the Chagos agreement, and the Starmer allies said they expect the Prime Minister to discuss the issue with Trump.
Before the visit, British officials said that the agreement between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, which would involve British leasing Diego Garcia for a period of 99, would put the base on a “secure place”.
Great Britain argued that international legal decisions on the status of the archipelago have questioned the future operation of the air base and the port installation on Diego Garcia.
Downing Street said: “Legal and security advice is very clear that the functioning of the base will be in danger if there is no agreement.” As part of the plan, Great Britain abandoned sovereignty over the Chagos in Mauritius.
British officials said people had become “fixed” on a decision by the International Court of Justice in 2019, which said that Great Britain’s sovereignty should end as quickly as possible.
They have added that other problems could arise, including the possibility that certain countries can refuse to authorize the rights of “overview” for planes providing the British base strategically from the United Kingdom in the Indian Ocean.
A Starmer spokesperson also said that “the electromagnetic spectrum of the Diego Garcia base would not be able to continue working without an agreement”, potentially threatening secure communications.
“This is something to which the United Kingdom and the United States currently have unique access, and this is the case that without legal certainty on the basis [it] is something we would lose access, “added the spokesperson.
The two complaints were rejected in a policies exchange report which declared that even chartered civil aircraft flying to Diego Garcia were not up to the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations Agency , as long as they were used for military purposes.
“Flights to and since the basis are excluded from the scope of the jacket of the OACA, because the organization deals only with civil aviation,” said the report.
The report said that Downing Street’s concern about secure communications had “no basis in reality” and that they could not be affected by decisions by the International Telecommunications Syndicate, another United Nations Agency.
“The ITU simply does not have the power to prevent the United Kingdom and the United States from using the radio spectrum associated with the biot, and it has no mechanisms to enforce its decisions,” said -Ali said.
Tom Togendhat, former conservative minister of security, said: “It is time for the government to return to its minds, to remember its duty to defend the vital strategic interests of the United Kingdom and to move away from the agreement . “
