The Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, has stated that the agreement to cede the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius will not proceed without the approval of US President Donald Trump.
Despite reaffirming his belief that the deal represents the “best” possible outcome, Mr Lammy acknowledged that the US holds significant sway over the decision, particularly due to the shared military and intelligence interests between the two nations. His comments came after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer faced questions regarding whether payments to Mauritius for leasing back the strategically vital Diego Garcia military base would be sourced from the recent defence spending increase.
US influence over the agreement
The UK has been engaged in discussions with Mauritius over transferring sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, while ensuring continued access to Diego Garcia, a key military base used by the US. Speaking on ITV’s Peston, Mr Lammy was asked whether the US had a veto over the deal. He responded:
“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward. The reason for that is because we have a shared military and intelligence interest with the United States, and of course they’ve got to be happy with the deal, or there is no deal.”
Speaking from the US, he further emphasised the deeply integrated nature of UK-US defence cooperation.
“We struck a deal. After striking that deal, there was a change of government in Mauritius, and the new government in Mauritius had to have time to look at the deal. And there has been a change of government here in the United States, and the United States administration have had time to look at the deal. I still believe it’s the best deal.”
Defence budget concerns
In the Commons, Sir Keir refused to confirm whether Mauritius would be compensated using funds from his newly announced increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP.
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch challenged the Prime Minister directly, asking:
“This morning the Defence Secretary could not say if the Chagos deal would come out of the defence budget. Can he confirm to the House that none of the defence uplift includes payments for his Chagos deal?”
Sir Keir responded:
“The additional spend I announced yesterday is for our capability on defence and security in Europe, as I made absolutely clear yesterday. The Chagos deal is extremely important for our security, for US security. The US are rightly looking at it. When it’s finalised, I’ll put it before the House with the costings.
“The figures being bandied around are absolutely wide of the mark. The deal is well over a century, but the funding I announced yesterday is for our capability to put ourselves in a position to rise to a generational challenge. That is what that money is all about, and I thought she supported it.”
Earlier in the day, Defence Secretary John Healey also refused to confirm whether the Chagos Islands deal would be funded from the defence budget when questioned on Times Radio.
Calls for greater transparency
Following Prime Minister’s Questions, a spokesperson for Mrs Badenoch accused the Government of failing to be transparent about the financial aspects of the deal.
“I think this all points to what amounts to really a cover-up of where this money for the Chagos surrender is coming from. It is incumbent on the Government as soon as possible to come and explain where the money is coming from, and if it is coming from the defence budget, it makes all of the announcements over the last 24 hours seem (to be) ringing increasingly hollow.”
He also suggested that if the deal is unfavourable, the US president should block it.
In Parliament, the Conservatives attempted to secure further transparency over the Chagos negotiations but failed in their bid. The Opposition tabled a motion demanding that the Government release a detailed timeline of talks between the UK and Mauritius since July 4 last year. The motion also sought confirmation of statements made by the Mauritian prime minister regarding the agreement’s terms and requested an explanation of how the deal would be funded.
More Read
Additionally, the Opposition asked for details of Attorney General Lord Hermer’s involvement and why the Government chose to expedite negotiations.
However, MPs voted 298 to 147 to reject the motion, with a majority of 151.
Criticism from the opposition
Shadow Foreign Secretary Dame Priti Patel accused the Government of concealing key information about the agreement.
“The Government has covered up the true facts of this deal, a deal we would never have done, from the get-go.
“Tonight, the Conservatives gave Labour MPs the chance to scrap the deal and stop the cash, and yet they chose to surrender.”
The fate of the Chagos Islands deal now hinges on whether President Trump approves the agreement, with ongoing debates in Westminster over transparency and funding continuing to add to the controversy.
