Former military chiefs issue last-ditch rallying cry to scrap ‘self-harm’ handover ahead of decisive vote

Under the deal, the UK will pay Mauritius at least £120million every year for 99 years to lease back the military base on Diego Garcia.

The treaty will still have to return to the Commons for further debate after peers last week backed an amendment to force a renegotiation of the terms in order to ensure payments stop if the military base could no longer be used.

Now, a letter signed by multiple former military leaders stresses that sovereign control of overseas bases is essential to Britain’s national security and freedom of military action, citing Diego Garcia as a unique and irreplaceable strategic asset.

The letter read: “We also believe that the Labour Party has been disingenuous to the point of distortion and dishonesty in its presentation of the case for transfer of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.”

It also warns that transferring sovereignty would create serious long-term risks, especially if US strategic priorities change or if Britain is left financially and militarily responsible without full control.

They continued: “If the US in future views Diego Garcia as of diminishing value in its global strategy, Britain would still be liable for not only the payments promised to Mauritius, but also possibly the sole responsibility for keeping out hostile and exploitative approaches in and around the Chagos Islands by other countries.”

| REUTERS

“If a future British Government were to cease payments, Article 15 of the Chagos Treaty gives Mauritius scope to allow other countries to occupy the base at Diego Garcia and exploit the islands,” they warn.

“This scenario could gift China the region’s preeminent strategic hub and bridge to Africa and beyond.”

They accused Labour of having “energetically and enthusiastically endeavoured” to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to China.

Earlier this month, the Bill suffered a series of defeats at the hands of peers, including a demand for the publication of the total cost of the deal, which has been the subject of dispute.

The Government signed a treaty in May last year to return sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, which will also see Britain lease back the strategically important military base on Diego Garcia, the largest island within the remote Indian Ocean archipelago.

The agreement followed long-running negotiations started under the previous Tory administration after a 2019 “Advisory Opinion” by the International Court of Justice said the UK should cede control.

The Government estimates the bill will sit at around £101million a year, while critics argue it will be much higher.

| PA

The Bill, which is needed to implement the treaty, has already been approved by MPs but has faced a bruising ride in the House of Lords. The upper chamber backed by 194 votes to 130, majority 64, a Tory measure which would force the Government to publish the total cost of the payments to be made to Mauritius, including the full methodology used in the calculation.

Speaking ahead of tomorrow’s vote, the Chagossian First Minister Louis Misley Mandarin said he was optimistic the Lords would stop the bill.

He said: “I’m very, very hopeful about the vote in the Lords and high court ruling.No matter what happens we will continue to fight for it.

“We won’t let our homeland just slip out of our hands, just like that because of Keir Starmer’s policy, a policy that was not even in the Labour Party election manifested by the way.”

The Prime Minister has insisted signing the deal was the responsible thing to do.

Speaking shortly after the deal was signed, he said: “President Trump has welcomed the deal along with other allies, because they see the strategic importance of this base and that we cannot cede the ground to others who would seek to do us harm.”

“If we did not agree this deal the legal situation would mean that we would not be able to prevent China or any other nation setting up their own bases on the outer islands or carrying out joint exercises near our base.

“No responsible Government could let that happen.”

And on Saturday, following a similar letter from the Chagossians themselves, a Foreign Office spokesman told GB News: “The Diego Garcia military base deal secures the future of the strategically critical UK-US base on Diego Garcia and has been backed by key partners, including the US and all of our Five Eyes allies.

“As the public would rightly expect, we have negotiated robust security provisions to protect the UK and the base for decades to come.

“These provisions have been designed and tested in close cooperation with the highest levels of the US security establishment – the US Administration has publicly and categorically welcomed the deal.

“There is a clear prohibition in the treaty to prevent any other foreign security forces, civilian or military – including the Chinese – from establishing themselves on the outer islands.”

READ IN FULL: Ex-military chiefs’ letter to the Lords ahead of Chagos vote

To Members of the House of Lords,

We write to you both as individuals and collectively at a moment of grave concern and potential consequences regarding the future strategic interests of our country.

Our ability to deploy our military forces rapidly and effectively anywhere in the world has long been central to achieving national security, political objectives, competitive advantage and support to our allies.

Our ability to do so requires access to bases and facilities at times and places of our choosing.

As the Secretary of State for Defence, John Healey, rightly stated: “Diego Garcia is unique. We do things there that we simply could not do anywhere else.”

We would add the words of Admiral Lord West of Spithead in the foreword to the 2025 Policy Exchange report, “Averting a Strategic Misstep”, in which he asked: “How can the base – an indispensable naval, air and intelligence asset – be more secure under the sovereignty of another nation than under our own?”

President Trump has similarly reinforced the essential truth, “You don’t defend leases the same way, you have to own it… countries can’t make nine-year deals or even one-hundred-year deals. Countries have to have ownership – you defend ownership you don’t defend leases.”

From experience, we can attest to the invaluable edge that a sovereign military base gives to the freedom to operate without the complexity or risks of having to work or consult with host or allied nations.

The critical role of Gibraltar and Ascension Island in the Falklands War is a notable example.

We also believe that the Labour Party has been disingenuous to the point of distortion and dishonesty in its presentation of the case for transfer of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

On May 22, 2025, when the Defence Secretary introduced the Chagos Treaty to Parliament, he stated, “Quite simply, the loss of the Diego Garcia military base would be unthinkable. And yet, without action – without this deal – within weeks we could face adverse legal rulings, and within just a few years the base would become inoperable.”

When challenged about which binding legal authority had the jurisdiction to close the base, he replied: “The most proximate, and potentially the most serious, is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.”

However, it is preposterous that the government has called in the aid of a non-binding international tribunal as its justification for relinquishing the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory.

The Secretary of State for Defence omitted to tell Parliament that the United Kingdom retains a clear opt-out under Article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with regard to the Chagos Islands.

What has also been missed is that, under current proposals, there are serious structural risks with the Bill.

The recently published United States National Security Strategy emphasises that its principal threat is China and that its primary scenarios relate to its security and interests in its own hemisphere.

It includes the critical statement that “the days in which the Middle East dominated American foreign policy in both long-term planning and day-to-day execution are thankfully over.”

If the US in future views Diego Garcia as of diminishing value in its global strategy, Britain would still be liable for not only the payments promised to Mauritius, but also possibly the sole responsibility for keeping out hostile and exploitative approaches in and around the Chagos Islands by other countries.

Likewise, if a future British government were to cease payments, Article 15 of the Chagos Treaty gives Mauritius scope to allow other countries to occupy the base at Diego Garcia and exploit the islands.

This scenario could gift China the region’s preeminent strategic hub and bridge to Africa and beyond, particularly when it will be able to deploy up to nine planned aircraft carriers and advanced nuclear submarines, not only in support of its power projection, but also in strengthening its footprint in the wider world and its “Belt and Road Initiative”.

Consequently, we, and we would claim, most of the British public, have watched with deepening and growing concern as the Labour Government has energetically and enthusiastically endeavoured to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, including Diego Garcia, to Mauritius – a state with long-standing ties to China and no lawful claim to the Chagos Archipelago.

The public has also rightly noted that the Labour Party promised an unequivocal commitment in its 2024 General Election Manifesto to protect the sovereignty of all British Overseas Territories and to uphold their right to self-determination.

At no point did that manifesto propose the surrender of the Chagos Islands.

On this basis alone, no self-respecting member of the House of Lords should support this serious act of strategic self-harm, the Chagos Treaty or the Diego Garcia Military Base & British Indian Ocean Territory Bill.

Therefore, respectfully, we urge all those in the House of Lords who endeavour in their service to the United Kingdom to place country before party to vote down this prejudicial Bill at its Third Reading on Monday, January 12, 2025 and avert possibly the most serious military-strategic error since the Suez Crisis.

Yours sincerely,

We the undersigned:

Rear Admiral Chris Parry, Rear Admiral Roger Lane-Nott, Major General Tim Cross, Colonel Richard Kemp, Squadron Leader Mark A Nash, WO2 Garry Sutherland, SSgt Robert Ames, Pte Ryan Kidby