Thread by @blagden_david

Chagos bill in Parliament today. Here’s a reminder of some its flaws…

🧵

https://twitter.com/blagden_david/status/1924781115350380915

1. It costs a fortune

2. The fact that it costs a fortune makes it (a) harder to do other worthy things with UK tax revenues and (b) more likely that people intent on gutting those worthy things win in 2029

3. The closest thing to a case in its favour was that it was necessary to get a trade deal with India (Mauritius’ key ally) - but India did such a trade deal anyway, because they thought it’d make them richer

4. The second-closest thing to a case in its favour is that it was necessary to secure Indian cooperation for containment of China (which is why the US pushed the UK to do some sort of deal) - but India wants to cooperate with the US on that anyway, because it’s scared of China

5. Mauritian interest in the territory is overtly economic (hence why they held out for a larger payment) - so whatever they say now, that uniquely pristine Marine Protected Area is likely to be ransacked

6. Mauritius isn’t a close Chinese ally (contrary to much hyperbole on here). It’s closer to India…for now. But it needs cash, and can be wooed by those with it…like Beijing/Moscow. Loss of UK sovereignty makes it easier for others to menace the base by buying off Port Louis.

7. This deal isn’t actually ‘decolonisation’. It’s simply handing control to a different imperial power, which has treated the Chagossians even worse than the UK (at least recently).

8. This deal betrays British citizens - not just those in the UK who’ll pay for it, but specifically those displaced from the islands in the first place (whose dissent Mauritius criminalised). A UK-supported right of return would’ve addressed the injustice much more directly.

9. Contrary to some bluster and bloviation from the right - who instigated this deal in the first place, out of deference to the US - ceded sovereignty will be very costly to reverse. Never say never, but the price would be steep.

10. Once sovereignty’s ceded, it’s also much easier for Mauritius to (a) complicate the base’s use (e.g. for Chinese cash), (b) generate pressure for eventual withdrawal, (c) cut the UK out to deal directly with the US, or (d) demand more rent (perhaps under threat of (a))

11. Following (c) above, UK sovereignty is one of the strongest cards in its dealings with America’s mad king…and the coercive US policymakers who will follow him (irrespective of whether they’re more polite about it). With that gone, UK power in the relationship is even less.

13. The legal case for Mauritian ownership is (ironically) an artefact of empire…specifically, that the French administered Chagos from Mauritius, for mere efficiency’s sake (an arrangement the UK continued until Mauritian independence). The two aren’t one people torn asunder.

14. The theory of some UK believers in the necessity of deferring to international legal opinion - that it will cast the UK in a favourable light, and thus align more with UK interests - relies on a purported causal logic that has never yet been seen in the wild.

15. The argument that if a deal wasn’t done now the international legal/normative pressure would become intolerable is circular. Such pressure’s only “intolerable” if you lack the resolve to tolerate it. The UK is unique among the UNSC P5 in its fear of such criticism.