In a surprising turn of events, former US President Donald Trump has strongly criticised the UK’s decision to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, describing it as an “act of great stupidity”. The £3.4bn ($4.6bn) agreement, signed in May, would see the UK retain control of a key military base on the largest of the islands, Diego Garcia, while transferring sovereignty to Mauritius.
Trump’s scathing comments, made on his Truth Social platform, have reignited the long-running dispute over the islands’ status. He claimed the move was “another in a very long line of National Security reasons why Greenland has to be acquired”, suggesting the UK’s decision would embolden adversaries like China and Russia.
However, the UK government has defended the agreement, stating it was necessary to secure the future of the military base, which is crucial for regional and global security. A government spokesperson said the deal had “secured the operations of the joint US-UK military base for generations, with robust provisions for keeping its unique capabilities intact and our adversaries out”.
The agreement follows a decades-long dispute between the UK and Mauritius, a former British colony, over the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands. Mauritius has long argued that it was illegally forced to give up the islands in 1965 as part of a deal to gain independence.
The UK’s decision to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius has been welcomed by some, including US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who described it as a “monumental achievement” that would secure the “long-term, stable, and effective operation” of the military base.
However, the move has also faced criticism from some UK political figures, including Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who described it as an “act of stupidity and complete self-sabotage”. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has also been a vocal critic of the deal.
The debate over the Chagos Islands’ future is likely to continue, with the UK government’s bill to implement the agreement with Mauritius currently in its final stages. As the political landscape evolves, the strategic implications of this contentious decision will undoubtedly remain a subject of intense scrutiny.
