US Republicans Worry UK’s Chagos Islands Deal Could Strengthen China

US Republicans Worry UK’s Chagos Islands Deal Could Strengthen China

Senior U.S. Republicans have raised concerns over the British government's decision to transfer control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, seeing it as a potential strategic win for China. The islands, located in the Indian Ocean, include Diego Garcia, a key military base used by the U.S. and the U.K. Despite the base remaining under U.S. and U.K. jurisdiction for the next 99 years, some American lawmakers are worried that the shift could ultimately benefit Chinese interests.

On Thursday, the U.K. signed an agreement with Mauritius to cede control of the Chagos Islands, which have been at the center of a long-standing territorial dispute. Mauritius, which secured a free trade deal with China in 2021, has maintained close ties with Beijing, further fueling concerns in Washington. Although the base on Diego Garcia will remain under U.K.-U.S. control for nearly a century, the broader shift in governance has left U.S. officials uneasy.

Republican Response

Senior figures in the U.S. Congress, particularly those on the Senate and House foreign affairs committees, have voiced their disapproval. They argue that the deal could undermine both U.S. and U.K. security interests in the region. Idaho Senator James Risch, a prominent Republican and supporter of former President Donald Trump, expressed his fears that this move may be advantageous for China, framing it as a surrender to "Chinese lawfare." He criticized the deal for bowing to international pressures, including rulings from the International Court of Justice, which could erode Western influence in the region.

Senator Risch emphasized the long-term nature of global strategic competition, particularly with China, warning that any short-sighted decisions could have detrimental consequences. Texas Representative Michael McCaul, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, echoed Risch's concerns. McCaul pointed to the Diego Garcia military base as a crucial asset for U.S. operations in the Indo-Pacific region, arguing that its role in countering Chinese influence is too important to be jeopardized by this agreement.

Conservative U.S. Critics

The criticisms weren’t limited to lawmakers. Prominent conservative figures in the U.S. also weighed in on the decision. Luke Coffey, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a former adviser to British Defense Secretary Liam Fox, warned that the deal seemed to favor China. Coffey drew a parallel to the 1997 handover of Hong Kong from British to Chinese control, which, in his view, has resulted in regret and negative consequences.

Coffey's main concern lies in the possibility that Mauritius, with its free trade agreement with China, might allow Beijing to establish a stronger presence in the Indian Ocean. He suggested that the Diego Garcia base, despite being guaranteed for U.S. and U.K. use for 99 years, might not offer as much security as some hope. He even went as far as to say that residents of other British overseas territories, like the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar, should be concerned about the precedent this deal sets.

Diplomatic Defense

On the other side of the debate, the British government insisted that its U.S. allies were fully supportive of the decision. While reports surfaced that some U.S. officials had privately expressed reservations, the U.K. maintained that this deal actually strengthens the security of the Diego Garcia base. A U.K. government spokesperson rejected claims that China could gain undue influence, pointing out that both the U.S. president and the U.S. State Department had welcomed the agreement.

British officials emphasized that for the first time in decades, the military base on Diego Garcia would enjoy the full backing of Mauritius. They believe that this support secures the base’s future and shields it from foreign threats, including Chinese interference. The agreement is being portrayed as a diplomatic win that resolves a historical dispute and strengthens the legal standing of the base.

Criticism from Advocacy Groups

However, the deal has also drawn criticism from advocacy groups, particularly those representing the Chagossian people, who were forcibly removed from the islands in the 1960s and 70s. David Vine, a coordinator for the group Let Us Return USA, voiced his frustration that the agreement still excludes the right of return for Chagossians, despite decades of campaigning for their resettlement.

The International Court of Justice had ruled in 2019 that the separation of the Chagos Islands from Mauritius during the decolonization process was illegal. The court advised that the U.K. should end its administration of the islands as soon as possible. For activists like Vine, the U.K.’s recent decision should have come with a commitment to allow the Chagossians to return home.

Conclusion

While the British government is framing the agreement as a step toward resolving a long-standing historical issue, concerns remain, particularly in the U.S. Republican camp, over the potential strategic implications of the deal. As tensions continue to rise between the West and China, decisions like the transfer of the Chagos Islands are being scrutinized through the lens of global competition and security. The coming years will determine whether the fears of Republican lawmakers and conservative thinkers materialize or if the British government’s diplomatic approach will indeed offer the security it promises.