As US considers attacking Iran from Diego Garcia, will UK need to inform Mauritius in advance?

As the United Kingdom has ceded the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, analysts are divided on whether the terms of the treaty would require the UK to inform Mauritius in advance about any military action from the Diego Garcia base, which is on one of these islands. read more
The photograph shows military aircraft stationed at the joint US-UK base at the Diego Garcia island in the Chagos Islands archipelago. (Photo: AFP)
As UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is discussing options about joining US military against in Iran, there are concerns that any UK operation may be compromised by the recent Chagos Islands deal.
Last month, the United Kingdom signed a deal with Mauritius to transfer the sovereignty of Chagos Islands. Under the terms of the deal, the UK has leased the Diego Garcia island, for 99 years. The island houses a military base that the UK shares with the United States.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
There are concerns among analysts that the UK may be required to inform Mauritius in advance about any military mission launched from the Diego Garcia base. If this would be the case, any mission involving ships or planes at the base would be compromised.
The Diego Garcia base, formally called the Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, has housed submarines, ships, fighter planes, and bombers. B-2 bombers, which were stationed at the base in March, are one of the types of aircraft that the United States may use to strike Iran's underground nuclear sites.
Will UK need to inform Mauritius about any operation?
While analysts say that the terms of the deal are ambiguous, sources in the UK government have said that there is no scope of advance information.
The Chagos Islands deal has said that the UK would need to 'expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia'.
The Daily Telegraph has reported officials as saying that any information to Mauritius would be given after the operation has concluded, not before launching it.
However, not everyone agrees with this. Some have stressed that the terms in the treaty's text released by Starmer's government are ambiguous.
Philippe Sands, an international lawyer who previously acted for Mauritius against the UK, has told the parliament that there were 'presumably different interpretations' of the treaty's text and there was a chance of Mauritius interpreting it as being notified before the attack.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Irrespective of such concerns, Starmer's government would not notify Mauritius before any attack from Diego Garcia, according to i newspaper.
The report further said that Mauritius does not hold any veto about military activities conducted from Diego Garcia.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

NDTV

26 minutes ago

• NDTV

Palestine Activists Break Into UK's Largest Air Base, Deface 2 Aircraft

Pro-Palestinian activists broke into the UK's largest air force base in southeast England and vandalised two planes in an act condemned by Prime Minister Keir Starmer as "disgraceful" on Friday. "The act of vandalism committed at RAF Brize Norton is disgraceful," Starmer said on X after campaign group Palestine Action posted a video claiming to show its activist breaking into the Royal Air Force base in Oxfordshire. In the video posted on X, the activists appear to spray a plane with red paint while roaming the base on scooters. "Palestine Action break into RAF Brize Norton and damage two military aircraft," claimed the group, which has been behind several stunts protesting the UK's role in the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. "We strongly condemn this vandalism of Royal Air Force assets. We are working closely with the police who are investigating," the Ministry of Defence said. Local police said they launched an investigation into reports of "criminal damage" and a break-in. RAF Brize Norton serves as a hub for air-to-air refuelling forces and supports overseas operations, including flights to the RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, Britain's largest air force base in the Middle East. According to British media, one of the planes vandalised was an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker. "Despite publicly condemning the Israeli Government, Britain continues to send military cargo, fly spy planes over Gaza and refuel US/Israeli fighter jets," Palestine Action said in a statement. "Britain isn't just complicit, it's an active participant in the Gaza genocide and war crimes across the Middle East." Last month, the group claimed responsibility for vandalising a US military aircraft in Ireland. Starmer's Labour government suspended around 30 out of 350 arms export licenses to Israel last September, citing a "risk" they could be used in violations of international law. But the UK continues to supply components for F-35 fighter jets to a global pool that Israel is able to access. Israel has repeatedly denied allegations that it is committing a genocide in Gaza during its 20-month-long military campaign following Hamas's attack on October 7, 2023.

NDTV

27 minutes ago

• NDTV

UK Parliament Votes For Assisted Dying Paving Way For Historic Law Change

London: Britain's parliament voted on Friday in favour of a bill to legalise assisted dying, paving the way for the country's biggest social change in a generation. 314 lawmakers voted in favour, with 291 against the bill, clearing its biggest parliamentary hurdle. The "Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life)" law would give mentally competent, terminally ill adults in England and Wales with six months or less left to live the right to choose to end their lives with medical help. The vote puts Britain on course to follow Australia, Canada and other countries, as well as some US states, in permitting assisted dying. Supporters say it will provide dignity and compassion to people suffering, but opponents worry that vulnerable people could be coerced into ending their lives. The bill now proceeds to Britain's upper chamber, the House of Lords, where it will undergo months of scrutiny. While there could be further amendments, the unelected Lords will be reluctant to block legislation that has been passed by elected members of the House of Commons. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government was neutral on the legislation, meaning politicians voted according to their conscience rather than along party lines. Starmer had previously said he was in favour of allowing assisted dying. Opinion polls show that a majority of Britons back assisted dying. Friday's vote followed hours of emotional debate and references to personal stories in the chamber, and followed a vote in November that approved the legislation in principle. The vote took place 10 years after parliament last voted against allowing assisted dying. Opponents of the bill had argued that ill people may feel they should end their lives for fear of being a burden to their families and society, and some lawmakers withdrew their support after the initial vote last year, saying safeguards had been weakened. The 314 to 291 vote for the bill compared to last November's result, which was 330 to 275 in favour. In the original plan, an assisted death would have required court approval. That has been replaced by a requirement for a judgment by a panel including a social worker, a senior legal figure and a psychiatrist, which is seen by some as a watering down. The Labour lawmaker who proposed the bill, Kim Leadbeater, said that the legislation still offered some of the most robust protections in the world against the coercion of vulnerable people. Hundreds of campaigners, both in favour and against the legislation, gathered outside parliament on Friday to watch the vote on their mobile phones. Those in favour chanted "my decision, my choice", holding up posters that said "my life, my death" and photos of relatives who they said had died in pain. Those against the legislation held up placards that said "let's care not kill" and "kill the bill, not the ill".

Time of India

43 minutes ago

• Time of India

World Bank and IMF climate snub 'worrying': COP29 presidency

The hosts of the most recent UN climate talks are worried international lenders are retreating from their commitments to help boost funding for developing countries' response to global warming . This anxiety has grown as the Trump administration has slashed foreign aid and discouraged US-based development lenders like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund from focussing on climate finance. Developing nations, excluding China, will need an estimated $1.3 trillion a year by 2035 in financial assistance to transition to renewable energy and climate-proof their economies from increasing weather extremes. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo But nowhere near this amount has been committed. At last year's UN COP29 summit in Azerbaijan, rich nations agreed to increase climate finance to $300 billion a year by 2035, an amount decried as woefully inadequate. Live Events Azerbaijan and Brazil, which is hosting this year's COP30 conference, have launched an initiative to plug the shortfall that includes expectations of "significant" contributions from international lenders. But so far only two -- the African Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank -- have responded to a call to engage the initiative with ideas, said COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev. "We call on their shareholders to urgently help us to address these concerns," he told climate negotiators at a high-level summit in the German city of Bonn this week. "We fear that a complex and volatile global environment is distracting" many of those expected to play a big role in bridging the climate finance gap, he added. His team travelled to Washington in April for the IMF and World Bank's spring meetings hoping to find the same enthusiasm for climate lending they had encountered a year earlier. But instead they found institutions "very much reluctant now to talk about climate at all", said Azerbaijan's top climate negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev. This was a "worrisome trend", he said, given expectations these lenders would extend the finance needed in the absence of other sources. "They're very much needed," he said. The United States, the World Bank's biggest shareholder, has sent a different message. On the sidelines of the April spring meetings, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged the bank to focus on "dependable technologies" rather than "distortionary climate finance targets." This could mean investing in gas and other fossil fuel-based energy production, he said. Money matters Under the Paris Agreement, wealthy developed countries -- those most responsible for global warming to date -- are obligated to pay climate finance to poorer nations. But other countries, most notably China, do make their own voluntary contributions. Finance is a source of long-running tensions at UN climate negotiations. Donors have consistently failed to deliver on past finance pledges, and committed well below what experts agree developing nations need to prepare for the climate crisis. The issue flared again this week in Bonn, with nations at odds over whether to debate financial commitments from rich countries during the formal meetings. European nations have also pared back their foreign aid spending in recent months, raising fears that budgets for climate finance could also face a haircut. At COP29, multilateral development banks (MDBs) led by the World Bank Group estimated they could provide $120 billion annually in climate financing to low and middle income countries, and mobilise another $65 billion from the private sector by 2030. Their estimate for high income countries was $50 billion, with another $65 billion mobilised from the private sector. Rob Moore, of policy think tank E3G, said these lenders are the largest providers of international public finance to developing countries. "Whilst they are facing difficult political headwinds in some quarters, they would be doing both themselves and their clients a disservice by disengaging on climate change ," he said. The World Bank in particular has done "a huge amount of work" to align its lending with global climate goals. "If they choose to step back this would be at their own detriment, and other banks like the regionally based MDBs would likely play a bigger role in shaping the economy of the future," he said. The World Bank did not immediately respond to a request for comment.