Fact check: China has made only one public statement on Chagos Islands deal

Claims have circulated around international support for the Government's deal with Mauritius over the Chagos Islands and its implications for the US-UK military base on Diego Garcia.
The Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said the deal had 'secured the base for the long term' and that 'has been opposed by our adversaries' including China.
The Conservative Party has claimed it is 'pure disinformation' that critics of the deal are siding with China.
Evaluation
There is limited information on what Beijing thinks about the deal.
Certainly the only known public statement from a Chinese official on the deal applauded the agreement in the context of safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity. It did not mention China's view on the continued presence of the military base on Diego Garcia.
China abstained on the UN vote which was a key stage in the road to the deal, and one expert the PA news agency spoke to said he believes that Beijing 'privately views the agreement … somewhat as a setback', citing a variety of reasons.
The facts
How long have the Chagos Islands been in UK hands?
Britain took control of Mauritius from 1810 when it was seized from the French. Between 1814 and 1965 the Chagos Archipelago was administered by the UK as a dependency of the Mauritius colony.
In 1965 the UK detached the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and several Islands from the Seychelles and created the new British Indian Ocean Territory. Three years later Mauritius became an independent country.
Between 1967 and 1973 the UK removed the population of the Chagos Archipelago.
What has China said about the UK-Mauritius deal?
On May 26 the new Chinese ambassador to Mauritius, Huang Shifang, gave a speech at a reception attended by the Mauritian Prime Minister, the Vice President and others.
The official text of the speech – which was sent to the PA news agency by the Chinese embassy in Mauritius – does not directly mention the Chagos deal.
A release from the Mauritian Prime Minister's office the next day said of the ambassador's speech: 'Acknowledging Mauritius's firm adherence to the One-China Policy, she commended the recent achievement regarding the Chagos Archipelago.'
The closest that the official text of the speech comes to this is a section where the ambassador says: 'China highly appreciates Mauritius's adherence to the One-China Policy, and fully supports Mauritius in safeguarding its national sovereignty and territorial integrity.'
However, a short video excerpt from the speech, posted to YouTube, shows that immediately afterwards the ambassador added: 'In particular we applaud loudly for the historical achievement on the Chagos agreement. Massive congratulations.'
What might Beijing think behind closed doors?
It is difficult to say what policymakers in the Chinese capital might be thinking about the deal behind closed doors.
The prime minister's statement appears to claim that China opposed the part of the deal which allows Diego Garcia to remain open.
When the ambassador's speech supported Mauritius's work on its territorial integrity she linked that to the country's One China Policy.
The One China Policy is Beijing's claim that 'Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory'.
So the ambassador's statement – if an accurate representation of Beijing's thinking – could show that China supports the handing over of Chagos to Mauritius because it reinforces the principle of territorial integrity which the Chinese leadership thinks supports its claim to Taiwan.
But this does not rule out Beijing being disappointed about the part of the deal which allows the Diego Garcia base to remain open.
When quizzed on Sir Keir's claims, his official spokesperson pointed towards the deal's support from the US and other allies. This included a post from US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth who said the deal secures 'key US national security interests in the region' and added: 'We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead.'
Benjamin Sacks, a professor of political geography at the RAND School of Public Policy in the US, told PA: 'I contend that Beijing privately views the agreement, even if modified to ameliorate some Chagossians' outstanding demands, somewhat as a setback. In practical terms, it gains little if any advantage from it.'
He said the deal resolves the question as to whether the UK, 'a major state actor supporting existing rules-based orders (RBOs), was violating them in respect to the Chagos'.
He added: 'The Chagos issue constituted a perennial problem for British foreign policy; one that China could simultaneously exploit to demonstrate its supposed adherence to existing RBOs and undermine the UK's traditionally important role in maintaining it.'
The deal 'deters Port Louis (Mauritius) from becoming an effective client state of Beijing' while allowing it to balance a strong economic relationship with China while continuing its close relationships with Beijing's competitors, India, the UK and the US, he said.
Dr Sacks added: 'Analysis … suggests that China prioritises decolonisation so as to replace European and American influence with its own. For this reason, Beijing will applaud the agreement as a 'win' against the major Western powers.'
As for the base at Diego Garcia: 'Beijing will have to contend with its continued presence for at least the next 99 years, and likely longer.'
He said it can also be argued that the base's deterrence effect 'is stronger now that the agreement has secured and clarified its future within international laws and norms'.
What has China said about the Chagos Islands in the past?
In 2017 China abstained on a UN General Assembly vote which asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to deliver an advisory opinion on the dispute between the UK and Mauritius. This ICJ opinion was ultimately cited in the UK-Mauritius agreement.
At the time the Chinese representative to the General Assembly said: 'China calls upon the countries concerned to continue to make efforts in good faith and to continue to carry out bilateral negotiations and consultations, so as to seek an appropriate solution to the question of Chagos archipelago as soon as possible.'
The court opinion that followed in 2019 was that the UK is 'under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as quickly as possible'.
In the wake of this opinion, in 2019 the General Assembly adopted a resolution which welcomed the court's decision. At this point China was one of the 116 votes for the resolution. Six countries voted against and 56 abstained.
The Chinese representative said at the time: 'The Chinese Government is a consistent and firm supporter of the decolonisation process.'
More recently in a China-Mauritius meeting on August 1 last year – according to a Mauritian press release – the Chinese representative 'reiterated China's aid to Mauritius in its quest for sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago'.
UNGA – Thursday, 22 June 2017, 10 am (archived)

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Sky News

17 minutes ago

• Sky News

Assisted dying bill: How both sides of debate reacted to historic vote

People on both sides of the assisted dying debate have told Sky News how they feel about the outcome of today's vote – and while some are popping open champagne, others are "incredibly disappointed". More than 300 MPs this afternoon backed a bill that gives people in England and Wales who have less than six months to live the right to apply for an assisted death. Each request will be evaluated by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Today's historic vote means the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny before becoming law. Following the landmark vote, individuals for and against it have shared their feelings on the result. Frank Tate-Sutton - For 6:04 Frank Tate-Sutton is terminally ill and told Sky News she's relieved the bill has passed, even though the law won't be changed in time for her. "These are happy tears," she said. "I am emotional. It's a very difficult subject for everybody." Ms Tate-Sutton said her quality of life is "very important - and I'm losing it". "I don't want to die without dignity, without it being my choice, without my family knowing that this is what I want," she continued. "As much as they [my family] want me alive, do they want to see me lying in my living room in a hospital bed, taking all these drugs, not being able to talk, not being able to control my bodily functions? "That is not a life, for me - living on all the medications and not being able to exist without that… the side effects and everything." Mike Smith - Against 5:20 Mike Smith is a spokesperson for the disability rights group Not Dead Yet - and he has been left "incredibly disappointed" by the outcome of the vote. "This particular bill had so many failings in the way safeguards are constructed and the significant scope for coercion, whether it's overt or subliminal," he said. Mr Smith says he fears some people will "end up ending their lives earlier than they should do or want to". "There are so many disabled people around the country that have told us they're absolutely scared." "I think it's this inherent fear people have about being disabled that drives this very emotional response on this really complex topic," he explained. "What we know is, with good palliative care, social care, access to housing and an income, many disabled people ... can lead amazing lives." 6:48 Rebecca Wilcox and her TV presenter mother Dame Esther Rantzen, who has terminal cancer, have long been campaigning for a change to the UK's law on assisted dying. Speaking from Parliament Square as fellow supporters of the bill popped champagne behind her, Ms Wilcox described today's vote as "an extraordinary moment". "It means so much to me," she said. "I spoke to mum and her one word to describe it was 'wow'. "She didn't think she was going to live to see the debate, let alone a conclusion that went our way." In response to concerns about safeguarding, she said it will "bring in layer upon layer of safeguards". "We're going to have scrutiny upon scrutiny for every case and at the moment, there is no scrutiny," she said. "Coercion could be happening as we speak. "There is now protection for vulnerable people, by having this bill passed." Dr Gordon Macdonald - Against Dr Macdonald said the bill passing with a majority of 23 - less than half what its second reading achieved - is proof that "the more people have thought about this issue, the more they've had doubts". The doctor, who is the CEO of anti-euthanasia organisation Care not Killing, said: "We will see what happens when it gets to the [House of] Lords, the Lords will hopefully give it more rigorous scrutiny than happened in the Commons". His biggest concern is "for people who are vulnerable, who will feel pressure to end their lives". "That might come from external forces, but it's more likely to just be internalised pressure," Dr Macdonald said. "They'll feel they're a burden on their family and friends, conscious of the cost of care, and think they should do the decent thing, as they would see it in that thinking." It's "of course a terrible message for society to send out to people," he said.

BBC News

21 minutes ago

• BBC News

Some refuse workers will lose money

The leader of Birmingham City Council has admitted for the first time some refuse workers will lose money under plans to reform the workers who are members of Unite the Union have been in a stand-off with the Labour-run council over proposed changes to roles and pay, since January. In an exclusive interview with the BBC, council leader John Cotton said he "absolutely understood" there would be "implications for individuals", but the authority had to "implement job evaluation fairly across the council". Unite claims 170 workers face an annual pay cut of £8,000, but the authority has said only 17 members of staff lose up to £6,000 - something Cotton had not acknowledged publicly. Cotton stressed that the council continued to negotiate with Unite in order to find a "reasonable settlement" to "reflect the workforce's concerns".He denied claims from Unite that the deal to end the dispute had been "watered down" and said the authority had provided a "fair and reasonable offer", which was being discussed by arbitration body Acas. All-out strike action in the city began on 11 March and rubbish has continued to pile up on streets, but securing a legal injunction in May enabled more bin lorries to to be brought in to clear the mountains of bin bags."Regarding the city as a whole, since we secure the injunction and have been able to deploy our available fleet we have collected 33,498 tonnes and average 1,288 per day which includes weekends," a spokesperson for the city council said."We have cleared the backlog so are now able to continue to implement our contingency plan, providing residents with one collection each week." 'Avoid repeating mistakes' The leader of the Labour-run authority described the situation as "incredibly frustrating" and said it continued to urge Unite to accept the offer it had placed on the table. "This strike needs to end so we can carry on with transforming the waste service and ensuring everyone gets the services they're entitled to," Cotton the council leader added that he had "set some straight red lines" to avoid "repeating some of the mistakes that happened in the past"."We have had to take a look at the grading of the driver roles, that is part of the process we have signed up to together with the trade unions, it is a recognised methodology for evaluating jobs."He said a negotiated settlement was "in everyone's interest" and it would allow the council to "get back to the business of improving the waste service in the city". Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.

Sky News

25 minutes ago

• Sky News

Trump's credibility gap and why Iran may want to take its chances in Israel conflict

After hours of talks, the ayatollah's chief diplomat emerged giving little away. All eyes were on Abbas Aragchi. Would he give ground in the face of Israel's fierce bombardment of his country? Yes, but only if Israel stops that bombardment which is not going to happen. Especially after a day when two of Israel's big cities suffered direct hits from Iranian missiles. The best that can be said for almost four hours of talks, is they happened and might again. There were no breakthroughs to report, no ground shifting on either side. The talks were flawed in concept from the beginning. The countries meeting Aragchi here are not involved in the conflict. Israel and America were absent. The US did send a message, via Britain's foreign secretary David Lammy. We want to talk but we're serious about getting involved with military force if you do not. But the UK was delivering an American ultimatum and threat of force it does not itself believe to be a good idea. Britain and its European partners want de-escalation and oppose any idea of Donald Trump and his military getting involved. Iran is embattled, beleaguered and bombarded. But if its government is worried, its calm and collected foreign minister was showing none of it. The Iranians know Trump may send in the bombers and bunker busters within two weeks, but do they believe him? The president for whom they coined the acronym 'Trump Always Chickens Out' has a credibility gap. And if he takes action that leads to a chain of events where Americans end up dying, he will be crucified for it by his own MAGA movement.