Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: Trump rips UK over Chagos Islands deal: says it shows weakness (DIY transaction)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Trump rips UK over Chagos Islands deal, says it show weakness to China and Russia, links it to Greenland row
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/trump-ri...ow/3805642

NEWS: US President Donald Trump sharply criticized the UK’s plan to hand over the Indian Ocean’s Chagos Islands to the East African nation of Mauritius, calling it an “act of total weakness” and “great stupidity” by a NATO ally that shows vulnerability to China and Russia, who “only recognize strength.”

On his Truth Social platform, Trump said the UK is giving away extremely important land for no reason whatsoever, also calling it another national security reason why the US must acquire Greenland. He urged Denmark and European allies to do the right thing, claiming that under his leadership, the US is now respected like never before.

Diego Garcia, the largest island in the remote Chagos Archipelago, has hosted a key joint US-UK military base since the mid-1970s, and would be part of the deal the UK has agreed to. The UK separated the Chagos Islands from Mauritius in 1965 to create the British Indian Ocean Territory and forcibly removed about 2,000 Chagossians between 1968 and 1973 for the Diego Garcia base.

After years of legal battles, UN resolutions, and an International Court of Justice opinion against UK sovereignty, the UK last May signed a deal to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius while keeping a 99-year lease for the Diego Garcia base. The UK will pay Mauritius around £101 million ($136 million) per year on average with a total estimated net cost of £3.4 billion, though critics claim much higher figures and call it a major burden on taxpayers.

There was no major public disagreement between the US and UK though early worries focused on possible Chinese influence in Mauritius. The agreement includes protections like a buffer zone and veto rights over foreign access to outer islands.

As of Jan. 20, the deal still awaits full UK ratification. The related bill has faced delays House of Lords amendments and criticism, including islander protests. The government says the transfer safeguards the base while opponents call it an unnecessary concession.

Last year, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said if they did not agree on this deal, the legal situation would mean that they "would not be able to prevent China or any other nation" – with China carrying out joint exercises near the base – from setting up their own bases on the outer islands.

"This deal secures the operations of the joint US-UK base on Diego Garcia for generations, with robust provisions for keeping its unique capabilities intact and our adversaries out," said a British spokesperson this week.

Trump’s recent criticism stresses that giving up sovereignty even with a lease shows weakness and contradicts his focus on projecting American strength. The base continues to operate normally with US contracts extended through 2034.
How does that deal compare to this US/Denmark deal/treaty? Was US stupid back in 1916? Transfer of sovereignty and maintain allowed/rented military presence, what’s different?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_...est_Indies
The Danish West Indies were purchased from Denmark and became the US Virgin Islands... exactly what is being proposed with Greenland.

UK is wanting to give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and then pay them to lease the military base.
(Jan 21, 2026 05:20 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]How does that deal compare to this US/Denmark deal/treaty? Was US stupid back in 1916? Transfer of sovereignty and maintain allowed/rented military presence, what’s different?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_...est_Indies

Ultimately, the UK seems to bowing to the judgments of international courts, while still managing to work out something that keeps China and Russia away from the Chagos isles. The UK government presumedly being too prim and proper to ignore whatever a world judicial system decrees, as Trump might do -- plus, arguably not as militarily intimidating as the US, so as to get away with maintaining a former _X_ situation. Or just doesn't want the economic punishment consequences of global ostracism (or purely the latter negative image itself).
(Jan 21, 2026 05:26 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]The Danish West Indies were purchased from Denmark and became the US Virgin Islands... exactly what is being proposed with Greenland.

UK is wanting to give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and then pay them to lease the military base.

What I don’t get is that if US buys Greenland then they will still be protecting Denmark, who will get it free along with a bunch of other countries just because of geography. Isn’t that one of Trump’s arguments, US does the protection thing for free and that’s wrong, apparently? So I figure there’s got to be something in it for the US besides having a good buddy. I can understand the Danish apprehension, what’s the difference between owning the land your military bases are on compared to not? Still costs the same, doesn’t it? Why buy? If Greenland goes for a crap then let Denmark deal with it but I suppose it’s not same as a landlord/tenant agreement.
(Jan 21, 2026 05:50 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]What I don’t get is that if US buys Greenland then they will still be protecting Denmark, who will get it free along with a bunch of other countries just because of geography. Isn’t that one of Trump’s arguments, US does the protection thing for free and that’s wrong, apparently? So I figure there’s got to be something in it for the US besides having a good buddy. I can understand the Danish apprehension, what’s the difference between owning the land your military bases are on compared to not? Still costs the same, doesn’t it? Why buy? If Greenland goes for a crap then let Denmark deal with it but I suppose it’s not same as a landlord/tenant agreement.

Greenland is primarily needed for Trump's Golden Dome US missile defense system, similar to Israel's Iron Dome. This is because ICBMs from Russia or China would come over the Arctic, as the shortest ballistic path. Buying Greenland doesn't represent any protection for Denmark, but it would be protection for the Danes who live in Greenland.

Owning it would ensure spineless Europeans don't decide to sell us out to Russia or China down the road.
(Jan 21, 2026 06:00 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]
(Jan 21, 2026 05:50 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]What I don’t get is that if US buys Greenland then they will still be protecting Denmark, who will get it free along with a bunch of other countries just because of geography. Isn’t that one of Trump’s arguments, US does the protection thing for free and that’s wrong, apparently? So I figure there’s got to be something in it for the US besides having a good buddy. I can understand the Danish apprehension, what’s the difference between owning the land your military bases are on compared to not? Still costs the same, doesn’t it? Why buy? If Greenland goes for a crap then let Denmark deal with it but I suppose it’s not same as a landlord/tenant agreement.

Greenland is primarily needed for Trump's Golden Dome US missile defense system, similar to Israel's Iron Dome. This is because ICBMs from Russia or China would come over the Arctic, as the shortest ballistic path. Buying Greenland doesn't represent any protection for Denmark, but it would be protection for the Danes who live in Greenland.

Owning it would ensure spineless Europeans don't decide to sell us out to Russia or China down the road.

Yah, that's one way to put it. If the UK ends its partnership with the US on Diego Garcia after 2034, the US will only lose a military base. Whereas it would potentially lose various missile complexes and goodness knows what else on Greenland, if merely renting it. Not to mention the alternative extortion demands that might increase every few years in order to avoid that scenario.
(Jan 21, 2026 04:35 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Diego Garcia, the largest island in the remote Chagos Archipelago, has hosted a key joint US-UK military base since the mid-1970s, and would be part of the deal the UK has agreed to. The UK separated the Chagos Islands from Mauritius in 1965 to create the British Indian Ocean Territory and forcibly removed about 2,000 Chagossians between 1968 and 1973 for the Diego Garcia base.

Mauritius has no more historical claim to Diego Garcia than that both were British colonial territories simply lumped together for administrative convenience. The small population there were workers imported by the British to work on several small plantations, not a native population or anything like that.

My own view is twofold:

1. Britain's proposed withdrawal from BIOT is just another in the seemingly endless succession of events in Britain's decline from world superpower 100 years ago to being just a middling European state today. Britons (and many Americans) still like to believe that decisions made in London still count for something on the world stage, which is less and less true with each passing year.

2. If Britain surrenders BIOT, then President Trump should simply annex it to the United States. Most of its population today is American, as are almost all of the military forces there. Mauritius would scream, but frankly, who cares? We could even make it worth their while by giving every one of the 2,000 displaced Chagossians (or their children) a million dollars, which would be a total cost to the US of ~$2 billion (less than the cost of Minnesota Somali fraud). Doing that would give the United States a sovereign base in the Indian Ocean, a part of the world of great and growing importance.
Quote:Donald Trump's latest comments - calling the UK's plans to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius "an act of great stupidity" - mark a major change in position [by Trump].

When Keir Starmer announced the UK had signed the deal on 22 May 2025, Starmer said: "President Trump has welcomed the deal along with other allies, because they see the strategic importance of this base and that we cannot cede the ground to others who would seek to do us harm."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also welcomed it, and issued a statement saying that Trump had "expressed his support for this monumental achievement".
Rubio said the deal "reflects the enduring strength of the US-UK relationship".
(Jan 22, 2026 05:26 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Donald Trump's latest comments - calling the UK's plans to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius "an act of great stupidity" - mark a major change in position [by Trump].

When Keir Starmer announced the UK had signed the deal on 22 May 2025, Starmer said: "President Trump has welcomed the deal along with other allies, because they see the strategic importance of this base and that we cannot cede the ground to others who would seek to do us harm."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also welcomed it, and issued a statement saying that Trump had "expressed his support for this monumental achievement".
Rubio said the deal "reflects the enduring strength of the US-UK relationship".

Granting that international court judgment pertaining to the sovereignty dispute over the Chagos isles was going to be fatalistically accepted by the UK, that was the best outcome that could be had. Now that the Greenland situation has at least "appearance-wise" shifted back to renewed vows of the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement, maybe using this Chagos issue as added (and rather impotent) outrage leverage for facilitating the former "buying of Greenland" quest will fade. Maybe.
Pages: 1 2