Diego Garcia: Comments by the President of the United States

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recent comments by the President of the United States of America about Diego Garcia, and whether those comments have changed their policy view.

My Lords, the Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the UK and our allies and to keeping British people safe. As we have repeatedly made clear, the agreement we have is vital for protecting our national security, guaranteeing the long-term future of a vital base for the UK and US which had been under threat. That is why the US and President Trump welcomed this deal in the spring and all our Five Eyes allies support it: they understand the security capabilities that the base provides.

My Lords, I find that a rather strange response. David Lammy said that we would listen to the United States when we made a decision, and I think I am right in saying that Donald Trump has now come out and said that this is an act of gross stupidity. This is being pursued because of Matrix lawyers who are pursuing international law above the needs of this country. Will the Minister take this back to the department and argue against going along with the decision to give Diego Garcia to Mauritius?

No. The noble Lord is completely wrong in his assertion about the motivation for doing this deal. This is about keeping this country and its citizens safe. That will always be the first priority of this Government. It is unedifying to see His Majesty’s Opposition take any opportunity to jump on a bandwagon led by Nigel Farage, who claimed this week that the President had a point in threatening Greenland’s sovereignty. We fundamentally disagree with that position.

My Lords, is it the case that President Trump supported this measure and then changed his mind? Can I suggest not to take too much notice of a man who does not know the difference between Iceland and Greenland?

In all seriousness, we are speaking intensively, as noble Lords would expect, with our friends and allies in the United States. It is our understanding—and the United States’ understanding, as far as we are aware—that this is still a deal that secures our security and that of the United States, and that this is a joint project. We will continue to have those conversations, as noble Lords would want us to do, and we will resist the temptation to get into megaphone diplomacy over this. There were those here who were urging us on Monday to get into pre-emptive tariffs, inflammatory comments and all that. We did not do that, and I think that the agreements that are starting to emerge show that that approach has been right.

My Lords, at the last count, there have been 12 U-turns from this Government recently. Let me suggest to the noble Baroness that 13 could be her lucky number on this occasion. The former Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, as my noble friend said, really is a gift that keeps on giving. Last year, while negotiating this agreement, he said:

“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward. … they’ve got to be happy with the deal or there is no deal”.

Is that still the policy of the Government?

As I have explained on I do not know how many occasions, this is a joint initiative. It is about securing a base for the United Kingdom and the United States, which we believe to be in the interests of us here in the UK, our allies in the US and global stability. That is why we have gone about this and, presumably, that is why the previous Government set about negotiating a deal with Mauritius, too.

If the reporting is correct, the leader of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition asked the House Speaker Johnson to ask President Trump to change his position on the treaty—I heard a “Good for her!” to my right. Does the Minister agree that it is the British Parliament that should hold the British Government to account, not a foreign state? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that, in this House, we must focus on Chagossian rights, which have been denied them for a generation, and value for money for the British taxpayer—and not pander to President Trump and ask him to intervene in British politics?

I know the noble Lord does not always want me to be nice to him on the Floor of the House, but I must say that the Liberal Democrats, much as they have had their issues with this agreement, have always been focused on the rights of the Chagossian communities and have put that case clearly and consistently. I respect the way that they have gone about this. What we have not seen is any attempt to undermine the position regarding the sovereignty of Greenland or to leverage other issues that fundamentally undermine NATO and the security of the Arctic region. Sadly, that is what we are seeing from others. I agree with the noble Lord about the sovereignty of this Parliament and commend him for the consistency with which he has approached this issue.

My Lords, we have been clear that the Americans are likely to spend a considerable amount of money in developing resources and so on in Greenland. If they were to do that, what assessment do the Government make of the effect on the amount of money that might be available for Diego Garcia?

We are talking through our allies in NATO with the United States, because we agree with them about how vital Arctic security is, and that does involve Greenland. But the right way to do this is collaboratively, through NATO, and that is the position that we are getting to. The same applies, in many ways, around the way that we will be approaching the base on Diego Garcia, because this is very much a shared endeavour.

My Lords, the Government claim that, although neither the International Court of Justice nor the tribunal of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea can reach a judgment binding on us on the sovereignty of Chagos, other countries may respond to opinions of those courts by withholding supplies, goods and facilities, which the Government claim would render the base inoperable. Can the Minister now tell us what she refused to say during the passage of the Bill: which countries could withhold which supplies, goods and facilities, which would render the base inoperable? Has she told President Trump that those same countries could still do that even once we have transferred sovereignty to Mauritius?

Any country could help withhold any service relating to the operability of the base at any time because the legal jeopardy in which it stood was sustained, and it would be their right to do that. The reason we are trying to get the base on to a more secure legal footing is to avoid that proposition. We are talking to the US about this, and it is one of the reasons that it was supportive of the deal that we have done. Those conversations continue. I can only assume that this is the same legal jeopardy that confronted the previous Government and led them into multiple rounds of negotiation on the same issue.