Why Labour might be in an indecent haste to get rid of the Chagos Islands - Patrick Mercer
There’s no doubt that the bloody chessboard of the Middle East has, yet again, been thrown in the air. As more US attacks seem likely and Iran’s mullahs shake furious fists and promise hellfire, no one quite knows where the knights, bishops and pawns are likely to settle or, indeed, whether the word ‘settle’ is wholly inappropriate.
Preparations for this attack were obvious even before President Trump was elected. In May 2024, during Mr Biden’s time, The Yorkshire Post published one of my articles asking why Kiev had struck two early warning radar sites in southern Russia with drones. I know the dots may be a little difficult to join, but these radars covered Iran’s flank and, by blinding them, made it much harder for Russia to alert her ally to an impending attack.
This, combined with Israel’s debilitating assaults on Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis made it clear what was eventually coming. Now, if I could work this out at my kitchen table in Newark, why was our prime minister, apparently, completely blindsided by President Trump?
Sir Keir sat next to the President at the recent G7 summit in Canada and said, immediately afterwards, “…there’s nothing the President said that suggests he’s about to get involved in this conflict,” just hours before The Donald gave the thumbs up for the air raids to begin. I wonder just how the PM’s feeling about the level of trust he’s been shown by our closest ally?
Bear with me, but this might explain Labour’s indecent haste to get rid of the Chagos Islands. Within this archipelago lies Diego Garcia where a British military base plays host to US forces right in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It’s strategically important for both countries - especially if your aircraft want to refuel there on their way to, say, blitz Iranian nukes - but such operations could only be mounted with Britain’s express permission.
Now here’s the bind for Sir Keir. Whatever his and many other Labour MPs’ sympathies, warlike operations on behalf of Israel will certainly be deeply unpopular - look no further than the damage done to British aircraft in RAF Brize Norton by Palestine Action or the protest marches in London and other cities most weeks. Then consider the number of Labour candidates at the last election who captured seats having stood largely on the issue of Palestinian self-determination and you’ll see just what a tricky subject this is for the government.
Remember when Britain helped the Israelis intercept Iranian missiles last autumn and the shrieks of protest? Now we’ve seen that Mr Starmer and his ministers won’t even speak in support of Israel, preferring to equivocate.
Imagine, then, with the Attorney General questioning ‘the legality of Israel’s actions’ how lots of people would react if Uncle Sam asked permission to crowd his warbirds onto Diego Garcia just before they levelled Tehran.
Sir Keir and his cronies would have to say a blunt ‘no’, damaging the (not so) ‘special relationship’ even further at a time when lefty Labour is doing its damndest to cosy up to the righty Republicans. Wouldn’t it be so much easier just to duck the inevitable row with Washington by paying off the Mauritians - who claim sovereignty over the Chagos and lean towards Beijing - making it impossible for Britain to support her US ally?
There’s nothing new about this sort of perfidy, of course. Following the chaotic end of Tony Blair’s administration (which was largely caused by his ill-judged interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan) successive Tory governments hacked our armed forces to the bone.
These were deeply dangerous years when experts such as General Sir Richard Shirreff foresaw the growing threat from Russia and urged rearmament. Despite this, political self-preservation drove Cameron, Johnson and co to castrate Britain, making it unrealistic for us to take the field alongside the Americans.
You could almost imagine our premiers practising the line, ‘We’d love to help you, Mr President, but unfortunately we don’t have two soldiers, sailors or airmen to rub together, but the best of British luck!’
Now the Labour government has used the same morally bankrupt dodge over Diego Garcia. That’s why the White House didn’t even bother to ask, taking the much more dangerous option of refuelling their bombers several times in mid air rather than pester Britain for help they knew they’d never get.
Well, Mr Starmer seems to have swerved his duty in the Middle East - at least for the time being. But what’s he going to do about Ukraine? I imagine that Volodymyr Zelensky was asking exactly that question when he nipped over to London to see the PM and the King a couple of days ago.
It must have been relatively easy for Sir Keir to play at being head of the Coalition of the Willing and the crucial bridge between the US and Europe, when Mr Trump didn’t have a hot and getting hotter war to fight with Iran.
America’s might is not limitless, besides, the President is showing every sign of losing patience with Putin’s and Zelensky’s intractability.
US arms have already ceased to flow towards Ukraine and comprehensive support for Israel is just the reason the White House needs to wash their hands of Kiev - as they’ve been threatening.
But ever since he became Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has pushed, prodded and jabbed his way to become the de facto boss of the European part of NATO, aching to draw them into a deeper confrontation with Russia. This determination, though, was based upon the certainty of US might and the willingness to use it. Now that certainty seems to be disappearing as fast as refuelling points in Diego Garcia.
You should have been more careful what you hoped for, Sir Keir.
Patrick Mercer is a former MP for Newark and Army colonel.