A former Nato Commander has branded Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s proposed Chagos Islands deal with Mauritius a “ludicrous surrender” amid growing controversy over reports the agreement could cost British taxpayers £18billion.
Rear Admiral Chris Parry told GB News the plan represents a “betrayal of our interests” in the strategically vital Indian Ocean territory.
Chris Parry hit out at Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer for his ‘surrender’ of the Chagos Islands
GB News / PA
He highlighted the advisory nature of the International Court of Justice ruling, arguing there was no obligation to act.
The former Nato Commander particularly criticised the financial aspects, noting: “When you consider that the annual GDP of Mauritius is about 12 billion a year, it puts 18 billion into perspective, it’s absolutely ludicrous.”
Parry warned the deal could leave the territory “vulnerable to Chinese imperialism” in a strategically crucial region.
Highlighting the stance of Chagossians on the territory, Parry stated that locals “want to remain British”, and claimed Mauritius has “no legal or historic claim” of the islands.
Parry told the People’s Channel: “The Chagos Islanders themselves actually want to remain British, and Mauritius has no legal or historic claim to islands that are 1500 miles away.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
“The whole issue is absolutely ludicrous, and I’m afraid to say that the Government is trying to show its anti-colonial and international law credentials at the expense of our security.”
Concluding his remarks, Parry said the Chagos deal comes across to Britons as “reparations in inverted commas”, and urged the Labour Government to “keep the islands”.
Parry said: “If you look on social media at the moment, most people think these payments are reparations in inverted commas.
“It’s absolutely ludicrous. We own the islands, let’s keep them. The Americans want the base there, so do we, and frankly, if you want to come and take it off us, then do so.”
Parry told GB News that the surrender would leave both the UK and US ‘vulnerable to Chinese Imperialism’
GB News
Downing Street has disputed Ramgoolam’s claims about the deal’s terms and costs, with officials privately challenging the figures he presented.
A Number 10 spokesman insisted: “We will only agree a deal that is in our national interests and protects our national security.”
Downing Street added that any deal would need to “secure strong protections, including from malign influence, that will allow the base to continue to operate.”
The Prime Minister’s office earlier said it had “no update” on the situation and branded some of Ramgoolam’s comments as “factually inaccurate.”
