Why is Trump getting involved?<\/p>\n
While the military base on Diego Garcia is jointly held, it is primarily operated by roughly 2,500 U.S. personnel<\/a>. It also hosts some of the world\u2019s most advanced military and logistical<\/a> equipment, including B-52 bomber aircraft, radar installations, and fuel storage facilities. The United States heavily relied<\/a> on the base for air and maritime operations during the two Gulf Wars and in the wake of the 9\/11 attacks.<\/p>\n Trump has emphasized the need for U.S. military installations abroad. Some experts, including Peter Harris, a Colorado State University professor who has studied the Chagos Islands for nearly two decades, think another primary reason for the recent disagreement is due to Trump\u2019s desire for leverage over the UK after Starmer opposed<\/a> his bid to acquire Greenland<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cHis opposition has got nothing to do with U.S. national interests,\u201d Harris told CFR. \u201cThe U.S. national interest is crystal clear, and that is to get legal access to the base in perpetuity, for one hundred years, and have somebody else pay for it.\u201d Trump\u2019s frustrations with Starmer resurfaced when the UK initially refused to let the United States use Diego Garcia and British bases to strike Iran<\/a>, fueling his desire to block the deal.<\/p>\n Trump claims<\/a> that the UK\u2019s pending return of the islands to Mauritius is \u201canother in a very long line of National Security reasons\u201d why the United States should have control of Greenland, but he did not explain his rationale for this statement.\u00a0<\/p>\n How does the deal affect the United States\u2019 security?\u00a0<\/p>\n Since the start of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, Trump has made clear he intends to use Diego Garcia as a proximal defensive measure against potential attacks<\/a> by \u201ca highly unstable and dangerous Iranian Regime.\u201d Citing legal concerns, the UK did not permit<\/a> the United States to use Diego Garcia or any other UK air bases in its initial February 28 strikes on Iran, to Trump\u2019s dismay<\/a>. The next day, Starmer allowed<\/a> the U.S. military to rely on UK bases, including Diego Garcia<\/a>.<\/p>\n While some experts point out that the islands could be important for U.S. strategy in the war,\u00a0 \u201cthe president\u2019s objection is about the sovereignty of small countries, not about military utility,\u201d Baker said. In opposing the deal, Trump appeared to be \u201csuddenly complaining about allies who were not consulted and are now being coerced to support a war of choice,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n Other analysts note that Trump also seeks to counter China\u2019s foothold in the Indian Ocean, citing Beijing\u2019s bilateral relationship with Mauritius and its growing interest in strengthening its regional security presence<\/a> [PDF]\u2014a concern that some UK officials have disputed. Last February, the UK minister for overseas territories, Stephen Doughty, cautioned<\/a> that China or Russia could build a spy base on Diego Garcia or the archipelago\u2019s outer islands if the deal to cede them to Mauritius does not go through, as the UK would have no legal standing to \u201cremove them.\u201d Other experts have asserted that Mauritius\u2019s close partnership with India<\/a> would likely cull any Chinese efforts to build a presence on the islands.<\/p>\n Mauritius has not yet taken any action indicating its interest in giving China access to the islands\u2014and the proposed deal would prevent this possibility. Meanwhile, China has not expressed explicit interest in the islands, though it did support<\/a> Mauritius\u2019s claims at the United Nations, and recent reports<\/a> indicate that thousands of Mauritian officials have traveled to China for \u201cspecialized courses\u201d ahead of the planned handover, with hundreds more set to receive training from Beijing.<\/p>\n What is the likelihood the deal goes through?<\/p>\n The British government wants to see the deal through to escape the spotlight of international scrutiny, experts say. \u201cThey want to bring themselves into alignment with international law,\u201d Harris told CFR. \u201cThe U.S. administration understands that, too. It\u2019s very difficult to run a military base that\u2019s housed in an unlawful jurisdiction.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Harris described the deal as \u201ca win-win-win\u201d for all three countries: Mauritius gets its land back, the UK gets out of murky legal waters, and the United States keeps access to its strategically located base.<\/p>\n But other experts, including Richard Ekins, a professor of law and constitutional government at Oxford University, point to the general nonbinding nature of ICJ advisory opinions as evidence that the UK doesn\u2019t have to follow through. \u201cWe\u2019re surrendering to the abuse of international adjudication\u2014effectively letting an ICJ advisory opinion function like a binding adjudication\u2014when the UK didn\u2019t consent\u2026 and yet is having that sovereign right subverted,\u201d he said in a recent interview<\/a>.<\/p>\n