Chagos Islands: Starmer simply isn’t colonialist enough, according to the Tories

UK PM Keir Starmer isn’t colonialist enough, according to the Tories. The rapidly dwindling Conservatives used a debate on the Chagos Islands to say Starmer (who is currently overseeing a colonial genocide) is letting the side down.

The Indian Ocean archipelago was stolen by the British, who booted its indigenous inhabitants off their land. One of the islands, Diego Garcia, is currently leased to the US as a military airbase.

The current government signed a treaty with Mauritius in May to hand the islands over. Though, according to the Independent:

The UK will retain control over the UK-US military base on Diego Garcia for at least 99 years, at an average annual cost of £101 million, under the agreement.

But there are key truths which are entirely missing from this debate.

Confusion reigns over Chagos Islands

There is much to criticise about the UK’s conduct over this issue. Mark Curtis of Declassified UK has written a series of important articles on that history. In March, he wrote:

Last October, Keir Starmer’s government announced an agreement with Mauritius whereby the UK would keep operating the military base on the largest island in the Chagos group, Diego Garcia, but that Mauritius would have sovereignty.

US president Donald Trump contested this at the time. And Tory and Reform MPs used the deal as an attack line against Labour:

Ever since, a number of prominent Conservative and Reform MPs in Britain have become thoroughly incensed at the government. They have put down over 100 written questions in parliament about the plan in the last four months.

They were still attacking the decision as of yesterday.

Surrender bill?

21 October saw a rogue’s gallery of right-wing buffoons line up to attack what they called the ‘surrender deal’. Among them, shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel:

The Chagos Islands are British.

Labour’s Chagos Surrender Bill is bad for Britain. pic.twitter.com/ZCmmecHjPq

— Priti Patel MP (@pritipatel) October 21, 2025

Tory MP Bradley Thomas also weighed in:

🥀 Last night I voted against Labour’s Chagos surrender deal which weakens our national security and plays into China’s hands.

At a cost of over £70 million per parliamentary constituency, the British taxpayer is being fleeced by Labour once again. pic.twitter.com/TU60ugT3gT

— Bradley Thomas MP 🇬🇧 (@BradleyThomasUK) October 21, 2025

Self-appointed international relations expert Iain Duncan-Smith MP said the deal stripped Chagossians of their right (not that the Tories did anything to help them during their 14 years in power)

The #Chagos Surrender Bill is fundamentally flawed and not in the UK’s national interest. It betrays the Chagossian community by excluding them from meaningful consultation and offers no clarity on their future rights or role. The Labour Government’s legal justification for the… pic.twitter.com/TpRaHnJVRj

— Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green (@MPIainDS) September 10, 2025

And another Tory, Blake Stephenson, tried to play the environmentalist card. Whatever you say, buddy:

The Government's Chagos surrender deal puts our environment at risk.

The marine protected area in the Indian Ocean Territories is one of the largest untouched marine ecosystems, home to endangered species including hawksbill turtles, green turtles and reef sharks.

Yet there are… pic.twitter.com/cthDf9izCO

— Blake Stephenson MP (@Blake_MidBeds) October 21, 2025

GB News seemed to be suggesting that this was Labour giving into ‘decolonisation”:

The Chagos surrender deal is MUCH worse than thought:

1. It states we must: Recognise “the wrongs of the past” and “complete the process of decolonisation”

2. We give Mauritius, a ALLY of CHINA advance warning of any military action out of the base.

They have lost their minds. pic.twitter.com/r2Zif62aoh

— Alex Armstrong (@alexharmstrong) May 22, 2025

But it’s hard not to get a sense that this is all quite cynical manoeuvring. And that the displacement and pain of the Chagossian people is being used as a stick to beat Starmer with.

US-UK military presence

As Mark Curtis argued in his analysis, the deal is more nuanced than the Tories acknowledge:

The UK’s deal with Mauritius would allow Britain to lease the base for 99 years, and then to renew it after.

Yet clearly, this is hardly a case of ‘decolonisation’, and restoring Chagossian’s rights is not on the cards. Perhaps the best they can hope for is this paltry offering:

The Chagossians will be allowed the possibility of resettling only on the smaller, outlying islands and to “visit” Diego Garcia, presumably under tight control given the UK-US military presence there dominates the tiny territory.

But the core of the question isn’t whether Britain should ‘give away’ or keep the territory. As Curtis points out:

…the only basis to Britain’s claim to the islands is that it acquired them after the Napoleonic wars in 1814 – and never let go of them despite decades of opposition from most countries in the world.

The issue at hand is that Britain has no ‘right’ to have ever been there. Because it only acquired them by way of imperial power. The fact that this isn’t even a factor in the current debate is damning. The reason this basic truth isn’t being confronted is that our own institutions aren’t fit for purpose.

Featured image via the Canary