Interpreting Trump’s Harsh Criticism Of The UK’s Chagos Islands Compromise

He might have meant to precondition the British public to expect the US to apply pressure upon the UK to nullify its arrangement with Mauritius on national security pretexts just like it’s presently pressuring Denmark to cede Greenland for related reasons.

Trump recently wrote that it was an “act of total weakness” for the UK to hand over the Chagos Islands, which host a joint airbase with the US on Diego Garcia that’s integral to projecting power across the entire Indian Ocean Region, to Mauritius as part of a compromise for ending their long-running dispute. The UK will also provide financial support for the Chagossians, who were expelled from the islands from 1968-1973. In exchange, Mauritius will lease the aforementioned base to the UK for another 99 years.

According to Trump, there was “NO REASON WHATSOEVER” for the UK to agree to this arrangement, which he then condemned as “an act of GREAT STUPIDITY” that risks emboldening China and Russia. He concluded by connecting this compromise to Greenland with the innuendo that the US’ failure to acquire it could lead to Denmark following the UK’s lead. That would also risk endangering the US’ national security by presumably creating a similar strategic environment that China and/or Russia might exploit.

His harsh criticism of the UK’s Chagos Islands compromise might not have been solely for the sake of making the US’ case for acquiring Greenland through coercive tariffs or even military force. Another motive might have been to precondition the British public to expect the US to apply similar pressure upon the UK to nullify its arrangement with Mauritius on related national security pretexts. Trump might not want locals returning to the Chagos Islands and Mauritius obtaining rights over its waters.

From his perspective, the first could be exploited by adversaries for local intelligence-collecting purposes (likely limited to signals intelligence) while the second could result in elements of China’s “civilian fishing fleet” being employed for the same purposes if granted fishing rights near the joint airbase. It’s unimportant whether the British public agrees with Trump’s presumed threat assessment or not since all that matters to him is that it’s plausible and can thus be exploited to justify future pressure upon the UK.

Perhaps Trump won’t go that far if the UK stops opposing him on Greenland and obstructing his efforts at brokering a Russian-Ukrainian peace deal, but it also can’t be ruled out either, especially if the aforesaid hopes are dashed and he then decides to punish the UK. Attempting to forcibly evict them from the joint base that London now leases might not be in the cards; rather, he might just want the UK to restore its sovereign control over the Chagos Islands despite the international legal consequences.

The UK’s support for the “rules-based order”, which refers to the selective implementation of international law per self-interested arbitrary standards, would then be shattered. That might be exactly what the US wants, however, for making the UK its so-called “partner in crime”. The intent might be to share responsibility for heralding a return to the Old World Order where “might makes right” if the UK nullifies its arrangement with Mauritius with impunity just like the US captured Maduro with impunity.

Regardless of whatever the future of the UK’s Chagos Islands compromise with Mauritius may be, the takeaway from Trump’s harsh criticism of it is that the US has the will to unilaterally advance its perceived national security interests, including at the expense of its allies’ reputations and even its own. If Trump concludes that the strategic risks of that compromise present latent threats to the US’ national security interests, then he’ll do what’s needed to defend them, but he might not pursue annexation.