The announcement yesterday by Foreign Secretary David Lammy that Britain was handing sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius was met by an entirely predictable outcry. Conservative politicians, some of whom had begun the negotiation process, clamoured to bolster their national security credentials. 

The frustrating thing is that, despite their brazen hypocrisy, they are right. There is no real justification for surrendering the islands to Mauritius on the basis of a non-binding judgement. The strong likelihood that Mauritius will open the door to China is the starkest reason against the deal. That the United States supports it should be no consolation, first because even the most casual observer of global politics, which Emma Salisbury is not, would accept that American foreign policy of the last few decades is full of strategic miscalculation, often at the expense of its allies. Second, because Britain is not the 51st American state. Maintaining utility to and therefore leverage over foreign states remains important, even if they are our allies. The argument that the UK has secured the future of the UK-US military base does not stand up to scrutiny. Deals, such as the original one Mauritius signed in 1965, can always be reneged, especially under pressure from powerful outside actors. What is more, the future of the base was never truly under threat, and never would have been, if the British government had  simply learned how to say no. 

Britain risks being left out in the cold again

There have been others, such as Yuan Yi Zhu who have fully dissected the needless weakening of the UK’s position, the moral incoherence of Phillipe Sands KC’s argument, the continued betrayal of the Chagossians, the likelihood of ecological damage, and the insanity of the fact that the British state is paying to inflict harm on itself. Others still, might, and should, write on how the UK’s desire to avoid dealing with a few hundred asylum seekers, and a non-binding ruling of an international court, has led to it surrendering a key geostrategic advantage. 

Yet what might go overlooked is the premise on which David Lammy has built his argument in favour of signing away Chagos: that continuing to ignore the ICJ’s ruling is doing damage to Britain’s international reputation and preventing it from bringing middle-ground or developing nations on side. In other words, Britain’s much vaulted and rarely demonstrated soft power is being diminished. 

Setting out this argument to a Parliamentary Committee, Sands described how the South African ambassador to Belgium refused to support the UK’s position on Ukraine because of the ‘illegal occupation’ of the Chagos Islands, and that this position was shared across Africa. 

 A somewhat incredulous chair noted that the issue had never come up in his engagement in the continent. It is not surprising that African diplomats tell Phillipe Sands KC, counsel for Mauritius, that a territorial dispute Mauritius is engaged in is of vital importance. That is what diplomats do, especially when their real reasons for continuing to support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine don’t exactly go down well with international human rights lawyers. 

Sands has fallen hook, line, and sinker for a country dressing its self-interest up along moral lines, as all countries tend to. It is understandable that an activist lawyer might do so but it is unforgivable for Britain’s Foreign Secretary to follow suit. Lammy has revealed that no matter how many Progressive Realism think pieces he churns out, or how much he professes to understand the changed world order, he cannot shake the idealism that drives his view of the world. 

Lammy made a similar miscalculation speaking at the United Nations. Addressing the assembled delegates he reminded Putin that, as a black man, he understood the horrors of imperialism. Many misunderstood his point performatively: he was clearly not aiming it at Putin but rather at Russia aligned countries, those in the ‘Global South’ who have so far failed to support Ukraine. Yet here he failed to remember that much of the ‘Global South’ aligns with Russia because it can secure substantial discounts on Russian exports, deriving key geopolitical advantages from doing so. 

What is most frustrating is that in seeking to win over middle-ground powers Lammy is simultaneously recognising the strategic nature of the global environment, but then responding incorrectly to it, assuming that concessions and gestures will be enough to restore Britain’s reputation and security. By contrast, when hostile actors have selectively deployed anti-colonial narratives against France it has had no qualms in staring them in the face. In his Progressive Realism essay Lammy recognised that it was the smaller powers who were “striking bargains and setting their own agendas” and succeeding in doing so. And yet by centering British foreign policy on following the rules based order, Lammy is attaching Britain’s foreign policy agenda to a cart that he cannot control. As Rebecca Strating has convincingly argued, a foreign policy built on this basis risks forcing ourselves into rhetorical entrapment, particularly as states like China become increasingly adept at deploying lawfare to force geopolitical advantage, and international courts become increasingly politicised. 

The prognosis for British foreign policy with a continued idealism at its heart is not a good one: opening the door to unfounded irredentism, whilst appealing to non-existent idealism as a means to securing Britain’s genuine interests. Speaking about trade on Wednesday French President Emmanuel Macron belied just how rapidly Britain’s neighbours are changing their tunes. He stated: “when both U.S. and China do not respect the rules, we should not be the only one in the room to just abide the rules”. As much of Europe adopts both realist tone and position, Britain risks being left out in the cold again.