Read on Twitter
Thank you @JohnHemmings2, and same! I'm very happy that we can debate this politely as friends, and it's wonderful to have people that will challenge you in good faith on the merits of an argument. https://twitter.com/JohnHemmings2/status/1361408479022358531
I do think a few of your points might have walked past their answer in the article, or maybe I could have been clearer.
On the subject of sovereignty - absolutely we shouldn't just race into this and undercut UK sovereignty. I did say we should do this in consultation with London.
In the interest of word count I removed a longer section that made it explicit that this is not something the US can do alone, or even *should* do alone. Not for the US to lead, by any stretch of the imagination.
On the subject of legality, you noted the non-binding UNGA resolution but not the Special Chamber of the ITLOS ruling. As these pile up, the UK stands to lose influence in the very int'l institutions you mentioned as so important. That's already playing out with the ICC nom.
The "sovereignty since 1814" and "they weren't really original inhabitants" arguments ring hollow to me. First, the inhabitants of Chagos when the UK took over from France were slaves. "Imported labor" feels a bit like we're trying to tiptoe around that.
When those slaves were later freed, they lived there. It was their home. In any case, they and their descendants occupied those islands for over a century.
You jumped straight to "The UK loses capacity at a critical moment!" from this. That assumes every one of your subsequent worst case arguments comes true. If there's an orderly transfer of sovereignty, then absolutely nothing changes for the UK in terms of operational value.
Further on that point, while I absolutely celebrate and welcome increased UK involvement in the Indo-Pacific, particularly the Royal Navy, let's be honest about how much there will be. Barring a massive naval construction campaign, we're looking at 1-2 times a year, max.
You imply that China will use "success" in DG to pour resources into other similar cases. I mean...ok? Then the UK can just say no, just like they are in Chagos.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say China would offer military force to evict the UK/US from Diego Garcia. There are already resolutions on the UK's control, I have yet to see a PLAN armada steaming their way.
Finally, to assume that Mauritius immediately reverses itself and goes over to China seems to be a total red herring. Sure, they have Chinese debt. So does the UK. Plenty of work out there showing that the debt trap has been pretty overblown in terms of strategic effects.
That line also totally discounts India in its own periphery. So I don't really think an Indian Ocean PLAN/PLAAF base is that realistic.
In summary (of your summary):
-We don't have sovereignty. Isn't a US decision. - Didn't say it was, and I said it was the UK's decision but we should be talking to our ally about how to make it happen
-We don't have sovereignty. Isn't a US decision. - Didn't say it was, and I said it was the UK's decision but we should be talking to our ally about how to make it happen
-Changing US policy on sovereignty claims others a bad idea - Again, "in consultation with London"
-Non-binding advisory opinion against our own ally & our common strategic interests (in widest Atlantic/alliance sense). - Advisory *and* Special Chamber of ITLOS. Didn't say we need to stand in the streets and harangue the UK.
Do it behind closed doors. Manage a handover before things get uncontrollable.
-Glass houses - Exactly where the US and UK find themselves, throwing stones over a rules based order from a colonial holdover.
