I have yet to reach a settled conclusion on the UK-Mauritius deal over the British Indian Ocean Territory, but there are a number of factors to consider
Curious if you came to any further conclusions on this topic? Wondering if Trump would or could throw his weight to de facto veto this hand-over, or at least veto the current deal-in-the-making. Saw this video in that vein: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4m2c00J5e4 (be it as biased as it is).
I think the whole deal has been a mistake, but if (as Nigel Farage is claiming) Trump and/or his advisers are looking at ways to block the deal, the UK is going to be in an incredibly difficult position. I can't see Starmer going back on what's been agreed, because it would be humiliating, but at the same time our relationship with the incoming administration is already under strain and this could be horribly damaging.
Hmm ya seeing it being reported in mainstream press recently.
I wouldn't overestimate Trump's interest in allies' "strategic ineptitude" insofar as it isn't perceived to be against US interests. US Interests as Trump and his circle define them of course.
In that regard, the UK's deal may well be perceived poorly given the base's importance to China and Indo-Pacific strategy. Not a major factor but it doesn't help that Biden also agreed to it.
More importantly I'd say, is the sort of international and domestic pressure and narrative that pushed the UK to the table and to make this deal. That narrative is the mainstream arguments/feelings among Western elites around decolonization, which American conservatives and moderates vehemently disagree with, and attach to DEI, wokeness and the like.
If the deal is framed in those terms, Trump will be much more likely to scrap it.
Although insofar as Starmer, mainstream diplomatic and IR wisdom places emphasis on avoiding humiliation, then yes that would also be a factor in the UK's future actions.
But I'm convinced such hand-wringing about soft power and brand is totally misplaced and over-exaggerated, which is part of Watling's argument I believe.
I.E., I'd walk back the deal immediately if I were Starmer (granted that's if I believed it was a bad deal, Starmer probably convinced himself of the supporting argument that they had no choice and this deal was the 'right/moral/legal' thing to do). Nonetheless, if I believed it was a bad deal, and if you communicate the turnaround very well (for a start, probably not framing it as a turnaround), any remaining humiliation is not for me to feel.
The 'idea' of the UK held by foreigners will not be changed by this 'good deed', certainly not any audience of importance. Beliefs are changed over time, and the mainstream belief that the UK or European powers are not 'good guys' (to make a huge generalization) when it comes to Africa or the so-called Global South is the prevalent belief among Western elite and I'd gather the Global South and Africa. And that's not to say that's a very accurate conclusion about history.
Brand is easily manufactured by words and deeds (although it takes time), and the audience this 'good deed' was made to influence will forget about it next week if a few negative articles/content are made regarding the UK. In other words, people are manipulatable. You can spin anything into almost anything if you are a skilled communicator.
The Chagos handover isn't a good solution to a UK branding problem.
Also happens to be the world’s largest marine reserve from 2010 (Will no one speak for marine wildlife?) as declared by David, not Ed Miliband.
the first coherent and logical analysis I've seen of this. I was (mostly) persuaded by the short article in RUSI by Jack Watling (https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/uks-surrender-chagos-symptom-strategic-ineptitude).
Curious if you came to any further conclusions on this topic? Wondering if Trump would or could throw his weight to de facto veto this hand-over, or at least veto the current deal-in-the-making. Saw this video in that vein: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4m2c00J5e4 (be it as biased as it is).
I think the whole deal has been a mistake, but if (as Nigel Farage is claiming) Trump and/or his advisers are looking at ways to block the deal, the UK is going to be in an incredibly difficult position. I can't see Starmer going back on what's been agreed, because it would be humiliating, but at the same time our relationship with the incoming administration is already under strain and this could be horribly damaging.
Hmm ya seeing it being reported in mainstream press recently.
I wouldn't overestimate Trump's interest in allies' "strategic ineptitude" insofar as it isn't perceived to be against US interests. US Interests as Trump and his circle define them of course.
In that regard, the UK's deal may well be perceived poorly given the base's importance to China and Indo-Pacific strategy. Not a major factor but it doesn't help that Biden also agreed to it.
More importantly I'd say, is the sort of international and domestic pressure and narrative that pushed the UK to the table and to make this deal. That narrative is the mainstream arguments/feelings among Western elites around decolonization, which American conservatives and moderates vehemently disagree with, and attach to DEI, wokeness and the like.
If the deal is framed in those terms, Trump will be much more likely to scrap it.
Although insofar as Starmer, mainstream diplomatic and IR wisdom places emphasis on avoiding humiliation, then yes that would also be a factor in the UK's future actions.
But I'm convinced such hand-wringing about soft power and brand is totally misplaced and over-exaggerated, which is part of Watling's argument I believe.
I.E., I'd walk back the deal immediately if I were Starmer (granted that's if I believed it was a bad deal, Starmer probably convinced himself of the supporting argument that they had no choice and this deal was the 'right/moral/legal' thing to do). Nonetheless, if I believed it was a bad deal, and if you communicate the turnaround very well (for a start, probably not framing it as a turnaround), any remaining humiliation is not for me to feel.
The 'idea' of the UK held by foreigners will not be changed by this 'good deed', certainly not any audience of importance. Beliefs are changed over time, and the mainstream belief that the UK or European powers are not 'good guys' (to make a huge generalization) when it comes to Africa or the so-called Global South is the prevalent belief among Western elite and I'd gather the Global South and Africa. And that's not to say that's a very accurate conclusion about history.
Brand is easily manufactured by words and deeds (although it takes time), and the audience this 'good deed' was made to influence will forget about it next week if a few negative articles/content are made regarding the UK. In other words, people are manipulatable. You can spin anything into almost anything if you are a skilled communicator.
The Chagos handover isn't a good solution to a UK branding problem.
Of course what do I know though.
Thanks for this- very helpful.