Returning the Chagos Islands will right a historic wrong

The UK government’s decision to relinquish sovereignty of the Chagos Islands after more than half a century of campaigning begins to right one of the outstanding British colonial wrongs (“UK hands sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius in a deal to secure US base”, Thursday 3 October).

The UK shamefully leveraged these islands in the Indian Ocean away from Mauritius in 1965 when it was still a British colony, in return for £3m and, say Mauritians, independence.

However, it had already negotiated a secret deal with the US to use some prime real estate on Diego Garcia to build a joint military base. This was even though the islands were already inhabited by a thousand Chagossians.

These people were simply evicted, sent off to Mauritius and Seychelles, and have never been allowed back.

Largely due to condemnation by the international community, and the impact of Brexit, which left the UK even more isolated on this issue, the government has been brought kicking and screaming to its new position.

Whatever the reason, international pressure has delivered what appears to be a positive outcome. What is critical is that those looking to return to the islands now are given the necessary support to do so.

Alex Orr

Edinburgh

The furore within Conservative ranks over the government’s decision to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius is surely misplaced (“Truss and Cleverly blamed as Starmer ‘surrenders’ key airbase islands”, Thursday 3 October). Falkland islanders were afforded a vote to determine their “right of self-determination”, enacted to provide a legitimate rebuff to the Argentinian government’s claim to what they call the Malvinas.

To resolve the issue conclusively, perhaps the Chargossians would be agreeable to take part in a similar referendum.

Instead of seeking to enact a referendum in the UK to gauge support for membership of the ECHR, maybe Boris Johnson could be encouraged to showcase his talent for moving the dial to the satisfaction of the xenophobic and jingoistic elements within the Conservative Party.

Nigel Plevin

Ilminster, Somerset

The Middle East is being remade before our eyes (“Iran’s leader vows Tehran won’t back down as Hezbollah successor ‘targeted in Beirut’”, Friday 4 October). Forces set in motion on 7th October – or more accurately, by the Iranian Revolution in 1979 – are bearing poisonous fruit.

Israel may seize upon the moment to substantially degrade Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, believed to be within months of the production of fissile weapons. It might also destroy much of Iran’s petrochemical industry.

In response, Iran might be expected to shut down international shipping routes, which would drive up global energy and related costs.

In the aftermath of the impending Israeli counter-response to yesterday’s swarm attack of 181 ballistic missiles by Iran, Joe Biden, Nato and their Arab partners – including Jordan and Saudi Arabia – need to call for a comprehensive, regional truce.

Unless Biden acts decisively, the impending chaos will accrue to Donald Trump’s benefit.

Eric Radack

Santa Fe

Simon Watson (Letters: “Jaw, jaw is better than war, war”, Thursday 3 October) claims that the “majority of the UK population is against sending arms to Israel”. How does he know?

He also claims that “the UK government doesn’t care that thousands of Palestinians have been killed or injured”. From the speeches of the prime minister and foreign secretary, I glean that they do care, and are calling for a ceasefire and implementation of the two-state solution.

He says “The only answer is dialogue”. But how is he going to convince the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the leaders of Hamas, the leaders of Hezbollah, the PLO and the Iranian government to agree to a ceasefire? Simplistically “calling for a ceasefire” is not going to cut it.

The excellent analysis of the conflict by Alon Pinkas (“I’ve advised two Israeli prime ministers – and this is what really scares me about the current conflict”, Thursday 3 October) showed that the situation in the Middle East is perilous, with no easy way to resolve it.

For a lesson from history, look at the Northern Ireland conflict. It shows us that ceasefires only occur when more than one party in the conflict sees it as advantageous. Sadly, in the Middle East, that looks unlikely.

John Daintith

Chew Magna

I always believed that when we grow up and enter into a civilised society, we learn that violence does not solve problems. Why do so many members of the political class, around the world, believe that this is not the case? (“Former chancellor Nadhim Zahawi admits football hooligan past: ‘I went out looking for fights’”, Friday 4 October).

Dennis Leachman

Kingston upon Thames

I am stunned at Keir Starmer’s implied ignorance of any rules around gifts and donations, but happy to see that he has seen fit to repay some of what was bestowed upon him (“Starmer pays back £6,000 of gifts in third attempt to close down freebies row”, Thursday 3 October).

Compared to the majority of UK citizens, Starmer is a wealthy man, and repaying £6k merely raises the question: what of the rest? Who else is in the frame? And how far back should we be looking? Everyone knows that there is no such thing as a free lunch, what is being bought is exposure and influence.

Britain has always sought to distance itself from such practice and the rule of British law is held up as one of the best and most independent in the world. As a barrister, silk and latterly head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Starmer is better versed in its practical application than many.

In politics, optics is everything and the threshold is much lower than the balance of probabilities and comes at higher stakes: the court of public opinion directly pierces Starmer’s own personal credibility and that of his government.

Although a certain amount of hospitality is acceptable to ensure that business can continue outside of office hours – bearing in mind that MPs frequently give up their own time to attend certain events – an expectation of being fed and watered is not an unreasonable one.

At a ministerial level, being on-call 24/7 is part of the territory, is well remunerated and is also compensated by a host of state-approved perks. So why the lust for more? Is accepting gifts such a normalised state of affairs in national politics that everyone in that system has become blind to what is so obviously a privilege associated with a role, rather than recognition of their own intrinsic value or a token of personal appreciation?

The remedy Starmer proposed in Brussels is as ludicrous as reinventing the wheel.

The prime minister needn’t go to the trouble of writing a set of principles regarding gifts and donations, he just needs to remove his blinkers and instead apply the common sense that he has in abundance. The matter of who else has benefited and from what extends to every member of the upper and lower chambers.

How much longer will this rumble on? This is a piece of string that is just starting to be unravelled.

Mona Sood

Southend-on-Sea

When in government, receiving gifts from private individuals or organisations creates the risk of perceived or actual bias, which undermines the democratic process (“Starmer pays back £6,000 of gifts in third attempt to close down freebies row”, Thursday 3 October). It may lead to concerns about influence or favouritism in policy decisions, contradicting the party’s core principles of equality and transparency.

By refusing gifts, Labour could demonstrate that its decisions are based solely on the interests of the public, preserving accountability and ensuring that governance remains free from external pressures or conflicts of interest.

Claire McNabb

Co. Tyrone

While working for a considerable number of years as an engineer for a public-owned corporation, the only gifts we were legally allowed to receive were “desk trivia” – namely, pens, diaries, calendars…

All members of both Houses of Parliament, whether in government or opposition, should be bound by the same rules.

David Angus

Stockton-on-Tees

In response to Alex Morton (Letters: “Local councils fail to communicate”, Thursday 3 October), about the much-delayed Wanstead Leisure Centre swimming pool and school buildings:

We have recently updated the project page on our website with new images that showcase the considerable progress made on site. We have also updated the project timeline to give people an idea of progress.

As we move towards completion of this exciting project, we are committed to actively engaging with the local community. As always, we will promote major milestones through the council’s main communications channels.

It’s important to stress that the project has a dedicated programme management team, which provides regular feedback to the senior management team at Wanstead High School on any developments and emerging issues. The school, in turn, updates local parents, ensuring everyone is kept updated.

Few, if any, local authorities are currently investing in leisure facilities, building swimming pools, and creating new classrooms for pupils. We are therefore very proud to be able to provide this vital infrastructure to local people in our borough.

Redbridge Council spokesperson

East London