Does the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a United Nations (UN) agency, have the legal authority to interfere with the spectrum used to communicate with a military base if the UN believes the base is in territory that belongs to a different country? That is a serious question raised by legal arguments made by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer (pictured) and his government recently. If the ITU ever exercised such a right then it would have profound implications for disputed territories worldwide, and for the forces that currently defend them. If these questions about control of spectrum have not been addressed, it is not because they are unimportant to a world where military and civilian life depends on network connectivity. The questions are ignored because the answers are inconvenient.
Consider Taiwan, which has a democratically-elected government but which the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) insists is part of their country. The PRC government considers Taiwan to be illegally defended by the military of a rebel faction; the UN does not dispute the PRC’s interpretation. There have been numerous ‘accidents’ that cut the communications lines of Taiwan in ways that are similar to ‘accidents’ around Europe that receive increasing attention from the Western media. Or consider Ukraine, which has been invaded twice by Russia, and which will eventually need to negotiate some kind of settlement where both Ukraine and Russia will make contrary claims about which land belongs to which country. This includes the Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in 2014 without prompting the Western powers to provide any significant military assistance for its recapture. Crimea was home to a key Russian naval base even before the 2014 invasion. If the UN voted to give the whole of Crimea back to Ukraine, but Russia continued to maintain its base there, would the ITU be prepared to interfere with communications to the Russian base? These are questions which should have been asked in response to recent legal arguments put forward by the UK government.
The UK government presented its argument about electromagnetic spectrum and the ITU in relation to the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, the home of 3,000 people and a joint UK-US military base that is important because of its strategic location in the Indian Ocean. Per the UK government, the military base on Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Chagos, could lose the ability to “operate” its spectrum if the UK does not comply with a United Nations vote to transfer control of Chagos to Mauritius. This claim hinges on the assertion that the ITU “governs” the system enabling secure communications. This claim first received widespread coverage on February 6, 2025, thanks to Agence France-Presse (AFP). Per their piece, an unnamed UK government spokesperson briefed journalists that the British government must hand control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius but that they would negotiate a lease for the Diego Garcia base. Not obtaining a lease for the base, the spokesperson stated, “would be bad for our national security, and a gift for our adversaries”. The official went on to say:
For example, the electromagnetic spectrum at the Diego Garcia base would not be able to continue to operate without a deal. This system enables secure communications in the region.
The official added that the system is…
…something that the UK and the US have currently got unique access to, and it is the case that without legal certainty over the base (it) is something we would lose access to.
On February 5, the day before the AFP coverage, Alex Wickham reported for Bloomberg that “British security officials familiar with the matter” had made similar assertions about the reasons to conclude a deal with Mauritius. Wickham’s article for Bloomberg highlighted a need to…
…securely control American and British military and diplomatic communications in the region, as well as monitor hostile activity from foreign states.
Wickham posted a similar version of the story to X, with the source being described as officials “speaking on condition of anonymity discussing sensitive information”.
*Control of a satellite communications system used by the US and UK to run vital military operations is central to efforts to resolve the sovereignty of the Chagos islands, according to British security officials familiar with the matter.— Alex Wickham (@AlexWickham) February 5, 2025
These unnamed officials spread the story amongst journalists, but Prime Minister Keir Starmer obliquely referred to the same legal argument whilst speaking in the UK Parliament during Prime Minister’s Questions on February 5.
Let me be clear, and I’ll pick my words carefully, without legal certainty, the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should
That was a peculiar choice of words for a politician who was seemingly trying to avoid saying anything about communications, spectrum or the ITU, despite government officials briefing journalists that the ability to “operate” the base was threatened because the ITU “governs” spectrum. You can judge for yourself by replaying Starmer’s answer to the House of Commons; the relevant portion of the following video runs from approximately 4:30 to 5:15.
This understanding of the ITU’s role was subsequently challenged from within the UK government itself. The claim was contradicted on February 12 in a written response by Communications Minister Christopher Bryant to a parliamentary question from Tory Shadow Armed Forces Minister Mark Francois, as reported by The Independent.
Individual countries have the sovereign right to manage and use the radio spectrum, within their borders, the way they wish, subject to not causing interference with other countries.
… Individual countries, not the ITU, make their own sovereign spectrum assignments in accordance with the Radio Regulations. The ITU has no legal authority over these assignments regardless of the country’s civilian or military classification of spectrum.
The ITU cannot challenge the UK’s use of civilian or military spectrum.
Francois stated that Bryant’s response…
…blows the government’s latest rationale for their benighted Chagos deal clean out of the water.
Policy Exchange, a Conservative-oriented think tank, exploited the situation by rushing out a research paper that described the Chagos negotiations as a debacle.
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which addresses global communications technology by consensus, has absolutely no authority to interfere in — let alone shut down — our satellite facilities on Diego Garcia.
The political ambitions of Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat hinge on his being the most outspoken right-wing war hawk. Although he was well beaten in the last contest for leadership of the Conservative Party, it is inevitable that he will jump on any national security failings of the Labour government to bolster his credentials as a potential future Prime Minister. And so Tugendhat successfully inserted himself into the argument by writing the foreword to the Policy Exchange research paper.
The main threat to the future of our military base in the Indian Ocean, therefore, is not some unilateral punitive action of an international body. It is simply the Government’s distorted interpretation of the UK’s legal obligations, and its willingness to surrender meekly to a Mauritian shakedown.
So what is the truth of the matter? We reviewed the ITU Radio Regulations that are supposed to be the basis of the claim that the ITU can “govern” systems of communication and hence obstruct the use of electromagnetic spectrum. Article 0.11 of those regulations says:
The application of the provisions of these Regulations by the International Telecommunication Union does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Union concerning the sovereignty or the legal status of any country, territory or geographical area.
The ITU’s role is to discourage harmful interference with communications, not to be the cause of interference. Its purpose is helpfully characterized by Article 4 of the radio regulations, which covers the assignment and use of frequencies.
Administrations of the Member States shall not assign to a station any frequency… except on the express condition that such a station, when using such a frequency assignment, shall not cause harmful interference to, and shall not claim protection from harmful interference caused by, a station operating in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Convention and these Regulations.
It seems improbable that the ITU’s own regulations can be interpreted as giving them authority to interfere in the practical use of spectrum, even by lawyers who are looking for evidence that the ITU is authorized to cut communications to a military base. Keir Starmer has a reputation as one of the UK’s top lawyers, but this episode suggests he chooses his words with more care than how he chooses to interpret international laws that anyone can look up for themselves, if they are inclined to do so. His government tried to mislead the public by using unnamed officials to brief politics journalists about aspects of law and electronic communications that they would lack the expertise to challenge.
The UK government was wrong to suggest that losing access to spectrum is a justification for transferring control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. The claim that the ITU could legally interfere with communications to a military base is flawed. And it is fortunate that the argument is wrong. If it was credible, then the ITU would be drawn into much more serious conflicts than negotiations over how many billions should be paid by the UK to Mauritius in order to lease land that the UK currently controls. The British public does not pay much attention to arcane debates about who manages spectrum on small islands that are 500km from the next inhabited land mass, 2,200km from Mauritius, and 9,700km from the UK. But they would pay attention if a UN agency decided to interfere with satellite connections in Taiwan or Ukraine or the Falkland Islands or other places they know more about.
Control of communications is not a trivial matter to be manipulated by lawyers so they can obtain minor victories in the court of public opinion. Communications are a vital aspect of security. This needs to be given more respect as Cold War 2 intensifies and more battles are fought over networks.
