The Chagos Archipelago is a remote, mostly uninhabited archipelago of about 60 atolls scattered across the Indian Ocean. The largest of these, Diego Garcia, is home to one of the most secretive and strategically important US military bases in the entire Indo-Pacific region. The base and island have a notorious past. After being settled by the French in 18Day In 1965, this highly dispersed island group was ceded to Britain in 1810. After Britain cut the Chagos Islands from the soon-to-be-independent Mauritius and Seychelles in 1965 to create the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), the United States and the United Kingdom signed a bilateral agreement in 1966 to build a U.S. military facility at Diego Garcia. Between 1965 and 1973, Britain, with US support, forcibly removed Chagossians from the archipelago, allowing military bases to operate in extreme secrecy.
The British government’s announcement that it would return the Chagos Chain to Mauritius on the condition that the US military’s lease on Diego Garcia be extended for another 99 years seemed to close this ignominious chapter in the Anglo-American alliance. However, the nature of this agreement between London and Port Louis, the capital of Mauritius, is highly controversial for a number of reasons. Perhaps most importantly, the plight of the Chagossians has been largely overlooked due to a process of political correctness that has simultaneously grandiloquized the idea of decolonization and the fear of ceding long-term geopolitical advantages to China, as we explain below. It took a while to largely ignore those most negatively affected by colonization.
In recent decades, especially since Britain’s exit from the European Union, the former colonial power has found itself increasingly isolated from the United Nations and other international forums when it comes to maintaining sovereignty over its distant overseas territories. The Chagos Islands are one such example. Since Mauritius’ independence, Port Louis has continued to reiterate its claim to the island and, crucially, has won the support of the wider international community, including China, its largest foreign investor.
Security observers suggest that China’s growing level of financial investment, to more than $1 billion, likely means the country has significant real-world influence over the small island nation’s political affairs. So with the United States and its allies identifying the Indian Ocean coast as a key area of geopolitical competition, concerns have been raised about what this means for broader regional security. These include longer-term questions about how faithful the Mauritian and Chinese authorities will be to the agreement. Certainly, even the slightest impact on Diego Garcia’s execution would set alarm bells ringing as he is an important launching pad for bombers and personnel moving into conflict zones.
Under publicly disclosed terms, it would be not only impractical but extremely impossible for Mauritius to suddenly renege on its promise and seek to expel American forces from Diego Garcia and replace them with the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) of China. Nonetheless, even in the short and medium term, various non-traditional security areas may be compromised following the reallocation of administrative oversight from the UK Foreign Office to the Mauritian authorities, potentially increasing the vulnerability of sensitive information. Moreover, obstacles to China’s maritime development of other unmanned clusters within the Chagos Islands have seemingly been reduced by placing them under the management of economic allies. For example, future legislative changes could pave the way for China to create private logistics hubs on par with the landfill structures that currently inhabit China’s infamous nine-dash line in the South China Sea. It is adaptable and can be converted into a de facto PLAN naval base in the event of further escalation or conflict.
So why did the UK do so, apparently with US approval, given the potential strategic risk of losing sovereignty over the archipelago? This historic deal between Britain and Mauritius was hailed as a victory for decolonization by both governments and many neutral observers. It also comes as part of wider efforts by the new British government, led by Prime Minister Keir Stammer, to right historical wrongs. Many of these acts were committed as part of the colonial conquest and exploitation of the South. Returning the Chagos Islands to Mauritius marks the end of British colonialism in Africa through powerful symbolic effects.
But are the motivations behind this move really so noble? Given the weight of international opinion about the archipelago’s true sovereignty, it is difficult to see what Britain would have chosen to do to maintain its reputation as a supporter of international law. Moreover, the Biden administration was concerned that Mauritius could successfully seek a binding ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that could strip it of ownership of the island, threatening the future of its military base. American authorities concluded that it was strategically important for Britain to reach an agreement and informed the new Labor government that failure to do so would jeopardize the ‘special relationship’. This is another example of the Chagos Islanders and Diego Garcia being used as pawns by the Anglo-American alliance. For example, in the 1960s, Britain secured a $14 million discount in exchange for costs associated with the forced relocation of Chagossians and compensation to Mauritius and Seychelles, as well as concealing US-British actions from wider scrutiny. Regarding the purchase of the US Polaris missile system
The current UK-Mauritius deal means that America’s ability to project military power is essentially guaranteed from Diego Garcia now (and for the next 99 years!) at no additional cost. By contrast, the British government, which bizarrely has just relinquished sovereignty over the island, will now have to lease any military use it undertakes from the base, probably at the expense of British taxpayers. Neither these aspects nor the exact wording and content of the deal were debated in Parliament, making it difficult to discern whether this was an ethically sound action by the British government or one of acquiescence to American strategic security interests that happened conveniently. It lends itself to politically popular narratives about decolonization.
From an ethical standpoint, one could argue that the Chagossians should have been given a leading role in determining their own future and the future of their former homeland. However, despite the injustices they suffered as they were forced to move from Diego Garcia to Mauritius and Seychelles, they were almost completely excluded from the process. As a result, many Chagossians harbor deep resentment against the British authorities, as well as the Mauritians, who failed to protect their rights as citizens of the island and provide them with basic welfare services upon arrival. Many people died.
For the Mauritian government led by President Lupun to really be praised as a bastion of justice and decolonization, his administration should have made a more concrete commitment to repatriating the Chagossians to their homeland. Instead, the small island minority has unspecified plans to secure its right to return to the Chagos Islands. In most cases, there is little hope of realizing that dream. After all, while the political leaders of Port Luis, located more than 1,000 kilometers from Diego Garcia, may pay lip service to the cruel victims of their former residents, the country’s tiny budget is insufficient to invest in the kind of major infrastructure development needed to make this happen. It’s the same. Residence is possible in the other Chagos Islands, even if supported by the proposed British “financial support package”.
The Chagos Islands are now effectively part of Mauritius. The decision was welcomed by politicians and international organizations around the world as a shining example of constructive dialogue, decolonization and the rule of international law. This would have earned Britain’s new leader brownie points and given him the opportunity to stand on the world stage as a wise and noble statesman. It also appears to have been approved by the United States as a relatively inexpensive means of securing key ground against Diego Garcia for the foreseeable future and thereby maintaining regional hegemony. In the longer term, China’s influence over Mauritius’ fragile economy could allow China to exert some political influence or even gain a military foothold in the region. Meanwhile, returning to what was once an idyllic island where entire communities lived and bringing true justice remains a distant dream. Within current Anglo-American security concepts, this deal was the best outcome. But let us not pretend that this is anything other than a strategic goal that glosses over decolonization.
Additional Resources on E-International Relations
