The Chagos Archipelago is an isolated, mostly uninhabited group of approximately 60 atolls scattered across the Indian Ocean. The largest of these, Diego Garcia, is home to one of the most secret and strategically important US military bases in the entire Indo-Pacific region. The base and the islands have a notorious past. After being colonized by the French in the 18th Century, this group of widely dispersed islets was ceded to the British in 1810. After the British excision of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and the soon-to-be independent Seychelles in 1965 to create the British Territory of Indian Ocean (BIOT), the United States and the United Kingdom signed a bilateral agreement in 1966 to establish a U.S. military installation at Diego Garcia. Between 1965 and 1973, the British, supported by the United States, forced the Chagossians to leave the archipelago, so that the military base could operate in complete secrecy.
At first glance, the British government’s announcement to return the Chagos Range to Mauritius, provided that the US military’s lease of Diego Garcia is extended for a further 99 years, appears to close this shameful chapter in the Anglo-American alliance. American. However, the nature of this agreement between London and the Mauritian capital, Port Louis, is very controversial for multiple reasons. Perhaps more importantly, as we explain below, the fate of the Chagossians themselves has been largely neglected as a result of fears of ceding long-term geostrategic advantages to China and a process of political correct which involves stripping away the idea of decolonization while largely ignoring those who were most affected by colonization.
In recent decades, particularly after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, the former colonial power has found itself increasingly isolated at the United Nations and other international forums when it aims to maintain its sovereignty over its distant overseas territories. The Chagos Islands are an example. Since Mauritius’ independence, Port Louis has continually reiterated its claims to the islands, gaining support from the wider international community, including its largest foreign investor, China.
Security observers suggest that growing levels of financial investment from China – up to $1 billion – likely mean that Beijing wields considerable real influence over the small island nation’s political affairs. So, while the United States and its allies identify the Indian Ocean rim as a key area of geostrategic competition, concerns have been raised about what this means for broader regional security. This includes longer-term questions about the likely loyalty of Mauritian and Chinese authorities to any deal. To be sure, even a minimal impact on the operation of Diego Garcia would raise alarm bells, as a vital launching pad for bombers and personnel transiting to conflict zones.
It is extremely unlikely, not to mention impractical, in the terms made public, that Maurice would suddenly go back on his word and seek to expel Diego Garcia’s American forces and replace them with the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) Chinese. However, even in the short to medium term, this could potentially increase the vulnerability of sensitive information, as various non-traditional security areas could be compromised following the reallocation of administrative tasks from the UK Foreign Office to authorities. Mauritius. Furthermore, obstacles preventing maritime development of other uninhabited groups in the Chagos Islands by China have apparently been reduced by placing them under the administration of an economic ally. For example, future legal amendments could pave the way for Beijing to create civilian logistics centers equivalent to the reclaimed land structures that currently populate China’s infamous 9-dash line in the South China Sea. These would be adaptable and could subsequently be transformed into de facto PLAN naval bases in the event of increased tensions or the outbreak of conflict.
So, given the potential strategic risks of losing sovereignty over the archipelago, why did the UK do it, obviously with US approval? This historic agreement between the United Kingdom and Mauritius was hailed by both governments and many neutral observers as a triumph of decolonization. It is also part of a wider initiative by the new UK government, led by Prime Minister Keir Stammer, to right historical wrongs. Many of these acts were committed as a function of colonial conquest and exploitation of the Global South. The return of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius thus marks the end of such British colonialism in Africa, with a powerful symbolic effect.
But are the motivations behind this decision really so noble? Given the weight of international opinion on the true sovereignty of the archipelago, it is difficult to see what option the British had if they wanted to maintain their reputation as defenders of international law. Additionally, the Biden administration feared that Mauritius could obtain a binding ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to take possession of the islands, thereby threatening the future of the military base. American officials concluded that it was strategically important for the British to reach an agreement and informed the new Labor government that failure to do so would endanger 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, in exchange for the costs involved in the forced resettlement of the Chagossians and bribes paid to Mauritius and the Seychelles, as well as to conceal US-UK actions from further scrutiny, the Kingdom -Uni obtained a reduction of 14 million. on their purchase of the American Polaris missile system.
The contemporary agreement between the United Kingdom and Mauritius means that American military power projection capabilities will for now (and for the next 99 years!) be carried out primarily by Diego Garcia, at no additional cost. On the other hand, bizarrely, having given up its sovereignty over the islands, the British government will now likely be forced to lease any military use it undertakes from the ground up at the cost of British taxpayers. None of these aspects, neither the wording nor the precise content of the agreement, were discussed in Parliament. It is therefore difficult to determine whether this was an ethically rational act on the part of the British government or one of acquiescence to the strategic security interests of the United States, which proved expedient. fits with a politically popular narrative of decolonization.
From an ethical perspective, one could argue that the Chagossians should have played a leading role in determining their own future and that of their ancient homeland. Yet they have been almost entirely excluded from the process despite the injustices suffered through their forced expulsion from Diego Garcia to Mauritius and the Seychelles. As a result, many Chagossians harbor deep resentment not only towards the British authorities, but also towards the Mauritians, who have failed to protect their rights as citizens of the islands or provide them with basic social services at their own expense. arrival. Many died.
If the Mauritian government led by President Roopun is truly to be seen as a bastion of justice and decolonization, his administration should surely have made a more concrete commitment to repatriating the Chagossians to their country of origin. Instead, this small island minority is left with an unclear plan to make way for their right of return to the Chagos Islands. For most, there is little hope of realizing this dream. After all, political leaders in Port Louis – located more than 1,000 kilometers from Diego Garcia – might pay lip service to these cruelly victimized former residents, but the country’s small budget appears insufficient to invest in the kind of major infrastructural development that would be necessary to make the other Chagos Islands habitable, even if supported by a proposed British “financial support package”.
The Chagos Islands are now effectively part of Mauritius. The decision was hailed by politicians and international institutions around the world as a shining example of constructive dialogue, decolonization and the rule of international law. This may have earned Britain’s new leader points and a chance to showcase himself on the world stage as a wise and noble statesman. It also appears to have been endorsed by the United States as a relatively inexpensive way to secure its key base on Diego Garcia for the near future and thus preserve regional hegemony. In the longer term, China’s influence on Mauritius’ fragile economy could allow it to exercise a certain political weight, or even gain a military foothold in the region. Meanwhile, returning to what was once an idyllic island home to an entire community and achieving true justice remains a distant dream. Within the framework of current Anglo-American conceptions of security, this agreement represented the best result. But let’s not pretend that this is anything other than strategic objectives that take precedence, with decolonization serving as a facade.
Further Reading on International Electronic Relations