In early October, the UK announced that it would transfer the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Formerly known as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), the strategically placed archipelago had been in British hands since the early 1800s and was referred to by some as the UK’s “last colony” in Africa. Not only does the deal begin to address the legacy of imperialism and colonialism in the region but also demonstrates the benefits of a more collaborative and morally justifiable approach to UK foreign policy.
Setting the stage
First colonised by the French, the islands were ceded to the British in 1814. The archipelago was home to the Chagossian people, descendants of Africans brought over during the slave trade and indentured South Asian workers. When Mauritius gained its independence in 1968, the Chagos Archipelago remained in British hands. Then, from 1967 to 1973, the British government expelled the entirety of the islands population, mostly to Mauritius.
It is difficult to overstate the impact of this on both individuals and the Chagossian community. Expulsions were aided by the fact that few Chagossians owned property, as many lived in plantation worker housing. Deteriorating conditions on the islands also made it easier for the British government to carry out these forced removals. The displacement drew condemnation from Human Rights Watch, which described the act as an “appalling colonial crime” and a crime against humanity.
The aim of this expulsion was to allow the US and UK governments to establish a military outpost on the Diego Garcia atoll, part of the island chain. This base would provide a key installation for naval and air operations in the region, becoming increasingly important as tensions rose between China and the USA in the Indian Ocean.
Following their displacement, the Chagossian people have engaged in a protracted legal battle with the British government, seeking not only the right to return to their homeland but also recognition of their rights within the UK. In 1982, the British government set up a £4 million trust fund to support displaced Chagossians and their descendants.
In 2000, a key legal ruling from a UK high court found that the expulsions were illegal, though this was later overturned by the House of Lords in 2008, the UK’s highest court at the time. Despite this, in 2019, the International Court of Justice found that the British occupation of the islands was illegal and called for their return to Mauritius.
This legal pressure was compounded by the increasing international isolation of the UK, with the UN General Assembly voting 116-6 in favour of a motion calling for the return of the islands. Moreover, issues emerged over the treatment of Tamil refugees who had escaped the islands seeking asylum. In 2022, the British government finally agreed to open negotiations with Mauritius, resulting in the deal announced this year.
So, what is the deal?
The basis of the deal is that, whilst full sovereignty of the archipelago will be handed over the Mauritius, the UK-US base will remain on the islands. This will be for an “initial period” of 99 years, a common placeholder for more-or-less indefinite control in diplomatic jargon. Alongside this, there will be a resettlement of the islands, excluding the Diego Garcia atoll. Furthermore, the UK will provide a package of financial support that includes expansion of the Chagossian trust fund and infrastructure investments.
The deal is not without its critics. There has been a mixed reaction amongst the displaced Chagossian people, with some critical of how they felt left out of the negotiation process. Moreover, some Conservative MPs have critiqued the deal, including James Cleverly. This is perhaps a touch hypocritical since the negotiations began during his time as Foreign Secretary during the previous Conservative government.
Decoding the deal: what does it really mean?
First and foremost, the deal has aligned the British government with international law. Not only is this the morally right thing to do, but it also goes a long way to improving the UK’s international position, especially with its former colonies and developing nations. Also, it places Britain in a strong position to critique other breaches of international law, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Furthermore, this deal addresses a long-lasting colonial wrong and perhaps may help to repair relations with Mauritius. There is hope that a more constructive relationship will develop, enabling the UK to address other long-standing issues. However, the absence of a strong Chagossian voice in the negotiations limits the potential impact of this agreement.
It is also important to note that the US-UK strategic position in the Indian Ocean has not only been maintained but possibly strengthened. By retaining the base on the Diego Garcia atoll, western powers can continue to project military influence in the region. Moreover, repairing relations with Mauritius reduces the risk of other global powers exerting influence and threatening British interests.
It would be wrong to suggest the deal is perfect. Resettlement issues are likely to arise, particularly due to the limited voice of Chagossians in the negotiations. However, the return of the islands may indicate a new path for British relations with it’s ex-colonial subjects, focusing on collaboration rather than confrontation and subjugation.
