Mauritius and the United Kingdom released a joint statement on October 3, 2024 announcing the UK’s agreement to transfer the Chagos archipelago, including the island of Diego Garcia, back to Mauritius. While the agreement recognises the sovereignty of Mauritius over the entire archipelago, it also permits the UK to exercise such sovereignty on behalf of Mauritius in Diego Garcia for the next 99 years.
This development prompts critical questions. How did the UK gain control of the Chagos? Why did the UK agree to hand it back to Mauritius? And why is the UK holding back Diego Garcia? Political analysts Daniela Marggraff, Samuel Oyewole and Maxi Schoeman share their take on it.
How did the UK gain control of the Chagos archipelago?
As a dependency of Mauritius, the Chagos archipelago was administered as a French colony from 1715 to 1814, and as a British colony between 1814 and 1965.
In 1965, Britain promised to withdraw from Mauritius but not Chagos. Hence, Mauritius became independent in 1968 without Chagos, which became a British Indian Ocean Territory.
In 1966, the UK leased Diego Garcia to the US for 50 years in exchange for a US$14 million discount on its purchase of nuclear-armed submarine-launched Polaris ballistic missile systems.
The UK and the US wanted to keep the archipelago free from any political complications that could arise from the presence of indigenous populations. In the late 1960s and 1970s, inhabitants of the Chagos were exiled to Mauritius and Seychelles. Then the British Indian Ocean Territory banned Chagossians from returning to the islands.
The ban was reversed in 2000, allowing Chagossians to return to the outer islands. But this was short-lived. The 2004 Immigration Ordinance reintroduced the restriction.
In 1971, the US established a naval and air support base in Diego Garcia, which is jointly operated with the UK. Some 4,000 US and British military and contract civilian personnel were reported to be stationed on the island since the military base was opened. In 2016, the UK extended the lease of the island to the US to 2036.
Why did the UK agree to the handover?
In October 2024, the UK decided to hand over its last colony in the Indian Ocean, leaving it with 13 other overseas territories elsewhere. This decision is the culmination of protracted legal, political and strategic struggles both locally and internationally.
Several of the exiled Chagossians moved to the UK and became British citizens. This brought their plight home to London. From the late 1990s, Chagossians had sued for their right to return home. In 2000 the court ruled against their claim to ownership. But it also nullified the bans against living there.
In 2002 4,466 Chagossians in the UK, Mauritius and Seychelles sued for compensation. The case was dismissed and the appeal was refused in 2004.
British and US government officials interpreted these legal actions as efforts to embarrass them.
Moreover, the US-led wars in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 raised the strategic importance of Diego Garcia, which supported numerous airstrikes.
A UK court and the European Court of Human Rights rejected the Chagossians’ appeals.
In June 2017, the UN general assembly adopted resolution 71/292, asking the International Court of Justice to advise on the legality of separating Chagos from Mauritius. The African Union and many of its member states supported the process.
The general assembly adopted the court’s advisory opinion and demanded unconditional withdrawal of the UK from the Chagos archipelago.
The UK government rejected the decision.
But it announced on 3 November 2022 its decision to resume negotiation with Mauritius over Chagos. This eventually led to the joint statement handing over the Chagos islands to Mauritius.
The UK’s move could be interpreted as reaffirming its commitment to the rules-based order to avoid undermining its global support base. This would counter the idea that western powers only adhere to the rules-based order when it suits them.
The UK Labour Party also feared that the International Court of Justice could gain jurisdiction over the US-UK base, to the detriment of national security.
The UK government realised, too, that if the issue was left unresolved, it might push Mauritius towards alternative partners, most notably China and Russia.
In an increasingly militarised Indo-Pacific, the UK’s actions underscore the point that brute strength alone cannot dictate success. International legitimacy and diplomatic credibility still carry weight.
Why retain Diego Garcia?
The UK is retaining Diego Garcia for military, strategic, economic and geopolitical reasons.
Diego Garcia houses a military base jointly operated by the UK and US. The base, which includes an airstrip, has enabled both countries to project military power in global hotspots, especially in east Africa, the Middle East and the Indian Ocean. It supported air operations such as Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom in the Middle East.
Instead of frequently deploying expensive aircraft carriers, the UK and US can conduct military operations from this base in the region. They can respond more rapidly.
The base also allows the UK and US to ensure that major shipping lanes that cross the Indian Ocean stay open. It is crucial for the transit of energy and goods between Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
The region is infamous for threats of maritime piracy and terrorism, which can disrupt global trade. Keeping the route closed to illicit activities is vital for the stability of the region.
Diego Garcia is critical in the US and UK’s geostrategic approach to China and possibly Russia. In 2017, China established a military base in Djibouti.
This is part of China’s growing influence in the Indian Ocean, specifically through its Belt and Road Initiative. With African islands such as Seychelles, Madagascar and Comoros all signing on to the initiative, China has expanded its footprint.
Mauritius has not yet signed on to the initiative. It remains a vital ally for the west, with Diego Garcia as a base which can be used to counter the threat of China. Hence, the UK government acknowledged the need to strengthen the regional alliance against China in the region.
Why islands in the Indo-Pacific matter
Islands are becoming more important for major powers, especially in the Indo-Pacific. They have a strategic value that enhances their bargaining power with the major powers. But it also exposes island nations to great power competition which could go against their national interests.
The UK’s handover of the Chagos archipelago and retention of Diego Garcia is obviously a strategic move. However, it raises questions about the genuine intentions of major powers’ relations with small island nations.
While the agreement of 3 October is a positive step, the 99-year lease begs the question of whose interest is served.
Small island nations will need to manoeuvre carefully to protect their own interests.
Daniela Marggraff, Researcher, Oceans Regions Programme, University of Pretoria; Maxi Schoeman, Emeritus Professor of International Relations, University of Pretoria, and Samuel Oyewole, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Political Sciences, University of Pretoria
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
