Dooming The Chagos Deal: The Diego Garcia Dilemma – OpEd

When remote islands start to interest chatterboxes in think tanks and bureaucrats in foreign ministries, we can only assume that some matters will be exaggerated over others.  With the Chagos Islands, there is one matter that is hard to exaggerate.  The plight of its indigenous population has been horrendous, treated with brutish contempt by the British and United States, banished from their homelands in the name of strategic interests.   As Britain and its strategic footprint passed into the shade of US power, it became vital that Britannia perform the vital role of servitor, always assured that it would be a partner in the venture. 

In 1965, the UK effectively prized Mauritian control over the Chagos Islands, officially known as the British Indian Ocean Territory, for £3 million.  Mauritius has long argued that the parting of this territory was the unnecessary cost of securing its own independence.  Acting in a manner typical of a power claiming to follow the rule of law, 3,000 islanders were subsequently evicted to Mauritius and the Seychelles over a period of time lasting till 1973.  “The object of the exercise,” remarked the UK Permanent Under-Secretary in 1966, “was to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls who have not yet got a Committee (the Status of Women does not cover the rights of Birds).”  Over the decades, the UK Foreign Office repeatedly thwarted valiant efforts by the Chagossians to return to their islands.  Various international bodies took issue with such stalling conduct, including the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the International Court of Justice.

In October 2024, a joint statement from London and Port Louis announced that all but one of the Chagos Islands would be relinquished to Mauritian control.  “Following two years of negotiation, this is a seminal moment in our relationship and a demonstration of our enduring commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes and the rule of law.”  

While it was promoted as a glittering feat of decolonisation, the agreement suffered from two ailing flaws.  The first was the conspicuous absence of Chagossian consultation and any putative claims the islanders might have.  The second was the qualified transfer of sovereignty, centred on the largest island, Diego Garcia, home to a US strategic military base of outsized importance to the aims of Washington. “Under the terms of this treaty,” the statement goes on to mention, “the United Kingdom will agree that Mauritius is sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia.”  But the base retained its “vital role in regional and global security” and the UK would effectively be exercising the sovereign rights of the Mauritian authorities for 99 years as part of a lease “to ensure the continued operation of the base well into the next century.”  To palliate the bruising concession by Mauritius, Britain promised it “a package of financial support”.

The agreement had initial approval from US President Donald Trump, saying in February last year in discussions with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer that the lease arrangements was to his liking, and that he would be “inclined to go along with your country.”  There were also glowing words from US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who called it a “monumental achievement”.  The Starmer government, however, indicated one significant, and potentially crucial caveat.  As UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy alluded to on ITV’s Peston programme, the agreement would fail without Trump’s approval “because we have  a shared military and intelligence interest with the United States and of course they’ve got to be happy with the deal.”  

But Trump’s new iteration as war maker and bugle of menacing threats, directed at adversaries and allies alike, places the arrangement at risk.  Approving abductions of heads of state (Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro), monstering the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenland over claimed strategic necessities that would require the island to be added to the US imperium, and now threatening Iran with military strikes, suggest that all bets are off.

In such a festering mood, Trump scorned the UK-Mauritius deal on Truth Social in a January 20 post.  Stretching the truth, as is his wont, Trump huffed that “our ‘brilliant’ NATO Ally, the United Kingdom, is currently planning to give away the Island of Diego Garcia, the site of a vital US Military Base, to Mauritius, and to do so FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER.”  China and Russia, he went on to say, would have noticed.  As they were powers that only believed in strength, the decision to give away such territory was one of “great stupidity” and explained the reason why (yet another strained link) Greenland needed to be acquired.

This has caused a flutter of panic in Downing Street, leading to conversations between UK and US officials about allaying concerns on Washington’s side.  On January 28, Geraint Ellis, a spokesman for Starmer, suggested a picture of placid calm in the discussions.  “The UK and US have worked closely together in developing the treaty, which will secure the joint base on Diego Garcia that’s vital to our national security.”  The British government continued “to work closely with the US to ensure that the necessary arrangements are in place for the future operations of the base.”

This highly civil picture belies the broader forces at work, including British opposition politicians who have been feeding the Trump administration nuggets of dissent.  Nigel Farage, dedicated Trump fan and leader of the populist-right Reform UK party, has been making representations to Washington that the deal ought to be sunk.  A number of British Conservatives, including former Boris Johnson aide Ross Kempsell, have also rallied against the agreement.  

Kempsell, in a penned blog post for the political forum Politeia, shifted the focus to those Chagossian voices neglected in the negotiations.  Mention is made of Misley Mandarin, the newly appointed first minister of the Chagossian government in exile, who called the deal “an insult”.  Mandarin was “one of the many, many Chagossian voices who strongly oppose this dreadful deal.  He is backed by the majority of Brits polled, as well as MPs and peers across Parliament – a rare cause uniting everyone from Reform to the Liberal Democrats.”

In a curious, near perverse convergence of circumstances, opposition to the UK-Mauritius treaty has congealed on both sides of the Atlantic for somewhat different reasons.  Trump cites the rationale of might, China and Russia, and shows little awareness of the expelled islanders.  The little Englanders from the conservative and populist side nurse dreams of Britannic relevance while citing a counterfeit concern for Chagossian welfare.  The neocolonial overlooking of the Chagossians in the treaty adds that final note of repugnance to the whole affair.