By: Kalyani R. Janakiraman
The author is a first-year master's student at the Jindal School of International Affairs. She can be reached at 24jsia-krjanakiraman@jgu.edu.in
Image Source: Tolga Akmen / EPA
Introduction
A dispute that spanned over five decades culminated on 3rd October 2024, with the announcement of a new agreement that promises the sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius. This deal marks the turning point in the history of Chagossians, who the United Kingdom forcibly displaced between the 1960s and 1970s to make way for a U.S. military base on Diego Garcia, situated in the archipelago's southeastern region. This agreement, despite being a turning point for Chagossians who couldn’t return to their homeland, comes with a caveat. The U.S. and the UK jointly operate a critical military base located on the largest island - Diego Garcia - which will remain under their jurisdiction for the next 99 years.
This deal offers emancipation to what many term as the last colony in Africa. It also is symbolic of the recognition of past injustices carried out against the Chagossians. However, it has evoked mixed reactions from various factions. Mauritius and several countries support this deal on the principle of decolonization. Some Chagossians have voiced their concerns over being excluded from the negotiations, and dissenters in Downing Street have criticised this move as a security risk that undermines the interests of the UK. Regardless of the reactions, one thing becomes clear. The geopolitical importance of the Chagos Islands, owing to being close to West Asia, Southeast Africa and Southeast Asia, can shift the balance of power in the Indian Ocean.
Historical Background
Historically, the Chagos Islands have been marred by colonialism and displacement. In the late eighteenth century, around 1783, enslaved Africans from Mozambique and Madagascar were brought to the islands by the French to work on coconut plantations. However, following the Napoleonic wars, Britain formally usurped both Mauritius and Chagos Islands. Britain then went on the separate the two and create the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) in 1965. Mauritius gained independence in 1968, however, Britain managed to retain the Chagos Island. Soon after, around the 1970s, all of the Chagossians were forced to leave their homes and were displaced to Mauritius, Seychelles, and even granted British citizenship in return. Britain agreed to pay £4 million to those displaced, to grant them economic relief.
The UK justified the exile by citing the dying coconut plantation as the reason for exiling thousands of Chagossians. It claimed that the industry was dying and it would affect the people. The UK further made its stance controversial by calling the Chagossians ‘transient workers’ who were non-permanent. This created a polarised climate during the discussions of sovereignty. However, the real reason was the emergence of a U.S. military base built in Diego Garcia around 1971. The lease agreement was signed around 1966, with Britain getting a $14 million discount on the Polaris missile, which is a nuclear-armed SBLM. After Wikileaks published a U.S. telegram dating back to 2009 which revealed the UK’s intent to establish an MPA (marine protected area), the displaced population was further enraged, as this would effectively block all chances at resettlement. However, in 2015, a UN tribunal declared the MPA illegal as it undermined Mauritius’ sovereignty, and hoped that all the parties involved would be able to wash their hands clean of the colonial past. This was the first moment where hope reemerged for the Chagossians. Two years after the verdict from Hague, the case was referred to ICJ after a general assembly vote in the UN. If losing the vote was strike one for a waning power like Britain, strike two was the verdict that favoured Mauritius. Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf declared the detachment of the island as unlawful and determined that the British occupation of the Islands was a wrongful act.
However, despite the verdict and subsequent resolutions, the then PM of the UK Boris Johnson stood his ground on the matter, citing the Chinese influence as a threat. Thus cementing British control over the territory as a matter of security rather than a vestige of colonialism. However, with the new administration in power under Labour Party’s Kier Starmer, negotiations opened up again with the Mauritian counterpart Pravind Jugnauth.
Geopolitical Implications
Mauritius's regaining its sovereignty is a cause for celebration. Mauritius has won a decadal battle against the UK to exercise its rightful sovereignty. By securing this deal, Mauritius strengthens its regional standing and gains some influence over the Indian Ocean. However, one must not forget that the 99-year lease still exists, under which Diego Garcia is to remain under U.S. influence. Some strategists view this as a balancing act between forging strategic partnerships and claiming sovereignty, claiming that Mauritius gets to exert some military influence on the decisions taken henceforth. Others claim that the lease is still a matter of concern and one that must be addressed sooner than later. This comes at a time when many secessionist Chagossians in the UK demand that Chagos be a sovereign entity of its own, rather than fall under the sovereign ambit of Mauritius.
Those who perceive and comment on this matter from the UK’s perspective claim that the deal is very pragmatic in nature. The UK still having control over the largest island in the Chagos archipelago is symbolic of the influence it exerts while still abiding by the rules-based international system. Some posit that the UK is strategically avoiding further isolation in a region with intense competition for dominance by placing itself in the role of a responsible actor that respects international rulings. Many Conservatives in the UK parliament exclaim that the UK is losing its foothold in the Indo-Pacific region by abiding by the rulings of the court that had no right to dictate the affairs of a sovereign Britain. While President Biden welcomes this news as the result of diplomacy and peaceful negotiations, Washington remains weary of the delicate partnership it needs to steer in the region to ensure stability and protect its regional interests in the region.
India has welcomed the agreement, having played a significant role in the diplomatic negotiations. A key aspect of this settlement that concerns India is its converging interests with the U.S., particularly with regard to the Indian Ocean Region. With the U.S. sustaining its presence in the region and India’s growing cooperation with the U.S., both nations are working to counter the growing Chinese influence in the region. This comes with the context of steady Chinese investment in Mauritius, from sugar to solar energy.
Conclusion
This deal between Britain and Mauritius holds significant strategic importance, particularly in terms of regional security and geopolitical dynamics. While Mauritius gained sovereignty, Britain and the U.S. exercised considerable influence by retaining the lease on Diego Garcia. Many view this as stabilising the balance of power in the region, which is crucial for countering external threats. Britain managed to resolve a long-standing dispute over matters of sovereignty and eased tensions in the region without disrupting the operations at Diego Garcia, which has historically been pivotal to the U.S. operations during the Cold War and post 9/11 operations. However, the underlying shift in British foreign policy spells concern in many, as relinquishing reigns over BIOT raises a similar question in other regions under its influence, namely Gibraltar and Falklands.
Questions regarding the future of Mauritius’ actions in the region remain to be answered. The nature of power it will be able to exercise, the extent of it too, is to be speculated. Mauritius is cordial with the U.S., with their relationship being based on trade, however with this newfound sovereignty, many hope that Mauritius maintains the integrity of the deal and engages fruitfully with the international community to secure the region.
For Chagossians, their homeland isn’t just a place on the map with brimming strategic value - it is their identity, their culture and heritage. Forced to exile under specious premises, they have spent the past 50 years struggling to maintain their identity and linkage to the archipelago. The trauma of exile, referred to as ‘sagren’ by the Chagossians, has deeply affected them. Economic hardships, emotional devastation and even death awaited those who couldn’t cope with this loss. This deal is an ode to those who persisted in demanding what was rightfully theirs, it is a symbol of victory and hope. Hope for many more who find themselves stranded across borders, struggling to return to a place they can call home.
Bibliography
Al Jazeera (2024, October 3). The UK agrees to give the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/3/uk-agrees-to-give-sovereignty-of-the-chagos-islands-to-mauritius
Lawal, S. (2024, October 4). Why is the UK handing the Chagos Islands back to Mauritius? Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/4/why-is-the-uk-handing-the-chagos-islands-back-to-mauritius
Graham, E. (2024, October 10). UK-Mauritius Chagos deal removes risk from Diego Garcia base | The Strategist. The Strategist. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/uk-mauritius-chagos-deal-removes-risk-from-diego-garcia-base/
Crace, J. (2024, October 9). Suddenly, all MPs know where the Chagos Islands are and what’s best for them. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/07/mps-chagos-islands-mauritius-lammy-starmer-israel-gaza
Tambi, R. (2024, October 12). India’s Stake in the Settlement of the Chagos Dispute. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2024/10/indias-stake-in-the-settlement-of-the-chagos-dispute/
Revi, V. (2024, October 11). Chagos Islands: UK-Mauritius reach a historic agreement. Observer Research Foundation. https://orfonline.org/expert-speak/chagos-islands-uk-mauritius-reach-a-historic-agreement
The views expressed in this article are those of the author (s). They do not reflect the views or opinions of Diplomania or its members.
Comments