Can Sovereignty Be Bought?

What the alleged latest chagos proposal tells us about our times

International Relations

By Vijay Makhan

The reported proposal to purchase the Chagos Archipelago illustrates a deeper transformation in international relations, where questions of sovereignty, decolonisation and historical legitimacy are increasingly reduced to matters of transaction and strategic expediency.

‘Historically, the United States expanded its territory through purchases. Louisiana was acquired from France in 1803. Alaska was purchased from Russia in 1867. And the Danish West Indies became the US Virgin Islands in 1917, in a monetary transaction between Washington and Copenhagen. Various arrangements involving strategic territories and military facilities have also punctuated American history. Those transactions belonged to another era. The nineteenth century was an age in which territories were often treated as transferable assets.’ Pic – The National News

Reports carried initially by The Telegraph and subsequently echoed by other media outlets suggest that circles within the Trump administration may be considering the possibility of purchasing the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius.

Whether such a proposal represents a serious policy option, an exploratory idea or merely another trial balloon remains to be seen. The significance of the story, however, lies less in its practical feasibility than in what it reveals about the mindset from which it appears to originate.

 The proposition, if it avers, borders on the absurd.

Successive Mauritian governments have spent nearly six decades pursuing the restoration of the Chagos Archipelago. The issue has survived changes of government in Port Louis, London and Washington. It has been pursued through diplomacy, international advocacy, legal action and sustained engagement with the international community.

At no point was the struggle about money. It was and is about sovereignty. It was and is about territorial integrity. It was and is about completing an unfinished process of decolonisation.

The distinction is important.

One does not spend more than half a century seeking recognition of a sovereign right before the international community only to place that right on the auction block once it has been acknowledged.

The reported proposal is revealing for another reason.

It appears to reflect a worldview in which virtually every issue can ultimately be reduced to a transaction. If there is a disagreement, negotiate a price. If there is an obstacle, buy it. If there is a dispute, compensate someone and move on.

This is not entirely new. Historically, the United States expanded its territory through purchases. Louisiana was acquired from France in 1803. Alaska was purchased from Russia in 1867. And the Danish West Indies became the US Virgin Islands in 1917, in a monetary transaction between Washington and Copenhagen. Various arrangements involving strategic territories and military facilities have also punctuated American history.

Those transactions belonged to another era. The nineteenth century was an age in which territories were often treated as transferable assets between sovereign powers. Empires bought, sold and exchanged land with little regard for the wishes of the populations concerned.

The world that emerged after the Second World War sought to move beyond that logic.

The principles of self-determination, decolonisation and territorial integrity became cornerstones of the international system. The very idea that territories could simply be traded or transferred like commercial assets lost legitimacy.

Hence the fundamental difference. Chagos is far from being Louisiana, Alaska or the Virgin Islands. Chagos is not a real estate transaction. It is the final chapter of an unfinished decolonisation process.

The International Court of Justice concluded that the separation of the archipelago from Mauritius prior to independence was unlawful. The United Nations General Assembly subsequently called upon the United Kingdom to complete the decolonisation process. Agree or not, these conclusions establish the framework within which the issue is now viewed internationally.

The framework is legal and political. It is not commercial!

Ironically, the reported proposal contains an implicit acknowledgement of Mauritian sovereignty. In effect, Mauritius holds sovereign title to the Archipelago. For decades, opponents of Mauritius’ position, including the United States, argued that sovereignty rested elsewhere. Doesn’t a proposal to buy the archipelago from Mauritius presuppose precisely the opposite?

Therein lies a striking contradiction.

There may, of course, be other motivations behind such reports. Some may interpret them as reflecting continuing unease within sections of the American administration regarding the agreement reached between the United Kingdom and Mauritius. Others may see them as another manifestation of the increasingly transactional approach that has characterised parts of contemporary American foreign policy. Still others may view them as part of a broader pattern of pressure on Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government at a time when disagreements have surfaced across a range of issues.

Whatever the explanation, the episode raises a larger question. What does it tell us about the evolution of international relations? Increasingly, one gains the impression that legal principles, historical realities and established norms are being viewed through a purely strategic lens.

The question is no longer “What is lawful?” It is increasingly becoming “What is useful?”

This shift is not confined to the Chagos issue.

It can be observed in debates surrounding tariffs imposed on allies and adversaries alike. It is visible in disputes over Greenland. It is reflected in growing tensions between partners within the Atlantic alliance. It appears in the willingness of governments to comment on or seek to influence the domestic affairs of allied states while simultaneously denouncing similar behaviour by others.

The result is an international environment marked by growing inconsistency. Rules are invoked selectively. Principles appear increasingly contingent. Strategic expediency often trumps legal coherence.

For small states, these developments deserve careful attention.

As I have been writing in a series of articles recently, historically, countries such as Mauritius have relied upon international law, multilateral institutions and established norms to compensate for limitations of size and power. Any weakening of those principles inevitably raises important questions about the future character of the international system.

The Chagos issue therefore extends beyond Mauritius. The reported proposal is significant not because it is likely to succeed, but because it offers a peek into a changing world. A world in which some appear increasingly inclined to view sovereignty as negotiable, law as secondary and history as an inconvenience.

Not everything can be reduced to a transaction. Some questions involve identity. Some involve justice. Some involve principle. And some involve the completion of historical processes that should have been concluded long ago.

Chagos belongs to that category.

Perish the thought of any purchase! This is geopolitics under its worst mantle. Simply preposterous!

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 12 June 2026