Chagos Agreement: A Geopolitical Reset in the Indian Ocean

Editorial

In a moment charged with legal drama, diplomatic strategy, and historical reckoning, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer yesterday signed a landmark agreement with Mauritius to restore the latter’s sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Coming just hours after a failed attempt to block the deal in the High Court, the agreement ends over two centuries of British control and repositions the UK’s geopolitical footprint in the Indian Ocean. Despite widespread praise, the deal has sparked political debate and emotional reactions within parts of the Chagossian community.

Keir Starmer has been at pains to portray the agreement as an act of necessity and statecraft. At a news conference in Hertfordshire, flanked by Defence Secretary John Healey and the UK’s strategic command head General Sir Jim Hockenhull, the British PM argued that the UK had little legal or diplomatic manoeuvring room left.“Other approaches to secure the base have been tried over the years, and they have failed,” he said, pinning much of the preparatory groundwork for the deal on the previous Conservative governments. “We inherited a negotiation in which the principle of giving up UK sovereignty had already been conceded by the previous Tory government.”

It is true that of the 13 rounds of negotiation, 11 took place under Conservative administrations. Boris Johnson’s government, the British PM noted, had attempted to stall, while Liz Truss’s government initiated the very negotiations that led to the current agreement. Keir Starmer asserts that his deal benefits the UK’s national interest by resolving uncertainty and legal vulnerabilities. He also claims the agreement is more financially efficient than other defence spending, such as operating a new aircraft carrier.

A Geopolitical Bargain

Under the terms of the 99-year lease agreement, the UK will pay Mauritius an average of £101 million annually for the use of Diego Garcia. As per Navin Ramgoolam’s government request, payments would be frontloaded and protected from inflation. Thus, payments will be £165 million for each of the first three years, £120 million annually from years four to thirteen, and subsequently indexed to inflation over the remaining lease period. This deal, which secures continued use of Diego Garcia as a critical military base, has been approved by the Five Eyes alliance (UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) and also by India. The US will cover the base’s running costs. A £40 million trust fund will be established to support the Chagossians. While Mauritius will retain sovereignty over Diego Garcia, resettlement on that island will not be permitted.

The agreement establishes a rigid framework safeguarding UK and US strategic interests. This includes a 24-nautical-mile buffer zone around Diego Garcia, a ban on foreign military presence on other islands in the archipelago, and exclusive UK control over GPS-related infrastructure. Any other developments in the wider archipelago will need joint approval. Critics argue that this is tantamount to a sovereign handover in name only. From a defence perspective, the UK retains many of the strategic advantages it previously enjoyed. Yet, politically, the symbolism of surrendering legal sovereignty after years of defiance before international courts is hard to ignore. Mauritius has always asserted that the islands were illegally detached from its territory in 1965 as a condition of its independence—a view upheld by the International Court of Justice and the United Nations General Assembly. The UK’s refusal to comply with those opinions had increasingly left it diplomatically isolated.

However, the ink on the agreement was barely dry before two Chagossian women—Bertrice Pompe and Bernadette Dugasse—who had settled in the UK, sought an emergency injunction to prevent the deal, citing the British government’s failure to adequately consult those most affected. While their barrister, Michael Polak, argued that the government’s attempt to cede the Chagossians’ homeland without a formal consultation was unjustifiable, it was clear that the UK government was obligated to act responsibly, and defining ‘the Chagossian people’ had become a complex quagmire. It must be noted that the Olivier Bancoult Group of Chagossian refugees, a major stakeholder, has fully supported the agreement between both authorities.

Predictably, the domestic political fallout in the UK has been swift. Conservative politicians have accused Starmer of betrayal, alleging he has bartered away sovereignty under pressure. Yet this ignores the clear role their own party played in laying the groundwork for this outcome. For years, Conservative governments adopted a posture of denial and delay, refusing to reckon with the verdicts of international legal institutions. Their eventual concession to negotiations with Mauritius left Keir Starmer with limited options and dwindling time.

However, the British PM has tried to shift the narrative, presenting the agreement as a triumph of realism over ideological dogma. In doing so, he has deftly pointed out that the alternative—international litigation by Mauritius—would likely have resulted in a more humiliating and costly defeat for the UK. By seizing the initiative, Keir Starmer claims to have preserved what truly matters for the UK and the West: securing strategic access and control of a vital Indian Ocean military base, while maintaining full operational authority.

The Wider Context

The Chagos agreement arrives at a moment of broader policy flux for the Starmer administration. According to British media official figures, released just this week, showed that migration to the UK has fallen by the largest numerical drop on record, and a government review has controversially recommended that prisoners serve less time behind bars. These developments signal a government cautiously rebalancing its priorities: addressing public discontent with immigration, alleviating pressure on the prison system, and now recalibrating Britain’s post-imperial role in the world.

In each of these areas, the Starmer government is walking a tightrope between pragmatism and principle. The Chagos deal, in particular, embodies this tension. It resolves a decades-long territorial dispute and avoids further international embarrassment, but risks leaving some Chagossians feeling once again sidelined. It maintains the UK’s defense imperatives in the Indian Ocean but may be perceived as ceding ground politically to an increasingly assertive Global South.

In the end, Starmer’s Chagos deal is a result of hard political choices—not driven by ideals, but by legal risks, strategic needs, and diplomatic pressure. But it would be wrong to see it only this way. The Chagos Islands are not just about military importance—they also represent a painful history of forced exile and colonial injustice.

New realignment

The Chagos Islands have in fact been a focal point of international contention since the 1960s, a stark blemish on Britain’s colonial legacy. The islands were excised from Mauritius prior to its independence against UN adopted decolonisation rules, and the Chagossians forcibly removed to facilitate a joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. For decades, Mauritius has asserted its sovereignty over the archipelago, a claim unequivocally supported by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In 2019, the ICJ ruled the UK’s continued administration of the islands as the “British Indian Ocean Territory” (BIOT) illegal, calling for the return of sovereignty to Mauritius. This ruling, requested by the UN General Assembly, served as a damning indictment of decades of entrenched UK diplomatic resistance.

For Mauritius, securing full sovereignty over the Chagos Islands is a matter of national dignity and historical justice. The current government adopted a firm and principled stance, previously indicating that should negotiations with the UK falter—as they did when the Trump administration’s reaction caused uncertainty and temporarily blocked a deal—Mauritius would have continued its resolute fight for full sovereignty. This position underscored the nation’s decades-long battle for recognition of its sovereign rights.

Crucially, Mauritius has consistently balanced its demand for sovereignty with assurances that the operational integrity of the Diego Garcia base would not be compromised. The willingness to lease the base for 99 years exemplifies this pragmatic approach sanctioned over the years by all our established political parties. However, critics might contend that these terms risk entrenching a form of neo-colonialism, leaving effective control of the territory with powerful Western nations. This perspective suggests a departure from Mauritius’s sympathy and support for a demilitarized Indian Ocean and neutrality amidst then superpower rivalries. However, the world has changed dramatically: global threats have evolved, and new adversaries have emerged in different parts of the world. Piracy on the high seas, conflicts within the Middle-East, Iran and South Asia, competition or rivalry for control of immensely valuable oil routes and increased naval presence of China, have superseded the older frameworks. Only time will tell if this realigned pragmatism truly serves Mauritius’s long-term interests.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 23 May 2025