Chagos: The Next Seventy Years

Geopolitics & Indian Ocean Affairs

The recovery of the Chagos Archipelago was never about replacing one authority with another, but about assuming responsibility. The next chapter must be one of stewardship, not exploitation

The publication of a recent scientific study – carried out by Dirk Zeller and Roshni Mangar for ‘Sea Around Us-Indian Ocean’ – on historical fisheries in the Chagos Archipelago comes at a particularly significant moment. As the long struggle over sovereignty gradually gives way to the equally demanding challenge of governance, Mauritius must ensure that the international narrative surrounding Chagos reflects not only sound science but also an accurate understanding of its declared policies and its long-term vision for the archipelago.

Illegal fishing in the ocean. Pic – Galapagos Conservation Trust

There are moments in the life of nations when the nature of a debate changes fundamentally. The Chagos question has now reached such a moment.

For more than half a century, Mauritius quite rightly concentrated its energies upon recovering sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. Successive governments, supported by our diplomacy, our legal teams and our many international partners, pursued with remarkable consistency what history, justice and international law demanded.

That chapter is now drawing to a close. Another is about to begin.

The question confronting Mauritius is no longer simply whether it possesses sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. Increasingly, it is how that sovereignty will be exercised.

Or, more appropriately, how Mauritius will demonstrate effective stewardship over one of the world’s most strategically and environmentally significant maritime domains.

These are themes which I explore at greater length in a forthcoming monograph (under print) on the changing geopolitics of the Indian Ocean. They have been brought into sharper focus by the publication of a recent scientific study reconstructing historical fishing activity in the Chagos Archipelago.

As one who is not a fisheries scientist, I have neither the competence nor the inclination to pronounce upon the scientific methodology employed by the researchers. Their work, however, deserves careful examination by those better qualified to do so. Serious scientific inquiry should always be welcomed. It broadens knowledge and contributes to better public policy.

My concern lies elsewhere.

It is not so much the study itself that invites reflection, but part of the narrative that has accompanied its publication.

Readers are left with the impression that Mauritius may be contemplating reopening the protected waters of the Chagos Archipelago to domestic and foreign commercial fishing in order to generate additional revenue.

That is a serious proposition, short of saying allegation. For, it is one that sits uneasily with the policy that Mauritius has publicly and unequivocally placed on record.

Government has made clear that no commercial fishing will be permitted anywhere within the Chagos Archipelago Marine Protected Area (CAMPA). The only envisaged exception relates to carefully regulated artisanal, subsistence and recreational fishing in designated areas associated with any eventual resettlement, while preserving the integrity of one of the world’s largest marine protected areas.

That is the declared policy.

Against that background, the suggestion by certain news outlets, including the Oceanographic magazine, that Mauritius may reopen the protected waters to domestic and foreign commercial fishing in exchange for revenue is difficult to reconcile with the position publicly articulated by Government.

If that suggestion is based upon an official proposal, the source should be identified. If, on the other hand, it reflects an interpretation, an assumption or an extrapolation, that too should be made equally clear.

The distinction is important.

Public commentary accompanying a scientific study should not inadvertently create an international perception that is inconsistent with the sovereign state’s declared policy. This is not an inconsequential matter.

At a time when international attention is progressively shifting from the legal contest over sovereignty towards the practical realities of governing the archipelago, narratives matter. They influence perceptions. They shape expectations. Left unchallenged, they can gradually acquire the status of accepted fact.

Accuracy therefore becomes a responsibility shared by all who contribute to the debate. There is another distinction which, to my mind, is even more significant.

The recent study seeks to reconstruct what happened in the waters of the Chagos Archipelago during the past seventy years.

Mauritius, by contrast, must determine what should happen there during the next seventy. The first exercise is historical. The second is strategic. The first helps us understand yesterday. The second requires us to shape tomorrow.

That tomorrow extends far beyond fisheries. It encompasses the future of CAMPA; the conservation of one of the world’s richest marine ecosystems; marine scientific research; maritime surveillance; the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing; search and rescue; climate resilience; regional cooperation; and the careful reconciliation of environmental stewardship with the legitimate aspirations of those of our citizens wishing to return to parts of their homeland.

This is the conversation that should increasingly occupy us.

It is perhaps inevitable that, as the Chagos question moves from sovereignty to stewardship, scientific research, environmental advocacy, policy analysis and geopolitical interests will increasingly intersect. This is but normal. Indeed, informed debate should be encouraged.

Equally, however, it places an even greater premium on ensuring that scientific findings are not inadvertently accompanied by policy assumptions which Mauritius itself has neither adopted nor announced.

Science should be seen to inform policy, not define it. Nor should commentary surrounding scientific work create impressions that are inconsistent with a country’s publicly declared position.

Mauritius should therefore welcome this study. It should encourage further research. But it should also invite scientific scrutiny. It should continue to strengthen partnerships with the international scientific community. But it is equally its legitimate and absolute right to expect that its declared policies are represented accurately and fairly.

Mauritius did not pursue the recovery of the Chagos Archipelago for more than half a century merely to replace one administrator with another or to exchange one form of resource management for another. It pursued that objective because sovereignty carries responsibilities as well as rights.

Stewardship — not exploitation — must therefore define the next chapter in the history of the archipelago.

The study tells us something about the past. Mauritius must now concern itself with the future. If the long years since independence were devoted to recovering sovereignty, let the next seventy years be devoted to demonstrating exemplary stewardship.

That will require scientific knowledge. It will require capable institutions. It will require vigilance, vision and sustained political commitment. Above all, it will require Mauritius to think and act as the ocean state that geography, history and international law have now entrusted it to become.

That, ultimately, will be the true measure of our success.

16 July 2026

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 17 july 2026