Chagos: Three at the Table, Before Patience Runs Out

International Relations

The Greenland process may offer a way to organise dialogue on Diego Garcia’s security. It is a procedural guide, not a comparison of the two disputes

By Vijay Makhan

Friday 2 October’s meeting in London between Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam and Jonathan Powell, the British Prime Minister’s National Security Adviser, lasted more than two hours. Its significance lay less in any public communiqué than in the clarity of the message conveyed — Mauritius remains prepared to engage, but its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago is not open to renegotiation. The agreement signed on 22 May 2025 must be ratified and implemented. Patience, as the Prime Minister has now made clear, cannot be without limit.

That is a measured position. It recognises the strategic importance of Diego Garcia and the need for London to consult Washington. It also draws a necessary line between discussing security arrangements and reopening the question of sovereignty. The first may require practical dialogue. The second has been addressed in the signed agreement and cannot be turned into the price of continued discussion.

When I last wrote on this subject, an official reply to the House of Lords had recorded no ministerial-level contact between London and Port Louis since 20 January. That position has now changed. On 21 September, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham said he would work with Mauritius and the United States towards a resolution; the two leaders had spoken and agreed that their foreign ministers should meet at the United Nations. The subsequent meeting with Powell is another channel reopened. These are welcome signs of political engagement, but contact is not progress unless it produces a clear route to ratification. No timetable has been announced.

It is in this setting that former Deputy Prime Minister Paul Bérenger’s proposal deserves serious consideration. He has called for a high-level meeting among Mauritius, the United Kingdom and the United States, followed by a tripartite working group. The proposal has since entered public discussion more broadly. The British Prime Minister’s own stated readiness to work with Mauritius and Washington points towards the same practical logic.

The Greenland experience offers a useful procedural lesson. In January, after discussions between the United States, Denmark and Greenland left fundamental disagreements unresolved, the three parties agreed to establish a high-level working group. On 22 September, they signed a security agreement. The point for Mauritius is not that the Greenland and Chagos questions share the same history, legal foundations or political status. They plainly do not. Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Danish realm; Chagos is the unfinished business of Mauritius’s decolonisation, and the United Kingdom has already signed an agreement recognising Mauritian sovereignty. What may be borrowed is the discipline of a structured, three-party channel when security concerns and political positions cannot be resolved through public statements alone.

Any such channel must therefore begin with its terms of reference. Its task should be to settle the practical questions that are holding up implementation: the security assurances required for the long-term operation of the base; the coordination needed between Mauritius, the United Kingdom and the United States; and a defined sequence towards ratification. It must not become a forum in which Mauritius is asked to bargain away the sovereignty already recognised in the treaty. Nor should a working group become another mechanism for postponing a decision. It needs senior political ownership, a fixed timetable and regular reporting on progress and it should be time-bound.

The discussion organised by the Middle Temple Association in Port Louis on 1 October brought this distinction into sharp relief. Senior Counsel Dheerendra Dabee revisited the legal history of the excision and the international proceedings that followed. Vice-President Robert Hungley spoke of the challenge of translating sovereignty in principle into its effective exercise and urged vigilance over any negotiated settlement. Their interventions reflected an important truth — a signed treaty and a strong legal record matter, but the people of Mauritius will judge the outcome by whether sovereignty is put into effect.

The Prime Minister’s firmness is therefore not an obstacle to diplomacy. It is what gives diplomacy a proper foundation. He has made clear that Mauritius will not wait indefinitely and that legal recourse remains available if ratification continues to be delayed. Having established that trajectory, Port Louis needs to maintain the initiative and be consequential in its actions and future statements. Mauritius can no doubt acknowledge the legitimate security interests surrounding Diego Garcia and remain ready to discuss arrangements that respect them. But discussions must proceed within the framework of Mauritian sovereignty, not suspend it. To blur that distinction would invite delay to become a means of renegotiation by other means.

A tripartite meeting could help turn the present impasse into a manageable process. Mauritius should support it, provided its purpose is clear from the outset, that is, to facilitate implementation of the May 2025 agreement, not to replace or dilute it. London and Washington should be invited to engage at the highest level, with the Chagossians’ interests kept in view and with a timetable that gives diplomacy a fair opportunity to work.

There is still room for patience, but patience must now be accompanied by movement. The legal options being prepared by Mauritius need not displace diplomacy; they underline that diplomacy cannot be allowed to drift indefinitely. The question before the parties is no longer whether the agreement exists. It is whether they will give effect to it, and how soon.

6 October 2026

Postscript: A multi-departmental British delegation has now held discussions with senior Mauritian officials on practical aspects of Mauritius’s stewardship, including maritime surveillance and actions relating to CAMPA. The treaty has yet to be ratified, but some of its provisions are already being discussed in terms of concrete action—a further reason why discussions must now be matched by a clear path to implementation.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 9 October 2026