Chagos, Trump, and the Test of a Changing World Order

Editorial

On 20 January 2026, Donald Trump once again reminded the world that geopolitics in the 21st century is no longer governed by quiet diplomacy or settled assumptions. In a characteristically blunt intervention, the President of the United States denounced the United Kingdom’s agreement to recognise Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago as an “act of great stupidity” and “total weakness.” The target of his ire was not merely London, but the broader logic of a rules-based international order that constrains raw power.

For Mauritius, Trump’s remarks are not just another episode of international theatrics. They touch the heart of a decades-long struggle for decolonisation, sovereignty, and dignity — one that has now entered a more uncertain global moment. At stake is not only the Chagos agreement itself, signed in May 2025 and currently before the British Parliament, but the wider question of how small states deal with new challenges in a world that is no longer unipolar, not yet stably multipolar, and increasingly transactional.

Trump’s Intervention: Noise or Signal?

Trump’s criticism of the Mauritius-UK deal is striking for several reasons. First, it represents a sharp reversal from early 2025, when his administration had indicated support for the agreement on the understanding that the Diego Garcia military base would remain fully operational under a long-term lease. Second, his focus is on geopolitics rather than legalities. He does not challenge Mauritius’ claim under international law; instead, he argues that ceding sovereignty — even while retaining the base — is a sign of Western weakness that China and Russia will exploit.

Most strikingly, Trump links the Chagos issue to his renewed push for the United States to control Greenland. In his view, territory equals power, sovereignty is zero‑sum, and strategic dominance outweighs legal considerations. From this perspective, Britain’s decision to regularise an illegal colonial situation is not a legal correction, but an act of self-sabotage. This framing matters because it signals a broader trend: the return of openly coercive, interest-driven diplomacy in which agreements are judged not by law or legitimacy, but by perceived strength.

The UK Stands Firm — for Now

In the House of Commons, Prime Minister Keir Starmer rejected Trump’s pressure and defended the Chagos agreement as both a legal necessity and a strategic success. He correctly noted that Britain’s position on Chagos had become untenable following the 2019 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and subsequent UN General Assembly resolutions. The choice facing London was not between strength and weakness, but between continued legal isolation and an orderly, negotiated settlement.

Starmer also emphasised that the deal secures Diego Garcia for at least 99 years — longer than any realistic strategic planning horizon — while restoring Mauritian sovereignty. In other words, it resolves a colonial injustice without undermining Western security interests.

Yet Trump’s comments have already had political consequences in the UK. Figures such as Nigel Farage and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch seized on his intervention to attack the British government, framing the deal as a concession forced by weakness. The danger here is not immediate reversal, but erosion: the slow politicisation of a treaty that was painstakingly designed to remove Chagos from partisan conflict.

A World No Longer Unipolar

This episode cannot be understood in isolation from the wider transformation of the global order. The post-Cold War unipolar moment — when the United States could enforce rules, norms, and institutions with minimal resistance — has ended. Today’s world is best described as uneven or “fragmented multipolarity”.

China rivals the United States economically and technologically. Russia, though economically weaker, remains a disruptive military actor. India is asserting strategic autonomy. Middle powers increasingly refuse automatic alignment. International institutions still exist, but enforcement is selective and often subordinated to power. In such a system, the most important shift is not that the United States has become weak, but that others can say “no” more often — and act on it. This makes the international environment more volatile, more transactional, and more prone to coercion.

Trump’s language on Chagos reflects this reality. He is not appealing to allies, but warning them. The implication is clear: legal correctness may no longer be sufficient protection.

What This Means for Mauritius

For Mauritius, the instinctive response to Trump’s remarks might be anxiety or indignation. Both would be understandable. However, the country’s greatest strength in this matter lies precisely in its calm, legal, and methodical approach adopted by succeeding governments over decades. International law is firmly on Mauritius’ side. The ICJ opinion and UN resolutions are not political gestures; they are durable reference points that have already reshaped Britain’s position. The 2025 agreement itself is proof that persistence, not confrontation, works.

Mauritius has acted wisely in avoiding the temptation to respond rhetorically to President Trump. This is not a debate to be won on social media or through public sparring. Trump thrives on confrontation; Mauritius prevails by appearing responsible and predictable. Equally important is the careful separation of sovereignty from security. The Diego Garcia base is not under threat. Mauritius has accepted a long-term lease, provided security guarantees, and avoided any suggestion that the base could be leveraged geopolitically. This must remain central to its messaging — especially towards Washington’s defence and diplomatic establishments, where continuity matters more than political rhetoric.

There is a lesson to be drawn from India in this regard. While the subcontinent today plays in the big league of international affairs — no longer a peripheral actor, but a consequential one — India’s response, as highlighted by India Today in its article “How PM Modi avoided the Trump trap…” (22 January 2026), to President Trump’s pressure for a rapid bilateral trade deal offers a useful parallel. Faced with tariff threats and public criticism, New Delhi neither escalated rhetorically nor rushed into concessions. Instead, it maintained engagement while making clear that any agreement must be balanced and respect domestic economic red lines, particularly in sensitive sectors such as agriculture and dairy. By “combining openness to dialogue with strategic patience”, India signalled that partnership with the United States does not imply submission to coercion. In a fragmented and transactional global order, this calibrated firmness has allowed India to protect its interests without provoking unnecessary confrontation.

Regarding the Chagos deal, time now becomes a strategic asset. The faster the agreement is ratified, implemented, and operationalised, the harder it becomes to undo. Legal facts on the ground outlast political moods. Mauritius should discreetly ensure timelines, technical protocols, and administrative mechanisms are in place to prevent backtracking. At the same time, Mauritius should continue to cultivate diplomatic support in multilateral forums — not loudly, but consistently. This is a decolonisation success story grounded in international law. It does not need dramatic declarations, only steady reinforcement.

Quiet Confidence in a Noisy World

Trump’s intervention has injected uncertainty into an already complex process. But it has not altered the fundamentals. The legal case remains solid. The treaty remains intact. The strategic interests of the UK and the US still favour continuity at Diego Garcia.

In a fragmented multipolar world, small states do not win by shouting louder than great powers. They win by anchoring themselves in law, legitimacy, and patience. Mauritius has done exactly that for over half a century.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 23 January 2026