Chagos: When Delay Becomes a Strategy
Opinion
The legal position is settled and will not change. The true danger is that implementation delays will allow decolonization to be reframed as geopolitical bargaining—this must not be allowed to happen
By Vijay Makhan
The sovereignty of Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago is no longer in dispute. Recognised by international law and accepted by the United Kingdom, it now awaits implementation. Yet growing delays risk turning a settled legal outcome into a new arena for geopolitical bargaining — where small states once again bear the cost of great power hesitation.
Britain has now moved from hesitation to something more troubling — prevarication as policy.
For months, the explanation was procedural. The agreement recognising Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago — signed on 22 May 2025 — required ratification. One can concede that parliamentary processes take time and scrutiny must run its course.
However, given the inordinate time this issue has been in the British parliament, that argument no longer holds.
Reports that the implementing legislation may have been effectively shelved — and might not even feature in the next King’s Speech — suggest that what was once presented as delay is now hardening into something more deliberate.
A legally settled issue is being allowed to drift.
Let us be clear. Sovereignty is no longer the issue. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has spoken. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has endorsed. The United Kingdom itself has signed an agreement recognising Mauritian sovereignty.
And yet, implementation remains suspended.
In that vacuum, others are beginning to play.
“TACO” and possibly “SACO”?
The United States, under Donald Trump, has shifted position with characteristic unpredictability — supporting, criticising, and recalibrating its stance as circumstances evolve. One might be tempted to describe this as “TACO” — Trump Always Chickens Out — as he is often characterized by many commentators in his own country and abroad. Can Britain pretend to stand apart from this pattern, given its seeming prevarication?
Is it then beginning to look increasingly like “SACO” — Starmer Also Chickens Out — adjusting posture not in response to principle, but to pressure?
I grant this is not a comfortable observation. But it is one that must be made, given the circumstances.
Because what is at stake is not merely a bilateral agreement. It is the integrity of a process grounded in international law.
Mauritius has not arrived at this point through brinkmanship or disruption. It has done so through persistence, legality, and multilateral engagement — raising the issue consistently at the United Nations, within the African Union and non-aligned frameworks, and across bilateral channels.
Sovereignty no longer the issue
And now, just as closure was within reach, the process, one is inclined to say, is being deliberately prolonged — not by law, but by hesitation, by succumbing to internal party-political considerations. Using Washington’s refusal to entertain an amendment to the Exchange of Letters signed in 1966 between the US and the UK — behind the back of then-colonial Mauritius — as an excuse to delay the restitution of sovereignty is rather lame.
A bilateral accord CANNOT override international law!
It is opportune to recall here that both the ICJ and the UNGA pronounced themselves unequivocally on the sovereignty of Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, 7 years ago, in February and May 2019 respectively.
The consequences of this delay are already evident.
As I have previously underlined, a residual colonial administrative structure continues to function in a territory whose sovereignty has been acknowledged as Mauritian. A court within that structure issues judgments that both undermine and perpetuate its own legal foundations. Political actors in the United Kingdom and right-wing billionaires with no locus standi, encourage theatrical incursions into the archipelago. External players, sensing ambiguity, begin to reposition themselves.
This is precisely the price that small states pay when great powers gamble.
These developments do not change the law. But they thrive in the space created by delay.
What is now emerging is a deeply troubling inversion of roles. A territory whose sovereignty has been recognised in international law is increasingly being treated as an object of discussion between external actors.
It gives the impression of a tenant dictating terms to an unlawful occupant, while the rightful owner is left at the margins of decisions concerning its own property.
Such a situation would not endure were the balance of power different. It is precisely the kind of distortion that small states are expected to absorb when great powers hesitate or recalibrate.
The danger is not that the legal position will change. It will not. The law is settled.
The danger is that implementation will be delayed long enough for the issue to be reframed — not as a question of decolonisation, but as an object of geopolitical bargaining.
That must not be allowed to happen.
What posture should Mauritius adopt
Mauritius now faces a choice. It can remain passive, in the hope that the process will eventually conclude. It can escalate precipitously, risking the gains already secured. Or it can adopt a posture of firm, structured engagement — asserting its rights, mobilising its partners, and insisting that implementation follow acknowledgment.
The answer lies in that third path.
Mauritius must not retreat from the agreement. But neither should it allow delay to become normalised. It must make clear — quietly, if possible, firmly if necessary — that the time for completion has come.
Because at this stage, the issue is no longer whether Mauritius is sovereign over Chagos.
It is whether that sovereignty will be implemented — or indefinitely deferred.
And when the law is deferred long enough, it is no longer resisted. It is quietly undone.
Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 17 April 2026
An Appeal
Dear Reader
65 years ago Mauritius Times was founded with a resolve to fight for justice and fairness and the advancement of the public good. It has never deviated from this principle no matter how daunting the challenges and how costly the price it has had to pay at different times of our history.
With print journalism struggling to keep afloat due to falling advertising revenues and the wide availability of free sources of information, it is crucially important for the Mauritius Times to survive and prosper. We can only continue doing it with the support of our readers.
The best way you can support our efforts is to take a subscription or by making a recurring donation through a Standing Order to our non-profit Foundation.
Thank you.
