“Mauritian sovereignty isn’t diminished by the UK/US’s defense presence on the island,

nor by Mauritius’s decision to lease Diego Garcia for a base”

Interview: David Snoxell, Coordinator of Chagos Islands APPG

* ‘The right to self-determination in international law belongs to the people of Mauritius, not just Chagossians who are mostly Mauritian’

 * ‘An apology to the Chagossians is a declaration the UK should make inParliamentand at the UN General Assembly‘

May 22, 2025, marks a historic turning point for Mauritius: after nearly six decades of legal, diplomatic, and human rights battles, the United Kingdom and Mauritius have signed a landmark agreement returning sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius. This long-awaited victory, made possible by sustained international advocacy — including tireless efforts from Chagossian organizations, NGOs, academics, diplomats, and UK parliamentarians — brings to a close a painful chapter of post-colonial history. Mauritius Times spoke with David Snoxell, former British High Commissioner to Mauritius and Coordinator of the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands, to discuss the significance of the agreement, the lessons drawn from this protracted fight for justice, the challenges ahead, and the path forward to fully implementing this historic shift.

Mauritius Times: It has been a long and arduous struggle, culminating after 60 years on Thursday, 22 May 2025, with the signing of the Chagos Archipelago UK-Mauritius Agreement. The plight of the forcefully displaced Chagossians galvanized support across various quarters, both in Mauritius and the United Kingdom, ultimately helping Mauritius reclaim its rightful sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. What lessons can be drawn from this decades-long fight for justice?

David Snoxell: Yes, it is nearly 60 years since the Chagos Archipelago was detached on 8 November 1965 by the colonial power and renamed the British Indian Ocean Territory in order to create a UK/US base in the Indian Ocean. In the Lancaster House Agreement of 23 September 1965, agreed with the Mauritian authorities, the UK undertook to ‘return’ the territory when no longer needed for defence purposes. This could have happened very much earlier. Although discussions about the future of the islands have taken place intermittently since 1982, the real negotiations only began in November 2022 under the two previous British and Mauritian governments.

In parallel, the campaign for the return of the Chagossians to their islands took place from the 1970s. This major human rights issue attracted international support and certainly helped to focus world opinion on Mauritius’ rightful claim to the territory. Both have at last been achieved.The lesson I draw is that, however long it takes, the fight continues until justice is achieved.

* Despite a sustained campaign in the British press and within and outside the UK Parliament opposing any agreement with Mauritius, why does there now appear to be no significant obstacle that would prevent a treaty from passing through the House of Commons?

Since the negotiations began, opposition to an overall settlement has increased in the UK and to a lesser extent in the US for various political reasons. There are those who want to hang on to every last rock of British colonial territory; there are others who see the issue as a means of attacking the government in power. They deploy a range of false arguments such as a threat from China, Mauritius is in league with China, the Chagossians want to remain British, the Islands have never belonged to Mauritius, the UK/US base will be seriously threatened and no longer able to defend the West, and so on.

Now that the treaty has been signed by both parties, there is a lull in opposition, but it will rekindle as the primary legislation to be adopted by Parliament is debated. We can expect several months of fierce rhetoric, attacking Starmer and his government both in Parliament and the media who are opposed to a deal though President Trump and his Administration are not.

* However, a group of Chagossians in the UK have expressed dissent, arguing the deal ignores their right to self-determination and return. What legal avenues, if any, remain for Chagossians who feel their rights have not been fully addressed by this agreement and could that come in the way of getting the treaty done?

It is important to acknowledge that the largest Chagossian group, the Chagos Refugees Group (CRG), led by Olivier Bancoult since the 1980s strongly supports the treaty. At the invitation of the Chagos islands All-party Parliamentary Group Bancoult attended the 101st meeting on 13 May. He told members that most Chagossians support the UK/Mauritius deal and Mauritian sovereignty as the only way in which they will be able to return for visits and resettlement. Those opposed are mostly from the 3rd-4th generation who have never lived on the islands. He said it wasn’t true Chagossians had not been consulted.

As readers of the Mauritius Times know, the right to self-determination in international law belongs to the people of Mauritius, not just Chagossians who are mostly Mauritian. The treaty provides for the right of return for visits or resettlement which all Chagossians support.

* What explains the UK’s shift from its initial, long-held resistance to a settlement of the Chagos dispute, to the recent turnaround? Was this change driven by political pragmatism, a deeper reckoning with its colonial past, or a strategic recalibration of its role in the Indian Ocean?

The UK’s gradual shift from resistance to negotiating an overall settlement has taken 25 years. This change has been brought about by international isolation on Chagos, domestic and international litigation (including the Bancoult cases), the ICJ and the endorsement of its Advisory Opinion by the UN General Assembly, the UN system, and Specialized Agencies.

Further pressure came from judgments by ITLOS and other international courts, UN General Assembly resolutions, UN Human Rights bodies, and intergovernmental bodies such as the Commonwealth, African Union, SADC, the European Parliament, and the EU.

Non-governmental organizations, especially Human Rights Watch, alongside academics, lawyers, playwrights, and diplomats, also played a crucial role. And, not least, the efforts of Parliamentarians and the Chagos Islands APPG were significant.

* The UK government recently argued that, without this deal, legal rulings could eventually have rendered the military base inoperable. One might have assumed that all legal avenues had been exhausted following the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion. That raises a critical question: did Mauritius indeed have other legal pathways available to the continued UK-US presence in Diego Garcia?

This is a good question, but to answer it would take up the rest of this interview.
I would rather focus on the impact of the deal and the way forward than on academic arguments deployed during the negotiations.

* What’s yours and the All-Party Parliamentary Group’s assessment of the Agreement? Is it a win-win for all parties?

This treaty is the best possible outcome for the Chagossians, UK, Mauritius, US, the UN and the rule of law.

* Some have expressed the view that this Agreement could serve as a model for resolving other post-colonial territorial disputes — ideally within a much shorter timeframe — through negotiations and international legal mechanisms. What isyour take on this perspective?

I can’t think of another colonial or international situation which is similar to Chagos and to which the same process could be applied.

Litigation, international pressures, negotiation, diplomacy and compromise are essential ingredients to resolving deep-seated and prolonged issues.

* The Agreement is said to “complete the process of decolonisation of Mauritius.” But can this legal interpretation truly hold, particularly in light of the continued UK/US military presence in Diego Garcia?

I wouldn’t describe the return of Chagos to Mauritius as a legal interpretation; it is a fact. Mauritian decolonization is at last completed.

I do not see how the UK/US use of the island for defense purposes diminishes Mauritian sovereignty. That Mauritius will now lease Diego Garcia to the UK for its use as a base does not affect Mauritian sovereignty.

* Moreover, the Agreement includes a 24-mile buffer zone around Diego Garcia, along with a UK veto over any development on the other islands. Doesn’t this represent a significant constraint on what is being described as “complete decolonisation” and full Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago?

There are conditions in the treaty on land use which may need refining by exchange of letters. The UK’s 1966 Agreement with the US was from time to time clarified by exchanges of letters.

* Does the agreement contain any provisions for a formal apology from the UK for the historical injustices inflicted upon the Chagossians, or for a truth and reconciliation process? If not, should these still be pursued?

It doesn’t, but I don’t think the treaty should make provision for an apology to Chagossians. That is a declaration the UK should make in Parliament and at UNGA.

* What are the immediate next steps for both the UK and Mauritian governments in implementing the Agreement, and what are the anticipated timelines for key aspects such as sovereignty transfer and initial resettlement planning?

For the UK, now that the Treaty containing 6 annexes, Explanatory Memorandum, 2 exchanges of notes and 2 exchanges of letters has been submitted to Parliament I would expect parliamentary scrutiny and debate to follow soon and primary legislation to be introduced. This could take up to 10 months to complete followed by an exchange of instruments of ratification with Mauritius at which point the Treaty will come into force.

You will have to ask the Mauritian government about their timetable and plans for resettlement.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 30 May 2025