Sovereignty over Chagos: A Litmus Test for the UK

Opinion

The UK has consistently invoked Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty to reject any land concessions to Russia in peace negotiations. Will it uphold those same principles in the case of Chagos?

By Prakash Neerohoo

Conservative parties in the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) are using all means possible, both legal and illegal, to derail the planned transfer of sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago from the UK to Mauritius. Every time we think that the process is moving smoothly, some unexpected hurdle comes up either from the UK side or the US side, with new arguments being brought up against a bilateral treaty formalizing the transfer of sovereignty.

We should recall that bilateral negotiations between Mauritius and the UK began in late 2023, following the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which on February 25, 2019, ruled that the Chagos Archipelago should be returned to Mauritius to complete its decolonization. The United Nations General Assembly subsequently adopted Resolution 73/295, affirming the rights of Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago and specifically calling for it to be returned to Mauritius by November 22, 2019. On October 4, 2024, Mauritius and the UK signed a political agreement whereby the UK would hand back the sovereignty over the Chagos to Mauritius while keeping control over the island of Diego Garcia, which hosts an American military base, under a lease agreement for 99 years, which may be renewed for a second term at the request of the lessee.

In 2025, the new UK government, headed by the Labour Party, started the legal process to transfer sovereignty by presenting a bill in Parliament (House of Commons and House of Lords) titled “The Diego Garcia Military Base and the British Indian Ocean Territory Bill”. The bill has gone through many rounds of debates in both houses where the Conservative parties (Tory Party and Reform Party) made all kinds of objections and proposed amendments to the original text. The bill is due for another reading on February 23, 2026, in the House of Lords where the conservative parties have a majority. It is likely that they would oppose the bill again.

They have used numerous delaying tactics in Parliament to prevent a final vote on the bill, while urging the US administration to exercise its “veto” against the planned transfer of sovereignty on national security grounds for both the UK and the US.

The latest stunt by opponents of the bill involved the landing of three British Chagossians on an island in the Chagos Archipelago in an attempt to assert ownership of the islands, which they regard as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). It is evident that this group received financial and logistical support from Conservative forces in the UK to undertake the trip to the Chagos.

There is little doubt that the Conservative Party in the UK will do everything possible to reverse the process of decolonisation of the Chagos, which was initiated through a bilateral agreement between Mauritius and the UK. They portray the transfer of sovereignty as a “surrender” of British territory to Mauritius and conveniently describe the BIOT as a “strategic asset” in the Indian Ocean for the military defence of the West, including the US and the UK.

In doing so, they effectively disregard the ruling of the International Court of Justice, demonstrating scant regard for international law.

For its part, the US is hell-bent on keeping its control over Diego Garcia Island (hosting a military base). Initially, the US gave its consent to the transfer of sovereignty and agreed with the idea of a lease of 99 years over the island, to be renewed for another term. Lately, under pressure from the UK conservatives, the US administration has changed its position to reject the idea of a lease, which it considers to be contrary to its “right of control” over Diego Garcia. Now it wants the UK to carve out Diego Garcia from the deal with Mauritius, which would jeopardize the whole principle of transfer of sovereignty.

The US administration’s new position is not surprising considering that the US is engaged in a strategy to widen its sphere of influence in the world by securing control over specific countries or territories. The invasion of Venezuela on the grounds of fighting drug trafficking has turned out to be a grab of oil resources. The US has intensified the economic embargo over Cuba by depriving the island of oil shipments to hasten a regime change there. It is planning to attack Iran if there is no agreement over a nuclear deal with that country, but securing access to Iranian oil (similar to the case of Venezuela) is the hidden motive. It has not abandoned its plan to take over Greenland (an island attached to Denmark) for “national security purposes”. And the US keeps floating the idea of annexing Canada as its 51st State.

Considering the new geopolitical context in the world where the US wants to be the dominant power (consistent with its idea that might is right), the crucial question is whether the Labour government in the UK will renege on its commitments to Mauritius (as stated in a bilateral agreement) to please the US. The passing of the bill on transfer of sovereignty in Parliament will be a litmus test of its political will to respect international law. It should be noted that the UK has championed international law to support Ukraine in the war against Russia. In Europe, it is one of the most “hawkish” countries against Russia. It has consistently invoked the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Ukraine to refuse any land concession to Russia in the negotiations over a peace treaty. Will the UK apply the same principles to the case of Chagos?

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 20 February 2026