Chagos Islands: A Tale of Colonial Hangovers and Geopolitical Chess

Chagos Islands: A Tale of Colonial Hangovers and Geopolitical Chess

The Chagos Archipelago, a speck of islands in the Indian Ocean, has been a geopolitical hot potato for decades. Britain detached it from Mauritius in 1965, forcibly evicted its people, and leased Diego Garcia to the US for a military base, sparking a sovereignty dispute. The 2019 ICJ advisory opinion declared UK control unlawful, pushing Britain to cede sovereignty to Mauritius in 2024 after years of defiance. Mauritius plans resettlement but faces Chagossian skepticism. The deal secures the US-UK base for 99 years, with the UK paying £101 million annually. Geopolitically, it’s a chessboard: the US and India back the deal, while China looms. The UK avoids reparations but funds a trust for Chagossians. Critics call it a strategic blunder; supporters see diplomatic finesse. India gains influence, but the “surrender tax” rumor is bunk. A messy saga of colonial guilt and modern power plays.

A Tiny Archipelago, A Giant Mess

Picture this: a cluster of 58 coral atolls in the middle of the Indian Ocean, so remote you’d need a telescope to spot them on a map. Yet, the Chagos Archipelago has been the epicenter of a diplomatic slugfest for over half a century. Why? Because Britain, in a classic colonial move, decided to play real estate tycoon with someone else’s land. “The sun never sets on the British Empire, but it sure leaves a mess when it does,” quips historian Niall Ferguson. Let’s dive into this saga of eviction, geopolitics, and a deal that’s got everyone from Chagossians to global powers scratching their heads.

Historical Context: Britain’s Colonial Shenanigans

Back in 1814, Britain snatched the Chagos Islands from France, lumping them with Mauritius under colonial rule. Fast forward to 1965, with Mauritius inching toward independence, Britain pulled a fast one. It carved out the Chagos to create the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), paying Mauritius £4 million—chump change even back then. Why? To lease Diego Garcia, the largest island, to the US for a military base. “It was a deal sealed with a handshake and a middle finger to the locals,” says international law professor Philippe Sands.

Between 1967 and 1973, Britain forcibly removed 1,500-2,000 Chagossians, dumping them in Mauritius and the Seychelles. Homes were burned, pets gassed—a colonial eviction notice with a side of cruelty. The UK called them “transient workers,” but Chagossians begged to differ. “We’re not Man Fridays,” said activist Olivier Bancoult, referencing a leaked UK diplomat’s slur. The goal? Clear the islands for a US base, free of pesky residents. By 1971, Diego Garcia was a military hub, hosting US Navy ships and bombers, a linchpin in the Cold War and later the “war on terror.”

Britain’s Activities: Bases, Bananas, and Bad PR

Britain’s role in Chagos was less about sipping tea on coral beaches and more about playing landlord for Uncle Sam. The UK leased Diego Garcia to the US in 1966 for 50 years, extended to 2036, for a $14 million discount on Polaris missiles—a bargain that screams “empire on a budget.” The base became a strategic gem, used for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and allegedly as a CIA “black site.” “Diego Garcia is the Pentagon’s unsinkable aircraft carrier,” notes defense analyst Michael O’Hanlon. Britain maintained the BIOT, enforced a no-return policy for Chagossians, and even declared a marine protected area in 2010, which the Permanent Court of Arbitration later ruled illegal. The UK’s stance? “Sovereignty is ours, and we’re keeping it,” said Foreign Office minister Alan Duncan in 2019, dismissing Mauritius’ claims like a pesky fly.

Mauritius’ Plans: Resettlement Dreams and Chagossian Doubts

Mauritius, now sovereign over Chagos as of the 2024 deal, plans to resettle the islands—except Diego Garcia, which remains under UK control for the US base. The government envisions economic development, possibly tourism or fishing, leveraging the archipelago’s pristine reefs. But here’s the rub: Chagossians, the original inhabitants, aren’t popping champagne. Many, like Bertrice Pompe, born on Diego Garcia, argue they weren’t consulted. “We don’t want to be Mauritian pawns,” Pompe told the High Court in 2025. Chagossian Voices, a UK-based group, echoed this, demanding a seat at the table. Mauritius has promised a resettlement program, but the exclusion of Diego Garcia—home to two-thirds of the exiled population—stinks of half-measures. “It’s like giving someone their house back but locking the best room,” says UN expert Alexandra Xanthaki.

Geopolitical Angle: A Game of Thrones in the Indian Ocean

The Chagos deal is less about coral and more about global power plays. Diego Garcia’s base is a linchpin for US operations in the Middle East and Asia, monitoring shipping lanes and countering China’s Indian Ocean ambitions. “Control Diego Garcia, and you’ve got a front-row seat to the Indo-Pacific,” says geopolitical strategist Brahma Chellaney. The 2024 agreement secures the base for 99 years, with the UK paying Mauritius £101 million annually to lease it back—a deal blessed by the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. But critics smell trouble. Mauritius’ cozy ties with China raise fears of Beijing’s fishing boats doubling as spy ships. “Handing Chagos to Mauritius is like inviting China to the party,” warns a Policy Exchange report. Meanwhile, the African Union cheers Mauritius’ win as a decolonization triumph, putting pressure on Western powers to clean up their colonial baggage.

Global Powers Positioning: Everyone Wants a Piece

The US, happy to keep its base, backs the deal. President Biden called it “a strategic necessity,” and even Trump, initially skeptical, signed off in 2025. India, a rising power, supports Mauritius, eyeing stronger ties with Africa and a counterbalance to China. “India’s playing the long game, cozying up to Mauritius while keeping an eye on Diego Garcia,” says analyst C. Raja Mohan. China, though not directly involved, lurks in the background, with its Belt and Road projects in Mauritius raising eyebrows. Russia? It’s watching from the sidelines, likely chuckling at the West’s self-inflicted drama. The UK, meanwhile, is caught between maintaining its “Global Britain” image and avoiding diplomatic isolation post-Brexit. “The UK’s trying to look like a law-abiding global citizen while clinging to its imperial crutches,” quips commentator Owen Jones.

UK Reparations: A Trust Fund, Not a Check

Did the UK pay reparations? Not quite. Instead of a direct payout to Chagossians, the UK committed £40 million to a trust fund to support their welfare, plus £101 million annually to Mauritius for the Diego Garcia lease. Human Rights Watch calls this a dodge, arguing that “reparations mean more than a trust fund—they mean land and justice.” The Chagossians, who received a measly £650,000 in 1972 (distributed in 1977), have long demanded full compensation and a right to return. “The UK’s throwing pocket change at a moral debt,” says Clive Baldwin of HRW. The 2024 deal sidesteps formal reparations, leaving Chagossians like Bancoult arguing for jobs on Diego Garcia as a form of redress.

India’s Angle: Strategic Smarts

India’s backing of Mauritius isn’t just neighborly love. The Chagos deal strengthens India’s influence in the Indian Ocean, aligning with its “Act East” policy. Mauritius, a key African Union member, offers India a gateway to Africa’s markets and a bulwark against China’s regional push. “India’s playing 4D chess, supporting decolonization while securing its backyard,” says X user @ThePulkitSBisht. India’s also keen on ensuring Diego Garcia remains a Western stronghold, not a Chinese listening post. New Delhi’s endorsement of the deal, coupled with its growing naval presence, signals a power shift. “India’s not just a regional player anymore; it’s a global stakeholder,” notes former diplomat Shashi Tharoor.

Surrender Tax? Pure Myth

Talk of a “surrender tax” is social media hot air. X posts, like one from @RupertLowe10 claiming a £90 million annual cost, exaggerate the lease payment as a penalty. The £101 million yearly payment is for leasing Diego Garcia, not a tax for ceding sovereignty. “Calling it a surrender tax is like calling rent a ransom,” scoffs legal scholar Marko Milanovic. Mauritius has pushed for more, with some reports citing demands for billions, but no evidence supports a separate tax. It’s a catchy phrase for critics, nothing more.

Pros and Cons for the UK: A Mixed Bag

Is this a good deal for the UK? Let’s break it down.

Pros:

• Secures Diego Garcia: The 99-year lease ensures the US-UK base’s stability, vital for Western security. “The base is safe, and that’s non-negotiable,” says Defence Secretary John Healey.
• Diplomatic Win: Complying with the ICJ avoids further isolation post-Brexit. The UN’s 2019 vote (116-6) showed the world’s stance. “The UK dodged a diplomatic bullet,” says Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
• Chagossian Support: The £40 million trust fund and resettlement promises address some moral guilt, though imperfectly.

Cons:

• Strategic Risk: Critics argue Mauritius’ China ties could compromise the base’s security. “This deal opens a backdoor for Beijing,” warns War on the Rocks.
• Chagossian Exclusion: The lack of consultation fuels distrust. “The UK’s repeating its colonial sin—ignoring the Chagossians,” says UN expert Nicolas Levrat.
• Costly Lease: £101 million a year isn’t pocket change, especially amid UK budget cuts. “Paying to keep what you already had is a tough sell,” notes MP Tom Tugendhat.

US Payments to the UK: A Sweet Deal Continues

The US doesn’t pay cash for Diego Garcia but provides “in-kind” benefits. The 1966 deal gave the UK a $14 million discount on Polaris missiles. Today, the US foots most of the base’s operational costs, with 2,500 staff from multiple countries. The 2024 agreement doesn’t change this; the UK’s £101 million lease to Mauritius is separate. “The US gets a bargain, and the UK gets strategic clout without writing checks,” says analyst John Pike. This arrangement continues, with no direct US-to-UK payment specified.

ICJ’s Advisory Opinion: A Legal Slap

In 2019, the ICJ dropped a bombshell. By a 13-1 vote (US judge Joan Donoghue dissenting), it ruled that the UK’s detachment of Chagos in 1965 was unlawful, violating Mauritius’ right to self-determination. The court found no “free and genuine expression” from the Chagossians, calling UK administration a “wrongful act.” It demanded the UK end its control “as rapidly as possible.” The UN General Assembly followed with a 116-6 vote, setting a six-month deadline. “The ICJ’s opinion was a legal and moral gut punch,” says judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf. Though non-binding, it shifted global opinion, isolating the UK until the 2024 deal.

Conclusion: A Deal Done, but Drama Lingers

The Chagos saga is a masterclass in colonial hubris meeting modern geopolitics. The UK’s handover to Mauritius closes a chapter but opens new questions. Will Chagossians get justice? Can Mauritius resist China’s charm? Is the UK’s wallet ready for the long haul? “This deal is less a victory than a compromise born of necessity,” says Chatham House’s Robin Niblett. As the treaty awaits ratification in 2025, the Indian Ocean remains a chessboard, with Diego Garcia as the king. Stay tuned—this story’s got more twists than a Bollywood plot.

Takeaways

1. Historical Injustice: The UK’s 1965-1973 eviction of Chagossians was a colonial low point, with no full reparations yet. The £40 million trust fund is a start, but Chagossians demand land and jobs.
2. Geopolitical Stakes: Diego Garcia’s base is non-negotiable for the US and UK, secured for 99 years, but Mauritius’ China ties raise long-term risks.
3. Mauritius’ Win: Sovereignty restores Mauritius’ pride, but resettlement plans must include Chagossians to avoid new grievances.
4. India’s Gain: Supporting Mauritius boosts India’s African and Indian Ocean influence, countering China’s Belt and Road.
5. UK’s Balancing Act: The deal saves face diplomatically but costs £101 million annually and risks strategic leverage.
6. ICJ’s Impact: The 2019 advisory opinion, though non-binding, forced the UK’s hand, proving soft power’s punch in global forums.

References

• Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute - Wikipedia
• Britain to return Chagos Islands to Mauritius - The Guardian
• Why is the UK handing the Chagos Islands back to Mauritius? - Al Jazeera
• The UK must focus on how the Chagos decision is implemented - Chatham House
• Foreign Secretary’s statement on the Chagos Islands - GOV.UK
• Why Britain Should Scupper the Chagos Islands Deal - War on the Rocks
• UK agrees to give sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius - Al Jazeera
• UN court rejects UK claim to Chagos Islands - The Guardian
• Chagossians should be centre stage in negotiations - OHCHR
• Chagos drama spans continents - african.business
• UK signs £3.4bn deal to cede sovereignty over Chagos Islands - The Guardian
• UN court rejects UK’s claim of sovereignty over Chagos Islands - The Guardian
• Expulsion of the Chagossians - Wikipedia
• @AfricaFactsZone
• @ThePulkitSBisht