The Chagos Deal

Editorial

A New Chapter or a Missed Opportunity?

The controversy surrounding the Chagos Islands has reignited old debates about sovereignty, geopolitics, and historical justice. This time, however, it is entangled in a web of transatlantic politics, right-wing manoeuvring, and the shadow of US influence. At the heart of the matter is the question: should the United Kingdom proceed with handing over the sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius, as international law suggests, or yield to domestic and international pressures to delay, if not derail, the deal?

The Chagos Islands have been a focal point of international contention since the 1960s. The excision of the Chagos prior to granting independence to Mauritius and the forcible removal of the Chagossians to make way for a joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia remains a blight on Britain’s colonial legacy. For decades, Mauritius has claimed sovereignty over the islands, a position supported by a 2019 ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ unequivocally declared the UK’s continued administration of the archipelago under the contrived appellation British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), illegal and called for the return the sovereignty of the Chagos sovereignty to Mauritius. That ruling, called for by the UN General Assembly, was a damning indictment of decades of obdurate UK diplomacy.

Both the Tory and the Labour government under Sir Keir Starmer appeared poised to address this historical injustice through negotiations with Mauritius. However, the process has now stalled amidst a coordinated effort by right-wing political figures, including Nigel Farage, Liz Truss, and Suella Braverman, who argue that the deal undermines British interests. Their opposition, bolstered by tacit support from the incoming Trump administration, threatens to overturn years of diplomatic progress. It must be remembered that several Tory figureheads are locked in leadership tussle for the Tory party.

At the core of this dispute lies the Diego Garcia military base, a strategic linchpin for US and UK operations in the Indo-Pacific. Critics of the deal warn that relinquishing what they claim to be British sovereignty over the islands could jeopardize Western security interests and potentially pave the way for Chinese influence in the region. These fears are amplified by what these same critics “Mauritius’ growing economic ties with China”, including a free trade agreement that some interpret as a gateway for Beijing’s ambitions in the Indian Ocean.

Yet, these arguments obscure key facts. The proposed deal includes provisions for the continued operation of the Diego Garcia base under a long-term lease agreement. Far from undermining security, this arrangement could strengthen UK-Mauritius relations while addressing a long-standing grievance. Moreover, fears of Chinese encroachment are nothing less than unfounded, given that Mauritius has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to Western partnerships.

The resistance to the Chagos deal is not just about geopolitics; it also reflects the evolving dynamics of British domestic politics. An open letter opposing the agreement, signed by23 leading figures on the right, including Nigel Farage (along with a number of other Reform MPs), former Tory PM Liz Truss, former Tory home secretary Suella Braverman, and former Reform leader Ben Habib, and published on Wednesday in the British media signals a growing alignment between these factions. As Claire Bullivant, editor of the Conservative Post, noted recently, this episode has “laid the groundwork for potential cooperation” between the two parties.

This alignment is significant, particularly as Kemi Badenoch’s Conservative leadership seeks to regain footing after recent electoral challenges. By opposing the Chagos deal, right-wing politicians in Britain have found a rallying issue to galvanize their base, emphasizing themes of sovereignty, national pride, and economic prudence. Badenoch’s dismissal of the agreement as “a dumb deal” encapsulates this strategy, positioning her party as the guardian of British interests against what she portrays as Labour’s capitulation.

Labour’s foreign secretary, David Lammy, has defended the deal as a balanced solution that secures the base’s future while addressing the ICJ’s ruling. Yet, critics argue that the financial terms — reportedly involving a £9 billion package — are overly generous to Mauritius. This narrative feeds into a broader critique of the British government’s spending priorities, with opponents questioning why funds are available for the Chagos agreement but not for pressing domestic needs.

The involvement of the Trump administration adds another layer of complexity. Reports suggest that Trump’s team has worked behind the scenes to delay the agreement, citing concerns over US security. This intervention reflects a broader trend of American unilateralism, where strategic interests often override multilateral commitments.

The irony is that the current deal aligns with the interests of the outgoing Biden administration, which has supported the negotiations. Trump’s opposition, therefore, appears less about the specifics of the agreement and more about signalling a hardline stance on China and reasserting US dominance in global affairs. This divergence between administrations underscores the precariousness of international agreements dependent on the whims of shifting political landscapes.

By yielding to pressure from domestic critics and the incoming US administration, the UK risks squandering an opportunity to demonstrate leadership and moral authority. Delaying the deal undermines Britain’s credibility on the international stage, reinforcing perceptions of a nation struggling to reconcile its colonial past with its modern role.

The Chagos dispute also has broader implications for the rules-based international order. Upholding the ICJ ruling would signal a commitment to the principles of justice and sovereignty that underpin global governance. Conversely, capitulating to domestic and international pressures sets a troubling precedent, where political convenience trumps legal and ethical obligations.

It is to be hoped that the UK will not allow short-term political considerations to derail a deal that is not only legally mandated but also morally imperative. While concerns about security and financial implications deserve attention, these should be addressed through transparent dialogue and pragmatic solutions, not obstructionism.

The Chagos Islands dispute is a litmus test for Britain’s ability to face the complexities of a post-Brexit world. It is a chance to demonstrate that the UK’s foreign policy is guided by principles, not parochial politics.

On the other hand, it is clear that the newly-elected Mauritian government faces a precarious balancing act. Reneging on the earlier Pravind Jugnauth-Keir Starmer “political agreement,” which included provisions allowing the UK to exercise sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, was undoubtedly the right decision. The terms of the deal guaranteeing the operation of the Diego base seem to have been vetted by the US military/naval establishments and the Biden/Blinken political team. With Starmer, under intense pressure, now saying it is only fair that the incoming Trump administration have a look at the deal, we cannot second-guess what might be the outcome of that review for UK foreign policy and Chagos sovereignty.

The new US administration may harbour perceived Chinese threats to Western interests in the region. They cannot ignore the fact that the West has key allies and robust alliances in the region (the AuckUS, the Quad, India and France) and several aero-naval bases that should alleviate fears of Chinese influence. But Trump is known for his brand of disruptive politics and bullying and nobody can say how that review asked by Starmer might go.

It is to be hoped that this impasse does not leave Mauritius without any deal, as such an outcome would be politically damaging for all parties involved. The Mauritian government must now deal with these geopolitical tensions with great care, ensuring that its sovereignty claims over the Chagos Archipelago are upheld while addressing the strategic anxieties of the West. A failure to strike a balanced resolution now also risks undermining — or delaying — Mauritius’s long-standing territorial aspirations, which have been legitimized by both the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 17 January 2025