The recent back-and-forth over the Chagos Archipelago has many scratching their heads over what has long been a minor outpost in the UK’s overseas territories. Mauritius, a tiny nation in the Indian Ocean, had long claimed the islands as part of its territory after receiving independence in 1968. The “deal of the century” (or steal, some might say) was begun under the Conservative Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, but has only raised eyebrows in the UK and in Washington as Prime Minister Starmer sought to bring it to a conclusion in May 2025. Since then, it has only become a burning ember that has somehow landed in Starmer’s lap.
There are so many places to jump into this issue, it’s hard to know where to begin? One could begin with the bureaucratic idiocy that lumped Mauritius and the Chagos Archipelago in the same administrative unit. It is 2,155 km or 1,339 miles. Diego Garcia sits in a time zone 2 hours ahead of Port Louis. According to the quaint – but helpful – Airport Distance Calculator the estimated flight time between Sir Seewoosatur Ramgoolam International Airport to Diego Garcia Naval Support Facility is 2 hours and 40 minutes. Which is about the distance between London Heathrow and Pulkovo Airport, St Petersberg, Russia. In addition, there’s the fact that the Chagossians are not Mauritian, nor are the Mauritians Chagossian. I mean they have different dialects, different ethnic backgrounds, and different culture. So, bravo to the Maurentian diplomats who didn’t let these inconvenient facts stop them from claiming the British Indian Ocean Territory (as it became) along with its juicy fishing grounds from almost day 1 of independence.
If it were only a bit of fun and games, the game would’ve stopped there, but somehow the Mauritians managed to persuade the UN General Assembly that the British administrative line lumping these two far-flung territories was the signage of a single nation. It never was, nor should it have been seriously entertained. This is not as if the UK stripped pieces off a colony, separating mother and father, cousin and uncle, and compelled them to separate for its grand designs. No, if anything the grand designs were on the part of the Mauritius who saw a particularly brilliant opportunity to grow their newly birthed nation in a matter of pen strokes in the UN. There was one great “original sin” carried out by the UK – and the US if I am completely honest – and that is the expulsion of the Chagossians from Diego Garcia so that the US Naval Station and air base could be built. This expulsion and the homelessness of the Chagossians – many of whom drifted to Port Louis – virtually guaranteed that the issue would come back to bite London in the proverbial.
What could have been done instead, you ask? What could be done now even? Well, dare I say, maintain the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) and start treating the Chagossians like the Falkanders that they are…accord them full citizenship and allow them partial re-entry onto Diego Garcia. Anyone who says that this is impossible is forgetting that Oahu Hawaii is practically one large military base, with nearly 800,000 Hawaiians living in close proximity to the base. Chagossians could set up logistics and repair companies and contract to the base, using local inhabitants. In addition, additional space on Peros Bahos could be managed. While providing the infrastructure, housing, and governance are all seen – in past studies – as incredibly expensive, one wonders how expensive. More expensive than 35bn over 99 years? For this is the cost we are now at and that’s if we only tap the UK taxpayer. We haven’t even started on the US taxpayer.
People often forget that the Department of War is one of the richest parts of the US Government. They are also the global masters of logistics. While it’s is true that the Indian Ocean does present incredible challenges even to the US DOW, I cannot for a moment believe that a joint US-UK effort to ensure habitability for the Chagossians on Diego Garcia and Peros Bahros is beyond our means. It might well be extremely expensive but that is only if we are using costs as the sole determinant. National interests and strategic necessity are also extremely important – as anyone will attest who’s seen the online debate on the Chagos Deal. I confess I have been a part of that noise, coming to the issue through the lens of national interest.
Why is this so important? Why can’t we just settle with the deal as it stands? Well, there are around 20 billion reasons to worry; that’s to say, the Mauritius has external debts of around $20bn according to the World Bank. This is about 93.1% of its GDP and while it’s hard to figure out how much of this is owned by China, we know that 40% of its debt is through “private foreign creditors”, which could also just be backdoor lending by Chinese businessmen. Certainly there is a lot of wooing taking place. According to a China Daily article in 2022, the two have a free trade deal, and Chinese foreign direct investment into Mauritius was $46mn per year, with cumulative investment reaching $887mn.
This sort of control over a nation tends to be a useful point of leverage. The promise of debt relief and full political backing might persuade the Mauritius to renege of the spirit of Article 2 of the Agreement with London, allowing China to lease islets within the archipelago, or perhaps offering licenses to Chinese fishing fleets (bristling perhaps with anti-aircraft systems and electronic warfare devices). If Mauritius decided to do any actions like this, and then refused to use the high-level consultation mechanism, the only course of action – beyond force – for London would be to go to arbitration at the Hague. I hate to say this because I am a supporter of international law, but is no guarantee that the UK (and US) would win any dispute where they have already conceded full sovereign rights to Mauritius. This is particularly true since the language around the protection of the base is suitably vague (no interference with the “long-term, secure and effective operation of the base”).
Any dispute at that goes to the International Court of Arbitration has a strong chance that Mauritian sovereign rights over the Chagos Archipelago would be upheld, and London – and Washington forced into a terrible moral corner. In such a scenario, not only would we lose points with the Global South, BUT the UK would ALSO probably be compelled to forfit the base as well. It’s the sort of lose-lose outcome that I’m sure our friends in Beijing would love.
