From Expulsion to Exclusion: How a U.K.-Mauritian Deal Continues to Disregard Chagossians
Photo Credit: U.S. Navy.
Aerial View of Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Chagos Archipelago.
On October 3, Mauritius and the United Kingdom reached a “historic agreement,” where the latter nation agreed to cede its contentious overseas territory — known as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) — to Mauritius. Coming after 13 rounds of negotiations and decades of international pressure, the landmark agreement marks the end of Britain’s colonial presence in Africa.
The BIOT constitutes the Chagos Islands, a remote archipelago of 55 islands south of India. The largest of these islands, Diego Garcia, is home to a joint U.K.-U.S. military base. The deal will allow the U.K. to maintain sovereignty over Diego Garcia for an initial period of 99 years, subject to extensions. Although the agreement has yet to be finalized with a treaty, both parties confirmed their desire to see it completed quickly. However, one group was remarkably absent from negotiations: the indigenous Chagossians, who were forcibly exiled from the islands almost 60 years ago. But how did the British acquire this territory in the first place? And what conditions led to this eventual deal?
Diego Garcia was initially inhabited by a French citizen, who successfully petitioned the government to establish a coconut plantation on the island. Enslaved Africans were forcibly moved to the region to work on the plantations, where they stayed for years. The islands remained under French control until the nation’s defeat in the Napoleonic Wars. France then ceded the Isle de France, which encapsulated modern-day Mauritius and the Chagos Islands, to the British.
After the U.K.’s abolition of slavery took effect in the colonies in 1838, plantation owners brought in contract laborers from South Asia, who worked alongside the formerly enslaved Africans. These groups mixed and began to form their own Chagossian culture and community, inhabiting the island for over a century.
After World War II, the British decision to grant India and Pakistan independence and the growing international push for decolonization endangered the U.K.’s existence in the Indian Ocean. To secure their presence in the region, the British promised the colonial Mauritian government eventual independence and £3 million so long as they allowed the break-off and depopulation of the Chagos Islands. Thus, without Chagossian consultation, the BIOT was created in 1965.
The U.S. saw the British territory as an opportunity to establish a long-sought “modest logistics support capability” for “refueling and communications” in the region. Furthermore, the U.S. desired a presence in the Indian Ocean amidst the escalation of the Vietnam War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. For use of the island, the U.S. gave the U.K. a $14 million discount on Polaris nuclear missiles. Despite the presence of the Chagossian villages and inhabitants, the U.K. consistently undermined the existence of an indigenous population, claiming that “for all practical purposes, [there was] no permanent population.” The United States supplemented this view, calling the community “negligible.” The mitigation of the local population allowed for the justification of the base’s construction.
A diplomatic cable, signed by the U.K. British Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Head of the Diplomatic Service Denis Greenhill. Acknowledging the islanders that will need to be evacuated, Greenhill said “unfortunately along with the birds go some few Tarzans or Men Fridays,” illustrating the racism and callousness present in the decision to expel the Chagossians.
From 1967 to 1973, the United Kingdom forcibly removed the entirety of the Chagossian population — an estimated 1,500 to 1,750 permanent residents — excluding the additional contract laborers. Not only were those living on Diego Garcia forced to leave, but Chagossians on the neighboring islands of Peros Banhos and Salomon were also evacuated. In 1971, the BIOT Commissioner Sir Bruce Greatbatch, who was appointed by the U.K. government to oversee the territory, enacted an immigration order that made entering or remaining on the territory without a permit illegal. This ordinance effectively criminalized the existence of any Chagossians who had not yet evacuated. When the U.S. forces arrived to construct the bases, they reportedly flattened villages, demolished homes, and even destroyed a graveyard.
Credit: PD U.S. NOAA.
A Diego Garcian man pictured on the island in 1971, before expulsion. According to Human Rights Watch, the Chagossians were taken to Seychelles and Mauritius via boat and dropped in the ports with little remittance or resources, facing “extreme poverty and discrimination.”
Although the U.K. and Mauritian governments agreed to give the Chagossians £650,000 for resettlement costs, the money sat with the Mauritian government for four years until it was eventually distributed. The Chagossians protested the displacement, with one, Michael Vencatessen, seeking legal aid. After negotiations with the British government, Vencatessen gained a £4 million trust for the Chagossians. However, to access the money, which was entrusted to the Mauritian government, individual beneficiaries had to sign away any claims they had of resettlement. Many signed, while others refused.
Chagossians continued to protest their expulsion and call for their return, seeking further remittance and justice through a variety of methods, from hunger strikes to lawsuits. However, the base’s importance for the United States only increased. Diego Garcia experienced the largest expansion of any military base since the Vietnam War after the overthrow of the Iranian Shah in 1979. When the U.S. was forced to close Kagnew Station, an army installation in Asmara, Ethiopia. Diego Garcia became the lone site for U.S. Indian Ocean concerns. The U.S. government feared that a resident population on Diego Garcia would “imperil” their ability to “conduct sensitive military operations” that “cannot be staged from bases near population centres.” Furthermore, the U.S. also opposes the repatriation of surrounding islands, citing risks that individuals living there would introduce “surveillance, monitoring and electronic jamming devices” that would endanger U.S. military operations. Thus, the Chagossians’ pleas for return were never granted.
While the U.K. government allowed short-term visits to the islands in 2000, they quickly revoked this decision in 2004, reasserting the infeasibility of long-term existence. Eight years later, the U.K. government commissioned a feasibility study through the BIOT administration, which determined that resettlement would be costly but possible. However, the British doubled down in their denial, citing “feasibility, defence and security interests, and cost” as the reasons for rejecting resettlement.
In addition to an official acknowledgement that their conduct “was shameful and wrong”, the British now provide financial support and avenues to obtain U.K. citizenship for those of Chagossian descent. The BIOT administration also currently offers roughly annual visits and potential involvement in scientific research (upon application) as a remittance to the displaced islanders and their descendants. Although better than nothing, the deals still refuse to offer the Chagossians their core desire: resettlement. Many Chagossians are willing to coexist with and work on the military base; they simply want to return with their families.
Prioritizing American and British security concerns, the U.K. continued to deny the Chagossians resettlement. However, a turning point in their opposition came after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Mauritius’ decolonization was carried out unlawfully. The ICJ argued that Mauritius’ decision to cede the Chagos islands to the British “was not based on the free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned.” The court cited the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, a UN resolution passed in 1960. The ICJ specifically invoked Article 2, which states that “all peoples have the right to self-determination.” After confirmation of the BIOT’s illegality, the U.K. opened negotiations with Mauritius in November of 2022, leading to the eventual 2024 deal.
British Foreign Secretary David Lammy declared that Mauritius may choose whether or not to enact a resettlement program to the Chagos Islands, excluding Diego Garcia. The Mauritians have expressed interest, but it is unclear whether Mauritius has the resources to enact said program. Whether or not repatriation occurs, it will be on the terms of the Mauritians, not the Chagossians. Chagossian Voices, a grassroots organization, put out a statement condemning their exclusion from negotiations, stating they “remain powerless and voiceless” in decisions regarding their homeland’s future. They argue that their views have been “consistently and deliberately ignored.” Many Chagossians strongly oppose that their future lay in the hands of the Mauritian government that sold them out for independence, which led to their initial expulsion. The communities living in the U.K. continue to protest their lack of consultation in the decision. Whether or not they will be included in the drafting of the treaty is unclear. Despite this, some Chagossians still see the deal as a landmark occasion bringing them one step closer to return.
However, the deal is not set in stone yet. Conservatives on both sides of the pond have raised concerns about potential geopolitical implications, fearing that China will infiltrate the islands once they are no longer under British control. Opponents cite a 2019 free trade agreement as evidence of an increasingly strong Sino-Mauritian relationship that could pose a threat for the U.S. Furthermore, after Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 election, The Independent reported that the incumbent may attempt to block the deal entirely.
The Chagossians have consistently been denied agency, whether that be from the Mauritian government’s backdoor deals with the U.K. that founded the BIOT or their expulsion and subsequent exposure to injustices in foreign countries. Nearly 60 years after their initial expulsion, the Chagossians are still hoping for permanent resettlement. It is undeniable that the BIOT is illegal under international law, as its occupation denies interested parties the right to self-determination. But will the deal with Mauritius, a deal made without consulting the Chagossians, be much better? Maybe, if the promised resettlement program comes to fruition. However, amid the Trump administration’s growing opposition that threatens the treaty entirely, one must ask: How much longer will “national security” or “cost” concerns serve as justification for the continual displacement of the Chagossians? And how much longer will the Chagossians be denied a voice in decisions regarding their own future?