This week’s edition of Teen Politics: Weekly Politics Unpacked explains why the negotiations between the UK and Mauritius over the Chagos Islands have made their way into the news this week. And if you are particularly interested in this part of Britain’s modern colonial legacy, I recommend a documentary to take you through the history of the Chagos Archipelago in more detail. Before ending with Big Brother Watch’s petition to put a stop to new intrusive government powers.
The Contentious Islands
Let us start with a brief overview of the Chagos Islands’ history to give some necessary background. British rule starts in 1814, taking possession of the Chagos Islands and nearby Mauritius from France. Then skipping pretty much a century and a half later, in 1965 the Chagos Islands become the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) whilst Mauritius and the British government discuss independence. And at the same time, the UK agrees with the US to create a military base on one of the islands, Diego Garcia. And so when Mauritius gains independence in 1968, the UK retains control of the BIOT.
Tragically, between 1967 and 1973 the Chagos Islands’ entire population are forced to leave their homes, with most moving to Mauritius or the Seychelles. An act of forcible displacement, labelled not only as an “appalling colonial crime”, but also as a crime against humanity by Human Rights Watch. Almost 30 years later, in 2000, the UK high court finds the expulsion of the Chagossians to be unlawful. Although in 2008 the UK’s highest court decides against the right of return for Chagossians, overturning the decisions of lower courts that had found their exile to be unlawful. Despite this, the UK government announces a £40m support package to assist and compensate Chagossians living in the UK, but still refuses to let them return home.
But in 2015 this escalates internationally with the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling that Britain acted illegally in the way it created a marine protected area (MPA) in the Chagos Islands. And following a 2017 referral from the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, the UN’s highest court, rules in an advisory opinion that continued British occupation of the remote Indian Ocean archipelago is illegal and orders the UK to hand it back to Mauritius “as rapidly as possible”. Consequently, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly supports a motion which condemns Britain’s occupation of the islands, setting a six-month deadline for Britain to withdraw and reunify the islands with Mauritius, but evidently the UK does not comply.
The latest judicial ruling then occurs in 2021 when the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea rejects the UK’s claim to sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. The following year, the UK government announces an agreement to open negotiations with Mauritius over the future handover of the Chagos Islands. Finally bringing us to October 2024 when the UK agrees to give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, as a part of an agreement backed by the USA and India, ending the many years of dispute over Britain’s last African colony. Although it was agreed that the UK will retain control over the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia with a 99-year lease.
Unfortunately, if you thought that would be the end, you would be very much mistaken. A change of government in Mauritius in November 2024 meant negotiations were reopened at the request of newly elected Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam in December, especially over issues of payment for the military base lease. While it was thought a deal had been reached in mid-January, US opposition to the plans led Keir Starmer to suspend formalising the deal until Donald Trump’s approval is received. And despite the joint military base’s strategic geographic importance, supporters of Trump have encouraged him to block the deal permanently, including US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. They have raised concerns that branches of Iranian universities in Mauritius will be able to spy on the military base, and that Chinese commercial presence may increase in the Chagos Islands, alongside surveillance. But UK control of the Chagos Islands is so scarcely recognised internationally, so it’s unlikely rejecting the deal to maintain control would have any meaningful impact on the actions of other states.
Furthermore, on Tuesday, Mauritian MPs were told by PM Ramgoolam that new terms had been negotiated, so lease payments would now be front loaded and linked to inflation. And whilst he didn’t comment on the exact figures, he did say the former agreement was a “sell-out”:
“We have to be inflation-proof. What’s the point of getting money and then having half of it by the end? This is what would happen, we have made the calculations.
I’m not in a position to give details, but let me say something, that package was very badly negotiated.”
The Times however reported that payments from the UK to Mauritius could double under the renegotiated deal from £9bn to £18bn, but importantly this has been strongly denied by the foreign office, describing the figures as “inaccurate and misleading”. Nevertheless, this has sparked much outrage, even within government, with the BBC quoting senior government figures as calling the deal “terrible”, “mad” and “impossible to understand”. But one was also quoted with asking the question on everyone’s lips:
“At a time when there is no money, how can we spend billions of pounds to give something away?”
But the Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, said the government was “still waiting” to receive Trump’s view to help “inform the negotiations”.
And expectedly, the deal has also received criticism from the Tories and Reform UK. Dame Priti Patel (the shadow foreign secretary) urged the government to abandon the deal, attacking their “very little transparency” around the “disastrous surrender deal”. Similarly, Kemi Badenoch simply branded it a “foolish deal”. Whereas, Nigel Farage warned, “our value to America” would become “significantly reduced” as a result.
However, the deal’s opposition is not entirely from politicians, with many Chagossians who were forcibly displaced also voicing concerns that they were not consulted during the negotiations. Therefore, by giving Mauritius power over resettlement of the islands, the deal is alleged to ignore the cultural and historical distinctions of Chagossians who have their own language, for example. Acting Chair of Chagossian Voices, Franki Bontemps, said they “feel powerless” as they advocate for the right of all Chagossians to have the right of return to the islands, regardless of current location and citizenship. Although fundamentally, Bontemps expressed a desire for the Chagossian diaspora to determine their own future on the islands, whatever that may look like, condemning the “decisions being taken behind closed doors”.
So now, very worryingly, the future of the deal seems to be in the hands of Donald Trump.
Weekly Recommendation and Action
If you were particularly interested in this week’s topic, I’d highly recommend watching this mini-documentary from Human Rights Watch, which documents and explains how the Chagossians were forced off their homeland.
Additionally, if you were unaware, Keir Starmer’s government has revived plans previously defeated under the Conservative government to enable the government to spy on bank accounts on the premise of cracking down on welfare fraud and error which the privacy and civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch has called “Orwellian”. Therefore, I urge you to join over 230,000 people and sign Big brother Watch’s petition to help stop the introduction of these new powers.
Teen Politics 
Leave a comment