Speculation is rife that U.S. President Donald Trump might block an agreement between Britain and Mauritius to resolve their long-running dispute over the Chagos Archipelago in the central Indian Ocean. The United States has a stake in the Chagos group because the largest island, Diego Garcia, is home to a strategically important U.S. military base. For decades, Britain has administered the Chagos Islands with the explicit purpose of ensuring that the Pentagon can use Diego Garcia unimpeded. With London poised to return the islands to Mauritius, the United states is understandably anxious to see that its privileged military position is not lost.
The problem is that most of the world regards London’s presence in the Chagos Islands as unlawful, owing to an International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion that found Mauritius to be sovereign over the archipelago. Eager to conform with international law, London has agreed to return the islands to Mauritius on the condition that Port Louis will permit Britain to continue making Diego Garcia available to the U.S. military.
The deal is a “win-win-win-win” in the sense that it guarantees the formal decolonization of Mauritius; allows Britain to bring itself into alignment with international law; secures the future of the U.S. base on Diego Garcia; and paves the way for the indigenous people of the Chagos Islands—the Chagossians—to resettle parts of the archipelago for the first time in more than 50 years.
But critics of the deal have been vocal in their opposition. Britain’s right-wing press is adamant that Mauritius has no claim to the Chagos group (although convincing refutations of the ICJ’s ruling have been conspicuous by their absence). In both London and Washington, bad-faith actors have sought to smear Mauritius as an ally of China. This is nothing but baseless fearmongering given that Mauritius has no security relationship with China, but it has allowed critics to contrive the narrative that U.S. interests are in jeopardy.
Author
