Research Report: The Chagos Islands Dilemma: Sovereignty, Displacement, and Geopolitics in the Shadow of Colonialism - Clarkson Iyovwaye

Introduction

The Chagos Islands, an archipelago in the Indian Ocean, have been at the center of a long-standing geopolitical, legal, and human rights dispute, particularly over the island of Diego Garcia. These islands, detached from Mauritius by Britain in 1965 to create the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), have been home to a critical US-UK military base since the 1970s. However, this military presence came at the expense of the indigenous Chagossian people, who were forcibly displaced to make way for the base. The recent 2024 agreement between Britain and Mauritius marks a significant shift in this historical conflict, as it allows Mauritius to reclaim sovereignty over most of the Chagos Islands, while Britain retains control over Diego Garcia for strategic military purposes.

This research report analyzes the key elements of this ongoing issue, focusing on the legal, political, and human rights dimensions. It seeks to clarify whether the situation can be seen as a violation of sovereignty and independence and whether it resembles a form of modern-day slavery.

Historical Background

Britain gained control of the Chagos Islands in 1814 as part of its colonial acquisitions in the Indian Ocean. In 1965, shortly before granting Mauritius independence in 1968, Britain detached the Chagos Islands from Mauritius to form the BIOT. This separation was done without the consent of Mauritius, which would later claim the islands as part of its sovereign territory. The strategic value of the islands soon became evident, leading to a 1966 agreement in which Britain leased Diego Garcia, the largest of the Chagos Islands, to the United States for military use. By the early 1970s, Britain forcibly evicted nearly 2,000 Chagossian residents to Mauritius and the Seychelles, making way for the construction of a key US military base.

The displacement of the Chagossians was a significant violation of their human rights. These communities were uprooted from their homeland, stripped of their right to return, and left to endure decades of poverty and marginalization. The island of Diego Garcia, meanwhile, has played a crucial role in US military operations, particularly in the Middle East, and remains one of the most strategic military bases in the world.

Legal and International Challenges

In recent decades, Mauritius and the displaced Chagossians have sought justice through international legal channels. In 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Britain’s continued control of the Chagos Islands was illegal and that the islands should be returned to Mauritius. This ruling, though advisory, was backed by a United Nations General Assembly resolution urging Britain to withdraw from the islands. The ICJ’s ruling was a significant legal victory for Mauritius, reaffirming its sovereignty over the islands and calling attention to the colonial injustice perpetrated against the Chagossians.

However, despite the ICJ ruling and growing international pressure, Britain resisted ceding control of the islands, citing the strategic importance of Diego Garcia. The recent 2024 agreement between Britain and Mauritius represents a diplomatic compromise. While Britain will hand over sovereignty of most of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, it will retain control over Diego Garcia under the terms of the agreement, ensuring the continued operation of the US-UK military base.

Human Rights and the Right to Return

The central human rights issue in this dispute is the forced displacement of the Chagossians and their decades-long exile. From a human rights perspective, the Chagossians were victims of a gross violation of their right to self-determination. They were evicted from their ancestral homeland without consent, subjected to poverty and deprivation, and denied the right to return. While the recent agreement opens the door for their potential resettlement on the non-military parts of the Chagos Islands, questions remain about how this resettlement will unfold and whether it will fully restore their rights.

The Chagossians' right to return, though symbolically addressed, is still limited by the ongoing military occupation of Diego Garcia. The fact that they are unable to return to the largest and most economically viable island within the archipelago highlights the incomplete nature of their restitution. Furthermore, the Chagossians continue to live with the legacy of displacement, which has fractured their community and eroded their cultural identity.

Geopolitical and Strategic Implications

The geopolitical significance of Diego Garcia cannot be understated. The US-UK military base is a vital asset for projecting military power across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. It has been instrumental in US operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other regions, and its continued operation is essential for maintaining Western military influence in the Indian Ocean.

From a British perspective, the 2024 agreement is framed as a pragmatic solution that ensures the long-term security of the military base while addressing legal challenges and sovereignty disputes. British Foreign Minister David Lammy underscored the importance of securing Diego Garcia’s future in safeguarding global security and preventing illegal migration through the Indian Ocean. The involvement of both the United States and India in supporting the agreement also reflects the broader strategic stakes in the region. For these nations, the stability and control of Diego Garcia are vital for maintaining balance in the Indian Ocean, a region increasingly influenced by China’s growing presence.

Sovereignty, Independence, and Modern-Day Slavery

The question of whether the Chagos Islands situation affects Mauritius’ independence and whether it constitutes a form of modern-day slavery requires nuanced consideration.

1. Mauritian Sovereignty: Mauritius, as an independent state since 1968, has long sought the return of the Chagos Islands as part of its sovereign territory. The recent agreement brings Mauritius closer to full sovereignty over the archipelago, but the retention of Diego Garcia by Britain means that Mauritius’ control over its territory is still limited by foreign military interests. This partial sovereignty underscores the ongoing tension between Mauritius’ independence and external strategic interests.
2. Chagossian Self-Determination: The forced displacement of the Chagossians and their continued exclusion from Diego Garcia reflects a deeper violation of their right to self-determination. While they may soon be able to resettle parts of the archipelago, their ability to fully reclaim their homeland remains constrained. In this sense, the Chagossians’ struggle for autonomy is still overshadowed by the military and geopolitical priorities of Britain and the United States.
3. Modern-Day Slavery? While the situation may not fit the traditional definition of modern-day slavery—which involves forced labor, human trafficking, or debt bondage—there are elements of exploitation and oppression that resonate with the term. The Chagossians were forcibly removed from their homeland, stripped of their rights, and left to live in poverty. Their land was exploited for strategic purposes, and their displacement continues to serve the geopolitical interests of more powerful nations. This form of systemic injustice and displacement bears the hallmarks of colonial exploitation, if not outright slavery.

Conclusion

The Chagos Islands dispute is a complex case of colonial history, geopolitical interests, and human rights violations. The recent 2024 agreement between Britain and Mauritius is a significant step towards resolving the sovereignty issue, but it does not fully restore the rights of the Chagossian people. Their forced displacement and continued exclusion from Diego Garcia reflect deeper issues of power imbalance and exploitation. While not entirely fitting the definition of modern-day slavery, the situation involves elements of colonial oppression and systemic injustice that warrant continued attention.

The agreement marks progress but is not a final resolution. The Chagossians’ right to return remains incomplete, and the military base on Diego Garcia continues to limit the full sovereignty of Mauritius. This situation serves as a reminder of the lingering impacts of colonialism and the challenges of balancing human rights with strategic interests in the modern world.