Staff writer Grace Holloway anaylses recent political developments between the Chagos Islands and the UK government as national and international security concerns make the future of the Islands uncertain.
In October last year, the new Labour government announced a return of sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Yet as we entered 2025, the deal feels far from certain. A cross-road has been met, as the government looks to balance reparations, national security and our relationship with the US.
The developments of the deal
The Chagos Islands, made up of over 60 Islands located in the Indian Ocean, have remained a British territory since 1814. With a complex history of the government’s treatment of Chagossian citizens, this move was key in Labour’s commitment to reparations for past injustices.
Under the original agreement, financial support would be made available to encourage economic development to benefit and support Chagossian citizens. The decision was also made in response to an International court of Justice ruling that set out that the UK was illegally continuing to occupy of the islands.
“The treaty will address wrongs of the past and demonstrate the commitment of both parties to support the welfare of Chagossians.”
UK and Mauritian government joint statement October 2024
The reaction to the decision was mixed. On a local level, the move was criticised for excluding Chagossian voices in the consultations, failing to outline the future of British-Chagossians and not setting out a future path for complete Chagossian independence. This comes after the largest community of Chagossians living in the UK, in Crawley West Sussex, were forced to sleep on the streets after the council declared a housing emergency.
On the national level, criticism was raised by many Conservative MPs and US officials on the basis of international security due to the geopolitical position of the islands. Diego Garcia, the largest Island, is home to a joint UK-US army base, strategically positioned in the Indian Ocean.
In the original joint statement released on the 3rd October, the UK government pledged a “package of financial support to Mauritius.” This financial package, claimed to assist citizens was viewed as crucial for securing the 99-year lease of the Diego Garcia military base for the UK and the US.
Despite initial criticism over the decision and the cost of support at the end of 2024 it appeared this deal was close to final. However the return of one prominent international figure may have compromised developments, as national security concerns are re-emerging.
New challenges
Trump’s return to the White House has already had enormous impact on international politics. Trump’s outspoken character has pressured tense relations from a significant falling out with Zelensky during the Ukrainian President’s recent White House Visit for peace in Ukraine, to his “dangerous proposal to turn Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East.” Additionally to Trump’s deep involvement in ongoing conflicts, his leadership has seen a resurgence in tensions with China. As Trump set out tariffs on Chinese imports, and China responded with counter-tariffs, the threat of a full out trade war is increasingly likely.
Amongst this increased tension, concerns over national security and US security presence in Asia and the Indian Ocean have become more important. The location of the military base on Diego Garcia now appears more crucial, leading to a potential US veto to prevent the deal from passing through.
Close Trump ally, Senator Jim Risch described the Islands as “imperative for our collective security,” emphasising the importance of retaining full sovereignty over the army base. Risch stated:
“Ceding ground to China is dangerous surrender, and the US and the UK need to work together to push back on this.”
Aside from the US, the Mauritian government’s new Prime Minister is delaying the agreement. Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam claimed the negotiation needed a bigger up-front payment of support for Mauritius to agree to the deal.
Yet, the UK political scene is becoming more critical of the rising cost of the deal, especially Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch. The proposed £9 billion price tag to the deal has not been clearly allocated to a budget.
Some speculation also claims the financial support could double to £18 billion, but this was denied by the government. As the government struggles with financing its proposals and the fall out from an unpopular Autumn budget, this may be another blow to Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves’s low popularity.
The dilemma
It now appears that the government is at a cross road. Their aim to rewrite the wrongs of past British ownership of territories seems to be challenged by increasing national security interests. But which comes first for the UK government?
“It is past time for the government to come to its senses, to remember its duty to defend the UK’s vital strategic interests, and to walk away from the deal.”
Tom Tugendhat former Conservative Security Minister
The ‘special relationship’ between the US and UK with shared notions of national security and allyship appears to have high importance in a time of global tension. While the UK government is already on thin ice with the US over Ukraine and European defence commitments, Starmer may be restricted in how much he can push Trump over this deal.
While the original agreement did allow for the military base to continue in operation, the US government and wider critics are unhappy with the long term sacrifice of this base for a high long-term cost.
But Starmer remains committed to pushing through this legislation, as he reflects upon the earlier international pressure to move away from Britain’s colonial past.
“The legal and security advice is very clear that the operation of the base will be at risk if there is not a deal.”
Downing Street
It is unclear what the future holds for this agreement, as Conservative and Reform MPs are in stark opposition to the move. Can the UK government balance the national security interests of the US and remain committed to complying with the ICJ ruling? Starmer seems to think so.
