The deal on the table is good for the UK, for the US, for Mauritius and for the Chagossians
Towards the end of 2024, the Government announced it had reached agreement with Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago. The US president at the time, Joe Biden, welcomed the deal the same day.
Since then, Americans and Mauritians have voted in new governments, and now the deal appears to be in flux; some British politicians are using the hiatus to encourage the new administration in Washington to withhold consent and stop the deal. They make four arguments for this; yet all four are either misleading or wrong.
First, they claim the archipelago is “ours”, and that we should neither hand it to Mauritius nor pay them for its use. It is true that in the 60s, as part of their independence negotiations, the Mauritians agreed that the UK could keep the archipelago as long as it was returned to them when no longer needed for defensive purposes. We paid them £3m as a “full and final payment” to cement the bargain.
But the Mauritians were never happy with the arrangement. From the start, they accused the UK of exploiting its stronger position to coerce them. Eventually, they took a case to the International Court of Justice. In 2019, in a ruling agreed by 13 judges with only one (the American) dissenting, the court put the UK “under an obligation to bring to an end [our] administration”.
Second, critics claim an advisory opinion is only that; there’s no compulsion to comply. But that ignores three key points.
One, the UK is a country of law. We believe every country is bound by international law, not just the bits it likes. The debate about compliance is used against us; our adversaries accuse us of hypocrisy.
Two, the advisory opinion does not exhaust Mauritius’s legal options. Other processes are available which would result in a binding judgment.
And, three, the international community is already acting in accordance with the advisory opinion. The base at Diego Garcia relies on private contractors to keep going; in the absence of an agreement, they are increasingly reluctant to work there.
The third argument critics of the deal make is to look askance at the absence of Chagossians from the negotiation. This claim ignores the fact that ministers have engaged Chagossian groups in the UK, that there is no single group that authoritatively represents all Chagossians, and that the agreement is between two states.
The Chagossians were treated appallingly in the 60s and 70s when they were forcibly evacuated. Successive governments have acknowledged the need to do more for them. Since 2022, those living in the UK have been able to apply for UK citizenship. The draft agreement allows us (once again) to run heritage visits so that they can see where their parents and grandparents lived. And, for the first time, the agreement allows Mauritius to resettle Chagossians in some of the outer islands.
Fourth, critics claim – loudly – that the deal damages UK security by increasing the Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean. This claim is baseless.
Mauritius is not an ally of Beijing. Of the 55 members of the African Union, it is one of only two which does not participate in China’s Belt and Road Initiative of infrastructure building across Asia, Africa and Europe.
Mauritius is much closer to India (which supports the deal). The deal locks China out of key real estate between Africa and Asia for the next 99 years, with the option of renewal for a further 40 years.
I have heard American officials describe Diego Garcia as their most important base outside the United States; from it, their military can see all of the world they cannot see from the continental US. For surveillance and transit, it is vital. The deal ensures the base remains in Western hands for the next four generations at least.
I concede one point – that the deal comes at a cost to UK taxpayers. Yet some of the figures quoted are nonsense. The Mauritian prime minister talked once of “£18bn” and immediately withdrew the claim.
No doubt the Government will reveal the true figure later. When it does, remember: a) the land is no longer ours; b) the landlords (Mauritius) are entitled to charge rent; and c) the rent they are seeking is comparable to what other countries pay for their bases in the region.
The idea of holding out is not an option. If talks break down, we know Mauritius will return to the ICJ. In short, the deal on the table is good for the UK, for the US, for Mauritius and for the Chagossians. Only by wilfully ignoring the facts can its opponents claim otherwise.
Sir Simon McDonald, Baron McDonald of Salford, was Permanent Under Secretary and Head of the Diplomatic Service at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office from 2015 to 2020, and is now a cross-bench peer and Master of Christ’s College, Cambridge