Mauritius is now facing intense scrutiny following revelations that it plans to use funds transferred from the UK government to settle its national debts rather than prioritising the resettlement of the indigenous Chagossian population. This situation has reignited significant anger over the recent agreement signed under the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer, which will see the UK cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius while retaining a military base on Diego Garcia through a long-term lease.

The controversial £101 million per year deal, which aims to address historical injustices by facilitating a return of the Chagossians, has raised eyebrows after the budget proposal for 2025/26 was disclosed. This documentation indicates that Mauritius intends to allocate any revenue generated from the Chagos deal towards debt repayment for the initial three years of the agreement. Only thereafter, in year four, will the establishment of a purported £40 million ‘Future Fund’ commence, underscoring concerns that the needs of the displaced Chagossians are being subordinated to fiscal imperatives.

Campaigners representing the Chagossian community have expressed their fury at this allocation of funds. Jean Francois-Nellan from Chagossian Voices articulated his dismay, stating that the Mauritian government seems focused on balancing its finances rather than addressing the long-standing injustices faced by the Chagossians, who were forcibly removed from their home islands between 1965 and 1973. Despite Mauritius’ assertive declaration of sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago, its budget proposal conspicuously omits any reference to the resettlement of the very people whose displacement sparked international legal challenges against the UK’s actions.

This discontent has not gone unnoticed on a global scale. Chagossian campaigners have submitted a formal communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, aiming to contest the legitimacy of the UK-Mauritius deal. This effort highlights not only the absence of Chagossian representation in the negotiations but also the committee's potential to issue rulings with significant moral authority that could challenge the validity of the treaty.

Moreover, the sentiment among the Chagossians is compounded by the broader geopolitical implications of the deal, as it has been framed within the context of international military strategy and power dynamics in the Indian Ocean. Observers note the historical context of the Chagos Islands—separated from Mauritius in 1965 to facilitate the establishment of the Diego Garcia base, crucial during various military operations including those in Afghanistan and Iraq. This complicated legacy continues to shape discussions of sovereignty, justice, and the rights of the displaced, with many traditional allies of the UK, including the US and India, openly supportive of the agreement, albeit amidst concerns over its implications for regional stability.

The Chagossians’ demand for a right to return remains fraught with obstacles, particularly after the agreement explicitly bars their return to Diego Garcia, an issue that campaigners like Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrice Pompe are determined to continue fighting. They argue that the agreement further entrenches a colonial legacy that has long sought to marginalise their existence. Pompe expressed her views bluntly, advocating for justice and lamenting the UK government’s efforts to justify this arrangement as a betrayal of the Chagossians.

In light of these developments, the potential for international oversight via the UN Human Rights Committee’s eventual ruling may serve as a pivotal moment in this ongoing struggle, with many hoping it could reinvigorate discussions around the fairness of the deal and the rights of those displaced. Despite frustrations, campaigners remain steadfast in their opposition to the agreement, signalling that this fight is far from over.

Reference Map:

Source: Noah Wire Services