No easy courses for Chagos consensus on sovereignty and security
The Chagos Archipelago dispute is a microcosm of the broader tensions shaping global maritime geopolitics.
Published on 17 December 2024 in
ISS Today
By
The United Kingdom’s (UK) October agreement to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius appeared to address longstanding international legal issues surrounding decolonisation and provide a pathway for the resettlement of the Chagossian community.
Yet, beneath the surface, the negotiation process reveals intricate undercurrents. These include the challenges of reconciling Mauritius’s sovereign rights with justice for the Chagossians and accommodating the strategic interests of the UK and United States (US) in maintaining their military foothold in the Indian Ocean.
While the agreement was initially lauded, it has faced significant criticism. Many Chagossians have expressed feelings of marginalisation from the negotiation process. In the UK, some politicians denounced the deal despite their role in initiating the discussions, highlighting the domestic political complexity surrounding the issue.
The outcomes of the November 2024 elections in Mauritius and the US have further complicated the negotiations’ trajectory. The October agreement, welcomed by the Biden administration, and the governments of the UK, Mauritius, and India, seemed particularly timed to preempt potential disruption from the US election. This strategy, however, has not insulated the deal from political shifts and leaves a fragile consensus amid political uncertainty.
The ‘triple delegation’ model risks entrenching US dominance, raising doubts about its long-term viability
Mauritius Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam promptly signalled that his newly elected government would take a more assertive approach. His concerns over the terms and call for an independent review should help him avoid potential domestic backlash, as seen in controversies surrounding India’s construction of military facilities on the island of Agaléga.
In the US, Donald Trump’s return to power introduces unpredictability. His transactional diplomacy style and willingness to renegotiate agreements based on narrow US interests potentially threaten the sustainability of the current framework.
For India, which has supported Mauritius throughout this dispute, the resolution aligns with its broader strategic alignment with the US. Diego Garcia’s pivotal role in US strategy directly supports India’s regional ambitions, with both countries aiming to counter China’s influence in the Indian Ocean.
Helping broker the Chagos agreement bolsters India’s regional influence. For Mauritius and India, challenging the US presence would risk straining relations at a time when all countries concerned are looking to benefit from enhanced partnerships. For example, the UK has sought a free trade agreement with India for years, and the October agreement removed a significant political barrier in these negotiations.
Trump’s transactional diplomacy could derail the fragile framework underpinning the Chagos agreement
The Chagos Archipelago negotiations must clear several intricate sovereignty hurdles. The proposed solution involves a ‘triple delegation’ of authority, with the UK, Mauritius and the US. This model raises significant concerns about its practicality, legality, and long-term viability. From a strategic perspective, it appears the likely arrangement disproportionately benefits the US. It grants Washington operational control over Diego Garcia, while Mauritius leases the territory to the UK, which in turn facilitates US military activities.
Agreements governing similar basing arrangements in the past (and which continue in places such as Guantanamo Bay) seldom delineated rights and obligations in a way that safeguarded host country autonomy.
Adding to the complexity, the UK has committed to funding resettlement projects for Mauritius and paying a lease fee for continued use of the islands. This multilayered arrangement risks entangling Mauritius in administrative complexities that could undermine its sovereignty. Mauritius will assume responsibility for managing any asylum seekers who attempt to land on the archipelago once the handover is completed.
However, in the meantime, the UK plans to transfer any asylum seekers arriving on Diego Garcia to its remote Atlantic Ocean territory of St. Helena. The decision is further mired in controversy due to reports of poor living conditions faced by people already stranded on Diego Garcia.
Mauritius leveraged law and African solidarity to frame the Chagos dispute as a win for decolonisation
The Exclusive Economic Zone surrounding the Chagos Archipelago adds another layer of complexity. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Mauritius gains access to valuable maritime resources.
However, the coexistence of a major external military base complicates economic activities and vice versa, such as tourism or fishing. These industries often require unobstructed access and freedom from restrictive military zones, and the terms and the extent of the area in which they will apply surrounding Diego Garcia is still to be determined.
|
Chagos Archipelago
 Source: Wikimedia Commons |
Mauritius faces enforcement challenges over its increased area of jurisdiction. External assistance will be essential but may introduce further complexities, particularly regarding the Marine Protected Area to be established and managed with UK assistance.
The Chagos agreement, supported by the US and India, is framed in a broader narrative of reinforcing the rules-based order (RBO). This reflects a broader effort to counter China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean.
For the UK, resolving the Chagos dispute lifts some of this pressure. It mitigates accusations of hypocrisy that were undermining the credibility of the RBO in matters concerning its relevance to sovereignty, international law, and multilateral cooperation in the South China Sea.
Mauritius’s success in leveraging international legal mechanisms is a crucial reminder of the ever-growing importance of multilateral institutions in resolving disputes. With strong support from the African Union, African states framed the issue as one of decolonisation, applying sustained diplomatic pressure on the UK.
This case arguably demonstrates that there is soft power to be tapped from international law for diplomats from small states to achieve equitable outcomes.
Despite the promise of the agreement, its implementation remains fraught with challenges. Negotiators must address the competing priorities of sovereign control, economic development, environmental preservation and strategic security.
The ultimate success will hinge on the legitimate inclusion of the Chagossian community to ensure justice in the process.
Exclusive rights to re-publish ISS Today articles have been given to Daily Maverick in South Africa and Premium Times in Nigeria. For media based outside South Africa and Nigeria that want to re-publish articles, or for queries about our re-publishing policy, email us.
