At last, justice for the Chagos Islanders?
Last week, the news that the UK has agreed to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius was widely reported. The agreement was denounced by many in the British press and political establishment – including by all current candidates for leadership of the Conservative Party. On the other hand, in other quarters the deal was greeted with cautious optimism. US President Joe Biden welcomed the agreement as a “clear demonstration that … countries can overcome longstanding historical challenges to reach peaceful and mutually beneficial outcomes”. In a joint statement, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Mauritius Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth called it “a seminal moment in our relationship and a demonstration of our enduring commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes and the rule of law”.
Among Chagossians the feelings seem more mixed. Some see it as a step in the right direction, suggesting that Mauritius is more likely to put resettlement plans in place. Others, however, have criticised the fact that, even in a decision like this, Chagossians have been systemically excluded from the discussion. One group representing Chagossians in the UK, Mauritius and the Seychelles claimed that “Chagossians have learned this outcome [of the negotiations] from the media and remain powerless and voiceless in determining our own future and the future of our homeland”. Others, speaking to the BBC, expressed frustration that, once again, decisions about their future were made without their input.
Though the Chagos Islands, and their former inhabitants’ fight for justice, have made the news before, for many this may well have been the first time you heard about it. Some of the opposition to the decision certainly seems to be partially informed by a number of misapprehensions about the islands and their people, for example that the situation is in any way comparable to the situation of the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas (a situation encouraged, admittedly, by the fact that Argentina has taken this opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to regaining the Falkland Islands). The comparison is incredibly unhelpful, though, for a number of reasons. Most importantly, the Falkland Islanders are currently living on the Falkland Islands, whereas Chagossians were evicted – in violation of international law – from the islands in the 1970s.
A history of injustice
And this is also why there are some serious issues, still, with the current proposal. It comes after over 50 years of immoral and illegal behaviour by the UK and the US governments. As outlined in detail in a 2023 Human Rights Watch report, the two countries conspired to depopulate the islands retained by the UK after Mauritius gained independence in 1968 in order to base a joint UK-US navy base on the largest of the islands, Diego Garcia. They lied about there not being a permanent population on the islands (despite them being inhabited consistently since the 18th century), stranded people in Mauritius by cancelling boats, engaged in terrorism when they killed people’s dogs in order to convince them to leave, and ultimately resorted to forced transports off the islands. When they were finally deported, they were packed into overcrowded boats, where horses were allowed to stay on deck while Chagossians were kept in the hold. Throughout, they were treated with disdain and discussed in internal policy documents in starkly racist terms (one infamous 1966 memo described them as “a few Tarzans and Man Fridays”).
In return for committing a series of international crimes, the UK got a discount on American nuclear missiles, as well as “some rocks” to call their own.
After having been expelled, the Chagossians were left to fend for themselves in Mauritius, the Seychelles and further afield without compensation (later, a very small amount of money was made available only to those staying in Mauritius, but on condition that they would renounce their right to return to Chagos.
Despite being spread out across multiple continents, the Chagossians made several attempts to return to their homeland. In 2000, it seemed like they might succeed, when the UK high court ruled that the government did not have the power to expel all of the islands’ inhabitants. However, before anything else could happen, amid the “Global War on Terror”, Queen Elizabeth II issued a new “Orders-in-council” on behalf of the government (essentially an executive order, which allows the government to bypass parliament) to once again ban Chagossians from returning to any of the islands in the archipelago.
More legal challenges and other efforts to allow people to return to their homeland followed. The government of Mauritius has long challenged the UK’s decision to detach the Chagos Islands from Mauritius before granting it independence (an ostensible breach of Resolution 1514, which bans the breakup of colonies prior to independence). A 2019 advisory opinion from the ICJ, sought by the Mauritian government with backing from the UN general assembly, ordered the Chagos Islands to be returned to Mauritius “as rapidly as possible”. (The judgment was rejected by UK diplomats, who insisted that as an advisory opinion it was non-binding). Three years later, the Mauritian government organized an expedition to the Chagos Islands, allowing a number of Chagossians and their descendants, as well as journalists, to visit the islands. They raised a Mauritian flag on Peros Banhos. Now, the islands will finally be returned to Mauritius, though Diego Garcia will be leased out to allow the US to continue to maintain their base there.
The importance of free, prior and informed consent
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples requires that legislative or administrative measures that may affect them are taken with their “free, prior and informed consent”, and that indigenous communities are consulted and cooperated with in good faith (Art. 19). The status of Chagos Islanders as indigenous people is somewhat complicated by the fact that they are largely descendants from enslaved people brought over to work on French coconut plantations from the second half of the 18th century onwards. However, because of the remote nature of the islands (and the resulting relative independence they enjoyed, with government being far away in Mauritius), the Ilois (French Creole for Islanders) developed their own distinct language, culture, and traditions. The UN has not accepted a singular definition of “indigenous”, given the diversity of indigenous people it recognizes. Instead, it has developed an understanding of the term based on a range of factors including self-identification, distinctive cultures and languages, and so on. They are generally treated as indigenous people, and certainly can be considered as such in relation to both the British and the Mauritians.
By excluding the Chagossians from negotiations, the UK and Mauritius have denied them the ability to give “free, prior and informed” consent over the agreement. This is in clear violation of the UNDRIP, and even though many Ilois have expressed cautious optimism, it taints the decision with procedural injustice. Moreover, given the long history of mistreatment, it can be considered to compound these old injustices. It may still be a step in the right direction, but while the Mauritian government may have gotten what it has long wanted, the struggle for justice for the Chagossians is not over yet.
