UK signs controversial deal ceding Chagos Islands to Mauritius
- The UK government signed a deal to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after a judge lifted a legal injunction.
- The agreement grants the UK a 99-year lease for continued military operations at Diego Garcia, a strategically important base.
- This move has drawn criticisms from displaced Chagossians and sparked debates over colonial legacies and regional security.
In May 2025, the UK government formalized a deal to transfer the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, marking the end of a long-standing colonial legacy. This decision followed a series of legal challenges, most notably a last-minute injunction that attempted to halt the agreement, which was eventually overturned by a London judge. The deal includes a 99-year lease allowing the UK to retain military control over Diego Garcia, the largest island in the archipelago and home to a vital U.S.-UK military base. The historical context of the islands dates back to 1965 when Britain separated them from Mauritius, leading to the forced displacement of Chagossians who were removed to facilitate military operations. Critics argue that the agreement does not account for the rights and desires of the displaced Chagossians, many of whom still wish to return to their homeland. The British government insists the deal is crucial for national security, citing concerns over potential foreign military presence, particularly from China, and the operational effectiveness of the air base. However, opposition voices express skepticism about the government's motivations and the implications of ceding sovereignty, fearing that it could bolster China's influence in the Indian Ocean region. India welcomed the signing of the treaty, emphasizing its support for Mauritius's sovereignty claims over the Chagos Archipelago. As the UK navigates its foreign policy post-Brexit, the repercussions of this deal may resonate across diplomatic relations and regional security frameworks. While the UK administration claims that the agreement is essential for maintaining a strategic military foothold, those affected, including the Chagossian community, see it as a continuation of their exclusion from decisions regarding their ancestral home. Thus, the signing of this agreement has ignited fresh debates regarding colonial legacies, national interests, and human rights, leaving many Chagossians feeling further marginalized and without recourse to reclaim their homeland. Such discussions are likely to persist as the implications of the deal evolve in the context of international relations.