Chagos: A Sobering Reflection on the May 22 Agreement

By Jagdish Koonjul

May 22, 2025, will undoubtedly be etched in Mauritian history as a significant milestone—marking the 6th anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 73/295. That landmark resolution reaffirmed the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion and demanded that the United Kingdom end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago within six months of its adoption on May 22, 2019. For all Mauritians—especially those of Chagossian descent—it was a moment of vindication, a recognition of decades of struggle, and the promise of rightful sovereignty.

Yet, six years later, what should have been a moment of celebration has instead become one of regret.

A Diplomatic Victory Turned Hollow

The road from the UN resolution to a sovereignty agreement with the UK was anything but smooth. In 2017, when Mauritius asked the ICJ to opine on whether its decolonization was lawfully completed in 1968, there were widespread doubts—even among seasoned members of the intelligentsia—about the potential for success.

But against the odds, Mauritian diplomacy prevailed. The overwhelming support for both the 2019 and earlier 2017 resolutions marked the first cracks in the UK’s untenable stance on the Chagos Archipelago. Strategic actions taken at various fora including the case of maritime delimitation between Mauritius and the Maldives built an international momentum which led the UK to begin negotiations on Mauritius exercising sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago while maintaining operations of the UK-US military base on Diego Garcia.

Thirteen rounds of negotiations followed, interrupted by pauses due to changes at the UK Prime Ministership, cabinet reshuffles, and UK elections. They were intense and often fraught, nearly collapsing on at least two occasions over UK demands for sweeping control over the entire archipelago, citing base security. By October 2024, however, a hard-won draft agreement had emerged: one that clearly affirmed Mauritius’s sovereignty over the entire archipelago—including Diego Garcia—and provided a strategic formula whereby the UK would exercise certain sovereign rights solely to the extent required for base operations. There was no transfer or a delegation of sovereignty.

The October agreement provided Mauritius with critical safeguards—plausible deniability regarding UK/US actions from Diego Garcia, clear limits on British oversight over non-Diego Garcia islands, and firm civil and criminal jurisdictional arrangements and environmental protections. Importantly, it offered Chagossians a genuine path to return to their homeland and reclaim their dignity. Given the political uncertainties in critical capitals, both UK and Mauritius were keen to sign the agreement at the soonest possible.

But then, politics intervened.

A New Government, A New Team, A New Agreement—and New Concerns

After the general elections of November 2024, a new government took office in Mauritius. The chief negotiator of the team was removed. Reputed international legal advisors were dismissed and a UK Parliament member of the Conservative Party which has opposed the agreement apparently stepped in as the new advisor along with a new team of lawyers. The October draft was shelved, and a so-called “improved” agreement was signed on May 22, 2025—ironically on the very anniversary of the adoption of the UN Resolution it now appears to dilute.

A closer examination of the final signed agreement indeed reveals worrying alterations that seriously undermine the progress painstakingly secured over years:

Loss of Explicit Language

In Article 2, the term “sovereign rights” has been quietly reduced to just “rights.” This small but significant change strips Mauritius of the legal nuance that relieved the State of Mauritius of any responsibility in case of violations by the UK or the US in their operations on Diego Garcia. This omission opens a potential Pandora’s box for Mauritius under international law.

New Constraints on Development

Annex 1, covering Defense and Security, previously granted Mauritius total control over developments on islands other than Diego Garcia including structures connected to land, aquaculture and artisanal fishing up to 3 miles at sea. That autonomy is now gone. Any proposal for development—on land or at sea—must undergo a security review with inputs from the UK. More troubling still, the UK now holds veto power through the Joint Commission which will take all decisions. This means that even basic infrastructure for resettlement—airstrips, jetties, telecommunications or housing will now be subject to British approval. That point was emphasized by the UK Defense Secretary at PM Starmer’s press conference last week. UK will have total control over land and sea. One wonders therefore whether the resettlement of the Chagossians and Mauritians in general can actually take place in those circumstances and if it does, what kind of limitations would they be subjected to. Even worse, based on this provision a new UK Administration may impose a complete ban on any activity on land.

Erosion of National Interest Protections

In the October text, Mauritius’s supreme national interests were broadly defined to ensure long-term strategic flexibility. In the new version, this has been narrowed, weakening the country’s ability to safeguard its future against unforeseen contingencies.

A Sovereignty in Name Only

The net effect? Mauritius is sovereign on paper, but in practice, that sovereignty is severely curtailed. The ability to resettle Chagossians, develop infrastructure, or exercise control over its own islands have been made contingent on British approval. This raises serious doubts about the country’s autonomy over its own territory.

Financial Framework: Repackaged, Not Reimagined

The financial provisions have also shifted—albeit superficially. The previous deal was dollar-denominated, and provided long-term developmental financing:

* $145 million/year, indexed to GDP as from Year 11

* $2 billion Infrastructure Fund, payable in 5 tranches over years

* $50 million Chagossian Trust Fund to support Chagossians in Mauritius

This would have enabled Mauritius to pursue mega infrastructure projects for future generations.

Instead, the new arrangement provides

* £165 million/year for 3 years, followed by £120 million/year indexed as from Year 14

* an annual £45 million for Infrastructure support over 25 years payable as from Year 3

* £40 million capitalized into the Chagossian Trust Fund

The total value (over 99 years) in both cases amounts to around £29.5 billion. There is no extra money, but the structure of the payments now limits long-term developmental flexibility for short term gains. Diplomatic Failure or Political Expediency?

This new agreement is not just a legal document. It is a historical marker—a litmus test of our diplomatic strategy, national unity, and political maturity. Unfortunately, Mauritius has paid a steep price for political miscalculation and timing. The delay in signing the October agreement, possibly driven by partisan aims to secure a “better deal,” has instead produced a weakened outcome and squandered valuable leverage and possibly international support.

In essence, we have returned, metaphorically, to 1965—only this time, we have signed away the effective exercise of sovereignty willingly and jubilantly.

A Moment for National Reflection

The road to restoring Chagossian dignity and securing our territorial integrity was long and steep. Mauritius had won the legal, diplomatic, and moral battle. What was needed was a consolidation of those wins as well as adequate safeguards for the future. But in diplomacy, timing, resolve and foresight are everything. By failing to act when it mattered most, we have diminished not only our sovereignty but our credibility on the international stage.

History will not forget the triumph of May 2019. But neither will it forgive the errors of May 2025.

Let this be a lesson—not just for the current administration, but for generations of Mauritians to come: Sovereignty is not just declared. It must be exercised, defended, and never surrendered at the negotiating table.

Posted by Minority Voice on Jun 2 2025. Filed under Actualités, Economie, En Direct, Featured, Politique. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry