After two long centuries, the sun will finally set on the British Empire. On Thursday 3rd October, it was announced that the UK would relinquish sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, ceding its final African colony. Whilst many have criticised this move as dangerous for national security, the colonial history of the islands enlightens the matter as a step in the right direction towards decolonial justice.
The British Empire is swamped by its deep history of colonialism, entrenched in violence and force. The Chagos Islands are no exception. Following an investigation by the International Court of Justice, the UN Court declared the UK’s 54-year rule of the territory to be illegal. Criticised by the Hague as a “wrongful act” which was not “based on a free and genuine expression of the people concerned”, the moral legitimacy of the UK within international diplomacy suffered a major blow upon the uncovering of their forceful displacement of the Chagossian population from their homes.
Labelled by Human Rights Watch as a “continuing colonial crime”, the past actions of the British Empire has resulted in a current diaspora of 10,000 Chagossian people. Upon splitting the Chagos Islands from Mauritius in 1968, Harold Wilson’s Labour government utterly dismissed the island’s distinctive Creole culture, renaming the land as the British Indian Ocean Territory. Private documents, which have since been released, reveal comments from a British diplomat disregarding Chagossians as “some few Tarzans or Man Fridays whose origins are obscure”. And these abuses only continue. During 1965-73, the UK and US joined forces to create a military facility (employed during the Gulf, Iraq, Afghan wars, and allegedly as a CIA detention centre) on Diego Garcia, further displacing the entire remaining population from all the Chagossian Islands of Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos and Salomon. With no compensation and no suitable framework for rehabilitation, the majority of displaced individuals continued to settle in conditions of dire poverty in either Mauritius or Seychelles.
Perhaps what was most sinister about this process was its secrecy. In an attempt to avoid admitting its colonial rule, the UK falsely reported to the UN that the Chagos Islands harboured no population. Not only did this comprise a deliberate and purposeful manipulation of the law, but it further exposed that UK officials were very aware of the immorality of the state’s actions, so much so they needed to hide their true extent. The UK has since made attempts at reparations, awarding citizenship to Chagossians and paying small amounts of compensation. This still seems meagre in comparison to the utter violation of Chagossian human rights and the years of military benefits that both the UK and US have received from their control of Diego Garcia.
Advocating for decolonisation, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 1514, representing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This includes the colonial territories’ rights to self-determination and independence. Therefore, to truly achieve decolonisation, previous colonial powers must go beyond empty promises and demonstrate an active attempt to dismantle the oppressive structures which they conceived. Thus, by returning stolen land such as the Chagos Islands and attempting to amend the injustices of residual colonialism, the UK has demonstrated a commitment to the continuous process of divesting from the power and privilege afforded by their colonial legacy.
In his defence of the Chagos handover, Foreign Secretary David Lammy somewhat asserts the decolonial sentiment of the move, stating that it supported “our international standing where showing what we mean is what we say on international law and our desire for partnerships with the Global South”. In this sense, ceding control of the Chagos islands was a critical move for upholding the UK’s legal and moral integrity on the world stage, enabling the formation of healthier relationships with both the US who “neither wanted nor welcomed the legal uncertainty” and Mauritius, a partner of the Commonwealth. Ultimately, this action oversees the righting of a wrong.
What seems to have caused the most controversy concerning the handover, however, is the consequent implications for British national security. Deemed a “strategic disaster” by Mark Francois, the UK’s former armed forces minister, the geo-political importance of the Chagos Islands renders it a huge loss for Western security. Situated North-East of Africa and just South of the Middle East, the military base in Diego Garcia boasts geopolitical significance and has proved instrumental in previous affairs of security. Amidst a time of military acceleration and increasing global insecurity, the ceding of British sovereignty leaves the Chagos islands vulnerable to interference from China, which may be particularly dangerous considering their current tensions with Taiwan. Moreover, the return of the Chagos Islands threatens the security of British rule over other overseas territories, including the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar.
In response, Lammy has assured that the Falkland Islands will stay securely under British sovereignty and that this move has in fact secured UK and US tenure of the military bases in Diego Garcia, as opposed to the legal uncertainty which would have threatened their control otherwise. With questions of national security appearing to shadow the colonial elements of the matter, it must be asked: How legitimate is the UK’s security if it is founded upon the wrongful insecurity of others? That is not to say the UK must immediately place itself in a position of utmost insecurity to earn some moral brownie points among the larger international system, but rather; that our national security should be regarded in relation to the states and peoples which our country has made insecure along the way. Thus, in matters such as the Chagos Islands, where the UK and US still maintain their influence over important military bases, this rebalancing of power and control seems fair.
Whilst a step in the right direction, it would be incorrect to assume the UK initiated this handover for purely altruistic purposes. In recent years, the islands have identified an influx of migrants seeking asylum, thus raising the issue of the territory becoming an illegal immigration route. The UK’s handover of the Chagos Islands conveniently passes over the challenging legal implications into the hands of Mauritius. Furthermore, despite the matter largely concerning the identity and sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, the parliamentary decision did not consult any Chagossian individuals. The Chagossian Voices, a community organisation supporting Chagossians in the UK, responded to this stating that “as indigenous people, we assert their right of Chagossians to determine our own future and the future of our islands”.
Therefore, for the Chagos Islands handover to have the democratically peaceful effect that the UK government describes, parliament must go one step further, assuring that while the sun may set on the British Empire, it can rise on the voices of the Chagossian community.
Image: Wikimedia Commons (Centre National D'Études Spatiales)/Copernicus - Sentinel 2
No image changes made (CNES version cropped at bottom, Wikimedia Commons version has been employed).
Comments