The Chagossian people remain forcibly and criminally displaced from their homeland. Photo: Andrew Winning/Reuters
The agreement between the United Kingdom and Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago, has been described by its prime minister as a “victory for international law, for postcolonial justice and above all, for the Chagossian people”. But is it?
Implementing international law in situations of colonial atrocities means more than resolution of territorial disputes; it means delivering justice and reparations to affected peoples. The Chagossian people remain forcibly and criminally displaced from their homeland. All governments, including South Africa, need to ensure that the UK, United States and Mauritius address that legacy and respect their rights and voices.
The UK and US forcibly displaced the entire Chagossian people, more than 50 years ago, to build a US military base on Diego Garcia island, which remained a UK colony. This exile, based on UK and US officials’ documented racism and lies denying the existence of the Chagossians, is a colonial crime against humanity that will continue as long as they are prevented from returning home.
The new treaty, which recognises Mauritius’s sovereignty over the islands, looks unlikely to end this crime. Some Chagossians have welcomed the treaty, seeing it as a key step in their decades-long struggle to return to their homeland. Its preamble refers to “wrongs of the past” and both governments pledge to support “the welfare of all Chagossians”. The text of the treaty suggests that Chagossians could return to all islands in the archipelago, except for Diego Garcia, the largest island and many people’s homeland.
But the details of the treaty guarantee little for the Chagossian people, including their right to return. This agreement risks not repairing the harm but perpetuating it.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its landmark 2019 advisory opinion, held that the UK’s continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago was unlawful. Crucially, the ICJ recognised the forced removal of the Chagossians as a major injustice. This treaty is supposed to implement this opinion.
Yet the Chagossians’ rights barely feature in the treaty. There is no recognition of them as the Indigenous people of the islands, no reference to the right of return and no guarantee of their participation in future governance or management of finances. Resettlement is limited to the outer islands, excluding Diego Garcia. The treaty addresses sovereignty, territory and military interests but says very little about human rights and accountability.
This is reflected in the lack of financial compensation for the Chagossians. The UK has pledged annual payments to Mauritius for the continued operation of the base and “development projects”. These figures would total at least £10 billion [R234 billion] across the 99-year lifetime of the deal.
In contrast, the treaty says that Chagossians will receive a one-off payment of £40 million — the same amount offered by the UK a decade ago, when it ruled out any right of return. There’s no explanation, consultation or guarantee that the funds will support resettlement.
To put it starkly: £40 million is less than 0.5% of the total financial arrangement. It is not reparations. It is a footnote.
The right to return to one’s homeland is a basic principle of international law. But the treaty deliberately excludes Diego Garcia from resettlement — effectively entrenching the crime of forced displacement. The treaty also appears to give the UK a veto over development anywhere in the islands, which could block any effort to rebuild communities.
The UK and Mauritius should, at a minimum, make a clear and public declaration recognising the Chagossians’ right of return and guaranteeing their involvement in rebuilding their homeland. The US and UK should prioritise their employment at the Diego Garcia base and support their return through infrastructure and economic investment.
Despite vague references to implementing the treaty “in accordance with international law”, there is no express acknowledgment that binding human rights treaties or the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court will apply in Chagos. This is particularly troubling, as Diego Garcia has long been a legal black hole — shielded from scrutiny over abuses such as torture.
This treaty is not the end of the story. It is a test — not only of the UK’s willingness to reckon with its colonial legacy but of the international community’s commitment to justice and reparations for colonial crimes.
The ICJ said the resettlement of the Chagossian people was the responsibility of the UN General Assembly. South Africa, the Caribbean nations, and other leaders of the global anti-colonial struggle, should take a stand there. They need to ensure that this implementation of the ICJ ruling on decolonisation also ensures the right of return of Chagossians to their homeland and reparations for the harm the UK and US have inflicted on them.
Symbolic regret on its own is not justice. It is time for action — and for the Chagossians to return home.
Clive Baldwin is a senior legal adviser, and Allan Ngari is the African advocacy director, at Human Rights Watch.