(Photo by The British Parliament and Big Ben via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY 2.0)
In May 2025, the United Kingdom (U.K.) and Mauritius signed a long-awaited treaty to recognize Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, a small group of coral islands in the Indian Ocean. The U.K. administered this territory as part of the British colony of Mauritius until 1965, when it was reclassified as a British Indian Ocean Territory. Three years later, Mauritius gained independence, but without the Chagos.
In the context of the Cold War, this geopolitical act enabled the U.K. and the United States (U.S.) to keep strategic control of islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean by building a military base on the largest island, Diego Garcia. To make this possible, the U.K. government forcibly removed the Chagossian inhabitants.
In May 2025, both the U.K. and Mauritius governments agreed to a transfer of sovereignty and presented the treaty as a “historic agreement” toward decolonization, following years of diplomatic negotiations, legal disputes, and the United Nations’ resolution condemning the U.K.’s occupation. The media celebrated the treaty as a long-overdue correction of colonization.
Yet, behind the discourse of restitution, the voices of the Chagossian people, those directly affected by the island’s colonial history, remain absent. For the descendants of those expelled to make way for the U.S. military base, this so-called decolonial victory represents another act of silencing. The May 2025 treaty exposes a deeper paradox: political independence without social justice, the return of territory without the return of people.
Colonial Displacement and the Erasure of People
The Chagos Archipelago has a long history of colonization and displacement under the guise of diplomacy. In the 18th century, the French colonized Mauritius, administratively linked the island to the Chagos, and transferred African slaves to work on coconut plantations in the archipelago. In 1814, France ceded Mauritius and its dependencies as a war tribute to the British Empire.
In the late 1960s, the U.K. prepared to lease the island of Diego Garcia to the U.S. for the construction of a military base, without any consultation with Mauritius or the Chagos population. In doing so, the U.K. systematically removed the Chagossians, deporting them to Mauritius and the Seychelles with “contract worker” documents, to maintain the illusion that there were no Chagos permanent inhabitants or natives. Then, the British government passed a law outlawing any return to the archipelago and proceeded to kill hundreds of animals and destroy homes as a deterrent for return. In total, between 1,200 and 1,500 Chagossians were forcibly displaced between 1968 and 1973, their communities erased from the islands in just a few years.
This forced exodus led to harsh living conditions in exile. Deported families arrived in Mauritius and the Seychelles with little compensation, no housing, and no recognition for their loss. Many fell into poverty and social marginalization, stripped of their land and livelihood. Generations grew up in precarious settlements, facing unemployment and deep psychological trauma from the erasure of their homeland. Since the 1980s, the Chagossians have been engaged in a long struggle for justice, citizenship, and the right to return that continues today.
The 2025 Agreement – A Partial Decolonization
This fight for justice gradually moved from local petitions to international courts and diplomatic forums. In 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that the U.K.’s continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago was unlawful because it violated Mauritius’s right to self-determination. The same year, the U.N. General Assembly confirmed the ICJ’s findings and called upon the U.K. to withdraw from the archipelago, thereby completing Mauritius’s decolonization. Although non-binding, these steps isolated the U.K. diplomatically and reinforced the legitimacy of Mauritius’ claim.
Following years of negotiation, the two governments signed the 2025 U.K.–Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago, which formally recognizes Mauritian sovereignty over the archipelago. It also establishes mechanisms for cooperation in environmental protection and maritime management. Yet, it allows the continued operation of the joint U.K.–U.S. military base on Diego Garcia under a new cooperation framework.
While the question of state sovereignty is resolved, the treaty does not deliver justice to the displaced Chagossian people. Several U.N. expert groups expressed concerns over “the lack of meaningful participation of Chagossians in processes” and called for an agreement “that includes their right to adequate and effective remedy and reparations, including restitution, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition, as well as their cultural rights.” The Chagossian activists Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrice Pompe denounced the deal as a “betrayal” that continued to prioritize military and strategic interests over human rights and community repair. “We have been struggling to understand why we have been treated so poorly by the British government”, Pompe declared. “I want the right to return to the Chagos Islands.”
Recognition Without Reparation
The 2025 agreement reveals how decolonization negotiated by states often ends up reinforcing the same colonial structures they say they want to dismantle. Indeed, the treaty repeats an imperial logic: decisions made about people but without them. While the agreement shifts administrative control, it does not provide the reparations or justice those communities need.
The gap between recognition and reparation is clear. Both the U.K. and Mauritius acknowledged that a wrong had happened; yet, neither state has proposed binding commitments to address it. As Human Rights Watch noted, there is no comprehensive compensation scheme for lost homes and livelihoods, “no recognition of [the Chagossians] as the Indigenous people of the islands,” and “no guarantee of their participation in future governance or management of finances.”
Recognition as a substitute for repair can be observed in other postcolonial agreements. The 2021 Germany–Namibia agreement over the colonial era crimes committed by German forces against the Herero and Nama ethnic groups is a notable example. Germany recognized the killings of the early 1900s as a genocide and pledged one billion euros in development aid. Yet, survivors denounced their exclusion from the treaty negotiations and the distribution of funds to the Namibian government rather than to the affected communities. Much like the Chagos case, the process changed accountability into diplomacy.
Green Colonialism and Environmental Justice
The struggle for justice over the archipelago has produced environmental consequences. In 2010, the U.K. unilaterally declared the Chagos a “Marine Protected Area” (MPA) in the name of the preservation of the coral reef ecosystems. This protected zone prohibits fishing and permanent human settlement. The MPA serves as a new form of exclusion for the Chagossians, reinforcing the ban on return under the guise of ecological protection. Diplomatic documents, declassified by WikiLeaks, actually revealed that the British officials viewed the marine reserve as a tool to “effectively end the islanders’ resettlement claims”, which was condemned by the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
The militarization of Diego Garcia also has its own environmental consequences. The building of airstrips and harbour facilities has changed the lagoon landscape. Studies have documented poor waste management and contamination, such as through radiation leakages and jet fuel spills, because of the military activity. All in all, the MPA is an example of “green colonialism” since it closes the territory to its original inhabitants in the name of environmental preservation, while the environment it claims to protect is being heavily degraded by military use.
Justice in the Chagos must therefore include environmental reparation alongside social restitution. Potential pathways encompass land and ecosystem restoration, especially the rehabilitation of native vegetation; co-management of marine resources between Mauritius, Chagossian representatives, and conservation scientists; and sustainable resettlement programmes that balance human presence and ecological integrity. Yet, the first step would be to recognize the Chagossians as rightful environmental stewards of this archipelago.
Decolonization Beyond Diplomacy
The story of the Chagos Archipelago illustrates that decolonization, when confined to diplomatic or territorial negotiations, remains incomplete. The 2025 treaty may have redrawn the map of sovereignty, but it does not repair the social and ecological wounds left by forced displacement and decades of militarization. Today, the Chagossian population lives across Mauritius, the Seychelles, and the U.K., still struggling with decades of poverty, exclusion, and legal struggle.
The agreement remains tied to global power politics: Diego Garcia is a central hub in the U.S. and U.K. defence strategies across the Indo-Pacific, and neither state is willing to give up on its military access. This strategic factor limits the extent of decolonization, placing geopolitical priorities above the rights of displaced people.
The Chagossians’ struggle exposes how postcolonial power still operates through exclusion: the right to decide who belongs, who speaks, and who benefits. Any future governance must ensure that Chagossians are included in decisions over security, environment, and development. Genuine decolonization would require the restitution of land rights. Until then, sovereignty without justice risks becoming another symbolic gesture, leaving colonialist violence unaddressed.
Edited by Khushi Mehta
