In October, the UK government revealed that it had concluded an agreement to hand over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, sparking controversy in both the UK and the US.
Nevertheless, with a new Mauritian government seemingly opposed to the accord and the incoming Trump administration in the US firmly against the proposal, it appears that the UK government may need to reassess its position.
The agreement has drawn skepticism on both sides of the Atlantic, as the Chagos Islands—a remote archipelago in the Indian Ocean claimed by Mauritius for decades—hold considerable strategic value. The islands are home to a joint US-UK military base at Diego Garcia, essential for countering Chinese influence in the region.
According to the deal announced in early October, the UK committed to transferring full sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius, including Diego Garcia, while also granting Mauritius a financial support package. However, the agreement allowed the UK to maintain its military operations at Diego Garcia for an initial period of 99 years.
New Mauritian government expresses doubt
Following November elections in Mauritius that led to a change in government, the new Prime Minister Navinchandra Ramgoolam has expressed concerns regarding the transfer, indicating that he needs “more time to review the details with a panel of legal advisors.”
While Ramgoolam has not disclosed specific reasons, he implied that finalizing such a critical agreement so close to an election, which his predecessor was expected to lose, was inappropriate. During the election campaign, he accused his predecessor of “high treason” for agreeing to what he termed a “sell-out” arrangement that allows Britain to keep its base at Diego Garcia for another century.
However, a British foreign policy specialist focused on African issues, who prefers to remain anonymous due to past roles in the UK government, suspects that Mauritius may be rethinking the deal to avoid getting caught up in geopolitical conflicts.
“The deal was hastily established without consulting the Chagossians, who evidently prefer not to have their islands governed by Mauritians. The Mauritian government now seems reluctant to engage in the real costs and responsibilities of governing the Chagos Islands, particularly in light of US-China tensions,” they explain.
UK’s rationale for the deal faces scrutiny
Supporters of the agreement viewed it as a necessary step to conclude the last remnants of British colonialism in Africa, with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer asserting that it would “address historical injustices and demonstrate a commitment from both parties to support the welfare of Chagossians.”
The British government also viewed the move as a way to “reset” its relations with African nations and garner broader African support for UK foreign policy objectives, including its assistance to Ukraine amidst the conflict with Russia.
Yet, many analysts are skeptical that the Chagos Islands agreement will realize this objective. Alex Vines, who heads the Africa program at Chatham House in London, suggests that “the Chagos Islands do not have a significant impact on the UK’s bilateral relations outside of the western Indian Ocean, especially with Mauritius.”
The decision has also angered some commentators, with Edward Howell, a geopolitics lecturer at the University of Oxford, stating to African Business that “the decision to transfer the Chagos Islands to Mauritius is incomprehensible and a disaster for the UK’s foreign policy.”
The former UK government insider argues that the Chagos Islands agreement showcases a flawed approach by the new UK government in dealing with African affairs.
“From an African viewpoint, there is minimal interest in culturally inappropriate identity politics or naive gestures that undermine the UK’s efficacy or influence as a champion of security and liberal democracy,” they assert to African Business.
“The emerging cohort of educated youth and the burgeoning middle class in Africa seek relationships founded on mutual respect, investment, and opportunities—not superficial apologies from a place of post-colonial guilt or signs of geopolitical weakness.”
The source further notes that, from a British perspective, “reversing the Chagos Islands decision would be a favorable outcome.”
Incoming Trump team demonstrates hostility
Meanwhile, the incoming US administration under President Donald Trump, predicted to adopt a robust anti-China approach, opposes the agreement.
Critics fear that these strategically significant islands could become a bastion for Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean once the US-UK military base’s 99-year lease expires, especially considering Mauritius’ amicable relations with China.
Nigel Farage, a British MP closely affiliated with the Trump administration, recently informed the House of Commons that the Chagos Islands deal would likely face “outright hostility” from the incoming president. Marco Rubio, Trump’s selection for Secretary of State, has also argued that the deal jeopardizes US security.
The former UK government source remains highly critical.
“The incoming US Republican administration views this as an act of strategic incompetence from a UK ally that has already stumbled in Iraq and Afghanistan, overstepping its bounds then carelessly dismantling some of the world’s most capable armed forces amid increasing global risks.”
