LONDON — A tiny group of islands more than 6,000 miles from the U.K. has given Keir Starmer’s government an almighty headache that shows little sign of easing.
Just three months into power, Labour pulled off what it billed as a diplomatic coup: ending a long-running dispute over the status of the Chagos Islands, one of Britain’s final imperial possessions, while protecting a joint U.K.-U.S. military base there for decades to come.
But the praise hasn’t exactly come flooding in. Britain relinquishing control of what’s often dubbed its “last African colony” to Mauritius has generated deep opposition, mistrust and disappointment from almost every direction — including members of the Trump administration.
The British government is currently waiting for the White House to approve the agreement, amid publicly expressed concern from some in President Donald Trump’s team that the deal provides a strategic boost to China.
In the meantime, opposition Conservatives, who started the negotiations in 2022, charge that Labour has sold out a territory vital for Britain’s geopolitical interests.
Complicating matters further, the Mauritian government has changed since the announcement — and now wants more money to make the deal stick. It’s prompted briefing and counter-briefing from the two sides about what’s actually being promised.
And all the while, expelled Chagossians say they are being sidelined.
Forgotten islanders
The U.K. agreed last October to hand Mauritius sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago, made up of more than 60 islands in the Indian Ocean that were retained by the U.K. when Mauritius itself won independence from its former colonial rulers in 1968.
The decision came after a non-binding ruling from the International Court of Justice upped the pressure on the U.K. to allow Chagossians — removed between 1968 and 1973 to make way for a base on the island of Diego Garcia — to return, and end years of legal uncertainty.
As part of the deal, Mauritius can resettle its own residents on any island apart from Diego Garcia, with a “trust fund” set aside for Chagossians.
Yet groups representing Chagossians feel short-changed. Many point out that they are historically and culturally distinct from Mauritians, with their own language — and believe giving Mauritius control of resettlement ignores this.
“We feel powerless,” said Frankie Bontemps, acting chair of Chagossian Voices, a community organization campaigning for the indigenous rights and self determination of Chagossians.
The deal includes visits by Chagossians to the archipelago — but only if arranged by the U.K. and Mauritius. The group wants all Chagossians to have the right to return to the islands, regardless of their current location and citizenship.
Under the arrangement, those returning would be governed by Mauritius, rather than enjoying their own sovereignty.
Bontemps lamented a deal that appeared to have been cooked up first by the Conservatives, and then by Labour, without the active involvement of displaced islanders. “Every time we asked questions about the ongoing negotiation, they said they can’t reveal anything, because this was being discussed between two governments,” he said.
Labour MP Peter Lamb, whose constituency includes a high number of Chagossians, was withering about the agreement, saying the U.K. shouldn’t “bargain away” the islands.
Bontemps’ mother was born on Diego Garcia, while he was born in Mauritius and moved to the U.K. in 2006. “We were treated like second-class citizens” in Mauritius, Bontemps said.
“They came over here because we don’t want our children to face the same kind of discrimination,” he said.
Chagossian Voices notes that a majority of Mauritians are of Indian origin — whereas Chagossians are of African origin — and says they were not made to feel welcome in exile after their removal.
There’s deep mistrust of the Mauritian government, too — and a feeling that both the U.K. and Mauritius have spent too long “talking about what’s best for them.”
“I feel like history is repeating itself,” Bontemps said.
The Independent reported late last month that Chagossian Voices has sought legal advice and is now willing to take the British government to court to halt the deal — offering up another tangle for Starmer as he tries to get the deal over the line.
Ultimately, Bontemps would like the Chagossian diaspora to determine their own future on the islands. “If they want Mauritian sovereignty, U.K. sovereignty, or independence … I will gladly agree with that,” he said. “Decisions being taken behind closed doors … that’s appalling.”
Waiting for the White House
All the while, the British government is having to read the runes from Team Trump on the deal — and counter claims that it’s opening up a backdoor to to Chinese influence.
Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio told POLITICO before taking up the post that the deal poses “a serious threat” to U.S. national security and “critical U.S. military posture.” Robert Wilkie, who headed up Trump’s Department of Defense transition team and used to be Secretary for Veterans Affairs, called it a “calamitous decision” that wasn’t “thinking about the long term.”
The U.K. initially hoped to get the deal — which was approved by the Biden administration — over the line before Trump entered office, but ultimately conceded the new White House would need to consider it.
It’s the fate of Diego Garcia, the joint U.S.-U.K. base, that’s most animating Starmer’s critics.
The islands give the U.K. and U.S. access to “choke points,” such as the Bab-el-Mandeb strait between Yemen and Eritrea, that relinquishing would be “stupid,” argued former Security Minister Alan West, an ex-navy chief. And China, the world’s second largest economy, has significant relations with Mauritius.
“Recent years have demonstrated beyond doubt China’s willingness to use their leverage to get what they want from strategic partners,” said Luke de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. His group brings together politicians concerned about the West’s relationship with China, and its members have included Rubio.
Indeed, Chinese support for Mauritius runs deep: A major airport there was completed in 2013 with a £197 million loan from Beijing, while the i newspaper reported that China assisted with constructing the state broadcaster’s headquarters, a dam and sports complex. Mauritius was also the first African nation to sign and activate a free trade agreement with Beijing.
“Is it conceivable that Mauritius, if it finds itself more under the control of the Chinese Communist Party than it even is now, could act on behalf of the Chinese to just simply break international law?” asked De Pulford. “Yes, it’s perfectly conceivable.”
Some see echoes, too, of Britain’s handover of another imperial possession: Hong Kong, which was returned to China in 1997.
The treaty sealing that deal promised “one country, two systems” until 2047, meaning Hong Kong would retain freedom of speech, an independent judiciary and multiple political parties.
Yet Beijing undermined this by ultimately treating Hong Kong like the mainland. Large protests in 2019 against an extradition bill led to the extremely restrictive National Security Law in 2020, which purported to target secession, subversion and terrorism. “All the wishes of Hong Kongers for democracy have been crushed,” said Sari Arho Havrén, a Royal United Services Institute think tank associate fellow.
Back home, Starmer’s government has argued that international opinion made action on the Chagos Islands inescapable — but his domestic critics, including Brexiteer and Trump ally Nigel Farage, aren’t buying it. “When the Americans wake up to the fact that this has been done wholly unnecessarily, I wouldn’t be surprised if we find ourselves together with the European Union in their tariff regime,” Farage charged in the Commons Wednesday.
Starmer “has the audacity to tell the British people they will foot the bill and pay for the indignity of his surrender of the Chagos Islands, as he isolates the new U.S. administration by bending the knee to Mauritius and emboldening our enemies with his disastrous surrender deal,” said Tory Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel.
The government points to an International Court of Justice advisory opinion from 2019, which found Britain’s ownership of the islands violated international law, something the U.N. General Assembly endorsed.
Two years later, the U.N.’s maritime law tribunal reached the same conclusion. In the post-Brexit world, the government wants Britain to be a global player — and argues that being seen to uphold international law is key. It points out that the agreement includes a lease to keep the crucial military base operational under U.K. control for at least 99 years.
Yet West is not sold on the idea Britain needed to act so swiftly over an advisory opinion — and isn’t buying the fine print.
“I’m not convinced that we’ve got security of this base for 99 years,” he warned. And he added: “We’re sleepwalking into danger if we don’t get this sorted out.”
The post Britain’s handover of the Chagos Islands is pleasing nobody appeared first on Politico.
