A plan by Prime Minister Keir Starmer to hand sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius has drawn sharp criticism from senior figures involved in governing the territory, with warnings that the deal could weaken western security, undermine environmental protections and betray the Chagossian people. Concerns raised to the Times UK come as legislation to cede control of the Indian Ocean archipelago is pushed through its final stages in the House of Lords this week.
Under the agreement reached last year, Britain would transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, formally known as the British Indian Ocean Territory, to Mauritius while paying £101 million a year to lease back the strategically vital joint US-UK military base on Diego Garcia. Officials responsible for administering the territory alongside the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office say they were largely excluded from negotiations and overwhelmingly oppose the treaty.
A senior figure in the BIOT administration told the Times UK that the deal was being driven by a small group of Foreign Office officials despite widespread opposition among military and territorial staff. The official said there was deep unease about the implications for former Chagos residents and claimed they had not encountered a single senior figure in the UK or US security hierarchy who supported the agreement.
Environmental concerns have also intensified scrutiny of the plan. Britain currently enforces a vast marine protected area around the Chagos Islands that safeguards hundreds of species of fish and birds, many found nowhere else. Critics warn that Mauritius intends to open much of the surrounding waters to fishing, and that under the treaty the UK would have no legal means to intervene if protections are weakened. Legal scholar Richard Ekins KC told the Times UK that Mauritius was unlikely to preserve the marine environment and could instead exploit it.
The controversy revives longstanding grievances among the Chagossian people, who were forcibly removed from the islands in the 1960s to make way for the military base. While Britain has framed the deal as part of a decolonisation process following an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, critics argue that many Chagossians do not identify as Mauritian and see the transfer as another betrayal. Some have British citizenship and recent months have seen an increase in their arrival in the UK.
Opponents of the deal have also questioned the legal advice behind it. A senior BIOT figure told the Times UK that arguments warning of legal jeopardy to the Diego Garcia base were being advanced by figures closely associated with Mauritius, fuelling suspicion about the motivations behind the agreement. Last month, the UN committee on the elimination of racial discrimination said it was deeply concerned that the deal could perpetuate violations of Chagossian rights.
Despite mounting criticism, the government is pressing ahead. The Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill has already passed the Commons and is expected to clear the Lords by the end of the week. Critics argue the UK could still withdraw, saving taxpayers money, safeguarding a critical western military outpost and preserving one of the world’s most important marine reserves.
The Foreign Office rejected claims that the treaty undermines security or environmental protections, saying the deal, backed by the United States and other allies, guarantees the long-term operation of the Diego Garcia base and includes commitments to protect the marine environment and support the Chagossian community.
