OPINION:
Unless something changes, the land under one of America’s most strategic military bases will be owned by Mauritius, a country with deep and growing ties to China. Just as concerning, American access to that site will depend on whether Britain promptly pays its bills every year for the next century. This is a bet the United States cannot afford to make.
The base, Diego Garcia, is known more colloquially as the “Footprint of Freedom.” Strategically located on the atoll of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, it ranges from Africa, the Middle East and into the broader Indo-Pacific. It can house and launch strategic bombers and reload submarines, and it has a deep-water port for aircraft carriers. It’s a crucial American footprint in one of the most economically and strategically dynamic locations on the planet. It has proved its importance repeatedly, including during the Gulf War and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The atoll of Diego Garcia is part of the Chagos Archipelago, and it belongs to Britain. For now.
Hundreds of years ago, the Chagos Archipelago was mostly uninhabited. Then, as French and British colonists brought in slaves and workers, a distinct Chagossian population developed, with its own language and culture. The British colonial administration for Chagos was in Mauritius.
When Mauritius became independent, the Chagos Archipelago stayed with Britain. The British-U.S. military base on Diego Garcia was built in 1971. In the years the base was planned and built, Britain forced the removal of the thousand or so Chagossians from the archipelago. Many went to Mauritius, and some to Seychelles or Britain, which was how it stayed for decades. Until now.
Chagossians have pursued their right to return to their islands through the courts, and Britain has pushed to try to rid itself of this remaining stain of colonization. The outcome is the British-Mauritius treaty, which gives the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius with a 99-year lease for the base. There is a lot in the treaty, yet the most important elements concern money and sovereignty.
As part of the treaty, Britain will give Mauritius hundreds of millions of dollars annually over the next decades. On top of that, Britain will give Mauritius $60 million a year in grants for 25 years. None of that is legally obligated to go to a single Chagossian, many of whom don’t live in Mauritius.
So Britain has committed to giving Mauritius billions of dollars over nearly a century. If it doesn’t make the payments, Mauritius can terminate the treaty.
Much of the news coverage of the deal understandably focuses on the deep ties between Mauritius and China. It is also legitimate to be concerned that Chinese influence operations in Britain will undermine the security of the base. The only thing Chinese proxies, or anyone wanting to undermine American defense operations, would have to do is persuade the British to stop giving taxpayer money to Mauritius. That’s hardly a difficult sell.
Already, British newspaper headlines read, “Mauritius will use cash from Labour’s Chagos Islands deal to scrap income tax.” A hundred years is a long time, and nothing guarantees that Britain will pay its bills that long.
This arrangement raises a more fundamental question: Why does Mauritius have such power in this? Chagossians are culturally and linguistically different from Mauritians. Their lands were administered by Mauritius for a while, but that was a colonial administration, a structure from which we were supposed to be moving. Britain’s handing of Chagos to Mauritius without a referendum that asks Chagossians what they want for their future is simply handing them from one colonial power to another. It isn’t de-colonizing Chagos; it’s simply de-Britishing it.
The United States has faced a similar situation but solved it differently. After World War II, a vast tract of islands in the central and western Pacific that had been administered by Japan came under U.S. administration. While Britain was trying to figure out what to do in Chagos, the U.S. set up the Micronesian Congress, where the people of the region’s islands could discuss their future.
Eventually, one group voted, through a referendum, to join the United States. That became the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. Three other groups decided, through referendums, to become independent countries and to sign compacts of free association with the U.S. that, among other things, allow their people to live and work in the U.S. while granting the U.S. defense rights and responsibilities.
These are the Republics of Palau, Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia.
Although not perfect, these agreements have stood the test of time, at least in part because the sovereignty of the people affected was foundational to them. Although a referendum of Chagossians spread over several countries is complex, it is not impossible. It could also open new options.
For example, many in India have expressed interest in closer ties with Chagos. Chagos is physically closer to India than Mauritius, and India is similarly worried about Chinese encroachment in the region. Should India be more engaged with Chagos, Diego Garcia could expand to establish a Quad (+British) base. If India is willing, among the options the Chagossians could be offered in a referendum are: joining Mauritius, joining India, remaining in Britain, or having compacts of free association with India, Britain or even the U.S.
The point is, they would have something they don’t have now: a choice.
This treaty doesn’t decolonize or make the region more secure. The situation calls for an urgent reevaluation informed by a wider set of options. The Footprint of Freedom is on unsteady ground.
• Alexander B. Gray, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, served as deputy assistant to the president and chief of staff of the White House National Security Council (2019-2021). Cleo Paskal is a nonresident senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.