In the 1960s, British and American officials forcibly removed the Chagossians from their homeland to make way for a military base. They created a moral and political liability that still undermines the legitimacy of Diego Garcia today.
As sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago formally passes to Mauritius, Western powers see a critical opportunity: continue to ignore the rightful claims of the displaced islanders, or finally address this historic injustice.
What military planners often fails to recognise is that securing justice for the Chagossians isn’t just the morally right thing to do.
It’s the most reliable way to ensure the long-term stability of this strategic base.
The Lingering Shadow of Displacement
The story of the Chagossians remains one of the most shameful chapters in Britain’s history.
Families who had lived on the islands for generations were uprooted with brutal efficiency – some tricked into leaving for medical treatment, others forcibly loaded onto ships with only what they could carry.
The new agreement between the UK and Mauritius does little to rectify this wrong. It offers limited resettlement rights to outer islands while keeping Diego Garcia itself off-limits to its original inhabitants.
This half-hearted approach solves nothing. It’s leaving the fundamental injustice untouched and ensuring the issue will continue to fester.
Military strategists might dismiss such concerns as sentimental, but they do so at their peril.
The continued exclusion of the Chagossians provides a permanent rallying point for critics of the base, both in Mauritius and internationally.
Each time the UK or U.S. rejects their claims, it reinforces the narrative that Diego Garcia remains an outpost of colonial say-so rather than a mutually beneficial security asset.
The Gulf Precedent: When Allies Say No
Recent history shows how quickly military access can evaporate when host nations reconsider their alliances.
Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia and the UAE refused to allow American strikes on Iran to originate from their territory. Diego Garcia suddenly became Washington's only viable alternative in the region.
While Mauritius currently lacks comparable leverage, the transfer of sovereignty changes this equation.
Port Louis may have agreed to a long-term lease now, but political winds shift. Unresolved grievances provide ready-made justification for renegotiation.
A just settlement for the Chagossians would remove this vulnerability.
By addressing the moral stain at the heart of Diego Garcia’s existence, the UK and U.S. would make it far harder for future Mauritian governments to challenge the base’s presence.
Righting this wrong wouldn’t weaken the military mission – it would inoculate it against political challenges for generations to come.
The False Choice Between Security and Justice
Defense officials often frame this as a zero-sum game: either protect the base’s operational integrity or accommodate the Chagossians’ rights.
This is a fallacy.
The current agreement already demonstrates that limited resettlement is possible without compromising security, as outer islands will reopen to Chagossians while Diego Garcia remains a restricted military zone.
The smarter approach would be to expand this principle, offering meaningful compensation, genuine resettlement options, and a formal role in environmental stewardship of the archipelago.
Consider the alternative: every year that passes without justice fuels the Chagossians’ campaign and strengthens Mauritius’ moral authority to revisit the terms of the base agreement.
The louder this movement grows, the more pressure future Mauritian governments will face to assert greater control.
By contrast, a comprehensive settlement would transform the Chagossians from adversaries into stakeholders invested in the base’s continuity.
A Sustainable Future for Diego Garcia
The path forward is clear but requires political courage.
First, the UK must acknowledge the full extent of its wrongdoing and offer proper reparations – not just symbolic payments but investments in housing, healthcare, and education for displaced families.
Second, resettlement rights should extend beyond symbolic gestures, allowing Chagossians to rebuild communities on islands where security concerns don’t preclude civilian presence.
Third, the Chagossians deserve a formal consultative role in decisions affecting their homeland, particularly regarding environmental protection of these ecologically fragile islands.
These measures wouldn’t weaken Diego Garcia’s military value; they would secure it by removing the single greatest threat to its political legitimacy.
In an era of shifting alliances and rising anti-colonial sentiment, a base built on justice and mutual benefit will prove far more durable than one maintained through legal technicalities and brute force.
The lesson for Western strategists is simple: in the Indian Ocean, as elsewhere, lasting security is built on fairness, not just firepower.
Keep up with Daily Euro Times for more updates!
Read also:
Modi’s Vision of India Comes Up Against the South
Diego-Garcia Deal Hangs in the Balance
Fifty-Fifty Split: Botswana’s Path to a Better Diamond Deal
