On May 22, the United Kingdom signed an agreement with Mauritius that would transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. For my people, the Chagossians, the decision was taken without our consent and against our clearly expressed wishes. That is why recent scrutiny from Washington, including questions raised by President Donald Trump about the wisdom of the deal, deserves serious attention. The issue is not only justice for an exiled people. It goes to the future of one of the most strategically important military installations in the world.

I am a British Chagossian. My family comes from these islands. Like thousands of others, my ancestors were forcibly removed during the Cold War so that a joint U.S., U.K. military base could be built on Diego Garcia. We have lived in exile ever since. Now we face the prospect of being erased again, this time not by expulsion, but by diplomatic fiat.

A survey overseen in December by the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee recorded overwhelming opposition among Chagossians to the transfer of sovereignty to Mauritius. A clear majority of respondents said they wished to remain British and did not trust Mauritius to safeguard their rights, culture, or future.

That opposition is grounded in law as well as history. Earlier this month, a United Nations committee reaffirmed that the Chagossian people possess a right to self-determination and warned that arrangements reached without their participation risk undermining it. Yet Prime Minister Keir Starmer has indicated his intention to proceed.

In response, Chagossians have taken an unprecedented step. Following an independently organized and verified process involving families expelled between 1967 and 1973, we declared the formation of a Chagossian government in exile to assert that right internationally. I was elected interim first minister to represent that cause.

To most Americans, the Chagos Archipelago is known as Diego Garcia, a linchpin of U.S. power projection across the Indian Ocean, vital to protecting trade routes and sustaining the Indo-Pacific balance. For us, it is home.

We do not oppose the base. Chagossians have long supported the U.S. presence and see it as central to global security and to our own future prosperity. We seek to return as British Chagossians, loyal to the Crown and committed partners of the United States.

The new agreement jeopardizes that stability.

It is not built on durable consent or insulated from political change. Opposition already spans multiple British political parties, several of which have said they would seek to revoke the arrangement or reconsider its financing if they enter government. That leaves Diego Garcia’s future resting on a fragile legal and financial structure, exposed to upheaval in London.

Under terms reported publicly, continued Western access to the base would depend on long-term British payments to Mauritius. Any dispute or disruption could place British and American operations at risk. Once sovereignty transfers, enforcement would lie entirely outside Western control. That matters because it would give Mauritius decisive leverage over one of the most consequential military facilities on Earth.

Mauritius is navigating an era of intense great-power competition and has cultivated ties with multiple external actors, including China. No one can predict future alignments, but introducing a new sovereign authority over Diego Garcia injects uncertainty where today there is relative clarity.

Legal questions remain unresolved. Mauritius is party to the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty, known as the Pelindaba Treaty. Officials say this would not affect Diego Garcia, but treaty frameworks allow for reinterpretation over time. After a transfer, such decisions would no longer be made in London or Washington.

For the United States, whose undersea deterrent and broader Indo-Pacific posture rely on secure, predictable access to the base, these uncertainties are not abstract. They strike at long-term strategic credibility.

There is a better alternative.

The Chagossian people should be recognized as possessing a right to self-determination, a right acknowledged by the United Nations but bypassed by the current agreement. A resettled Chagossian community exercising that right while remaining under British sovereignty would reduce legal vulnerability, stabilize the base’s status, and anchor Diego Garcia within a democratic framework aligned with Western interests.

We are ready to build that future, a renewed civilian presence on the outer islands, economic participation in base operations, and partnerships that strengthen both justice and security.

Trump has said he opposes bad deals. This agreement risks becoming one, for Britain, for America, and for the people whose fate is being decided without their consent.

Washington has an opportunity not to undermine an ally, but to encourage a settlement that respects human rights while safeguarding a strategic asset on which much of the free world depends.

Recognizing Chagossian self-determination would reflect the best of the American tradition, standing with a displaced people seeking to return home while protecting the security architecture that underpins global stability.

Misley Mandarin is the interim first minister of the Chagossian government in exile.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

• About
• Latest Posts

Misley Mandarin

Latest posts by Misley Mandarin (see all)

• Why Chagos Islands matter to US security - February 2, 2026

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.