Chagos Talks: Why Three Parties Must Agree on Diego Garcia

On Friday 3 October, Mauritius Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam met with Jonathan Powell, the British Prime Minister's National Security Adviser, in London. The meeting, which lasted more than a brief courtesy call, centred on the unresolved question of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and the future of the Diego Garcia military base, one of the most strategically significant installations in the Indian Ocean.

The Chagos Islands, officially known as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), have been at the heart of a long-running dispute between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. Mauritius argues that the islands were unlawfully separated from its territory before independence in 1968 and has been seeking their return. In 2022, the two governments announced they had agreed to begin formal treaty negotiations, but a final deal has yet to be concluded.

The central complication is what analysts and diplomats refer to as the three-party problem. Any agreement is not simply a bilateral matter between London and Port Louis. The United States, which operates a major joint military base on Diego Garcia under a lease with the UK, has a direct stake in the outcome. Washington's security requirements for the base, which plays a key role in American military operations across Africa, the Middle East and Asia, cannot be set aside in any settlement.

Writing in the Mauritius Times, former African Union Commissioner and Mauritian diplomat Vijay Makhan draws attention to an unusual procedural reference point: the ongoing international attention surrounding Greenland. He is careful to stress that this is not a comparison of the two territorial disputes, which are legally and politically distinct. Rather, the Greenland situation has prompted structured multilateral dialogue about security arrangements in sensitive territories, and that procedural model, involving more than two parties in organised talks, could offer a framework for how Diego Garcia discussions are managed.

Makhan's central argument is that patience among the key players is not unlimited. Mauritius has been waiting for a treaty for years. The political window opened by the current UK government, which appeared more willing than its predecessors to advance the negotiations, may not remain open indefinitely. Domestic political pressures in both London and Washington, as well as in Port Louis, mean that the moment for a workable agreement is now, not later.

What this means: For Mauritius, the Chagos negotiations are both a matter of national sovereignty and a test of whether a small island state can secure its rights through international law and diplomacy. For the UK and US, the stakes are strategic: they need a long-term, legally secure arrangement for Diego Garcia that does not depend on a contested colonial claim. A three-party framework, where the US is formally part of the conversation rather than an off-stage veto, may be the only realistic route to a durable deal. The London meeting suggests that conversation is continuing, but whether it is moving fast enough remains the open question.

Source: Mauritius Times