Chagossians are divided on UK’s sovereignty deal – let them vote!

Chagossian people disagree with each other on the UK- Mauritius Governments’ Chagos Islands sovereignty deal. Surely it’s a reason to let them vote? By Tessa Clarke

Photo: Chagossian campaigners, FOTBOT Rally, 12.11.2024/Tessa Clarke

Several thousand Chagossian people born on the Chagos Islands, or whose parents were, received the news last week that the treaty to give sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius is nearer to being finalised.

No.10 announced that the US administration, whose military base is on one of the islands Diego Garcia, has given the go-ahead for the political deal.

Chagossian people have had no say on the matter.

What do Chagossian people think?

Currently the groups representing Chagossians around the world mainly in the UK, Mauritius, France and Switzerland are divided. Some are happy at the news; others are partly or fully opposed, vowing to fight on for their democratic rights.

Chagossian Voices, a British-based “community platform for the Chagossian Global diaspora”, published its letter to the Government on its Facebook page last week. It was sent to the Foreign Secretary and Special Envoy for British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) negotiations last year.

The letter says, “We deplore the lack of meaningful involvement of Chagossians in the negotiations… and for that, and other reasons, we cannot endorse it.” It goes on to say that human, indigenous and resettlement rights of Chagossian people are not protected if the islands are under future Mauritian control, and that the UK should resolve these issues first.

It is signed by Frankie Bontemps, Chair of Chagossian Voices, and others who are members of organisations that helped set up the group including Chagossian Women’s Welfare Group, Seychelles Chagossians in the UK,  Chagossian Elderly  West Sussex, Chagossians of Manchester, Chagos Asylum People (Mauritius), and the Association Chagossiens de France.

Another UK and Mauritius-based organisation BIOT Citizen opposes the deal too. BIOT Citizen campaigns for Chagossians as citizens of British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) and for the democratic right to return declaring on its Facebook page: “The majority of Chagossians wish to remain British and seek self-determination. We firmly say NO to Mauritius and NO to giving away our UK taxpayers’ resources.”

Not all Chagossians agree

However five Chagossian groups supporting the “Chagos Islands Treaty” have published their own letter on 2 April. The letter says the treaty “will allow us to return to our homeland” and demand the right to return home for more than 50 years after being “exiled, in inhuman circumstances.”

Signed by the Chagos Refugees Group, Chagos Refugees Group (UK branch), Chagos Islanders Movement, Chagos Islanders Movement, Seychelles Chagossians Committee and UK Native Chagossians Council, they agree that “all Chagossians, wherever they live” must have nine key rights. These include, “the right to return to and resettle in our homeland in Chagos [and] the right to make policy and direct the resettlement process in Chagos, to be the first to resettle the islands, and to benefit from resettlement.” They urge the governments to “consult with us while finalising the treaty.”

Sovereignty is nothing without democracy

It’s important to acknowledge that those born on a territory have some kind of claim to it even if they no longer live there. It was their home, their parents’ home or their ancestors’ home. Uprooting people from where they come from against their will can’t be undone by simply providing rights for them to live in a different territory. Every Chagossian I have met yearns to want to live or have the choice of whether to live in the Chagos Islands.

In this case it is particularly crucial to point out the importance of the feeling and rights associated with homeland. It’s not the fault of the islanders they still can’t settle on the islands they call home and are living scattered in different countries. Britain deported them from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s.

So far during the sovereignty negotiations the UK Government has been “listening” to British Chagossians’ concerns in online meetings. The outcome of these meetings is that the UK Government will give money in the form of a Trust Fund to the Mauritian government for distribution. A programme of visits for British Chagossians and others to the islands are to be organised.

But listening, hearing what people have to say, the prospect of financial help but via a foreign government, and the occasional visit is not what many British Chagossians feel is a good enough replacement for the inclusion in negotiations of their democratic rights.

The UK and Mauritian governments know that only some people are happy with this outcome, others want more democratic rights included in the treaty and a sizeable number totally oppose it.

Many British islanders, for example, want democratic rights not handouts, especially when any distribution of money and rights to visit and live on the islands will be reliant on a foreign government (Mauritius) if the treaty is finalised.

Even for the Mauritius-based Chagossians, including those who support the deal, sovereignty for Mauritius means nothing without democracy. No Mauritian Chagossian has democratically expressed their view in a vote about what the treaty should say either.

Nobody has yet seen details of a draft treaty to be able to comment on it or hold leaders to account. Only occasional information is made public from government press offices and the odd politicians or treaty negotiators.

Isn’t this division among people born on the islands and their families a good reason to allow the Chagossian people – wherever they live now – a chance to know what’s being discussed and at least vote on the issues?

British citizens, too, may wish to have more say too other than their representatives in parliament debating a treaty whose terms will already have been agreed by the UK Government using Royal Prerogative powers some time before.

If there was a vote and a less secretive process in deciding this treaty, at least the outcome would be a more democratic one. For us all.

Tessa Clarke/6.4.25/UPDATED 9.4.25