Follow us on social

Diego Garcia

No, Mauritius isn't planning to 'give' US base at Diego Garcia to China

Biden can put these baseless smears to bed by finalizing the treaty before he leaves

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

Anti-China fearmongers on both sides of the Atlantic are pushing U.S. President-elect Donald Trump to overturn the rule of international law and a surprising recent victory for diplomacy — rather than military might — to resolve international disputes.

Backed by conservative and other news outlets, a campaign of disinformation, smears, and falsehoods is escalating to get Trump to try to tank a historic deal announced in October that actually gives the U.S. military exactly what it wants: control of its base on the secretive Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia for 99 years or more.

In his final days as president, Joe Biden should help formalize the Diego Garcia deal in a planned treaty while correcting the glaring error in the announced agreement.

Failing to finalize the deal could have grave consequences for emboldening Trump, undermining the rule of law, and further delaying justice for the long-ignored Chagossian people who were exiled from their homeland by the U.S. and UK governments during the creation of the U.S. base on Diego Garcia in the 1960s and 1970s.

The Diego Garcia deal

Diego Garcia is the tiny island, smaller than Manhattan, in the middle of the Indian Ocean that’s home to a major U.S. Navy and Air Force base. The military built the base thanks to a secret agreement with the United Kingdom, which has controlled Diego Garcia and the rest of the surrounding Chagos Archipelago since 1814.

In exchange for the Pentagon’s covert transfer of $14 million, the British government agreed to U.S. officials’ request that they remove the Chagossians. The people’s African and Indian ancestors had lived in the islands since the time of the American Revolution. During the deportations, British agents and U.S. military personnel even gassed Chagossians’ pet dogs to death, burning their carcasses. Chagossians quickly found themselves living in exile in profound poverty.

Diego Garcia shot into the news last month when the governments of the United Kingdom and the Indian Ocean nation of Mauritius announced an agreement settling their decades-old sovereignty dispute over Chagos. For the first time, the UK acknowledged the sovereignty of Mauritius, which previously was a British colony united with Chagos — until the U.S. military came looking for a base. Most in the international community have recognized Mauritian sovereignty since the International Court of Justice and the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly came to this conclusion in 2019.

For its part, Mauritius agreed to allow Britain to continue to exercise sovereignty rights over Diego Garcia for a period of at least 99 years to allow the continued operation of the U.S. base. In exchange the United Kingdom will make annual rental payments and provide other support to Mauritius.

The two governments further announced that Britain would provide a compensation fund for the Chagossians and for the first time in more than 50 years, the islanders would be allowed to return to all but one of their islands. To the people’s dismay, the agreement continues to bar them from living on Diego Garcia.

Right wing critics in the UK and the United States pounced on the Chagos deal to bash the new Labour Party government and the Biden-Harris administration. They spouted a range of bogus theories suggesting the agreement would benefit China because the Chinese government might establish a military or spy presence on the other Chagos islands or because Mauritius might somehow “give” Diego Garcia to the Chinese.

Both reputable and not-so-reputable news outlets repeated these claims without fact checking or questioning whether they have any factual basis.

They do not.

‘Baseless smear’

The idea that Mauritius will let the Chinese military build a base in some of the Chagos islands or give the base on Diego Garcia to the Chinese has no basis in reality. “Baseless smear” is how political scientist and Diego Garcia expert Peter Harris described an accusation he has repeatedly debunked.

“There is no evidence–none, zero, zilch–that Mauritius has any interest in hosting a Chinese base or that China has an interest in a Mauritian base. They’re not allies or security partners or particularly close in any way other than a trade deal. It’s a straight up smear,” Harris told me in an email.

It’s hard to overstate how absurd the critics' narrative is. The Chagos deal was clearly blessed by the U.S. government and demonstrates the deep alliance between the three countries. “I applaud the historic agreement,” President Biden said. The deal effectively gives the U.S. military, as well as the UK government, a 99-year lease on Diego Garcia, ending a decades-long political and legal headache for both.

This tall tale about Beijing taking over is particularly nonsensical because Mauritius’s other closest ally is not China but India, whose greatest rival (other than Pakistan) historically has been China.

The idea that Mauritius is aligned with or under the thumb of China is based on nothing more than the fact of Mauritius — like the US, UK, and almost every country on Earth — being a significant trading partner with China and receiving some Chinese loans. Mauritius is one of only two African countries that is not part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

In other words, opponents of the deal have grasped at the convenient straw of anti-China fearmongering to shamelessly support maintaining old school Anglo-American colonial control in Chagos. In an apparent sign of desperation, some opponents are now peddling a new and equally bogus theory that Russia is actually controlling the Mauritian government.The absurdity of all these attacks, particularly from those in Britain's Conservative Party, deepens given that negotiations to return Chagos to Mauritius started under Conservative Party Prime Minister Liz Truss in 2022.

Finalizing and fixing the treaty

President Biden, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and new Prime Minister of Mauritius Navin Ramgoolam should ignore the disinformation campaign and quickly finalize the Chagos treaty, which represents a rare, if partial, victory for international law and the decolonization movement.

In finalizing the treaty, the three governments must correct the major problem in the deal announced in October: Barring Chagossians from returning home to Diego Garcia perpetuates their exile and decades of injustice. Returning to the other Chagos islands, at least 150 miles away, is not the same as returning to Diego Garcia where most Chagossians were born and have their ancestors buried.

Continuing the Diego Garcia ban also violates the International Court of Justice’s ruling and a U.N. General Assembly resolution demanding the UK and other countries uphold Chagossians’ full human rights and aid their resettlement.

While U.S. and UK officials have long used “security” concerns to justify banning Chagossians from Diego Garcia, Chagossians could live on the other half of Diego Garcia, miles from the base, just as civilians live near U.S. bases worldwide, including at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Civilian laborers who are neither U.S. nor UK citizens already live and work on the base.

Before Donald Trump takes office, President Biden and the leaders of the UK and Mauritius must finalize their treaty recognizing Mauritian sovereignty over Chagos and allowing Chagossians to return to all their islands including Diego Garcia. For a president whose foreign policy record is a blight on his legacy, Biden has a chance to make a powerful final statement in support of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Biden should go farther by issuing a formal apology for the U.S. government’s leading role in exiling the Chagossians and commit the U.S. to assisting resettlement.

Once Trump takes office, perhaps his ability to question foreign policy orthodoxy and desire to cut government waste will lead him to ask why the United States is spending billions of dollars to maintain a military base in the Indian Ocean, thousands of miles from U.S. borders — and then take steps to close it.

Contrary to bogus claims that Diego Garcia plays a “vital” security role, the base has been a launchpad for the catastrophic endless wars in the Middle East that Trump claims to oppose.

First and foremost, the simple truth is that President Biden can and must help Chagossians return home.


Top image credit: DIEGO GARCIA, British Indian Ocean Territory – Sailors assigned to U.S. Navy Support Facility Diego Garcia watch as HMS Tamar (P233), the fourth of the five Batch 2 River-class offshore patrol vessels operated by the Royal Navy, arrives in Diego Garcia for a scheduled port visit Feb. 15, 2023. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jesus O. Aguiar)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: Inspired by maps via shutterstock.com

How the US could use Iran's uranium enrichment to its own advantage

Middle East

Since mid-April, Iran and the United States held numerous rounds of nuclear negotiations that have made measured progress — until Washington abruptly stated that Iran had no right to enrich uranium. Moreover, 200 members of the U.S. Congress sent president Trump a letter opposing any deal that would allow Iran to retain uranium enrichment capability.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei called U.S. demands “excessive and outrageous” and “nonsense.” Since the beginning of the Iranian nuclear crisis in 2003, Tehran has drawn a clear red line: the peaceful right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is non-negotiable.

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest 3

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.