Chagos Resettlement Deal Stalls as Aging Islanders Fear They Will Never Return Home

A landmark agreement that would allow displaced Chagossians to resettle on their Indian Ocean homeland remains in limbo, with elderly members of the community warning that time may run out before they can set foot on the islands from which they were removed more than five decades ago.

The treaty, signed by Britain and Mauritius on May 22, 2025, would transfer sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius while permitting the United Kingdom to retain rights over the Diego Garcia military base for an initial 99-year period. Under its terms, Mauritius would be empowered to arrange resettlement for Chagossians on islands other than Diego Garcia, which hosts a joint UK-US military facility. Despite being signed more than a year ago, the agreement has yet to enter into force.

The delay has been driven in part by opposition from US President Donald Trump, who in January publicly criticized the arrangement, labeling it "an act of great stupidity" and raising doubts about whether it sufficiently safeguarded the Diego Garcia base. The intervention introduced a new layer of uncertainty into a process that had been viewed as a diplomatic breakthrough.

Olivier Bancoult, a leading figure in the Chagos Refugees Group, described the emotional toll of the waiting game. Recalling a funeral where sand from Chagos was scattered into an elder's tomb to honor his dying wish to return home, Bancoult said the community remains resolute despite the obstacles. "We remain unshaken by Trump's interference in the Chagos deal," he said, pointing to a series of international legal rulings that he argued vindicate the Chagossian cause.

Those rulings include a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice in favor of the archipelago's return to Mauritius, a 2021 judgement from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the 2025 treaty itself. Bancoult said these decisions have restored the community's dignity and reinforced their faith in their rights as native Chagossians. "International law is squarely on our side," he added.

The historical backdrop to the dispute is deeply fraught. Britain separated the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, three years before the latter achieved independence. Between 1968 and 1973, British authorities removed an estimated 1,400 to 1,700 Chagossians from the islands, resettling many in Mauritius and the Seychelles, with others later relocating to the United Kingdom. It was made illegal for them to remain on or return to the islands without permission.

A central concern now is the advancing age of those born on the archipelago. Bancoult noted that Chagossians born there are now between 58 and 100 years old, and that several elders have died this year alone. For him, the critical question is whether they will live long enough to see the treaty's promises fulfilled, a sentiment that underscores the urgency behind the stalled negotiations.

The impasse has also had consequences for younger generations. Chrisyl Wong-Hang-Sun, a PhD researcher in anthropology at the University of Edinburgh, said displacement and migration have made it increasingly difficult to preserve Chagossian culture. During her fieldwork, she found that many diaspora members worry about losing words in Chagossian Creole and traditional recipes that are hard to recreate abroad. "Descendants of Chagossians, myself included, long to know the islands of their relatives and ancestors," she said.

The political landscape among Chagossians themselves is far from unified. Wong-Hang-Sun observed that the actions of both the British and Mauritian governments have produced nuanced and divergent political opinions across Chagossian communities in the UK, Mauritius, and the Seychelles. The Chagos Refugees Group has found itself at odds with UK-based second-generation Chagossian Misley Mandarin and his supporters, who favor resettlement under British rather than Mauritian sovereignty and have received backing from Reform UK.

Wong-Hang-Sun argued that these differences should be acknowledged as negotiations proceed, and that both governments need to find ways to prioritize and engage with the Chagossian diaspora as a whole. Her comments highlight a broader challenge: ensuring that the voices of those most directly affected are heard amid high-level diplomatic maneuvering.

In London, the issue has returned to the diplomatic agenda. On September 21, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the UK would work with Mauritius and the United States on a path forward that secures the operation of Diego Garcia and protects UK national security. Days later, on September 26, Mauritian Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam traveled to the UK for talks with British National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell and other officials. Ramgoolam remains in London, with the Mauritian government stating that discussions would cover recent developments concerning the archipelago.

Mauritius has disclosed little about the substance of these latest talks. At the United Nations General Assembly in September, Foreign Minister Dhananjay Ramful reiterated that Mauritius' sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago is "non-negotiable." He described the 2025 agreement as a vindication of international law and affirmed Mauritius' commitment to diplomacy and dialogue. Beyond official statements, however, the government has provided scant detail about the current discussions.

The legislative path in Britain has also stalled. In April, the UK government informed Parliament that the legislation required to implement the agreement could not complete its passage during the 2024–26 parliamentary session. The session ended on April 29, leaving the bill without further progress. This procedural setback, combined with Trump's objections, has contributed to the sense of drift surrounding the treaty.

International relations consultant Bruno Donat, who has previously worked at the United Nations, suggested that Mauritius should focus on sustained engagement with diplomatic partners, including the African Union and smaller states, to maintain momentum. His view reflects a broader recognition that the deal's survival may depend on persistent multilateral pressure and careful management of relations with Washington.

For Chagossians themselves, the stakes could hardly be higher. The treaty represents not only a legal resolution to a long-standing sovereignty dispute but also a promise of return to ancestral lands. For elders who retain memories of the islands and for younger diaspora members seeking to reconnect with their heritage, the delays carry a profound human cost. As negotiations continue behind closed doors, the question of whether the agreement can be salvaged—and whether it can be implemented in time for those who remember Chagos firsthand—remains unresolved.