The Maldivian government has asked UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham to reopen sovereignty talks on the Chagos Archipelago, instead of transferring control to Mauritius.
The Chagos Archipelago dispute, referred to as Foalhavahi in the Maldives, has progressed to a new stage as the Government of Maldives has officially requested UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham to resume sovereignty discussions instead of finalizing a transfer to Mauritius. The letter dated September 2026 emphasizes unresolved issues concerning history, human rights, taxpayer expenses, and domestic constitutional processes, which cannot be limited to a UK–Mauritius agreement.
The islands lie in the central Indian Ocean, roughly 500 km south of the Maldives and more than four times that distance from Mauritius. They host the US–UK military facility on Diego Garcia. Britain detached the archipelago from colonial Mauritius in 1965 and administered it as the British Indian Ocean Territory. In a 2019 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice, which was later endorsed by the UN General Assembly, deemed the detachment as unlawful and supported Mauritius’s claim in the context of decolonization. The Maldives has consistently maintained that historical, cultural, and geographical factors provide it with a stronger interest.
Forced displacement and unresolved rights
Between the late 1960s and 1973, British authorities forcibly removed the entire Chagossian population, estimated at 1,500 to 2,000 individuals, from Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos, Salomon, and other atolls to facilitate the construction of a joint military base. The displaced islanders were relocated to Mauritius or the Seychelles with minimal support, and subsequent generations have also settled in the United Kingdom. Human Rights Watch and other organizations have characterized the expulsion and the prolonged denial of the right to return as serious violations, with some analyses labeling them as ongoing crimes against humanity. Pets were killed, supplies were cut off, and the community was treated as temporary laborers rather than as a people with deep roots on the islands. Compensation and limited visits have not reinstated a general right of residence on Diego Garcia. Any lasting resolution must address these claims, beyond merely considering the strategic basing rights of major powers. Historically, Chagos was not isolated; it was part of a busy maritime highway during the era before the opening of the Suez Canal
in the 19th century, with slaves from Africa and the Maldives sharing a similar narrative to that of the capital, Malé.
The 2025 treaty and its cost to British taxpayers
In May 2025 the Starmer government signed an agreement transferring sovereignty to Mauritius while keeping UK operational control of Diego Garcia for an initial 99-year period, extendable thereafter. Mauritius could resettle Chagossians on outer islands (not Diego Garcia) and create a marine protected area. The UK agreed to payments averaging £101 million a year in 2025/26 prices, with a net present value of about £3.4 billion. Cash payments start higher, £165 million for each of the first three years, then £120 million, later inflation-adjusted\,plus development and trust-fund elements. Critics say the undiscounted cash cost over a century could reach tens of billions of pounds and that the deal surrenders territory while exposing the base to future political risk. Implementation stalled in 2026 after opposition from US President Donald Trump. Burnham, who succeeded Starmer in July 2026, has been reported as inclined to continue the plan, though ratification remains incomplete.
Maldivian waters, Foalhavahi, and the 2022 letter
The objection from Male is substantial. Acknowledging Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago impacts overlapping claims to the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf to the south. In 2019, the Maldives was among the six countries that voted against a UN General Assembly resolution supporting the International Court of Justice's opinion, due to concerns about its 2010 submission regarding the outer continental shelf. A subsequent policy shift under the 2018 JP MRM Adhaalath MDP Coalition Government led to significant domestic controversy.
In August , the JP MRM Adhaalath MDP Coalition Government sent a confidential letter to the Prime Minister of Mauritius, indicating that the Maldives would support a UN resolution reflecting the ICJ advisory opinion, thereby effectively recognizing Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. This letter was not presented to the People’s Majlis. Opponents and the current government contend that any changes affecting territorial or maritime sovereignty require parliamentary approval, including a two-thirds majority, as per their interpretation of the Constitution. They argue that the letter was kept confidential, issued during the ITLOS proceedings, and undermined Male’s negotiating position. The JP MRM Adhaalath MDP Coalition responded by stating that the letter pertained solely to a diplomatic UN vote and did not compromise EEZ claims before the tribunal.
ITLOS did not rest its jurisdiction or the 2023 boundary on that letter. In 2021 the Special Chamber had already treated Mauritius as the coastal state because of the ICJ advisory opinion and related UN action, rejecting the Maldives’ argument that an unresolved UK–Mauritius sovereignty dispute barred delimitation. The 2023 merits judgment then drew an equidistance line in the overlapping 200-nautical-mile zones, allocating 47,232 km² to the Maldives and 45,331 km² to Mauritius. Correspondence between the two leaders was noted as goodwill on a side matter, not as the source of title. A later domestic withdrawal of a letter cannot, by itself, unwind a final UNCLOS delimitation between the two parties
In February 2026, the Government of Maldives officially rescinded the 2022 letter.
as unconstitutional and contrary to national interest, announced a national inquiry, rejected the ITLOS line, reasserted a full southward EEZ, and revived a historical claim to Foalhavahi grounded in Dhivehi place-names, a 16th-century royal decree, fishing practice, and proximity. Mauritius responded by suspending diplomatic relations. Male has notified London that it does not recognize the 2025 transfer and has asked Burnham for direct talk.
The UK Foreign Office has replied that sovereignty is a matter solely between the United Kingdom and Mauritius. That stance treats decolonization as a closed two-party process even though the nearest neighbour, the expelled Chagossian community.
Until those issues are handled together rather than in sequence, letter withdrawn at home, boundary rejected at sea, lease priced in London, islanders still in exile,the Chagos question will remain unsettled, whatever paper title any one capital asserts.
Comments