Îlois | |
|---|---|
 | |
 Chagossian man harvesting coconuts, photographed shortly before the first United States encampment, 1971. | |
| Total population | |
| ~10,000[3] | |
| Regions with significant populations | |
| Languages | |
| Chagossian Creole · Mauritian Creole · Seychellois Creole · English · French | |
| Religion | |
| PredominantlyChristianity[4] | |
| Related ethnic groups | |
| Mauritian Creoles,Seychellois Creoles,Black Africans |
TheChagossians — also calledChagos Islanders orÎlois[il.wa][5] — are anAfro-Asian ethnic group originating from freed African slaves as well as people of Asian (Indian andMalay) descent brought to theChagos Islands, specificallyDiego Garcia,Peros Banhos, and theSalomon island chain, in the late 18th century.[6] Under international law, they are theindigenous peoples of the Chagos archipelago, as they are descended from the earliest human settlers of the islands.[7] Most Chagossians now live inMauritius,Seychelles, and theUnited Kingdom after theforcible removal by the British government in the late 1960s and early 1970s so that Diego Garcia, the island where most Chagossians lived, could serve as the location for a jointUnited Kingdom–United States military base. Today, no Chagossians are allowed to live on the island of Diego Garcia, nor anywhere in the Chagos Archipelago, despite many of the once-inhabited islands being over 160 kilometres (86 nmi) away from Diego Garcia.
The Chagossians are a mix of African, Indian and Malay descent.[6] The French brought some to the Chagos Islands asslaves from Mauritius in 1786.[citation needed] Others arrived as fishermen, farmers, and coconut plantation workers during the 19th century.
The Chagossians speakChagossian Creole, aFrench-based creole language whose vocabulary also incorporates words originating in various African and Asian languages and is part of theBourbonnais Creole family. Chagossian Creole is still spoken by some of their descendants inMauritius and theSeychelles. Chagossian people living in the UK speakEnglish. Some settled in the town ofCrawley inWest Sussex, and the Chagossian community there numbered approximately 3,000 in 2016,[8] which increased to 3,500 in 2024.[9] Manchester also has a Chagossian community, which has included artistAudrey Albert.[10]
The British government separated the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius, creating a new colony in Africa, the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). To avoid accountability to the United Nations for its continued colonial rule, the UK falsely claimed that the Chagos had no permanent population.[11]
In 2016, the British government rejected the right of the Chagossians to return to the islands after a 45-year legaldispute.[12][13] In 2019, theInternational Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the United Kingdom did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and that the administration of the archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" toMauritius.[14] Since this, theUnited Nations General Assembly and theInternational Tribunal for the Law of the Sea have reached similar decisions. China abstained in the 2019 UN vote, which was a step towards reaching an agreement to return the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius.[15]
In October 2024, the UK agreed to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and stated that Mauritius "will now be free to implement a programme of resettlement on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago, other than Diego Garcia". The UK will also set up a trust fund for the scattered Chagossian diaspora, now numbering 10,000.[16][17] In 2021, Mauritius amended its Criminal Code to outlaw "Misrepresenting the sovereignty of Mauritius over any part of its territory", with the penalty of a fine or jail term up to 10 years but only for a "person who [is] acting under the authority or instructions of, or pursuant to a contract with, or with the direct or indirect financial support of, a foreign State or any organ or agency of such a State"[18]
In 1793, when the first successful colony was founded on Diego Garcia,coconutplantations were established on many of the atolls and isolated islands of the archipelago. Initially the workers were enslaved Africans,[clarification needed] but after 1840 they were freemen, many of whom were descended from those earlier enslaved. They formed an inter-island culture calledIlois (aFrench Creole word meaning Islanders).[19]
In 1965, as part of a deal to grant Mauritian independence, the UK separated theChagos Archipelago, at the time a part of itsMauritius territory, from the colony and reorganized it as theBritish Indian Ocean Territory.[20] The UK also labelled the Chagossians, whose ancestral links to the territory go back to the late 18th century, as “transient workers” to avoid breaching International Law.[17] The territory's newconstitution was set out in astatutory instrument imposed unilaterally with no referendum or consultation with the Chagossians and it envisaged no democratic institutions.[21] On 16 April 1971, the United Kingdom issued a policy called BIOT Immigration Ordinance #1 which made it a criminal offence for those without military clearance to be on the islands without a permit.[22]
Between 1967 and 1973, the Chagossians, then numbering over 1,000 people, wereexpelled by the British government, first to the island ofPeros Banhos, 100 miles (160 km) away from their homeland, and then, in 1973, to Mauritius.[23] A number of Chagossians who were evicted reported that they were threatened with being shot or bombed if they did not leave the island.[22] One old man reported toThe Washington Post journalist David Ottaway that an American official told him, "If you don't leave you won't be fed any longer."[22] BIOT commissionerBruce Greatbatch later ordered all dogs on the island to be killed. Meanwhile, food stores on the island were allowed to deplete in order to pressure the remaining inhabitants to leave.[22] The Chagossians owned no real property on the islands and lived in housing provided for farm workers by the absentee landowners of the plantations. The forced expulsion of the Chagossians after the acquisition of the plantations from their absentee landlords by the British Government was for the purpose of establishing aUnited States air and naval base onDiego Garcia, with a population of between 3,000 and 5,000 U.S. soldiers and support staff, as well as a few troops from the United Kingdom.[22] Their exile is referred to as the "dérasiné" in the Chagossian language.[24]
In early April 2006, in an excursion organised and financed by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a group of around a hundred Chagossians were permitted to visit theBritish Indian Ocean Territory for the first time in over thirty years.[25]
In April 2006, theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a lawsuit byLouis Olivier Bancoult and other Chagossians, finding that their claims were a non-justiciablepolitical question, i.e. a question that U.S. courts cannot handle because it is properly the business of the Congress to address it legislatively.[26][27]
On 11 May 2006, the Chagossians won their case in theHigh Court of Justice in England, which found that they were entitled to return to the Chagos Archipelago. It remained to be seen how this judgment might be implemented in practice.[28] However, in June 2006 the British government filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal against the High Court's decision. TheForeign and Commonwealth Office put forward an argument based on thetreatment of the Japanese Canadians following the attacks on Pearl Harbor.[29]
After the Court of Appeal had upheld the decision of the High Court, the British government appealed successfully to theJudicial Committee of the House of Lords. On 22 October 2008, theLaw Lords reached adecision on the appeal made by theSecretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,David Miliband. They found in favour of the Government in a 3–2 verdict, ending the legal process in the UK and dashing the islanders' hopes of return. The judges who voted to allow the government's appeal wereLord Hoffmann,Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, andLord Carswell; those dissenting wereLord Bingham of Cornhill andLord Mance.[30]
In 2016, the British government denied the right of the Chagossians to return to the islands after a 45-year legal dispute.[12]
In 2019, theInternational Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that the United Kingdom did not have sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and that the administration of the archipelago should be handed over "as rapidly as possible" to Mauritius.[14] TheUnited Nations General Assembly then voted to give Britain a six-month deadline to begin the process of handing-over the islands.[31]
In April 2010, the British Government—specifically, the British diplomatColin Roberts, acting on the instructions ofDavid Miliband[32]—established a marine nature reserve around the Chagos Islands known as theChagos Marine Protected Area.[33] The designation proved controversial as the decision was announced during a period when theUK Parliament was in recess.[34]
On 1 December 2010, a leakedUS Embassy Londondiplomatic cable dating back to 2009[35] exposed British and US calculations in creating the marine nature reserve. The cable relays exchanges between US Political Counselor Richard Mills and British Director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Colin Roberts, in which Roberts "asserted that establishing a marine park would, in effect,put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago's former residents". Richard Mills concludes:
Establishing a marine reserve might, indeed, as the FCO's Roberts stated, be the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands' former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling in the [British Indian Ocean Territory].
However, the cable also mentions that "there are proposals (for a marine park) that could provide the Chagossians warden jobs". As of 2018, no such jobs exist. The cable (reference ID "09LONDON1156")[36][37] wasclassified asconfidential and "no foreigners", and leaked as part of theCablegate cache.
Armed with theWikiLeaks revelations, the Chagossians launched an appeal, seeking a judgement that the reserve was unlawfully aimed at preventing them from returning home. AlthoughUnited States Army soldierChelsea Manning had been arrested nearly three years previously for the leaks, the UK government felt unable to confirm to the court that the leaked documents were genuine.[38] It was made clear to the court that the government's inability to confirm was for two reasons: firstly, to protect itself from the charge that it created the reserve to prevent the islanders from ever returning home and, secondly, out of a purported fear that the US government might get angry if the cables were acknowledged as genuine.[38] Despite the contents of his cable being known—"a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago's former residents"—Roberts denied, when questioned in court, that there was an "ulterior motive" behind the reserve's establishment.[38] Lord Justice Richards and Mr. Justice Mitting then refused to accept the documents as evidence, declaring that to do so would breach diplomatic privilege.The Guardian described their decision as having "far-reaching consequences" and "a severe setback for the use of material obtained from leaks or whistleblowers".[39] In June 2013, the pair of judges turned down the appeal brought by the Chagossians, ruling that the reserve was compatible with EU law.[32]
It emerged in 2014 that—for three decades, in violation of environmental rules—the American navy had dumped hundreds of tonnes of sewage and waste water into a protected lagoon on Diego Garcia.[40] In response to the revelations, the chair of the Chagos Refugees Group UK Branch,Sabrina Jean, noted:
When we Chagossians lived on our islands, the seas and lagoons were pristine.…For many years we have been pressing BIOT to conduct an environmental audit of the effects of the US occupation. This has been consistently refused, with the explanation that the impact of the occupation is minimal. We can now see that throughout this period there have been no controls on the pollution.[41]
TheWikiLeakscables revealed diplomatic cables between the US and UK about the Chagossians.[42] A cable written byD.A. Greenhill on 24 August 1966 to a US State Department official refers to the Chagossians as "some fewTarzans orMan Fridays".[43]
Similar language appears in a 2009 US State Department cable (09LONDON1156), which offered a description of the UK government's views about the effect of the Marine Protection Act:
However, Roberts stated that, according to the HMG's current thinking on a reserve, there would be "no human footprints" or "Man Fridays" on the BIOT's uninhabited islands. He asserted that establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago's former residents.[37]
On 5 March 2012, a petition was launched onWe the People section of thewhitehouse.gov website in order to ask theWhite House in the United States to consider the Chagos case.[44]
The petition read as follows:
The U.S. Government Must Redress Wrongs Against the ChagossiansFor generations, the Chagossians lived on theChagos Archipelago in theIndian Ocean. But in the 1960s, the U.S. and U.K. governments expelled the Chagossians from their homes to allow the United States to build a military base on Diego Garcia. Facing social, cultural, and economic despair, the Chagossians now live as a marginalized community inMauritius andSeychelles and have not been allowed to return home. The recent passing of the oldest member of theexiled population underscores the urgent need to improve thehuman rights of the Chagossians. We cannot let others die without the opportunity to return home and obtain redress. The United States should provide relief to the Chagossians in the form of resettlement to the outer Chagos islands, employment, and compensation.[45]
On 4 April 2012, the sufficient number of 25,000 signatures was met to require a response from theOffice of the President under its policy.[46] An undated response was posted on the White House petition web site by theUnited States Department of State, in the name ofMichael Posner (Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor),Philip H. Gordon (Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs) andAndrew J. Shapiro (Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs).[47] The response read as follows:
Thank you for your petition regarding the former inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago. The U.S. recognizes the British Indian Ocean Territories, including the Chagos Archipelago, as the sovereign territory of the United Kingdom. The United States appreciates the difficulties intrinsic to the issues raised by the Chagossian community.
In the decades following the resettlement of Chagossians in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the United Kingdom has taken numerous steps to compensate former inhabitants for the hardships they endured, including cash payments and eligibility for British citizenship. The opportunity to become a British citizen has been accepted by approximately 1,000 individuals now living in the United Kingdom. Today, the United States understands that the United Kingdom remains actively engaged with the Chagossian community. Senior officials from the United Kingdom continue to meet with Chagossian leaders; community trips to the Chagos Archipelago are organized and paid for by the United Kingdom; and the United Kingdom provides support for community projects within the United Kingdom and Mauritius, to include a resource center in Mauritius. The United States supports these efforts and the United Kingdom's continued engagement with the Chagossian Community.
Thank you for taking the time to raise this important issue with us.[45]
A Chagossian resettlement plan, overseen by international experts, will be discussed in June 2025.[48] In June 2025, the Great British PAC,[clarification needed] with militant of right of chagossien launched a legal action aimed at demonstrating the illegal actions of the British government in signing this restitution agreement.[49]
The agreement may be renewed for an additional 40 years after the initial 99-year period, and for an additional period thereafter.[50]
On June 10, 2025, UN experts called for the suspension of a recently signed agreement between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, warning that it failed to protect the rights of the displaced Chagossian people. “By maintaining a foreign military presence of the United Kingdom and the United States on Diego Garcia and preventing the Chagossian people from returning… the agreement appears to be in contradiction with the Chagossian right of return,” according to the experts. The experts criticized the lack of provisions allowing access to cultural sites or the preservation of the Chagossian heritage. They called on the two countries to renegotiate the restitution agreement, stating, “We call for the suspension of ratification of the agreement and the negotiation of a new agreement that fully guarantees the rights of the Chagossian people”.[51]
The British House of Lords is considering a motion arguing against ratification of the treaty on June 30, 2025.[52]
In July 2025, a legal action demanding that the British government consult with the Chagossians before transferring sovereignty of their territory progressed before the High Court. The judicial review, initiated by Chagossian claimant Louis Misley Mandarin with the support of the Great British PAC, was accepted and fast-tracked by the High Court, with a decision set for July 2025.[53]
The legal definition of the term "indigenous" varies widely by legal system, with classification as an indigenous being based on a variety of factors. The Chagossians are officially recognized as an Indigenous people by many entities including but not limited to theUnited Nations,[7]Cultural Survival,[54]Human Rights Watch,[55] andMinority Rights Group International.[56] In a memo to the American government,Paul Gore-Booth promised the American government that there would be no indigenous people in the islands except for seagulls – not that the islands had no indigenous people.[57] In a 1970 memo, UK Foreign Office lawyer Anthony Aust emphasised the government's intention to "maintain the fiction that the inhabitants of Chagos are not a permanent or semi-permanent population" and dedicated an entire paragraph to outlining plans for "maintaining the fiction".[55] In 1968 Foreign SecretaryMichael Stewart wrote in a secret document that "by any stretch of the English language, there was an indigenous population and theForeign Office knew it."[58] They are designated as a national minority by the government of Mauritius.[24]
Chagos Islands dispute | ||
|---|---|---|
| History |  | |
| Key groups and people | ||
| Legal cases |
| |
| Media | ||
