An Open Letter to President Donald J. Trump on Folhlhavai (Chagos), Decolonisation, and the Integrity of the International Order -

Mr. President,

For more than half a century, the international community has debated the future of the archipelago historically known to Maldivians as Folhlhavai and later designated under colonial administration as Chagos within a framework that has largely confined the question to the competing positions of the United Kingdom and Mauritius. Diplomatic initiatives, judicial proceedings, academic commentary, and international resolutions have proceeded largely upon that assumption. The United Kingdom has defended its administration of the territory, while Mauritius has argued that the archipelago formed part of the colonial territory of Mauritius and must therefore revert to Mauritian sovereignty. That claim derives principally from colonial administrative arrangements and subsequent interpretations of uti possidetis juris rather than from any demonstrated pre-colonial geographical, political, cultural, or historical connection between Mauritius and Folhlhavai. Between these competing positions, a broader historical question gradually disappeared from international discussion, not because it was answered, but because it was never properly asked.

Recent reports suggesting that your Administration is examining alternative arrangements concerning the future of the territory create an opportunity to revisit that question. Whether such reports ultimately lead to policy changes is, for present purposes, less important than the fact that policymakers in Washington are once again examining the legal and strategic future of one of the most consequential territories in the Indian Ocean. At moments such as these, governments have a rare opportunity to look beyond inherited assumptions and reconsider whether the foundations upon which international policy has been constructed are as complete and as secure as they are often presumed to be.

The purpose of this letter is not to challenge the legitimate security interests of the United States. Nor is it to advocate hostility toward any state, people, or community associated with the territory. On the contrary, many Maldivians have long regarded the American presence on Foalhavahi, later designated under colonial administration as Diego Garcia, as an important contributor to maritime security, freedom of navigation, humanitarian response capabilities, and regional stability. The concern raised here is of a different nature. It relates not to military cooperation or strategic partnerships, but to the legal and historical assumptions upon which future decisions concerning Folhlhavai may ultimately rest.

The central issue is straightforward. Before sovereignty can be transferred, recognised, leased, purchased, or otherwise disposed of, there must be confidence that the underlying question of title has been examined through a process that was both complete and fair. Where significant evidence was never considered, where potentially affected parties were never heard, and where critical historical questions remained outside the scope of the process, confidence in the finality of the outcome inevitably becomes more difficult to sustain.

The modern international discussion concerning Folhlhavai generally begins in the colonial period. Yet the history of the archipelago did not begin with colonial administration. Long before the emergence of modern Mauritius, long before the creation of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and long before Foalhavahi acquired its contemporary strategic significance, the islands occupied a place within the maritime geography, navigational traditions, and political consciousness of the Maldives.

In 1561, Sultan Hassan IX of the Maldives, later known as Dom Manoel, styled himself as sovereign of the Seven Islands of Pullobay in a letter addressed to the Portuguese authorities in Goa. That letter was subsequently registered, sealed, and recorded by the Portuguese administration, thereby preserving an important contemporary record of the territorial style claimed by the Maldivian Crown. Several decades later, François Pyrard de Laval referred to the territory as Pollouoys, and recorded expeditions dispatched by Maldivian rulers to the islands. These references are not presented as conclusive proof of sovereignty. Historical evidence rarely operates in such a simplistic manner. They are, however, evidence that predates the colonial administrative arrangements upon which most modern assumptions are built. They form part of a larger historical record that has never received meaningful consideration within the international processes that later purported to determine the future of the territory.

The reasons for that omission may lie in a broader deficiency that extends beyond Folhlhavai itself. During the period in which the United Nations established the modern framework for decolonisation, the Maldives occupied a unique constitutional position. It existed as a British protectorate rather than a fully sovereign state exercising complete control over its external affairs. Article 73(e) of the Charter of the United Nations required administering powers to transmit information concerning territories that had not yet attained a full measure of self-government. That obligation was operationalised through General Assembly Resolution 66 (I) of 14 December 1946, which established the reporting system that would become the foundation of the United Nations framework for Non-Self-Governing Territories. From 1947 onward, numerous colonial territories were reported to the Organisation under that system and became incorporated into the emerging decolonisation process. The Maldives, however, was not included within that framework despite its status as a British protectorate. As a result, the Maldives remained outside the principal international mechanism through which colonial relationships, territorial questions, and claims associated with decolonisation were progressively examined by the United Nations.

The consequences of that omission deserve careful examination. A territory absent from the decolonisation framework cannot place evidence before the international community. A people excluded from the process cannot participate in decisions affecting their historical interests. A state omitted from the relevant mechanisms cannot object when assumptions are adopted that may later acquire legal and political significance. The issue is not merely whether the Maldives possessed a claim. The issue is whether the international system ever created an opportunity for that claim, and the evidence supporting it, to be examined.

This omission acquired particular significance in 1965 when the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 2066 (XX). The resolution addressed the territorial integrity of Mauritius and has since become one of the principal pillars supporting the modern Mauritian position. Yet the process leading to that resolution proceeded without consultation with the Maldives. No inquiry was undertaken into historical Maldivian records relating to Folhlhavai. No effort was made to examine whether the archipelago may have possessed a more complex historical relationship with the Maldives than colonial administrative arrangements suggested. No mechanism existed through which the Maldives could place evidence before the international community because the Maldives itself had been omitted from the framework through which such questions might otherwise have been examined.

Whether one ultimately agrees with the Maldivian position is not the point. The principle at stake is larger than any individual claim. International legitimacy derives not only from outcomes but from the fairness and completeness of the processes through which those outcomes are reached. A decolonisation process that fails to hear one potentially affected party cannot easily be described as comprehensive. A sovereignty narrative constructed without examining all relevant historical evidence cannot easily be described as complete.

These questions have become newly relevant because the future of Folhlhavai is no longer being discussed solely in London, Port Louis, or within the chambers of international tribunals. The emergence of reports suggesting renewed American interest in the future status of the territory means that policymakers in Washington may soon confront questions that previous generations simply assumed had already been settled. Before any new arrangements are contemplated, it is worth asking whether the international community has fully examined the historical and legal foundations upon which those arrangements would rest.

One of the unfortunate consequences of modern discussions concerning Folhlhavai has been the tendency to present history and security as though they exist in opposition to one another. This assumption has distorted the debate for decades. It has encouraged policymakers to believe that acknowledging unresolved historical questions would somehow weaken strategic stability in the Indian Ocean. In reality, the opposite may be true.

The Maldives has never argued that the Indian Ocean should be deprived of mechanisms that contribute to maritime security, freedom of navigation, humanitarian assistance, counter-piracy operations, or broader regional stability. Strategic cooperation among friendly nations and historical inquiry are not mutually exclusive pursuits. Many Maldivians recognise the role played by the United States in preserving stability across one of the world’s most important maritime regions. The issue raised in this letter is therefore not directed against American interests. Rather, it concerns the proposition that long-term strategic arrangements are strongest when they rest upon foundations that are legally sound, historically informed, and widely regarded as legitimate.

A review of the Maldivian dimension of the Folhlhavai question would therefore not undermine regional stability. It would strengthen the legitimacy of whatever future arrangements emerge. It would demonstrate that historical evidence was not ignored, that affected parties were not excluded, and that the international community remained committed to the principle that unresolved questions deserve examination before they are declared permanently settled.

Mr. President, history occasionally presents moments in which governments are able to revisit assumptions that previous generations accepted without scrutiny. Such moments are uncommon. When they arise, they should not be wasted. The reports currently circulating suggest that the future of Folhlhavai is once again under active consideration. Questions once regarded as settled are being revisited. Assumptions inherited from the colonial era are being re-examined. This presents an opportunity not merely to address the future administration of a strategically important territory, but to strengthen confidence in the integrity of the international system itself.

No responsible government should fear scrutiny of the historical record. A weak claim will not be strengthened by examination. A strong claim will not be weakened by transparency. The pursuit of truth has never been the enemy of stability. More often, it is the foundation upon which durable stability is built.

The United States has long presented itself as a defender of a rules-based international order founded upon law, transparency, accountability, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. Such an order derives its credibility not from power alone, but from fidelity to principle. It depends upon a willingness to examine evidence, to hear affected parties, and to ensure that decisions of lasting consequence rest upon a complete and transparent record. Those principles have guided American diplomacy in many parts of the world. There is no reason why they should not guide deliberations concerning Folhlhavai as well.

For that reason, we respectfully urge your Administration, and the wider international community, to support a comprehensive and impartial review of the historical, legal, and decolonisation record relating to Folhlhavai before any future disposition of the territory becomes irreversible. Such a review would not predetermine sovereignty, nor would it require acceptance of any particular claim. It would simply ensure that decisions affecting the future of the Indian Ocean are reached upon the basis of the fullest available evidentiary record rather than assumptions inherited from an incomplete process.

The question confronting the international community today is not simply whether sovereignty over Folhlhavai should pass from one state to another. The deeper question is whether a decolonisation process that never examined all relevant historical evidence can legitimately be regarded as complete. Before decisions of lasting consequence are made, before sovereignty is transferred, recognised, leased, purchased, or otherwise disposed of, the international community should satisfy itself that all relevant evidence has been heard and all potentially affected parties have been given an opportunity to be considered.

Such an undertaking would not prejudice any outcome. It would merely ensure that the principles invoked so frequently in defence of the international order are applied consistently in practice. The credibility of that order ultimately depends not upon the power of those who invoke it, but upon the fairness of the processes through which it operates.