Chagos and the UN’s ‘Block-and-Overturn’ Pattern, with Maldivian Rights Back in Frame

By the Legal Analysis & Research Desk, Maldivians for Chagos

Why Maldivian Silence Is Strategy, Not Consent

For years, the Chagos Archipelago has been framed as a quarrel between London and Port Louis. In the corridors of the UN, in the chambers of The Hague, and across international headlines, the two dominant voices have been those of the United Kingdom and Mauritius. What is left out of that script is the Maldives. Long before the term British Indian Ocean Territory was coined, Maldivian sailors were familiar with the atolls, gave them Dhivehi names such as Fōlhavahi and Feyhandheeb, and incorporated them into their seafaring routes. Yet Malé has stayed officially silent. That silence is often mistaken for acquiescence. In reality, it has been a deliberate act of caution: raising the claim too early would threaten the very security arrangements that today keep the Maldives safe and the Indian Ocean stable.

How Britain Expelled the Plantation Community and Masked Sovereignty

When Britain first separated Chagos from the Maldives, and again in 1965 when it further divided the islands to establish the British Indian Ocean Territory, it uprooted the small plantation community living there. These were people descended from enslaved Africans and indentured South Asians shipped in by French and British planters. Between 1967 and 1973, approximately 1,200 people living in the Chagos Islands were relocated by Britain to Mauritius and the Seychelles. Many years later, London acknowledged its role in those removals and created a pathway to citizenship for their descendants, a program that has since attracted thousands of applications. These measures, while addressing part of the humanitarian legacy, have not resolved the deeper issue that continues to linger: the question of Sovereignty.

The Maldivian connection runs deeper than outsiders often acknowledge. Long before Europeans declared the atolls terra nullius, the Maldivians had used and named them, not as permanent settlements but as seasonal grounds for fishing, navigation stops, and coconut gathering, a pattern entirely in line with Maldivian life across its own scattered archipelago. Traces of this past remain in stone. Gravestones bearing Dhivehi inscriptions have been found in the Chagos Islands, some of which were carved after the Maldives converted to Islam, while others date back to earlier centuries. The British were not blind to this. On expeditions they organised, Maldivians were brought in to provide logistics, and while they stood aside as bystanders rather than explorers, they recognised and explained remnants of their own heritage. One Maldivian captain who sailed to Diego Garcia for supplies recalled finding gravestones marked in Dhivehi. In 2002, during a British expedition to Peros Banhos aboard the MV Wave Ruler, Maldivians again provided support and witnessed traces of their history on the islands. (Reference forthcoming from Maldivian expedition records).

Britain’s 2017 Block on C-24: A Tactical Move to Exclude the Maldives

Britain’s diplomacy at the UN has primarily been an exercise in evasion. The turning point came in 2017, when London informed the General Assembly that the British Indian Ocean Territory was a bilateral matter with Mauritius and should remain so. With one stroke, Britain shut the door on the Special Committee on Decolonisation, the C-24. The move was tactical. Inside the C-24, questions of colonial continuity and pre-colonial history are scrutinised, and Mauritius would have had to prove historical authority it does not have. Blocking the committee also kept the Maldives from entering the conversation. Instead, Mauritius pressed the General Assembly, which sought an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. In 2019, the ICJ found the detachment unlawful, and the General Assembly quickly followed with resolution 73/295, calling for Britain to end its administration “as rapidly as possible.”

The Back-Door Arrangement Between London and Port Louis

On paper, Mauritius won. But it was a victory through the back door, achieved at the cost of excluding the Maldives. Neither the ICJ nor the General Assembly ever examined Mauritian claims in the C-24, the body designed for such review. That omission is not trivial. A bilateral fix between two colonial creations is not decolonisation. For Maldivians, it is a fraud: a legal sleight of hand that disguises the fact that a colony, manufactured by European planters, cannot inherit rights it never possessed before colonisation.

Why the Maldives Has Not Lodged Its Claim at the UN, Yet

Why has Malé not shouted louder? The answer lies in the balance of its foreign policy. The Maldives has consistently worked alongside Britain and the United States, recognising that the American base in Diego Garcia is the linchpin of Indian Ocean security. That base secures shipping routes, deters hostile actors, and, crucially, shields a vulnerable island state. Rather than undermining Sovereignty, it has been a safeguard. When Britain declared the Chagos Marine Protected Area in 2010, many Maldivians saw beyond the environmental wording: it also created a maritime buffer that indirectly supported their own security and ecological interests.

Silence as Stewardship: Protecting Shared Security Interests

Maldivian silence, then, has not been surrender but stewardship. By holding back from lodging its claim, the Maldives has helped preserve the strategic order that protects it, while still keeping its historical rights intact. It has also been a gesture of loyalty, sparing Britain and America embarrassment while biding its time. But loyalty has its limits. Should London attempt to transfer Sovereignty to Mauritius, Malé would have little choice but to speak. Such a move would not complete decolonisation but betray it, damaging the shared interests of all three nations: the Maldives, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

A Unique Position: Sovereignty with Strategic Alignment

For Malé, the reasoning is straightforward. The Maldives cannot surrender Sovereignty, for its pre-colonial connection to Chagos is part of its identity. Yet the Western presence on Diego Garcia is essential. It anchors regional stability, protects vital sea lanes, and secures the Maldives itself. This dual stance makes Malé’s position unique: it seeks recognition of Sovereignty without demanding eviction, heritage without instability, and acknowledgement without rupture. The fraud is not that Britain and the United States remain on the Chagos; the fraud is London’s plan to hand the islands to a colonial creation whose claim rests solely on administrative convenience.

Blocking C-24 Only Delays the Inevitable: UNGA and ICJ Overturn Every Time

History leaves little doubt. Every attempt at a colonial shortcut has been overturned. The Madrid Accords, which sought to cede Western Sahara to Morocco and Mauritania, were rejected by the ICJ and subsequently dismissed by the General Assembly. South Africa’s defiance in Namibia was struck down by the Court in 1971, leading to the loss of its mandate. France’s insistence on New Caledonia’s “integration” crumbled when the General Assembly re-listed it in 1986. In each case, blocking the C-24 bought time, not legitimacy. The same pattern hovers over Chagos. Britain may have purchased a pause in 2017 by excluding the committee, and Mauritius may have exploited that pause for a favourable advisory opinion, but the case is not closed. The Maldives has yet to enter, and when it does, the script will repeat: fraud exposed, shortcuts undone, and decolonisation restored to its proper course.

The Unfinished Question: Chagos Awaits Maldivian Entry

The Chagos dispute is not a simple quarrel between Britain and Mauritius. It is a suspended question, waiting for the Maldivian entry. Silence has so far preserved partnerships that secure Malé’s survival, but it cannot last indefinitely. If Britain moves to hand Sovereignty to Port Louis, the Maldives will step forward. When that happens, the UN will be forced to confront the deception at the heart of the current arrangement. The people of the Maldives, the United Kingdom, and the United States share a common interest in strategic security and historical truth. Pretending Mauritius is the rightful heir risks the very instability Diego Garcia was built to prevent. Maldivian silence has been a sign of loyalty, but loyalty is not consent, and it will not extend to endorsing a colonial lie.