Open Letter to the Ambassador of the Russian Federation (Accredited to the Maldives)

Chagos: Correcting a Western Defect Through Law

Maldivians for Chagos (civil society coalition)
Website: www.maldivians4chagos.com
Email: admin@maldivians4chagos.com
Media: maldivians4chagos@gmail.com
Twitter/X: @MaldivianChagos
Tel: (+960) 9913632

His Excellency Levan S. Dzhagaryan
Embassy of the Russian Federation (accredited to the Maldives)
Colombo

Your Excellency,

A familiar story of omission

Principles are often declared, but avoided in practice. Chagos is one such case. In 1965, Britain created the British Indian Ocean Territory, yet never listed it as a Non-Self-Governing Territory. That omission withdrew the C-24 and the Fourth Committee from the field, silencing the Maldives and evading oversight. At the same time, Chagos was populated; under Article 73(e), Britain was obliged to transmit information. Instead, expulsions followed in the early 1970s to both Seychelles and Mauritius.

The silence engineered: the Maldives not fully self-governing (1887–1965)

From 1887, the Maldives was a protectorate; the 1948 and 1953 control arrangements gave Britain authority over defence and foreign affairs, and even required British approval before Maldivian heads of state could assume office. Until 26 July 1965, therefore, the Maldives was not a fully self-governing territory.

Under Article 73(e) of the UN Charter, Britain was obliged to report such territories as NSGTs. Indeed, it did so for many other protectorates: Bechuanaland Protectorate, British Solomon Islands Protectorate, British Somaliland Protectorate, Brunei, among others. Yet the Maldives was never reported, and when BIOT was created in 1965, it too was not listed. This was not an accident but a systematic erasure, ensuring the Maldives had no standing voice at the C-24 or the Fourth Committee at the very moment its sovereignty over Chagos was at stake.

A record older than colonisation

The deeper record testifies otherwise. Ibn Majid in the fifteenth century described a Maldivian-centred sphere embracing Chagos and reaching toward Mauritius, Rodrigues, and Seychelles. In 1561, Sultan Hassan IX’s letters in Cochin named the “seven islands of Pullobay,” understood as Peros Banhos (Chagos), within the Maldives. European testimony is not absent: Pyrard de Laval’s account of Maldivian range; our folklore of “giant cats from the sea,” encoding the slave-raiding era; Dhivehi gravestones in Diego Garcia; and a 1924 British newspaper calling Diego Garcia “one of the Maldive Islands.” The thread is continuous: Chagos is Maldives.

The distortion at the UN

UNGA Resolution 2066 addressed detachment from Mauritius, while the Maldives was procedurally silenced. UNGA Resolution 71/272 sent the matter to the ICJ on a frame naming only London and Port Louis, and the 2019 advisory opinion with UNGA Resolution 73/295 reflected that frame. Meanwhile, the defect has engineered a trans-oceanic fiction: a non-contiguous reach of more than two thousand kilometres presented as decolonisation. That is neocolonialism by distance, a political arithmetic dressed as principle.

The law that restores integrity

Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties confirms that no treaty creates rights or obligations for a third state without its consent. The Maldives is that third state. No bilateral settlement between London and Port Louis can erase Maldivian rights.

A respectful request to the Russian Federation

We ask Russia to insist on the process that law requires: call on the United Kingdom to list BIOT/Chagos, transmit the overdue Article 73(e) information for both BIOT and (historically) the Maldives, and refer the case to the C-24 and the Fourth Committee so that the Maldives and the Chagossian people may be heard. This is not a quarrel between states but with an omission that has distorted the record and the law.

Chagos is Maldives. It was charted, claimed, protested, and printed. Let it now be recognised in law.

Respectfully,

International Outreach Coordination Desk
Maldivians for Chagos
www.maldivians4chagos.com
admin@maldivians4chagos.com
(+960) 9913632

Annex I: Timeline of Historical Facts

Date / Period	Event	Significance
Late 1400s	Ibn Majid’s sphere incl. Chagos	Pre-colonial locus of Maldivian navigation/influence.
1561	Hassan IX letters (Pullobay/Peros Banhos)	Earliest written Maldivian claim.
1600s	Pyrard de Laval	European corroboration of Maldivian range.
17th–18th c.	Folklore of slave raids	Cultural testimony of historic depredations.
Undated	Dhivehi gravestones in Diego Garcia	Physical evidence of presence.
1715	French terra nullius	Colonial legal fiction.
1810/1814	Treaty of Paris dependencies	Administrative transfer sans Maldivian consent.
1834	Moresby separation + protests	Documented Maldivian resistance.
1887 / 1948 / 1953	Protectorate/controls	Constrains external agency.
1924	UK press: Maldivian Diego Garcia	Ongoing recognition.
1965	BIOT + population; non-listing	Defect that blocks UN oversight.
1971–73	Expulsions	Confirms non-Mauritian-only community; rights breach.

Annex II — Timeline of the UN Defect

Date / Period	Event	Significance
1946	UN compiles NSGT list; BIOT omitted	Foundational defect: Chagos excluded from UN decolonization process.
1946–1965	Maldives (protectorate; not fully self-governing) not reported as NSGT, even though the UK reported other protectorates (e.g., Bechuanaland Protectorate, British Solomon Islands Protectorate, British Somaliland Protectorate, Brunei)	Foundational defect: Chagos excluded from UN decolonisation process.
1960	UNGA 1514 (Declaration on Decolonization)	Governing principle bypassed by the omissions.
1965	BIOT created; no Article 73(e) reporting	UK evades Charter duty to report on a non-self-governing people.
Dec 1965	UNGA 2066 condemns detachment from Mauritius; Maldives excluded	Debate narrowed to Mauritius; Maldives silenced by non-listing.
1971–73	Expulsions of Chagossians	Human and legal harm flowing from the defect.
1969 / ongoing	Vienna Convention Art. 34: no treaty binds a third State without consent	Any UK–Mauritius deal cannot extinguish Maldivian rights.
2017	UNGA 71/272 refers UK–Mauritius to ICJ	Frame excludes Maldives due to the original defect.
2019	ICJ AO & UNGA 73/295 mirror that frame	Outcomes shaped by omission, not full party participation.
2023–25	UK signals bilateral transfer to Mauritius	Lawful only if BIOT first listed as NSGT and reviewed by UN process.