Open Statement on the Visit of the U.S. Special Envoy to the Maldives

The visit of the United States Special Envoy underscores the strategic weight of the Indian Ocean and the responsibilities that accompany it. Engagement in this region must advance not only security, but also legality and historical coherence.

For decades, the United States’ presence in Diego Garcia has underpinned the stability of vital sea lanes across the Indian Ocean. That contribution is recognised. It is not something the Maldives seeks to disrupt. But stability cannot be sustained where underlying legal questions remain unresolved.

We are therefore concerned by the United Kingdom’s decision to proceed with arrangements to transfer sovereignty of Foalhavahi (Chagos) to Mauritius without full consideration of historically grounded claims. Such a course risks constituting a miscarriage of justice in the application of decolonisation principles.

Long before Mauritius was inhabited, Maldivians lived, navigated, cultivated, and buried their dead across these southern atolls. Dhivehi inscriptions on ancestral graves are not matters of sentiment. They are material evidence of continuity, presence, and identity.

These concerns have been formally conveyed to the United Kingdom. A written communication was submitted to the British High Commission in Malé, signed by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and former Speaker of the Constitutional Majlis Qasim Ibrahim, who presided over the drafting of the Maldives’ present democratic Constitution, together with other senior state dignitaries. The letter set out the Maldives’ historical rights and called for due consideration of its sovereignty over Foalhavahi. Despite this, the United Kingdom appears to be proceeding.

This is not a recent or partisan position. It reflects a consistent national stance across administrations. Former Presidents Mohamed Nasheed and Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom, as well as the current President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu, have each, in national and international forums, affirmed the Maldives’ sovereignty over Foalhavahi.

It must also be stated with clarity that Foalhavahi was not part of Mauritius at the time of its independence in 1968. Nor were the island communities incorporated into its constitutional or electoral framework. Subsequent assertions cannot displace prior realities, nor can they be presumed to fall within the territorial integrity framework applied to Mauritius at independence.

There is, in addition, a deeper institutional issue that cannot be ignored. The Maldives, though not fully self-governing in 1946, was not listed under Article 73(e) of the United Nations Charter. This omission introduced a structural defect into the decolonisation framework as it applied to the Maldives, the consequences of which continue to shape subsequent legal and institutional outcomes. In light of General Assembly Resolutions 1514 (XV) and 1541 (XV), this matter warrants formal review.

For clarity, the matter rests on the following foundations:

• Recognised Sovereignty (1561):
  A registered and sealed instrument, approved by the Portuguese Viceroy in Goa on 24 September 1561, identifies Sultan Hassan IX, styled as Dom Manoel, as sovereign over the Maldives and the “seven islands of Pullobay” (Foalhavahi).

• Material Continuity:
  Cultural and physical evidence, including Dhivehi-inscribed graves in Diego Garcia, reflects longstanding Maldivian presence and maritime continuity across the southern Indian Ocean.

• Colonial Severance (1834–1837):
  The detachment of Foalhavahi through colonial cartographic and administrative reclassification disrupted a historically continuous maritime domain.

• 1946 Non-Listing:
  The Maldives’ exclusion from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories created a foundational defect in the decolonisation record.

• Procedural Consequences:
  Subsequent United Nations processes have proceeded without correcting this omission, affecting how territorial questions have been framed and addressed.

• Third-Party Rights:
  Under general international law, bilateral arrangements cannot extinguish the rights of non-consenting sovereign entities.

For the Maldives, these are not abstract propositions. They go to the core of identity, sovereignty, and economic security. They directly affect fisheries, tourism, and the integrity of our maritime domain.

If the Indian Ocean is to remain truly free and open, it must also be anchored in truth.

That requires more than strategic alignment. It requires the willingness to revisit what was overlooked, to correct what was omitted, and to engage through the proper United Nations decolonisation framework, including the Fourth Committee and the Special Committee on Decolonization.

Power may shape outcomes. Only law and truth can sustain them.