Category - Diplomacy

Recently,the United Kingdom and Mauritius signed an agreement by which the United Kingdom has agreed to cede the control of Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius; however the United Kingdom and the United States will keep the Diego Garcia Airbase. The Chagos Archipelago, which consists of more than 60 low-lying islands in the Indian Ocean was earlier governed by the United Kingdom as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). BIOT has long been subject to international condemnations and has been subject to legal disputes. In 2021, the United Nations special international maritime court ruled against the UK’s  over the Chagos,  recognising Mauritius as the rightful owner of the archipelago. 

HISTORICAL AND STRATEGICAL CONTEXT 

Although the archipelago has a land area of 56.1 sq km, it covers more than 15,000 sq km. of maritime space. For most of its history, Chagos was uninhabited, and the first permanent settlements emerged in the islands around the 18^th century. Initially, under French control, the archipelago came under British control after the fall of the Napoleonic Empire. In 1965, The British constituted the BIOT which included the Chagos archipelago, the islands of Aldabra, Farquhar and Desroches. Although Mauritius gained independence in 1968, the British retained control of the archipelago, even though they gave Aldabra, Faruqhar and Desroches to Seychelles when Seychelles gained independence in 1976. In 1966, The USA and UK signed an agreement whereby Diego Garcia, an island in the Chagos archipelago was leased to the USA for 50 years initially with the option of a  20 year rollover. The agreement also included a provision  barring the civilians from staying on the islands. By 1973, the native population of the archipelago was fully expelled. Diego Garcia houses a military base that served as a critical node for American air operations during the Gulf War and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

The Indian Ocean is crossed by a major intercontinental shipping lane which accounts for one-thirds of world’s cargo traffic and two-thirds of world’s oil shipments.  The USA and The UK have a long history in the region and Diego Garcia is a critical base, given the rising influence of China in the region, especially in Africa. The Indian Ocean is the route for trade between China and Africa and, unlike the South China Sea, China has no claims or disputes in the Indian Ocean. One of the significant developments in the region was the China-Mauritius Free Trade Agreement signed in 2019 and that came into force in 2021- the first such agreement between China and an African country. China is also trying to include Mauritius in its flagship Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) but Mauritius has committed to remain neutral and focus on peaceful development, China’s constant outreach to Mauritius through various initiatives remains a concern, especially since China is trying to expand its footprints in the Indian Ocean region; therefore one needs to look at the implications of the deal recently reached between the United Kingdom and Mauritius on Chagos archipelago. 

IMPLICATIONS

• The retention of Diego Garcia by the UK and the USA ensures that these countries have a strategic presence in the Indian Ocean region; the cession of the Chagos archipelago will make the future negotiations regarding Diego Garcia more complex as the future of the base may come under scrutiny at some point. With great powers like USA and China taking interest in the Indian Ocean region, there is a possibility that the Chagos  will becomes a focal point of geopolitical competition. 
• This also opens doors for the smaller nations in the Indian Ocean region to pursue legal and diplomatic means for restitution. The handover also marks the end of colonial-era security arrangements and a shift towards multipolarity where smaller countries like Mauritius have agency. This also marks a significant step towards Pan-Africanism. African countries are trying to assert themselves globally, and the handover of the Chagos is a boost to Pan-Africanism as it juridically increases the clout of African countries. 
• India has constantly supported Mauritius’ position on the Chagos archipelago in various international forums,in keeping with Delhi’s stand for decolonisation and territorial integrity of all nations. India has framed its support to Mauritius in terms of international law and solidarity with the Global South. However India’s calculus to support Mauritius is also strategic as Mauritius is an important State due to its strategic location and large Indian diaspora. In his recent visit to Mauritius, Indian Prime Minister Narendra unveiled the MAHASAGAR (Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security and Growth Across Regions) initiative. Therefore,  India’s stance on Chagos is consonant with the national interest as the country is aiming to become a net security provider for the Indian Ocean region and thereby counter the influence of China. 

CONCLUSION 

The handover of the Chagos archipelago is a transformational shift in geopolitics as it marks the end of the colonial-era strategic primacy of Western powers by giving smaller countries the ability to exercise autonomy. While the control of the Diego Garcia Air Force and Naval base still gives the USA and the UK access to the region, the rise of India and China  along with growing Pan-Africanism in play are redrawing the political map of the Indian Ocean.

REFERENCES: 

  House of Commons Library. (2025, May 30). 2025 treaty on the British Indian Ocean Territory/Chagos Archipelago (Research Briefing CBP-10273). https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10273/

Sengupta, A. (2025, March 13). Explained: The story of Chagos, the Indian Ocean archipelago that Mauritius claims, UK controls. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-global/explained-the-story-of-chagos-the-indian-ocean-archipelago-that-mauritius-claims-uk-controls-9883678/

Wintour, P. (2021, January 28). UN court rejects UK claim to Chagos Islands in favour of Mauritius. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/28/un-court-rejects-uk-claim-to-chagos-islands-in-favour-of-mauritius

British Indian Ocean Territory Administration. (n.d.). Governance. https://www.biot.gov.io/governance/

Cuddy, A. (2024, September 29). What I found on the secretive tropical island they don't want you to see. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckdg7jjlx2go

Human Rights Watch. (2023, February 15). “That’s When the Nightmare Started”: UK and US Forced Displacement of the Chagossians and Ongoing Colonial Crimes. https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/02/15/thats-when-nightmare-started/uk-and-us-forced-displacement-chagossians-and

Labh, N. (2024, May 30). Why Diego Garcia matters for U.S. goals in the Indo-Pacific. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/05/30/diego-garcia-us-uk-chagos-military-base/

Baruah, D. M., Labh, N., & Greely, J. (2023, June 15). Mapping the Indian Ocean Region. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/06/mapping-the-indian-ocean-region?lang=en 

Baruah, D. M. (2023, April 18). Surrounding the Ocean: PRC Influence in the Indian Ocean. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2023/04/surrounding-the-ocean-prc-influence-in-the-indian-ocean?lang=en

Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry. (n.d.). Mauritius-China FTA. https://www.mcci.org/en/global-marketplace/trade-agreements/mauritius-china-fta/

Chinese Embassy in Mauritius. (2025, May 27). Chinese Ambassador to Mauritius Huang Shifang’s Interview with Le Défi Media Group. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xw/zwbd/202505/t20250529_11636481.html

Zeleza, P. T. (2025, March 12). Africa’s Geopolitical Recalibrations in a Multipolar World. The Elephant. https://www.theelephant.info/analysis/2025/03/12/africas-geopolitical-recalibrations-in-a-multipolar-world/

Ghosh, S. (2025, March 12). India’s support for Chagos sovereignty speaks volumes. The Interpreter. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/india-s-support-chagos-sovereignty-speaks-volumes

Recently there were reports that many Korean products are receiving negative ratings from various accounts on Youtube and Naver that eventually turned out to be Chinese netizens. These accounts deliberately gave low ratings to Korean products and provided an alternative with Chinese products. The report read that this activity is occurring only with those products in which Korea competes with China like electric vehicles, e-commerce products, and batteries. This phenomenon drew flak amongst Koreans who realised that scare tactics like loss of life or loss of monetary value were noted as primary reasons. However such activities do not occur in isolation.

Historical Background

South Korea and China are geographical neighbours and important members of the larger land mass of the East Asian Region. However, ideologically and historically they belong to different (read: warring) factions. Geopolitically, their allies have also been enemies of each other. Hence a bilateral relation between the two countries is often viewed with the prism of mistrust and animosity. Yet, the reality is quite different from the general assumption. In terms of trade, Sino-Korean relations have been quite symbiotic and peaceful. China has long imported semiconductors from South Korea, and thereby became the largest trading partner of South Korea. Not only this, South Korea was one of the few countries in the world that enjoyed a trade surplus with China. Data reflected 160 billion dollar worth of imports from South Korea as compared to 107 billion dollar worth of import by South Korea in 2018. This was largely happening due to huge demand for semi-conductors in China, largely supplied by Taiwan and South Korea. Economically the two countries were so happy with each other that they signed a slew of free trade agreements in 2015 and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership in 2020. However, things took a donwturn in 2023 as the trade surplus enjoyed by Korea turned into a deficit with China (by almost 20 per cent) and the US replaced China as the largest trade partner of South Korea. The reasons seem to be manifold with some blaming it on China for punishing South Korea after Seoul allowed the establishment of THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense- an American Anti-Ballistic missile defense system) in its territory while others blame the US for banking thesale of semi-conductors to China. Korea seems to have been caught in the crossfire between the two. 

However, this is exactly where Korean resurgence and leadership come into play. Korea’s Indo-Pacific strategy calls for ‘exclusion and targeting of no nation’; however it also means that it will not compromise on its national interests for the sake of balancing between the US and China. Korea has launched strategic initiatives with India in maritime security in the Indian Ocean region. However, Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar called for a greater collaboration in non-traditional security issues such as green hydrogen, critical and emerging technologies, semiconductors, nuclear cooperation etc. India and South Korea call their bilateral relations a ‘special strategic partnership’ and the two nations have historically borne the brunt of being in geographical proximity to China. Hence it would be mutually beneficial to make their geopolitical and economic interests converge in ‘energetic’ terms. 

There are various dimensions to a Sino-Korean relationship. First of all, the South Korea-China equation is still defined in the light of the rivalry between the USA and China, and Korea as not really regarded as an independent entity. It was found that other countries still view the actions of Korea through the prism of its symbiotic connection with the US and vice versa, rather than focusing on how Korean foreign policy will impact Korean national interests. Secondly, many countries see the East Asian region i.e. China, Japan, and Korea as a singular entity, due to which individual Korean position with other nations especially with developing nations is missed out almost completely and the dominant voice (aka: China) takes precedence. Lastly, much of South Korea’s foreign policy decisions are affected by the emotional scars of partition with North Korea. Since China is a very strong ally of North Korea, most South Korean leaders have taken an appeasement approach towards China to prevent an escalation. 

Conclusion

A lot of oscillation has taken place in the Korean Indo-Pacific strategy as part of the fallout on the relationship between China and Korea. While political jingoism plays its part in winning elections, no country is able to trust China nor is it able to avoid trade with China. Hence the only alternative left for various middle powers is to collaborate among themselves to avoid a situation where their interests are compromised. Caught in the crossfire of THAAD and the Chinese Indo-Pacific strategy can Korea preserve its national interests? What shall be the equation in the trade between China and South Korea? What are the changing dynamics in Korea-China relations? How can Korea collaborate with India with which it shares traditional bonhomie? How can India and Korea collaborate to better the relations between the two?

Can  Korea convert its special strategic partnership with India into tangible trade increase to benefit both countries and counter China, or will the professions of close friendship and cooperation remain more rhetorical than impactful? South Korea will need to decide on the course it wishes to follow.