In British foreign policy, the United Kingdom has agreed to relinquish sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago and transfer control to Mauritius, excluding the strategically vital UK-US military base at Diego Garcia. This move, while hailed as a victory for decolonization and international justice, has ignited fresh debates about Britain’s stance on other contested territories, notably the Falkland Islands.
As Britain steps back from its imperial control over the Chagos Islands, some are questioning whether the time has come to reconsider Argentina’s long-standing demand for sovereignty over the Falkland Islands—a demand that led to the Falklands War in 1982. Unlike Mauritius, which saw peaceful diplomatic negotiations lead to the transfer, Argentina’s history with Britain over the Falklands has been defined by conflict, and Buenos Aires has made clear that it will not give up its claim to the islands, which they call “Islas Malvinas.”
A key element in understanding the debate lies in the distinct historical narratives surrounding these two sets of islands. Sources close to both UK and Mauritian officials maintain that the Chagos Islands’ history sets them apart from the Falklands. One British official, defending the decision to transfer the Chagos Archipelago, stated, “The UK has never contested Chagos Island; it is a former colony that rightfully belongs to Mauritius.” Mauritius’ case, recognized by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the United Nations, centers on decolonization and the forced deportation of Chagossians, a significant human rights issue.
Conversely, Britain’s defense of its sovereignty over the Falklands hinges on its claim to continuous possession and the principle of self-determination. “The situation with the Falklands is entirely different,” the British official emphasized. “The UK has maintained it is their legitimate sovereign territory and fought with Argentina in the 1980s to counter their aggression.”
The international courts, too, have played a critical role in the Chagos case. In 2019, the ICJ ruled that British administration of the Chagos Islands was illegal and that sovereignty should be transferred to Mauritius. Despite this pressure, the UK ensured that the strategically critical military base on Diego Garcia remained under British and American control. This arrangement secured both financial benefits for Mauritius and strategic advantages for the UK and the US in maintaining a foothold in the Indian Ocean.
The history of the Falkland Islands, however, presents a much more complicated picture. Admiral Karambir Singh, former Chief of the Indian Navy, highlights the tangled historical claims over the islands. France established the first European colony on the islands in 1764, naming them Îles Malouines after the port of Saint-Malo, before they passed into Spanish control and eventually came under British sovereignty. Britain’s claim rests on a long history of settlement, administration, and a firm belief in the islanders’ right to self-determination.
Admiral Singh, in an exclusive interview, emphasized four main points that distinguish the Falklands from Chagos. First, he notes that the earliest European settlers were French, not Spanish or Argentine, underlining the complex colonial history. Second, the British have held the islands for the longest period of continuous possession, solidifying their claim. Third, after the Falklands War in 1982, Argentina no longer holds any control over the islands. And finally, there is the matter of international law—while the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has called for negotiations between Britain and Argentina, the resolution is non-binding, and there is no formal mechanism for enforcing Argentina’s claim.
Importantly, Singh warns that any move by Britain to cede sovereignty of the Falklands could set a dangerous precedent, opening the floodgates to other territorial disputes worldwide. “This is what we must support,” he says, “because any other argument which leads to the British handing over the islands back to the Argentines can open the floodgates of claims and counterclaims.”
Central to the Falklands dispute is the question of self-determination. In a 2013 referendum, 99.8% of Falkland Islanders voted to remain a British Overseas Territory, a result that Britain frequently cites as justification for its continued rule. Unlike the Chagos Islands, where the indigenous population was forcibly removed to make way for the military base on Diego Garcia, the Falkland Islands have a permanent British population with deep ties to the land and its governance.
Amo Kalar, a former UK diplomat, suggests that this distinction is crucial in understanding why the Chagos settlement does not create a precedent for the Falklands. “The Chagos and Falklands feel like qualitatively different issues,” Kalar explains. “In the case of Chagos, international pressure, especially from African and Asian nations, had been mounting for years. But more importantly, there were many Chagossians who had been displaced for far too long. The Falklands, on the other hand, have a UK population that has lived there for generations.”
While the UK has been willing to relinquish control over Chagos—largely to comply with international legal rulings and diplomatic pressure—its stance on the Falklands is unlikely to shift in the near future. Argentina’s defeat in the Falklands War, combined with the strategic and symbolic importance of the islands, makes the situation more complicated. Furthermore, the Falkland Islands are not only a symbolic issue for Britain but a strategically valuable one as well. The islands are home to British military personnel and have significant oil and gas reserves, further cementing Britain’s reluctance to cede sovereignty.
However, there is no doubt that Britain’s decision on the Chagos Islands has reignited debates over its other overseas territories, particularly in regions where territorial disputes have simmered for years. The sovereignty of Gibraltar, claimed by Spain, has also been brought into question. Spain, like Argentina, has long sought to reclaim control of Gibraltar, which has been under British control since the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. The decision on Chagos has given new life to Spanish and Argentine claims, even if Britain has been quick to dismiss any potential negotiations over the Falklands or Gibraltar.
While UK officials, including Foreign Secretary David Lammy, have insisted that the sovereignty of the Falklands and Gibraltar remains non-negotiable, Britain’s decision to relinquish control over Chagos highlights the changing nature of its overseas territories. As decolonization efforts continue and international pressure mounts, Britain may find it increasingly difficult to justify its claims over far-flung territories, particularly as geopolitical shifts favor regional powers such as Argentina and Spain.
Yet, despite these challenges, the Falklands remain a unique case. The islands’ military importance to Britain, as well as the strong political and cultural ties between the islanders and the UK, make any change in sovereignty unlikely for the foreseeable future.
The British decision to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius represents a significant victory for decolonization and international law, but it is unlikely to serve as a precedent for other territorial disputes, such as the Falklands or Gibraltar. The Falklands War, the principle of self-determination, and the islanders’ overwhelming desire to remain British all weigh heavily in Britain’s favor. Nevertheless, the settlement over Chagos may signal the beginning of a new era in which the UK faces increased scrutiny and pressure over its overseas territories.
