Our People, Torn from Their Homeland, Have Suffered a Crime Against Humanity
- Cet article est une traduction de :
- Notre peuple, arraché à sa terre natale, a subi un crime contre l’humanité [fr]
Résumé
In these conversations, Olivier Bancoult, president of the Chagos Refugees Group, recounts the struggle that the Chagossian people have waged for more than half a century against colonial arbitrariness. In 1966, the United States decided to establish a military base on the island of Diego Garcia. To this end, in agreement with the British government, all Chagossians – who had lived on these lands since the 18th century – were arbitrarily deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles, with no possibility of return to this day.
Entrées d’index
Haut de pageTexte intégral
1For more than half a century, the Chagossian people have been waging a struggle against colonial arbitrariness. On November 8, 1965, the Chagos Islands – under British sovereignty since 1810 following the cession of the archipelago by France – were separated from Mauritius. Thus, in 1968, Mauritius gained independence, amputated of part of its territory, which remained under British control. At the time, the islands were home to about 2,000 inhabitants, most of them descendants of slaves from Madagascar and Mozambique, and laborers from India.
2Because of its strategic position during the Cold War, the United States decided in 1966 to establish a military base on Diego Garcia – the largest overseas base operated by Washington – for a total period of 70 years, until 2036. To that end, in agreement with the British government, all Chagossians, who had lived on these lands since the eighteenth century, without exception, were arbitrarily deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles between 1966 and 1973, with no possibility of return to this day.
3In confidential notes, London clearly acknowledged the illegality of the Chagossians’ expulsion, expressing its intention to confront the United Nations with a fait accompli. For this reason, the international community has demanded justice in the name of the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. UN Resolution 2066 of December 16, 1965, condemns the “dismemberment of the territory of Mauritius” and the “violation of its territorial integrity.” Resolution 2232 of December 20, 1965, stipulates that “any attempt to destroy, in whole or in part, the national unity and territorial integrity of colonial territories and to establish military bases and installations in those territories is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
4The Non-Aligned Movement, which brings together 120 nations, also calls for the return of the territory to Mauritius and for the Chagossians to be allowed to return to their homeland. The African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, comprising 79 countries, considers British authority over the Chagos Islands “illegal” and demands the full decolonization of Africa. The Southern African Development Community, with 16 member states, calls for international law and the United Nations Charter to be upheld and for the archipelago to be decolonized.
5London, supported for obvious reasons by the United States, stubbornly refuses to comply with the fundamental principles of international law and the United Nations Charter. According to the British government, the military base is necessary “in the fight against the most complex and pressing challenges of the twenty-first century, such as terrorism, international crime, piracy, or any other form of instability.” Yet the Chagossian people – now compelled to live in England, Mauritius, or the Seychelles – are not calling for the immediate dismantling of the base, but simply to exercise their natural right to live on their land. The United Kingdom acknowledges “that the way in which the Chagossians were removed from the Chagos Archipelago and the way in which they were subsequently treated are shameful and unjust.”
6In these conversations, Olivier Bancoult, President of the Chagos Refugees Group – himself deported when he was only four years old – recounts his people’s struggle for the right to return.
Salim Lamrani: Where are the Chagos Islands located, and when were they first inhabited?
Olivier Bancoult: The Chagos Islands are located in the heart of the Indian Ocean, south of the Maldives, east of the Seychelles, and nearly 2,000 kilometers north of Mauritius. The archipelago consists of 65 islands, with a total of 50 square kilometers of land scattered across a maritime area of 650,000 square kilometers. Three of these islands were inhabited: Diego Garcia in the south, and Peros Banhos and Salomon in the north. I myself was born on Peros Banhos, in peace and harmony, immersed in my culture and traditions. Our country occupies an exceptionally strategic position – the very source of our misfortune.
Our people originate from Africa and Madagascar. We are the descendants of slaves torn from their homeland and brought through the slave trade from the French colonies of Réunion and Mauritius at the end of the eighteenth century. The archipelago was discovered by Pedro de Mascarenhas in the sixteenth century, then came under French sovereignty in the eighteenth century, before being ceded to the British in 1810.
We lived simple lives. We survived through fishing, small-scale livestock rearing, modest farming, and the harvesting of copra – the dried kernel of the coconut. Before our deportation, we numbered just over 2,000 inhabitants, divided among 500 families.
SL: In 1965, while Mauritius was negotiating with the British colonial power to gain independence, London decided to keep the Chagos Islands in order to allow the United States to establish a strategic military base on Diego Garcia.
OB: It all began with secret talks between the United States and the United Kingdom in 1962 about establishing a military presence in the area, within the context of the Cold War confrontation between Washington and Moscow. In exchange, London obtained a substantial discount of $14 million on the purchase of Polaris missiles. From a strategic standpoint, Diego Garcia was the ideal location for the Americans, situated in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
When Mauritius sought independence in 1965, the United Kingdom, under Prime Minister Harold Wilson, demanded that it renounce the Chagos Archipelago. In return, Mauritius would be granted independence without the need to hold a referendum. The Chagos were thus sacrificed and became the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Our people were never consulted – a clear demonstration of the contempt shown by the Western powers.
During the colonial period, the Chagos were administratively attached to Mauritius for supplies. A territory was therefore dismembered before its independence, in blatant violation of the fundamental principles of international law and the United Nations Charter. Mauritius finally obtained independence in 1968. London then decided to lease Diego Garcia, the main island, to the United States, which established a military base there and demanded the total evacuation of the archipelago. It became the largest overseas air and naval base operated by the United States.
As an anecdote, it is worth noting that London initially offered Washington the Seychellois island of Aldabra as the site for the base. However, when the Americans arrived there, they discovered it was inhabited by giant tortoises and decided to choose another location so as not to disturb the local wildlife, which was threatened with extinction. The United States thus had scruples about disturbing giant tortoises – but not about expelling an entire people.
SL: So the entire Chagossian population was arbitrarily expelled from its homeland and deported mainly to Mauritius?
OB: The nightmare began for us with the separation of Mauritius and the Chagos in 1965. Our people were forcibly deported from their homeland between 1966 and 1973. It has now been more than fifty years since the last group of Chagossians was expelled from the archipelago. Around 1,800 people were deported to Mauritius and 200 to the Seychelles.
The deportation took place over several years and was meticulously planned by the British authorities. First, London decided to buy out the company that produced copra, only to close it down. The aim was to strangle the population economically by depriving them of their means of subsistence. Then, supplies of basic necessities to the islands were deliberately reduced to force people – tormented by hunger and unable to feed their families – to leave the archipelago. Schools and clinics were closed, depriving the population of access to education and healthcare. London even went so far as to exterminate the domestic dogs, which held a special place in our lives.
In 1966, the United States and the United Kingdom signed an agreement that formalized the deportation of my people and sealed the fate of our country. The island of Diego Garcia was leased to the U.S. military for fifty years, tacitly renewable every twenty years. The base occupies one-third of the island’s territory.
SL: When were you expelled?
OB: I myself was expelled in 1968 – without even knowing it. I was only four years old. I remember that my sister had injured herself and broken her foot in an accident with a cart. My mother took her to the clinic in Peros Banhos, where she was advised to go to Mauritius for better treatment. Unfortunately, my little sister died three months later, and my family then decided to return to the Chagos, where we had left our entire lives behind.
When my mother went to register at the office so that we could return to the island, an official told her that this was no longer possible, because the island had been handed over to the Americans. All communications were cut off, and we were no longer even able to contact our relatives who remained on the island. My maternal grandfather died in the Chagos in 1969, but it was only in 1973 that we learned the news – from my aunt, who had just been deported to Mauritius. We had been unable to attend his funeral. It was a tragedy for many families, beginning with my own. Such was the cruel reality of deportation.
We had been happy in the Chagos. Everyone had work. We fished and lived together as one family. All that was overturned overnight when we were forced to leave our land. We were herded into the holds of ships at gunpoint – just as in the days of slavery.
Nothing had been prepared for us in Mauritius, which itself was facing high unemployment and the emigration of part of its population to Europe. Beyond the brutality of the deportation – carried out without any notice – we were abandoned to our fate, left to hunger, to the slums, to alcoholism, prostitution, and drug addiction. The local authorities paid us no attention, even though we had been sacrificed without scruple for the sake of independence. I remember that we stayed for several days on the quay, without any prospects. There was no work for us, and our level of education was relatively low.
SL: This fits the definition of ethnic cleansing under international law, as stated by the United Nations: “a deliberate policy designed by an ethnic or religious group to eliminate, through the use of violence and terror, civilian populations belonging to another distinct ethnic or religious community from certain geographical areas.” That is exactly what happened in the Chagos.
OB: We have gained access to declassified British documents concerning the Chagos in which our people are denigrated, insulted, and demeaned – we were described as “Tarzan” and “Friday.” This reveals the deeply racist culture that pervaded the Western political elites of the time.
The world must know how the Chagossian people were treated by the Western powers – those who never tire of preaching about human rights, yet in this case trampled on the most fundamental rights of human existence. This deportation, steeped in abject racism, speaks volumes about the values these nations claim to defend. Do you think the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands would have been treated the same way? No, because they have the right skin color.
We were arbitrarily deported, without consultation – an illustration of the utter contempt Western leaders have shown toward our people. One cannot expel an entire people from their homeland in order to install an instrument of war. Nothing could be more immoral – especially against a peaceful people like ours, who have always rejected violence on principle. We wish only to live in harmony with other peoples, just as we live in harmony with nature.
Our most basic human rights were violated. Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that no one shall be prevented from entering their own country.
SL: In 1983, ten years after the last deportations, the Chagos Refugees Group – of which you are the leader – was founded in Mauritius and in the United Kingdom, with the goal of defending the rights and interests of all Chagossians, beginning with the right to live on their own land.
OB: They tried to crush our people and consign us to oblivion. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the British government offered each of us a pitiful compensation – just a few hundred euros – in exchange for renouncing our right of return, as though human rights could be bought and sold.
So we decided to mobilize and demand our inalienable rights. Our mothers – and Chagossian women in general – took the initiative to find a way forward, refusing to leave their children in such destitution, without shelter or food. They organized themselves, led demonstrations, and demanded their right to return. They launched hunger strikes under a single banner: Return to the Chagos.
Chagossian women played a decisive role in ensuring the survival of our people, and I want to pay tribute to their courage. Lisette Talatte was the driving force behind the Chagossian struggle. She was among the twenty-one women who took part in a hunger strike to denounce the fate that awaited us. Chagossian women are an example for all – they embody hope, perseverance, courage, and resistance.
SL: In 1999, the Chagos Refugees Group launched a first legal action before the High Court in London to denounce the fact that the Chagossian people were banned from their homeland.
OB: With the help of the lawyer Sir Sydney Kentridge, who had previously represented Nelson Mandela, we challenged the 1971 ordinance that prohibited any stay in the Chagos Archipelago except for British and American soldiers. We contested the legality of a decision that barred a British citizen – most Chagossians also hold British nationality – from traveling to British territory, all the more so to the place of their birth. It must be said that our lawyer was brilliant and presented irrefutable arguments. It is no coincidence that Nelson Mandela mentions him in his autobiography.
To counter our case, the British government advanced various arguments that did not withstand scrutiny. For example, it claimed that all Chagossians, although born in the archipelago, were not residents but contract workers. I was four years old when I was expelled from my country. Had London signed an employment contract with a four-year-old child? My grandfather was seventy. Had London also signed a work contract with someone of that age?
On November 3, 2000, the High Court in London recognized that the Chagossians were indeed indigenous to the archipelago–“belongers” – and therefore had the right to return to their lands. The government did not initially appeal and launched a study to determine whether a return was possible. After two years, their biased assessment concluded that a return was impossible because, in the long term, the archipelago was likely to disappear under water. This spurious argument applied only to the Chagossian people and in no way to the existing U.S. military base. A second, equally specious argument was the alleged lack of drinking water in the archipelago. Again, this supposed shortage concerned only the Chagossians, not the hundreds of U.S. military personnel who had been there for decades. For more than five generations, Chagossians were able to drink without difficulty thanks to the archipelago’s natural springs. Moreover, it has been verified that Salomon is the third wettest island in the world. How could these “experts” present arguments so weak?
In response, in 2004 the Queen signed an Order in Council prohibiting Chagossians from returning to the archipelago. We appealed, and in 2006 the High Court quashed the Order in Council adopted two years earlier – challenging, for the first time in history, such a decision by the Crown. The British government appealed, which had suspensive effect. In 2007, the High Court again confirmed the Chagossians’ right of return, but the British government again appealed to suspend the ruling. In 2008, the case went before the House of Lords – the equivalent of a court of cassation – which overturned the High Court’s decision by three votes to two, citing strategic and security considerations. We appealed to the Supreme Court, which rejected our application by three votes to two.
SL: You then took the case to the European Court of Human Rights in 2008 for violations of the fundamental human rights of the Chagossian people.
OB: After a four-year battle, the Court ruled our application inadmissible on the grounds that compensation had been paid in 1982 and that this amounted to the Chagossian people waiving any further claims to their rights.
I n 2006 and 2009, we were nevertheless allowed brief visits to lay flowers on the graves of our ancestors. We were able to make other visits thereafter, without obtaining the right of return. Yet a KPMG report commissioned by London on the feasibility of resettling Chagossians in the archipelago concluded in 2015 that a return was entirely feasible. We ourselves had produced a report in 2008 reaching the same conclusion.
SL: It should be noted that Diego Garcia, where the U.S. military base is located, is populated by people from other countries.
OB: This is utterly incomprehensible to us. Our people were expelled from the entire archipelago, while the United States occupies only one island – and only part of it. Two-thirds of Diego Garcia is unoccupied. What’s more, Malaysians, Filipinos, Sri Lankans, and even Mauritians work on the military base. It is not only U.S. citizens. So why is our people’s inalienable right of return denied? How can such discrimination be possible? I myself applied to work on the base, but was refused because of my Chagossian origins. When I took legal steps, the recruiting agent personally informed me that he had been instructed not to hire Chagossians, for fear they would remain on the island once their contracts ended.
Everywhere else in the world where the United States has military bases – whether in Guantánamo, Guam, or Okinawa – there is coexistence with the local population. Why should that not be possible in the Chagos?
It should also be noted that London multiplied maneuvers to prevent our return. In 2009, the British government unilaterally launched a project to create a marine protected area across the entire archipelago, prohibiting any settlement. We later discovered, thanks to documents revealed by WikiLeaks, that the project was never intended to protect flora and fauna, but was in fact a pretext to prevent the Chagossian people from returning to their land. Besides, how can one claim to make the archipelago a no-settlement zone while accepting the presence of a military base with hundreds of people? It makes no sense. In fact, in 2015, the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea declared the creation of this protected area illegal.
SL: In 2016, you decided to join forces with Mauritius to take up the fight against London. Mauritius is claiming sovereignty over the Chagos, while the Chagos Refugees Group is demanding the right of return.
OB: We indeed accepted Prime Minister Anerood Jugnauth’s proposal to join the Mauritian delegation at the 71st session of the United Nations General Assembly. There, we denounced the fate that had been inflicted upon our people.
That same year, in 2016, the government of Theresa May tried to buy our conscience by offering us £40 million in exchange for a definitive renunciation of our right to return. We, of course, rejected this offer with contempt. The inalienable rights of a people cannot be bought with money.
SL: In June 2017, in accordance with Article 94 of its Charter, the United Nations adopted, by a majority of 94 votes to 15, a resolution requesting the International Court of Justice in The Hague to render an advisory opinion on the dispute between Mauritius and the United Kingdom.
OB: The year 2017 marked a turning point in our struggle for return. A few months earlier, in January 2017, seven Nobel Peace Prize laureates had sent a solemn letter to President Obama, whose term was drawing to a close, urging him to end the forced exile of the Chagossian people. In May 2017, I was personally received by Pope Francis at the Vatican, who expressed his support for our cause. I was received again by His Holiness in 2023, and he reaffirmed that we had the right to return home.
In September 2018, we presented our case before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, with a delegation of nine members representing the three islands: Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos, and Salomon. Liseby Elysé testified before the Court in Chagossian Creole and recounted the tragedy of our people.
In February 2019, the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion, ruling by an almost unanimous vote – 13 to 1 – that the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius was contrary to international law governing decolonization, as it violated the principle of the inviolability of borders inherited from colonization and, consequently, the right of peoples to self-determination. The Court emphasized that the “unlawful detachment of the Chagos Archipelago” and its “incorporation into a new colony” had hindered the proper completion of Mauritius’s decolonization process. It called on the United Kingdom “to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible,” urging all Member States to assist in “the completion of the decolonization of Mauritius.”
SL: How did the United Kingdom react to the decision of the International Court of Justice in The Hague?
OB: Far from complying with international law, the British government publicly declared in April 2019, before both Houses of Parliament, that it would not recognize the opinion of the Court in The Hague. This decision is shameful and demonstrates to what extent London tramples on international legality and lacks any moral authority to lecture others on human rights.
This position was immediately condemned by the international community. In May 2019, the United Nations adopted Resolution 73/295 by 116 votes to six, recognizing Mauritius’s sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago and demanding the unconditional withdrawal of the British colonial administration within six months. The resolution stated that “since the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago was not based on the free and genuine expression of the will of the Mauritian people, the decolonization of Mauritius has not been lawfully completed.” It also called for “no impediment or obstacle to be placed in the way of the resettlement” of the Chagossians in their homeland and rejected “any measures taken by the so-called British Indian Ocean Territory.”
To this day, despite its obligations, the United Kingdom continues to defy the rule of international law and refuses to comply with United Nations resolutions.
SL: In 2023, Human Rights Watch published a damning report on the Chagos, describing the situation as a “crime against humanity.”
OB: It is a substantial and meticulously documented report of great significance. It delivers an extremely severe judgment on the British and American authorities, who bear responsibility for our misfortune. This report even prompted the Biden administration to express regret and a willingness to seek a solution. It was the first time Washington had spoken publicly on the matter. Usually, the authorities deflect responsibility toward London.
It must be acknowledged that the United States bears a heavy responsibility for the fate of our people. Indeed, without the presence of the military base, our people would still be living on their native land and would never have been deported. We therefore demand the right of return and reparations from the United States, which has never offered any form of compensation for its presence. We are calling for the United States to be officially involved in all future negotiations on the Chagos question.
I myself traveled to the United States and met with senior officials from the State Department to remind them of their responsibility. They told me it was the first time they had heard the Chagossians’ perspective on this tragedy. The trip was very positive: we received support from numerous senators and representatives, and media coverage was strong.
SL: Réunion Island has always supported the Chagossian people’s struggle for return. How do you view this solidarity?
OB: I first came to Réunion in 1989, and the solidarity with our cause has grown ever since. It began with the support of the municipality of Le Port, and then extended to the entire island. We have received recognition and support from several municipalities, from the bishopric, and from various associations.
I believe that the people of Réunion, who experienced deportation themselves with the enfants de la Creuse, were profoundly moved by our tragedy and have shown unwavering closeness to our struggle. The people of Réunion have known colonization, discrimination, racism, and injustice – experiences that naturally led them to identify with our fight.
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my brothers and sisters of Réunion, from all walks of life, for their fraternity, for we have always been welcomed with open arms. We intend to return that generosity and to welcome them, in turn, when we are once again settled on our native land.
SL: What are the prospects for the future?
OB: We are determined to assert our rights. London offers us British citizenship and resettlement in the United Kingdom, but no people can forget its roots or its homeland.
We have already established a committee of experts – several of whom are from Réunion – tasked with developing the necessary policies for a successful resettlement, particularly regarding housing, water, infrastructure, and renewable energy. We will not relive what happened in 1965, when everything was arranged behind our backs. From now on, nothing will be done without our consent.
SL: Do you have a final message to convey?
OB: Our cause is just. Our people, torn from their homeland, have endured a crime against humanity. We ask only for our rights to be respected. We want to breathe the air of our native land. Our children have the right to live on the land of their ancestors. We have the right to our dignity as a people.
We will never give up – and we will emerge victorious from this struggle.
Pour citer cet article
Référence électronique
Salim Lamrani, « Our People, Torn from Their Homeland, Have Suffered a Crime Against Humanity », Études caribéennes [En ligne], 15 | Novembre 2025, mis en ligne le , consulté le 08 novembre 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/etudescaribeennes/37896 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/15376
Haut de pageDroits d’auteur
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.
Haut de page



