Fact check: China has made only one public statement on Chagos Islands deal
The Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said the deal had 'secured the base for the long term' and that 'has been opposed by our adversaries' including China.
The Conservative Party has claimed it is 'pure disinformation' that critics of the deal are siding with China.
There is limited information on what Beijing thinks about the deal.
Certainly the only known public statement from a Chinese official on the deal applauded the agreement in the context of safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity. It did not mention China's view on the continued presence of the military base on Diego Garcia.
China abstained on the UN vote which was a key stage in the road to the deal, and one expert the PA news agency spoke to said he believes that Beijing 'privately views the agreement … somewhat as a setback', citing a variety of reasons.
How long have the Chagos Islands been in UK hands?
Britain took control of Mauritius from 1810 when it was seized from the French. Between 1814 and 1965 the Chagos Archipelago was administered by the UK as a dependency of the Mauritius colony.
In 1965 the UK detached the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and several Islands from the Seychelles and created the new British Indian Ocean Territory. Three years later Mauritius became an independent country.
Between 1967 and 1973 the UK removed the population of the Chagos Archipelago.
What has China said about the UK-Mauritius deal?
On May 26 the new Chinese ambassador to Mauritius, Huang Shifang, gave a speech at a reception attended by the Mauritian Prime Minister, the Vice President and others.
The official text of the speech – which was sent to the PA news agency by the Chinese embassy in Mauritius – does not directly mention the Chagos deal.
A release from the Mauritian Prime Minister's office the next day said of the ambassador's speech: 'Acknowledging Mauritius's firm adherence to the One-China Policy, she commended the recent achievement regarding the Chagos Archipelago.'
The closest that the official text of the speech comes to this is a section where the ambassador says: 'China highly appreciates Mauritius's adherence to the One-China Policy, and fully supports Mauritius in safeguarding its national sovereignty and territorial integrity.'
However, a short video excerpt from the speech, posted to YouTube, shows that immediately afterwards the ambassador added: 'In particular we applaud loudly for the historical achievement on the Chagos agreement. Massive congratulations.'
What might Beijing think behind closed doors?
It is difficult to say what policymakers in the Chinese capital might be thinking about the deal behind closed doors.
The prime minister's statement appears to claim that China opposed the part of the deal which allows Diego Garcia to remain open.
When the ambassador's speech supported Mauritius's work on its territorial integrity she linked that to the country's One China Policy.
The One China Policy is Beijing's claim that 'Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory'.
So the ambassador's statement – if an accurate representation of Beijing's thinking – could show that China supports the handing over of Chagos to Mauritius because it reinforces the principle of territorial integrity which the Chinese leadership thinks supports its claim to Taiwan.
But this does not rule out Beijing being disappointed about the part of the deal which allows the Diego Garcia base to remain open.
When quizzed on Sir Keir's claims, his official spokesperson pointed towards the deal's support from the US and other allies. This included a post from US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth who said the deal secures 'key US national security interests in the region' and added: 'We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead.'
Benjamin Sacks, a professor of political geography at the RAND School of Public Policy in the US, told PA: 'I contend that Beijing privately views the agreement, even if modified to ameliorate some Chagossians' outstanding demands, somewhat as a setback. In practical terms, it gains little if any advantage from it.'
He said the deal resolves the question as to whether the UK, 'a major state actor supporting existing rules-based orders (RBOs), was violating them in respect to the Chagos'.
He added: 'The Chagos issue constituted a perennial problem for British foreign policy; one that China could simultaneously exploit to demonstrate its supposed adherence to existing RBOs and undermine the UK's traditionally important role in maintaining it.'
The deal 'deters Port Louis (Mauritius) from becoming an effective client state of Beijing' while allowing it to balance a strong economic relationship with China while continuing its close relationships with Beijing's competitors, India, the UK and the US, he said.
Dr Sacks added: 'Analysis … suggests that China prioritises decolonisation so as to replace European and American influence with its own. For this reason, Beijing will applaud the agreement as a 'win' against the major Western powers.'
As for the base at Diego Garcia: 'Beijing will have to contend with its continued presence for at least the next 99 years, and likely longer.'
He said it can also be argued that the base's deterrence effect 'is stronger now that the agreement has secured and clarified its future within international laws and norms'.
What has China said about the Chagos Islands in the past?
In 2017 China abstained on a UN General Assembly vote which asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to deliver an advisory opinion on the dispute between the UK and Mauritius. This ICJ opinion was ultimately cited in the UK-Mauritius agreement.
At the time the Chinese representative to the General Assembly said: 'China calls upon the countries concerned to continue to make efforts in good faith and to continue to carry out bilateral negotiations and consultations, so as to seek an appropriate solution to the question of Chagos archipelago as soon as possible.'
The court opinion that followed in 2019 was that the UK is 'under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as quickly as possible'.
In the wake of this opinion, in 2019 the General Assembly adopted a resolution which welcomed the court's decision. At this point China was one of the 116 votes for the resolution. Six countries voted against and 56 abstained.
The Chinese representative said at the time: 'The Chinese Government is a consistent and firm supporter of the decolonisation process.'
More recently in a China-Mauritius meeting on August 1 last year – according to a Mauritian press release – the Chinese representative 'reiterated China's aid to Mauritius in its quest for sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago'.
UK Parliament – Hansard for June 11 2025, Engagements (archived)
Video on YouTube (archived page and audio)
ICJ advisory opinion (archived)
Government Information Service – Reception marking assumption of office (archived)
Ambassador's speech – text (archived)
YouTube video of speech (archived page and audio)
MFA – Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (archived)
Pete Hegseth statement (archived)
UNGA – Thursday, 22 June 2017, 10 am (archived)
UK-Mauritius agreement (archived)
UNGA – Adopts Resolution Seeking International Court's Advisory Opinion (archived)
UNGA – Welcomes International Court of Justice Opinion (archived)
UNGA – Vote in 2019 (archived)
UNGA – Wednesday, 22 May 2019, 3 pm (archived)
Government of Mauritius – The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (archived)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs: Which Canadian sectors will be hit, and how hard?
The bulk of Canadian trade with the U.S. still falls under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Deal (CUSMA). But President Donald Trump's new tariffs will hit some sectors in Canada hard. Mike Armstrong explains.
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs: What are the sticking points in the Canada-US trade negotiation
Prime Minister Mark Carney has remained tight lipped following U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement he would raise the tariff on Canada from 25 per cent to 35 per cent. His policy, while Canada-U.S. trade talks are ongoing, is not to negotiate in public. Mercedes Stephenson breaks down the major sticking points that could be slowing down the negotiations.


New York Times
6 minutes ago
- New York Times
Appeals Court Allows Trump Order That Ends Union Protections for Federal Workers
A federal appeals court on Friday allowed President Trump to move forward with an order instructing a broad swath of government agencies to end collective bargaining with federal unions. The ruling authorizes a component of Mr. Trump's sweeping effort to assert more control over the federal work force to move forward, for now, while the case plays out in court. It is unclear what immediate effect the ruling will have: The appeals court noted that the affected agencies had been directed to refrain from ending any collective bargaining agreement until 'litigation has concluded,' but also noted that Mr. Trump was now free to follow through with the order at his discretion. Mr. Trump had framed his order stripping workers of labor protections as critical to protect national security. But the plaintiffs — a group of affected unions representing over a million federal workers — argued in a lawsuit that the order was a form of retaliation against those unions that have participated in a barrage of lawsuits opposing Mr. Trump's policies. The unions pointed to statements from the White House justifying the order that said 'certain federal unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda' and that the president 'will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions.' But a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a famously liberal jurisdiction, ruled in Mr. Trump's favor, writing that 'the government has shown that the president would have taken the same action even in the absence' of the union lawsuits. Even if some of the White House's statements 'reflect a degree of retaliatory animus,' they wrote, those statements, taken as a whole, also demonstrate 'the president's focus on national security.' The unions had also argued that the order broadly targeted agencies across the government, some of which had no obvious national security portfolio — including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency — using national security as a pretext to strip the unions of their power. The panel sidestepped that claim, writing in the 15-page ruling that 'we question whether we can take up such arguments, which invite us to assess whether the president's stated reasons for exercising national security authority — clearly conferred to him by statute — were pretextual.' The order, they continued, 'conveys the president's determination that the excluded agencies have primary functions implicating national security.'