https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9337-9694
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
The British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) was created in 1965 to secure a range of Indian Ocean islands for United States and United Kingdom military use. However, despite being situated in the centre of this new Territory, the twin islands of North and South Agaléga were curiously excluded. In light of India’s modern military development of Agaléga, this article examines why British and American planners in 1965 passed over these islands, citing its uncertain strategic utility, the political and financial costs of dismemberment from Mauritius, and Agaléga’s usefulness as a destination for displaced Îlois from the Chagos Archipelago. Using declassified British and American government records, this article uncovers secret Western machinations to secure the Indian Ocean, as Britain was winding down its vast global empire. This article concludes by commenting on India’s modern-day development of Agaléga, articulating some commonalities and divergences compared to American and British Cold War plans.
Acknowledgements
Thanks is due, in no particular order, to Mr. Richard Dunne, Dr. David Brewster, Mr. Nigel Wenban-Smith, Dr. Rohan Howitt, Mr. David Snoxell, and the two anonymous reviewers for their generous, thoughtprovoking and constructive comments and feedback. Thanks is also due to the Australian National University’s CartoGIS Services team for tailoring for this article. Nevertheless, any and all errors remain our own.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 Yarno Ritzen, ‘Agaléga, a Secret Base, and India’s Claim to Power’, Al Jazeera Investigative Unit, 2021, https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2021/island-of-secrets/index.html. Mauritius uses a specific and technical definition of ‘military base’ and does not address the core contention of a facility, with the potential for a military application, being present on the island.
2 Ritzen.
3 Ritzen.
4 Ashley Jackson, War and Empire in Mauritius and the Indian Ocean, Studies in Military and Strategic History (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001), 35, https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403919540.
5 Jackson, 34–35.
6 Jackson, 34–37.
7 Fabio De Ninno, ‘The Italian Navy and Japan, the Indian Ocean, Failed Cooperation, and Tripartite Relations (1935–1943)’, War in History 27, no. 2 (1 April 2020): 240, https://doi.org/10.1177/0968344518777270.
8 John Grehan, Churchill’s Secret Invasion: Britain’s First Large Scale Combined Operations Offensive 1942 (Barnsley, United Kingdom: Pen and Sword, 2013), 15.
9 Grehan, 15.
10 M.L. Bhargava, Indian Ocean Strategies Through the Ages (With Rare and Antique Maps) (New Dehli: Reliance Publishing House, 1990), 142–45; Alan Powell, ‘The Air Raids on Darwin, 19 February 1942: Image and Reality’, in Australia 1942: In the Shadow of War, ed. Peter J. Dean, Australian Army History (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 140–45; Grehan, Churchill’s Secret Invasion: Britain’s First Large Scale Combined Operations Offensive 1942, 21.
11 Grehan, Churchill’s Secret Invasion: Britain’s First Large Scale Combined Operations Offensive 1942, 21–22.
12 De Ninno, ‘The Italian Navy and Japan, the Indian Ocean, Failed Cooperation, and Tripartite Relations (1935–1943)’, 242. Indeed in the Indian Ocean raid of March-April 1942, five Japanese aircraft carriers, dozens of smaller vessels and hundreds of aircraft, entered the Indian Ocean and achieved regional superiority over the British Eastern Fleet which retreated from the Japanese.
13 John Curtin, ‘International Affairs Speech’ (Commonwealth of Australia House of Representatives, 29 April 1942), https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/publications/tabledpapers/HSTP04970_1940-42/upload_pdf/4970_1940-42.pdf.
14 Ian Van Der Waag, A Military History of Modern South Africa (Philadelphia: Casemate, 2018), 167.
15 EDR Harrison, ‘British Subversion in French East Africa, 1941-42: SOE’s Todd Mission’, The English Historical Review 113, no. 456 (1999): 354, https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/114.456.339.
16 Milo Kearney, The Indian Ocean in World History, 1st ed. (New York: Routledge, 2004), 153.
17 Roland Popp, ‘Subcontracting Security: The US, Britain and Gulf Security before the Carter Doctrine’, in European-American Relations and the Middle East: From Suez to Iraq, ed. Victor Mauer and Daniel Möckli, CSS Studies in Security and International Relations (Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2010), 174–76.
18 Darshana M. Baruah & Yogesh Joshi, 'India's policy on Diego Garcia and its quest for security in the Indian Ocean’, Australian Journal of International Affairs 75, no. 1 (2021): 38-41.
19 Edward Longinotti, ‘Britain’s Withdrawal from East of Suez: From Economic Determinism to Political Choice’, Contemporary British History 29, no. 3 (3 July 2015): 334–35, https://doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2014.974567.
20 William D. James, ‘Global Britain’s Strategic Problem East of Suez’, European Journal of International Security 6, no. 2 (2021): 178–80, https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2020.24.
21 Popp, ‘Subcontracting Security: The US, Britain and Gulf Security before the Carter Doctrine’, 177.
22 Nitika Srivastava, ‘Prospects for Russia–India Relations in the Indian Ocean Region’, Maritime Affairs: Journal of the National Maritime Foundation of India 13, no. 1 (2017): 83-84.
23 T.B. Millar, ‘Soviet Policies in the Indian Ocean Area’, Canberra Papers on Strategy and Defence (Canberra: The Australian National University, 1970), 3, https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/115180/2/b14115177.pdf.
24 Millar, 15–20.
25 Popp, ‘Subcontracting Security: The US, Britain and Gulf Security before the Carter Doctrine’, 177–78.
26 Vojtech Mastny, ‘The Soviet Union’s Partnership with India’, Journal of Cold War Studies 12, no. 3 (2010): 56, https://doi.org/10.1162/JCWS_a_00006.
27 Srivastava, 83-84.
28 Mastny, ‘The Soviet Union’s Partnership with India’, 63–67.
29 Baruah and Joshi, 42.
30 Baruah and Joshi, 42.
31 Christopher J. Lee, ‘The Indian Ocean during the Cold War: Thinking through a Critical Geography’, History Compass 11, no. 7 (2013): 525-527.
32 Mastny, ‘The Soviet Union’s Partnership with India’, 71.
33 Baruah and Joshi, 40-45. Despite being privately supportive of British and American plans, the Indian government felt it necessary to publicly oppose them in the interests of anti-imperialism.
34 ‘Brief: U.S. Navy Interest in Indian Ocean,’ August 1959, DEFE 7/1652, US Navy Requirements in the Indian Ocean, National Archives, London.
35 Vytautas B. Bandjunis, Diego Garcia: Creation of the Indian Ocean Base, 1st ed. (Lincoln: Writer’s Showcase Press, 2001), 1–2.
36 Bandjunis, 2.
37 Richard Edis, Peak of Limuria: The Story of Diego Garcia and the Chagos Archipelago, 2nd ed. (London: Chagos Conservation Trust, 2004), 79.
38 Hall, H.P., ‘Depot Facilities for U.S. Fleet in the Western Indian Ocean,’ 14 April 1959, DEFE 7/1652, US Navy Requirements in the Indian Ocean, National Archives, London.
39 ‘Message from Admiralty,’ 12 June 1959, DEFE 7/1652, US Navy Requirements in the Indian Ocean, National Archives, London.
40 ‘Letter from the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean to the Secretary of the Admiralty,’15 February 1960, DEFE 7/1652, US Navy Requirements in the Indian Ocean, National Archives, London.
41 Bandjunis, Diego Garcia: Creation of the Indian Ocean Base, 4.
42 ‘Annex to DP. 11/64 (Final),’ 10 February 1964, CAB 21/5418, US Request for Communications Facility on Diego Garcia, National Archives, London.
43 ‘Annex to COS. 66/64: Brief for US/UK Talks on Defence Interests in the Indian Ocean,’ 21 February 1964, DEFE 5/148/66, Brief for UK-US Talks on Defence Interests in the Indian Ocean. Note by the Secretary, National Archives, London.
44 ‘Defence Interests in the Indian Ocean: Note by the Navy and Air Force Departments,’ 25 November 1964, CO 968/841, US Strategic Interests in Indian Ocean, National Archives, London.
45 ‘Defence Interests in the Indian Ocean: Note by the Navy and Air Force Departments,’ 25 November 1964, CO 968/841, US Strategic Interests in Indian Ocean, National Archives, London.
46 ‘Memorandum: U.K./U.S. Defence Interests in the Indian Ocean,’ 22 January 1965, CO 968/841, US Strategic Interests in Indian Ocean, National Archives, London.
47 Defence Interests in the Indian Ocean: Note by the Navy and Air Force Departments,’ 25 November 1964, CO 968/841, US Strategic Interests in Indian Ocean, National Archives, London.
48 ‘Letter from N.C.C. Trench, British Embassy, Washington to E.H. Peck, Foreign Office, London,’ 15 January 1965, FO 371/184522, Defence Interests Overseas: US/UK Discussions on Diego Garcia, National Archives, London.
49 ‘Letter from N.C.C. Trench, British Embassy, Washington to E.H. Peck, Foreign Office, London,’ 15 January 1965, FO 371/184522, Defence Interests Overseas: US/UK Discussions on Diego Garcia, National Archives, London.
50 ‘Letter from N.C.C. Trench, British Embassy, Washington to E.H. Peck, Foreign Office, London,’ 15 January 1965, FO 371/184522, Defence Interests Overseas: US/UK Discussions on Diego Garcia, National Archives, London.
51 ‘Letter from George S. Newman, Embassy of the United States of America, London,’ 14 January 1965, T 225/3150, United Kingdom/United States Agreement for Providing Defence Facilities in the British Indian Ocean Territory, National Archives, London.
52 ‘Telegram: Indian Ocean Island Facilities,’ 13 January 1965, Indian Ocean (including IOTF) ‐ December 1963 ‐ March 1966, National Security Files, Files of Robert W. Komer, Box 26, LBJ Library.
53 Defence Interests in the Indian Ocean: Note by the Navy and Air Force Departments,’ 25 November 1964, CO 968/841, US Strategic Interests in Indian Ocean, National Archives, London.
54 ‘Telegram: UK/US Defence Interests,’ 18 March 1965, FO 371/184524, Defence Interests Overseas: US/UK Discussions on Diego Garcia, National Archives, London.
55 ‘Telegram: UK/US Defence Interests,’ 18 March 1965, FO 371/184524, Defence Interests Overseas: US/UK Discussions on Diego Garcia, National Archives, London.
56 ‘Cabinet Memorandum: Defence Facilities in the Indian Ocean,’ 7 April 1965, CAB 148/20, Defence & Oversea Policy Committee: Papers 28-68, National Archives, London.
57 Jean Claude de l’Estrac, Next Year in Diego Garcia… (Port Louis: Elp Publications, 2011), 55.
58 l’Estrac, 57.
59 l’Estrac, 57.
60 In 2019 the International Court of Justice opined that ‘having reviewed the circumstances in which the Council of Ministers of the colony of Mauritius agreed in principle to the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago on the basis of the Lancaster House agreement, the Court considers that this detachment was not based on the free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned.’ Thus, the ICJ was ‘of the opinion that, having regard to international law, the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos Archipelago.’ See: Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965: Summary of the Advisory Opinion, No. 2019/2 (International Court of Justice 25 February 2019).
61 Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965: Summary of the Advisory Opinion at 6.
62 Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965: Summary of the Advisory Opinion at 6.
63 Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, ‘Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America Concerning the Availability for Defence Purposes of the British Indian Ocean Territory’, 1966, 276, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20603/volume-603-I-8737-English.pdf.
64 ‘Letter from Minister of Overseas Development to Minister of State, Treasury,’ 26 March 1971, OD 26/283, ‘Resettlement of Population of the Chagos Archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory) to Mauritius and the Seychelles, Because of US Defence Facility at Diego Garcia. With Map, National Archives, London.
65 Britain’s assertion that Mauritian officials agreeing to ‘ceding’ the Chagos Archipelago in 1965 at Lancaster House is controversial and was the subject of a 2019 International Court of Justice opinion and a United Nations General Assembly vote. See: Thomas Burri and Jamie Trinidad, eds., The International Court of Justice and Decolonisation: New Directions from the Chagos Advisory Opinion, 1st ed. (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2021).
66 ‘Letter from Minister of State for Defence to Minister of State, Treasury,’ 2 August 1971, OD 26/283, Resettlement of Population of the Chagos Archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory) to Mauritius and the Seychelles, Because of US Defence Facility at Diego Garcia. With Map, National Archives, London.
67 Reports of this deal had been made previously, but 1975 marked the first official confirmation. See: ‘U.S.‐British Deal On Diego Garcia In ’66 Confirmed’, The New York Times, 17 October 1975, sec. Archives, https://www.nytimes.com/1975/10/17/archives/usbritish-deal-on-diego-garcia-in-66-confirmed.html.
68 ‘Cabinet Note: Draft Agreements with the United States Government on the Use of the British Indian Ocean Territory,’ 5 May 1966, CAB 148/69/12, Draft Agreement with the United States Government on the Use of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Note by the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Defence Facilities in the Indian Ocean, National Archives, London.
69 ‘Meeting Notes: Defence Interests in the Indian Ocean,’ 20 October 1964, CO 968/841, US Strategic Interests in Indian Ocean, National Archives, London.
70 ‘Letter from M.P. Moulinie,’ 13 April 1962, FCO 141/1464, Seychelles: Diego and Agalega and Chagos Agalega Companies; the Oil Islands of Mauritius and UK/US Defence Interest in the Indian Ocean, National Archives, London.
71 Jamie Trinidad, Self-Determination in Disputed Colonial Territories, Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law 134 (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 84.
72 Nigel Wenban-Smith and Marina Carter, Chagos: A History: Exploration, Exploitation, Expulsion, 1st ed. (London: Chagos Conservation Trust, 2016), 507.
73 Wenban-Smith and Carter, 507–9.
74 Wenban-Smith and Carter, 509.
75 ‘Telegram: Administration of detached islands,’ 21 July 1965, T 225/2839, UK/US Agreement for Providing Defence Facilities in the British Indian Ocean Territory, National Archives, London.
76 Wenban-Smith and Carter, Chagos: A History: Exploration, Exploitation, Expulsion, 487.
77 Wenban-Smith and Carter, 515.
78 India also signed a deal with Seychelles to develop Assumption Island in 2015, but Seychelles ultimately reneged on the deal several years later.
79 Yarno Ritzen, ‘Agaléga, a Secret Base, and India’s Claim to Power’, Al Jazeera Investigative Unit, 2021, https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2021/island-of-secrets/index.html.
80 Ritzen.
81 Western Indian Ocean Islands (Canberra: ANU CartoGIS, 2022).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Samuel Bashfield
Samuel Bashfield is a PhD Candidate at the Australian National University’s National Security College.
Alexander Lee
Alexander Lee is a PhD Candidate at the Australian National University’s National Security College.