Editor's note: Yi Xin is a Beijing-based commentator on international affairs. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

At a recent joint press availability with his British counterpart, the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken reaffirmed recognition of UK sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, despite Mauritius' repeated demand for the UK to return the islands.

It's a case in point of the special ties between America and Britain – so special that one can unblushingly support the other's claim to a piece of stolen territory.

Or maybe quite understandable. The islands are home to the only U.S. base in the Indian Ocean. Dubbed an "unsinkable carrier," the base has proved instrumental to America's power projection over the decades.

Chagos' story is but one exposé in a long list of moral stains and legal transgressions accrued to the U.S.-UK alliance.

Might makes right

The Chagos Archipelago was first inhabited by French colonists in the late 18th century. Following Napoleon's defeat in 1814, France ceded Mauritius, including Chagos, to Britain.

When Mauritius sought independence after World War II, the UK and the U.S. were brewing a backroom deal to lease part of Chagos to the latter for military use. The strategically located archipelago was simply too good to let go.

With much cajoling and coercion, the UK made Mauritius sign the Lancaster House Agreement in 1965 and sell Chagos as a condition for independence.

That was the beginning of Mauritius' decades-long struggle to regain sovereignty over the islands.

Human rights abuses

The occupation incurred horrendous human costs.

The book Island of Shame reveals how, between 1968 and 1973, America and Britain conspired to forcibly expel Chagossians to slums in Mauritius and the Seychelles, where most live in dire poverty to this day. To make way for the U.S. base, locals were enticed to board free ferries headed for holiday, medical treatment, or family visits to other parts of Mauritius and never allowed to return. More heavy-handed tactics included cutting power and water, shutting schools, and using intimidation and violence.

The British masterly whitewashed the expulsion by claiming that Chagos never had any permanent residents. Access to the islands has been tightly restricted and the Chagossians' pleas to return home rejected outright.

When commenting on the human rights violations committed against his fellowmen, Olivier Bancoult, the leader of the Chagos Refugee Group, laments that while the Americans have a well-maintained cemetery for military dogs on Chagos, the graves of the islanders' parents have been left derelict for half a century.

The irony is certainly not lost.

Exceptionalism

The displaced Chagossians have mounted legal battles to take back their land and, as expected, won most of them.

In February 2019, the International Court of Justice released an Advisory Opinion requiring the UK to "respect the territorial integrity of Mauritius, including the Chagos Archipelago." That was followed by a UN General Assembly resolution adopted in May, demanding that the UK "withdraw its colonial administration ... unconditionally within a period of no more than six months."

But that was about it. Almost 60 months have passed. Nothing has changed. If anything, the British government is withdrawing from planned talks with Mauritius on a handover.

Such defiance of international law and public opinion is a recurring pattern seen in the behavior of Britain and, for that matter, its American ally – invasion without UN mandate, "collateral damage," regime change, unilateral sanctions ... After all, what's the point of playing by the rules if the rules run counter to one's interests?

'Infamous' ties

Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson is among those making a case against returning the islands, saying that it would be a "colossal mistake." He cited the "ruthlessly transactional" UK-U.S. relationship, and argued that if the UK doesn't pay tribute to the U.S., why should it expect to continue benefiting from Washington's largesse?

In a more explicit explanation, a UK defense source told The Telegraph, "Whatever solution you come up with, unless the Pentagon approves it, it's dead. They don't want anything that threatens the current status of the air base."

It's clear who's calling the shots then.

At the outset of that joint press conference, Secretary Blinken did not hesitate to describe the U.S.-UK relationship as an "infamous special relationship." Quite touché. The Anglo-Saxon pair may well tout their special ties based on shared values, but actually it is the same obsession with self-interests that has brought the two together.

Chagos has haplessly fallen prey to this "infamous" relationship. It's not the first one. It probably will not be the last one.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)