Can one country steal another one? And better yet, can it be done without anyone noticing?

This is exactly what the U.K. did to Diego Garcia, the largest and southernmost island of the Chagos Archipelago, in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Floating in the middle of the Indian Ocean, Diego Garcia is a narrow coral atoll 1,000 miles south of the Indian coast. In the early twentieth century, Diego Garcia came under the administration of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOC). However, the U.K. would do a lot more than serve in an administrative capacity.

The island’s location and size made it a key interest to the U.K. and the U.S. Caught up in Cold War concerns of the time, together they agreed it was necessary to build a giant military base on the island to deter Russia’s activity in the area. It would renew its strategic importance during the Afghanistan War. The geographical position of the military base was useful for plane takeoffs when bombing the Middle Eastern country. The base would belong to the U.S., but the island would remain in the control of the U.K. The U.S. lease of the Diego Garcia has been renewed until 2036.

There is one obvious problem with building a base in Chagos Islands. There were people who lived on the quiet island of Diego Garcia. It was not an uninhabited space ripe for the taking as the British and Americans would have liked people to believe.

In order for the base to be built, the U.K. did something that some have called a crime against humanity. They forcibly evacuated local people from the island of Diego Garcia in the years between 1968 to 1974. More than 2,000 Chagossians were shipped off to the neighbouring islands of Mauritius and Seychelles where they would be condemned to lives of poverty and discrimination. Decades later, the atrocity has yet to be rectified.

The island of Mauritius, where the majority of the people of Diego Garcia were dumped, has recently spoken out about the U.K.’s continued control of the Chagos Islands. According to the BBC, Mauritian Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth has called the U.K. an “illegal colonial occupier.” The claim is not unwarranted. In May, the UN, after an overwhelming majority vote of 116 to six, demanded that the U.K. give up its occupation of the Chagos. They gave Britain a time period of six months to follow through. On Friday, that time frame elapsed.

Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth office has insisted that there are no legal obligations for the U.K. to give up control of the islands. They said, “The U.K. has no doubt as to our sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory, which has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814.”

Why is the British government being so uncooperative? According to international policy think tank the Lowy Institute, Britain has strategic and material motivations to maintain possession of the Chagos Islands. In addition to the importance of the military base, the U.K. has also sought to claim an Exclusive Economic Zone and Marine Protected Area (MPA) around the islands. The latter would encompass over 200 nautical miles. The British declaration of the MPA was contested by Mauritius and went to an arbitral tribunal case under Article VII of the United Nations Law of the SEA (UNCLOS). Mauritius argued that the U.K. had no right to declare an MPA as it is not a ‘coastal state’ in the area and does not hold legal sovereignty of the Chagos Islands. They also argued that the MPA would impinge upon their own fishing entitlements and was a backhanded way to block Chagossians from returning to the area. The results of the arbitral tribunal decided that the presence of a British MPA would be against the provisions of UNCLOS.

The U.K.’s forcible removal of Diego Garcia’s population is a breach of international law. Article 9 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) specifically states that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” The Chagossians definitely did not willingly board the boat that took them away from their homeland. Furthermore, Article 13(2) of the UDHR states, “everyone has the right to leave any country including his own and to return to his country.” The people from Diego Garcia and their decedents have never been able to reclaim their lost country. The UN Human Rights Committee determined that the exile of the Chagossians in the late 1960s and early 1970s as unlawful in 2002 and again in 2006.

Even before the most recent UN verdict, the UN’s high court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), had decided in March that the U.K.’s claim of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands was not sufficiently valid, and advised the U.K. to leave the area “as soon as possible.” However, both claims are unfortunately without legal consequences. There is no legal binding, and the U.K. is unlikely to face sanctions or immediate repercussions. Not even after failing to meet the six-month ultimatum on Friday.

The impact of the forced expulsion of the local people from Diego Garcia cannot continue to be brushed under the rug. The implications it had on these people were serious and deadly. The 2004 Granada Television documentary, Stealing a Nation, examines the impacts of the U.K.’s actions from the bottom up. It describes how many Chagossians found themselves living in slums, dying from diseases, and dying from the sadness of being ripped from their homeland and forced onto other islands. The documentary does a great job of depicting the human consequences through interviews with those who had been alive and experienced the forced removal. The film should definitely be watched to find out more about what happened to the people and how the impact of it is still very much felt.

The Chagossians are frustrated with the plight they have found themselves in. On Friday, in response to the continued British occupation, the Chagos Refugee Group protested in Mauritius outside of the British High Commission. These people, who have been ignored for decades, deserve to have their homeland returned to them.

What will make Britain change its behaviour? Possibly a change in government. Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has showed a desire to help the Chagossians. To him, the occupation on the islands is a bad stain on Britain’s image as a post-colonizer power. He stated that the return of the islands would be “a symbol of the way in which we [the British government] wish to behave in international law. … I am looking forward to being in government to right one of the wrongs of history.” This wrong should be righted. If Britain’s shaky political situation is considered, it might be true sometime in the future that the government will change and shift in favour of the Chagossians’ predicament.

History has shown that it has not been easy for a former colonized nation to immediately run seamlessly after occupation. One has to consider the environment that the Chagossians would be returning to in Diego Garcia. What kind of infrastructure is in place? What opportunities are there to get their economy off the ground? It will not be an easy transition. However, with international support, the Chagossians are capable to finding stability and success. Their sovereignty should be acknowledged, just as it should have never been taken away from them in the first place.