Chagos: “Negotiations, supported by the US and India, continue with Mauritius”

David Snoxell, Coordinator – The Chagos Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group

* ‘A lease agreement over the Diego Garcia base area may not provide sufficient confidence to the UK and US since a lease could be set aside by a future government’

 * ‘By entering into negotiations, based in international law, with Mauritius, the UK implicitly accepts the relevant findings of international courts’

In an email interview this week, with David Snoxell, Coordinator of The Chagos Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group, we delve into the recent controversy around the apparent shift in policy regarding the resettlement of former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands, as announced by Foreign Secretary David Cameron during a Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on January 9, 2024, and subsequently reported by The Guardian on January 26, 2024. ‘There has been no change in policy towards resettlement. Mr Cameron’s brief answer to a question at his appearance before the FAC has been misinterpreted and taken out of context,’ reassures Snoxell. The former British High Commissioner to Mauritius also elaborates on the importance of the Diego Garcia military base and suggests potential compromise solutions that could balance security interests with Mauritian sovereignty.

* What do you think could explain the recent change in policy regarding the resettlement of former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands, as announced by Foreign Secretary David Cameron during his testimony to a Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) hearing on 9 January, as reported by The Guardian on Friday, 26 Jan 2024?

There has been no change in policy towards resettlement. Sadly, British governments have always been opposed to Chagossian resettlement. Mr Cameron’s brief answer to a question at his appearance before the FAC has been misinterpreted and taken out of context.

The Guardian report omitted to point out that the Foreign Secretary in no way suggested that he wanted to stop the current UK/Mauritius negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over Chagos though he remained sceptical about resettlement.

* Our perception of the policy shift is based on The Guardian‘s report, which itself stated that Cameron sharply differed from his predecessor, James Cleverly, who conveyed a contrasting perspective in a written ministerial statement issued on November 3, 2022. Therefore, we would assume that the perceived major reversal of policy would have been approved by the British Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, before it could be announced by the Foreign Secretary.

As I just stated, there has been no major reversal of policy. I doubt Lord Cameron’s rather tentative response to the FAC question was discussed beforehand either by Cabinet or with the PM.

It seems to me that the FS was simply reinforcing the need to come to a conclusion on how to ensure the security and continuation of the base which enables the US and the UK to have confidence in its future operations. 

* Should we, therefore, conclude that Cameron’s statement does not reflect any broader shift in the UK’s foreign policy approach?

There has been no shift in foreign policy or in the UK’s approach to the future of the Chagos Islands. Negotiations, supported by the US and India, continue with Mauritius. 

* Are there historical or other factors that might be influencing the UK’s reluctance to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius?

The opposition of a right-wing think tank, Policy Exchange, and its attempts to discredit Mauritius and others to transferring control of BIOT to Mauritius has been building over the last few months. This is clearly a factor of which the FS is conscious. Hence the emphasis on ensuring the security of the base.

* David Cameron highlighted security requirements and the importance of the Diego Garcia military base. Do you believe there could be alternative solutions that address both the UK-US’s security interests and the rights of Mauritius over the Chagos?

Both sides need to come to a compromise on security aspects which respects international law and Mauritian sovereignty and builds confidence in the West that the base remains secure and effective for as long as it is needed.

This could be done by creating a short-term temporary UK sovereign base area lasting for a defined term, say until 2036 when the UK/US 1966 agreement terminates, with a review at the halfway point in 6 years’ time. In the meantime, the 55 Outer Islands, surrounding sea and the marine protected area would be returned to Mauritius.

* The Guardian‘s report stated that Cameron had ruled out the resettlement of former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands. Would this also imply that it’s unlikely for Britain to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius anytime soon, and that a lease agreement with the US for its continued occupation of Diego Garcia for its military base should also be ruled out?

Resettlement will become the responsibility of Mauritius. Clearly it is in the interests of Chagossians to support Mauritian sovereignty as under British control they will not be allowed to return whereas they will under Mauritian sovereignty.

Olivier Bancoult and the CRG, who represent the large majority of Chagossians support Mauritian sovereignty.

A lease agreement over the Diego Garcia base area may not provide sufficient confidence to the UK and US since a lease could be set aside by a future government.

* In light of policy shifts of successive British governments regarding the Chagos issue, there’s a feeling down here that the British have dragged their feet for more than 40 years regarding the sovereignty issue, and things are unlikely to change in that regard. What’s your take on that?

It is true that British governments have strung Mauritius along since I became British High Commissioner in Sept 2000.

There has always been another foreign policy issue or conflict that is given priority. There could have been a settlement in 2001 but 9/11 got in the way.

There have recently been accusations that Mauritius is in league with China and would hand the islands to them. However, these claims are without foundation. They constitute a fake argument designed to undermine the negotiations and are employed by those who wish for the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) to remain under British sovereignty indefinitely.

In any case, the best way of ensuring Mauritius remains with the West is to conclude an agreement that commits Mauritius to supporting the base.

* The International Court of Justice (icj) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ruled against the UK’s administration and claim to the islands. It would seem these legal precedents have not shaped the discussions between the UK and Mauritius. What else will work to resolve matters, or will the issue be left hanging by both UK and the US due to rising threat perceptions of China in the Indian Ocean?

In my view, international court rulings have been critical in keeping pressure on the UK to negotiate a settlement and this is now happening.

If the negotiations were to fail, I would expect Mauritius to take the issue back to the UN General Assembly to seek another ruling from the ICJ.

There is also the International Criminal Court, which tries crimes against humanity. Deportation of a people is defined by its constitution as a crime against humanity.

* How do you think the UK’s refusal to accept the findings of international court rulings might impact its standing in the international community, especially considering accusations of crimes against humanity over its treatment of the Chagossian people, including ‘persecution on the grounds of race and ethnicity’ as voiced out by Human Rights Watch?

It seems to me that by entering into negotiations, based in international law, with Mauritius, the UK implicitly accepts the relevant findings of international courts. His Majesty’s Government is acutely aware of the diminished standing of the UK in the international community.

The UK, a permanent member of the Security Council, no longer has experts elected to any of the ten UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies or the 176 UN expert groups. That sends a subliminal signal about the UK’s standing.

The UK will be able to restore its reputation when there is a settlement with Mauritius which includes Chagossian resettlement.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 2 February 2024