Chagos deal: “The UK, Mauritius, and the US – everyone got something out of it”

Qs & As – David Snoxell

* ‘The agreement is rock solid and will not be derailed by those who disagree with different aspects of it’

In light of the recent political agreement between Mauritius and the UK regarding the sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago, David Snoxell, Coordinator of the All-Party Parliamentary Group since 2008, and former British High Commissioner to Mauritius, and Deputy Commissioner of the BIOT,shares his insights on the implications of this mauritius-UK deal. With protests emerging in the UK and mixed reactions from Mauritius, David Snoxell addresses concerns surrounding the agreement, the interests of various stakeholders, and the future of the Chagossian community.

* There have been protests and concerns raised in the House of Commons and the British press that appear aimed at undermining the joint Mauritius-UK “political agreement” announced on Thursday, October 3, regarding the sovereignty issue over the Chagos Archipelago. What is the position of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on the broader Chagos deal, considering not only the perspective of the Chagossians, whose rights the APPG has actively supported?

The nextand 96th APPG meeting is on 23 October. Members will discuss the agreement. I would expect them to support all aspects of it. They supported the negotiations of the last two years, leading up to the agreement. I can’t say more until they have met.

* Despite endorsements for Mauritian sovereignty from multilateral bodies like the UN General Assembly and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the recent protests in the House of Commons have come as a surprise. Do you think these sentiments could jeopardize the agreement before it progresses, especially given the uncertain geopolitical climate ahead?

I was surprised by the tone ofmany questions put by MPs to the Foreign Secretary after he delivered his oral statement. There is a febrile political climate in Parliament, associated with the Conservative Party leadership contest. The Opposition are looking for ways to attack the government.

MPs had not seen the statementbefore it was delivered, and their prepared questions had in some cases already been answered in the statement. That statement required close study before it was debated. The agreement is rock solid and will not be derailed by those who disagree with different aspects of it. The Government stands firmly behind it.

* Reactions in Mauritius have been mixed, with opposition parties and social media commentators accusing the government, particularly the Prime Minister, of sell-out by allowing the UK to exercise sovereign rights over Diego Garcia. Would you say that, without this explicit provision, the deal would not have materialized?

The agreement took two years and 13 sessions to negotiate. It was bound to be a political compromise among all parties — the UK, Mauritius, and the US. Without that compromise, there would have been no deal, and the situation would have remained unchanged for decades.

Everyone got something out of it. In summary, the US is granted secure tenure for its military base for 99 years; Mauritius control of the islands together with acknowledgement that it alone has sovereignty, rent for the base and completion of its decolonisation; Chagossians get the right to return and resettle, visitor access to Diego Garcia, a Trust Fund and other support from the UK.

* How do you view the implications of a 99-year period for UK control over Diego Garcia, which could potentially be extended? What impact will this have on Mauritius’s sovereignty in practical terms?

This is an excellent deal for all three countries. The US is well content to have full control and security of the base with UK administration, exercising sovereignty on behalf of Mauritius. Mauritius is pleased to have full sovereignty over all the archipelago and annual rent for the 99-year lease. The UK is relieved to have its reputation for upholding international law repaired andpassing Chagossian resettlement to Mauritius to deal with.

* With UK and US interests taking precedence in this agreement, what strategies can Mauritius adopt to ensure its sovereignty is upheld moving forward?

I don’t think it is true to say that UK and US interests have taken precedence. Mauritius got a good deal too.

Mauritius does not need a strategy to ensure its sovereignty of Chagos is respected. The agreement which will be turned into a bilateral treaty, registered with the UNis enough to do that.

* For the past 60 years, successive Mauritian governments have assured British authorities that the US-UK base would not be contested. What factors do you believe have made this current agreement possible after so many years, or what has compelled the UK to act now?

It is international pressure from UNGA which adopted an almost unanimous resolution endorsing the ICJ Advisory Opinion and requiring the UK to transfer the Islandsto Mauritius. Also, pressure from India, the African Union and Commonwealth combined with the rulings of three international courts against the UK. The UK’s stance over the situation in Ukraine and elsewhere made us vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy.

* Regarding the UK’s commitment to addressing historical injustices faced by the Chagossians, do you find the proposed trust fund and resettlement plans adequate? What more should be done?

I understand that Olivier Bancoult and CRG are issuing a statement welcoming the agreement and that after decades of campaigning and litigation Chagossians can now return to their islands. This is a huge achievement. I am only sorry that while they can visit Diego Garcia they can’t resettle there.

* The agreement includes financial compensation but lacks clarity on retroactive compensation for the Chagossian community. What implications do you foresee this having on their welfare and rights?

Financial assistance has yet to be clarified. That should happen in the coming months. I don’t think this impacts their welfare and rights. Chagossians in Mauritius and the UK receive social services benefits, etc.

* How does India’s involvement in this agreement, as noted in the joint statement, alter the geopolitical dynamics in the Indian Ocean?

It strengthens the security of the base as we can now see a potential alliance between the UK, US, India and I would add France with their base on Reunion, emerging in the Southern Indian Ocean, which will act as bulwark to potential Chinese influence andencroachment.

* What challenges do you anticipate in implementing the economic partnership established by this agreement?

It is too early to envisage challenges. The agreement is only a week old, and it has yet to be enshrined in a treaty, ratified and signed by both parties. Ask me again in 6 months time.

* In your view, what are the critical next steps that both Mauritius and the UK must take to ensure the successful implementation of this agreement?

The drafting of a treaty and ensuring that the Opposition parties accept it and both Parliaments strongly endorse it. There needs to be at least in the UK a strategy for educating politicians, media commentators and think-tanks over the complex issues involved including the current myth that Mauritius is beholden to China and will allow them to establish a base on one of the islands. We need to deal with ignorance of the issues and an increasing global disinformation campaign.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 11 October 2024