{"id":41868,"date":"2024-12-13T21:16:24","date_gmt":"2024-12-13T17:16:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/?p=41868"},"modified":"2025-02-10T17:27:56","modified_gmt":"2025-02-10T13:27:56","slug":"chagos-treaty-a-good-deal-for-the-uk-and-mauritius-despite-delays","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/chagos-treaty-a-good-deal-for-the-uk-and-mauritius-despite-delays\/","title":{"rendered":"Chagos Treaty: A Good Deal for the UK and Mauritius Despite Delays"},"content":{"rendered":"

Opinion<\/u><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It should be possible for the treaty to be agreed by Parliament in time for both parties to sign it before President Bidden leaves office on 20 January<\/em><\/h3>\n

By David Snoxell<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

There have been unexpected delays to concluding a UK\/Mauritius treaty on Chagos.<\/span><\/p>\n

One was the decision by Prime Minister Ramgoolam to review the agreement which Mauritius and the UK made public in a joint statement on 3 October, just before the election timetable was announced. This should not have been a surprise since the PM had not seen the agreement before the election, so wanted time to consider its details. We await the recommendations of the review he commissioned on 29 November.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/p>\n

Given that Dr Ramgoolam and his legal adviser Philippe Sands were the architects of the litigation which led to the 2017 ICJ Advisory Opinion and the UNGA resolution which endorsed it, one would expect the Prime Minister to want to take forward the agreement with any improvements that both sides have agreed for the treaty. It will then be signed by both parties and go to the UK Parliament for discussion. As primary legislation concerning the legal status of Diego Garcia and the winding up of a former colony is required the treaty may not be ratified until 2026.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another issue has been the opposition in the British Parliament and media to returning the Archipelago to Mauritius on the grounds that it would weaken the western alliance and security of the joint UK\/US base by enabling China to establish itself in the Archipelago under Mauritian sovereignty. This anti-China fear mongering is a specious argument but has appeal for those who don\u2019t want what they regard as British territory to be \u201csurrendered.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

A further argument used against the agreement is that the Chagossians do not want Mauritius to get control of their islands. They want the Archipelago to remain British. Some Chagossians in the UK and politicians are calling for a referendum of all Chagossians to decide on this issue. Those who deploy this line conveniently ignore the fact that the majority of Chagossians live in Mauritius and support the agreement restoring sovereignty to Mauritius, as the only means by which they will be allowed to return and resettle in the islands. A referendum that included Chagossians in Mauritius would result in a majority for the agreement. In any case in international law a referendum would apply to the entire population of Mauritius including Chagossians.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0An editorial in The Times<\/em> on 2 December deployed all these arguments and more, alleging that Dr Ramgoolam denounced the proposed agreement as \u2018high treason\u2019. Nothing could be further from the truth. In a letter on 3 December to The Times<\/em> I wrote: \u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI disagree with your editorial\u2019s opposition to the Chagos agreement (\u201cCrown Jewel\u201d, Dec 2). Negotiations with Mauritius were initiated by the British government and were announced in parliament on November 3, 2022, by the foreign secretary, James Cleverly. Although considerable progress was made by two Conservative governments it was the present government that reached an agreement widely supported by MPs. After two years and 13 sessions, this is hardly \u201cindecent haste\u201d [as you describe it]. The agreement is soundly based in international law, mirroring Britain\u2019s position on Ukraine. It provides long-term security for the UK\/US base, which reflects Donald Trump\u2019s \u201cAmerica first\u201d policy, enables Chagossians to return to their islands and ensures that Mauritius remains in the western alliance.<\/p>\n

The agreement is a skilful compromise between the different interests of the UK, US and Mauritius. Without it Chagossians will continue to be prevented from resettling, the US base will lack security and legitimacy, the decolonisation of Mauritius will remain incomplete and Britain in violation of international law. After 60 years, acknowledging Mauritian sovereignty and returning the archipelago to its rightful owner is a courageous foreign and defence policy achievement of Conservative and Labour governments.\u201d<\/p>\n

As Stephen Doughty, Foreign Office Minister responsible for the negotiations stated in a recent answer to a Parliamentary Question from the shadow Foreign Secretary:<\/p>\n

“This agreement is in the shared interests of both Mauritius and the UK, including by ensuring the long-term and effective operation of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. It has been welcomed by our mutual partners the US and India and opens a new era of security and economic cooperation. We look forward to working with the new Mauritian Government to finalise the Treaty and will update the house in due course on timelines for signature and laying of the Treaty following the usual process.”<\/p>\n

The Chagos Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group met on 10 December and continues to support the agreement. Members are meeting Mr Doughty on 18 December to discuss the process for ratification and to explore the potential for resettlement on Diego Garcia.<\/p>\n

A letter to The Times<\/em> of 6 December from Richard Gifford, Solicitor to the Chagos Refugees Group commented:<\/p>\n

\u201cYour editorial \u201cCrown Jewel\u201d declares the UK\/Mauritius agreement to recognise Mauritian sovereignty of Chagos to be \u201cdemeaning and unwelcome to the original island inhabitants evicted by the British in the late 1960s and dumped on Mauritius.\u201d You further assert: \u201cBritain has now denied them a homeland again by giving [Chagos] away to a distant island with no valid historical claim.\u201d<\/p>\n

There is no such \u201cdenial\u201d. Mauritius has consistently undertaken to resettle Chagossians (all citizens of Mauritius) who wish to return. Further, it is inconceivable that the prime minister of Mauritius, Dr Ramgoolam, will reject the deal given that he initiated the legal claim to sovereignty of Chagos when he took the UK to a UN Tribunal in 2010 claiming that the UK was \u201cnot a coastal state\u201d in Chagos. He succeeded, leading to the International Court of Justice\u2019s binding decision that Chagos was and remained part of Mauritius.<\/p>\n

Objections from Chagossians come from those who have settled in Britain and have lost interest in Mauritius. The majority of Chagossians remain in Mauritius and have welcomed the agreement as the only means of restoring their right of return\u201d.<\/p>\n

Assuming there is no further delay it should be possible for the treaty to be agreed by Parliament in time for both parties to sign it before President Biden leaves office on 20 January. A treaty will enhance and enrich the UK\/Mauritius bilateral relationship and provide a means of greater cooperation and partnership between our two countries which have an historic relationship going back 225 years.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

David Snoxell has been\u00a0Coordinator of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG since 2008.\u00a0 He was\u00a0British High Commissioner to Mauritius, 2000-04, and\u00a0Deputy Commissioner of the BIOT, 1995-7<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 13 December 2024<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Opinion<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":182,"featured_media":21076,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[13344,6],"tags":[27239,164,49957,1755,120,26227,1993,845,49955,397,49953,49958,16756,165,20419,49954,119,36,4462,49952,377,48916,26176,49956,4134,4657,33152,49959,7195,49951,34934,852],"class_list":["post-41868","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-geopolitics","category-latest-news","tag-biden","tag-chagos","tag-chagos-group","tag-chagossians","tag-china","tag-cooperation","tag-david-snoxell","tag-diego-garcia","tag-doughty","tag-elections","tag-fearmongering","tag-gifford","tag-icj","tag-india","tag-international-law","tag-majority-support","tag-mauritius","tag-mauritius-times","tag-ramgoolam","tag-ratification","tag-referendum","tag-resettlement","tag-security","tag-shared-interests","tag-sovereignty","tag-the-times","tag-timelines","tag-treaty","tag-uk-parliament","tag-uk-mauritius-treaty","tag-unga","tag-us"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Chagos.jpg?fit=899%2C600&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8QzSF-aTi","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41868","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/182"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41868"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41868\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42260,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41868\/revisions\/42260"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/21076"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41868"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41868"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mauritiustimes.com\/mt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41868"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}