Since the announcement on 3 October that the UK has reached an agreement with Mauritius regarding the transfer of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago there has been much political and media commentary. Some of them have been well known, others less so. In the final stage, former prime minister Boris Johnson called the decision “just political correctness”, while reform leader Nigel Farage said it was a “sacrifice” and a “strategic disaster”. It has also been suggested that handing over the Chagos Archipelago could cause a domino effect where some of the remaining 13 British Overseas Territories (BOTs) could also be handed over by the UK. This article discusses the UK’s decision to relinquish sovereignty to Mauritius and the potential implications, if any, for other BOTs.
The Chagos Archipelago is located in the middle of the Indian Ocean and consists of seven atolls and 60 islands. It is officially known as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) and in various forms has been under the control of the UK since 1814. The origin of the decision to withdraw the sovereignty was in 1965 when before the independence of Mauritius the Chagos Archipelago was displaced. , to create BIOT. Independence was conditional on the army taking place. Then from 1968-1973, the indigenous Chagossian people were displaced. These decisions were made to ensure that the United States-UK military base in Diego Garcia was as secure as possible.
In recent years, pressure has been built against the continued sovereignty of the UK of the Archipelago, which was also beginning to threaten the legitimacy and authority of the UK regarding the BIOT, with the increasing risks of the construction of a military base in the disputed territory. Indeed, the UK Conservative Government, which started negotiations with Mauritius in 2022, saw this very difficult legal and rhetorical situation. Many decisions have undermined the UK’s position.
First, there was the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2015 that the marine protected area established by the UK around the BIOT was inconsistent with the obligations under the Convention to respect the rights of Mauritius and to consult with it. Second, in 2019 the International Court of Justice made an advisory decision, arguing that “the decolonization process was not legally completed”, and that the UK’s contribution was “a wrongful act”. This decision was later approved by the UN General Assembly. Thirdly, and finally, in 2021 the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in a judgment related to a case involving Mauritius and the Maldives said, “the sovereignty of Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago can be derived from the decisions of the ICJ”.
Since the UK’s decision to withdraw sovereignty there have been discussions about the basis and weight of the decisions, including that the Chagos Archipelago is far from Mauritius and was only attached to Mauritius in 1903, and that the ICJ decision was only advisory and should be ignored. This ignores the fact that the weight of international opinion was from the UK, the way the BIOT was built was very problematic, and the original reason for creating the no-man’s land (to provide additional security for the military base) was being compromised.
Therefore, there are good reasons why the UK government (under the Conservatives and now Labor) felt it was time to reach an agreement with Mauritius. Of course, there were a few things to consider and critics of the deal said it would empower China, and Mauritius could not be trusted to abide by the Agreement. However, there are strong arguments in favor. Decolonization (as noted earlier) will put the military base on a sound legal footing, improve relations with India (which supported the agreement) and other allies in the Indo-Pacific region, and provide a much-needed shot-arm for decolonisation, international law, and the role of diplomacy. Even if one does not agree with some of the details of the agreement, there are good reasons why it should be struck.
Yes, among them are the Chagossians; those who were displaced and the generations that followed. Their treatment over the past 50 years has undoubtedly been poor and they are fighting for recognition and a say in their future. Many people in Chagossia believe that the agreement made last week still fails to fulfill their interests. However, the deal gives some Chagossians a better chance within half a century to return to their homeland if they wish, and there is more government support for Chagossians in the UK. Ultimately, a devolution agreement between the two independent states was a necessary precondition for the Chagossians to obtain that right of return. If the monarchy had been opposed any such movement would have been uncertain.
The third thread in the debate is that leaving the sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago is a small end of the border and will lead to increased pressure on UK sovereignty in other British Overseas Territories. It may seem like an obvious argument to make, but it simplifies the complex and nuanced relationship BOTs have with both the UK and other countries, which may have an interest in them. Most of the BOTs, including Bermuda, five in the Caribbean, Pitcairn, and St Helena are uncontested. It is true that there are problems in bilateral relations between them and the UK that cause disagreements, and the balance of decision-making power is an ongoing consideration, but they are far from what is happening with the British Indian Ocean Territory.
Even the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, and the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus are unlikely to see the Chagos agreement threaten their current status as British Overseas Territories. In the Falkland Islands, Argentina’s propaganda is often loud and can make things difficult for the islands, but there is also some pragmatism as seen in the new agreement to improve relations between the two. In Gibraltar, the main concern is not Spain seeking control, but rather if the well-used border can be kept open (Gibraltar was not part of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU). Finally the Sovereign Base Areas, which host the base of the Royal Air Force (RAF), are supported by an agreement with Cyprus and an arrangement where EU law applies to the non-military parts of the area, which includes 11,000 Cypriots.
The UK government’s decision to relinquish control of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius is significant and not without risks. Also, there is work to be done to protect the interests of the Chagossians, and for some, their return. But most of the comments have been hyperbolic and unhelpful. These issues are complex, and should be given due care.
Further Studies in E-International Relations
Source link
