Two months ago, I wrote an article that attempted to justify the UK’s decision to reach an agreement with Mauritius on the transfer of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. In the time since Donald Trump won the US Presidential election, a new government has been voted in Mauritius, and there has been growing political and media criticism of the deal in the UK. This sequence shows what has happened in the past weeks and whether the deal could fall through.
In the UK Parliament, there have been four debates in the last three weeks on the Chagos Islands, two in the House of Commons and two in the House of Lords. They have not disclosed any new information about this agreement but they reaffirmed the commitment of the Labor Government to it and the key principles of the decision to reach an agreement with Mauritius. The debates also highlighted the opposition’s lines of attack.
In the first debate of the Commons on 13 November facilitated by Nigel Farage, Member of Parliament for Reform, the Minister of State, Stephen Doughty, reiterated that international law and ideology were against the UK. Two concrete examples are the UN changing its maps so that the Chagos Islands are now called part of Mauritius and the Universal Postal Union no longer issuing stamps for the British Indian Ocean Territory (the UK’s official name for the Chagos Islands). Doughty also highlighted arrangements that prevent the presence of foreign troops on the outlying islands, more support for the Chagossians, including their right to return to all islands except Diego Garcia, who runs the UK-US military base, and that Mauritius will commit. for any illegal migration to the islands. The latter issue has been difficult for the UK government, with the situation of a group of Sri Lankans remaining unresolved until a few days ago. After three years, they were relocated to the UK.
In response, the opposition parties, especially the Conservatives and Reform strongly criticized the agreement, saying that Mauritius has no legal or historical claim to the Chagos Islands, that the decision of the International Court of Justice was only a recommendation, that the incoming Trump administration was. against the agreement (see below), that the country’s security would be jeopardized, allowing China to occupy a large area in the Indian Ocean and that the interests of the Chagossians would be ignored. Many of these issues were discussed in my previous piece, and all have strong and very convincing counter-arguments. For example, while it is true that China has increased its presence in the Indian Ocean, it should not be overused. In Mauritius, the country is not part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative and India is its security provider.
Another proposal made by Farage, during the second debate of the Commons on 2 December, should be held a referendum and should decide who has sovereignty over the Chagos islands. This view has been taken up by others and a group of peers in the King plans to present an amendment to the agreement calling for a referendum. At first sight this may seem like an effective way to balance the Chagossians’ views on the future of the islands, but in reality this does not start for two reasons.
First, the island situation needs a government-based solution and must be resolved before anything else. In other words, an agreement between the UK and Mauritius is needed to correct the decision taken in 1965 to separate the islands from Mauritius shortly before the country gained independence. As I have argued recently, “it is the decision about territorial divisions … that is the most important question of international law. If that split had not happened, Chagossia would now be part of independent Mauritius”. Second, deciding who to vote for in a referendum can be difficult to agree on. Will it be those who were forced to leave in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a population of 300 or 400, or will it include second and/or third generation Chagossians who have never lived on the islands. Such difficulties in defining the franchise were seen in New Caledonia, which despite having three referendums its status remains controversial.
It is sad that the negotiations at Westminster were not very sophisticated and that has been reinforced by the UK media in general failing to properly investigate the issues involved in the proposed agreement to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. It is perhaps not surprising that British tabloid newspapers such as Express again Mail they were highly critical with headlines such as ‘Workers rage after withdrawing Chagos Islanders on Remembrance Sunday’ and ‘Chagos surrender poses security risk’. But, even broadsheets, like The Times again Independentthey were guilty of lazy reporting. There is no doubt that the proposed case is important and until the Treaty is published the details remain limited, but so far the matter has not been properly considered. However, it is almost certain that the deal will be approved by Parliament.
Of course, the situation has become more difficult because of the elections in Mauritius and the United States, which have voted in new governments. Perhaps less important is the change of government in Mauritius. Although the new prime minister, Navin Ramgoolam (interestingly the son of the leader who agreed to the initial separation of the Chagos Islands), has called for an independent review of the draft agreement, focusing, for example, on financial settlement, it is unlikely that he will pull the plug because of the benefits that will be gained.
Then there’s the new Trump administration and what their vision might be. Although there is no official comment made there is a strong opinion that it is against the agreement for many reasons mentioned by Farage and the Conservative front bench, especially the ‘threat’ of China, but also that the current release of Diego Garcia The African Treaty Without Nuclear Weapons (Pelindaba) will be maintained (probably yes). Indeed, Farage has made no secret that he has been talking to Trump and others about the issue and there are suggestions that the Tory Shadow Home Secretary, Priti Patel, is being “kept in the loop”.
The UK government remains confident of the deal. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said:
United States agencies think this is a good deal, the United States State Department thinks this is a good thing and, most importantly, the Pentagon and the White House think this is a good thing. That’s not just the big politicians in those areas; is the plan … The incoming manager will be assured that …
On balance, the deal will likely be acknowledged as the fundamental legal issues that brought the UK Conservative Government to the negotiating table and persuaded the Labor Government (and the Biden Administration) to agree to a deal with Mauritius. However, the debate highlighted the challenges the Labor Government faces in general from the rise of right-wing populism at home and abroad.
Further Studies in E-International Relations
Source link
