“The MPA project gives scope for everyone to work together”

● It’s been five months since the British government launched the consultation process for the creation of a Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the Chagos. Did you expect the proposal to cause such an uproar?

The British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) is obviously a very sensitive issue here. There will soon be elections in Mauritius, as there will be in the United Kingdom, and the reaction has to be seen in that context. I would say I was a little surprised by it. I think some of the reactions, particularly in the media, have been predicated on a misunderstanding of what the consultation process is about, all the more so because in Mauritius there are limited established consultation procedures.

● In the UK, consultations are very widely accepted and operated. When we launch a consultation it’s an attempt to gather information and hear views from stakeholders in order to inform decision-making. It’s not reflective of a decision that’s already been taken. A lot of the reporting of and discussions on the BIOT issue in Mauritius seems to have assumed a decision to establish the MPA has already been taken. The best response to a consultation process is to engage in it and to provide views. Without views, it’s difficult for all stakeholders to be heard when a decision is taken.

You seem to think that all this sabre-rattling is part of an attempt by government to drum up some support against a common enemy, so to speak, before the elections. I wouldn’t describe it in those terms. That’s your expression not mine. I would however say that it’s a politically sensitive period and things have to be seen in that light. When people read the consultation document they will see that a lot of the concerns that have been aired in the Mauritian press are not legitimate.

For example, some worry that the MPA consultation is a way to prevent the islands ever being ceded to Mauritius. However, the document makes it clear several times that if the British government were to establish an MPA, it would have no bearing on the commitment we made in 1982 to cede the islands to Mauritius when the archipelago as a whole was no longer needed for defence purposes. It’s very clear that any decision, if there is one, will not affect the sovereignty issue. It’s also written very clearly that this is without prejudice to the ongoing court case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) brought by the Chagos Refugee Group (CRG).

● What’s the current status of the project?

The deadline of the consultation, which initially was February 12th, was extended until March 5th. One of the reasons we did that was to ensure that we could hear the views of interested stakeholders in Mauritius. We held consultations here via teleconferencing. Anyone who wanted to give their views could do so. The independent facilitator of the consultation is collating all the views and summarizing them and will present them to the UK government as a document, which will then be used to inform the decision-making process.

● Part of the Mauritian government’s beef with the MPA has been that it doesn’t recognize the BIOT and, by extension, the legitimacy of any decisions it makes. That’s not really going to change, is it?

We’ve made it very clear to the government of Mauritius that we would have welcomed their contribution to the consultation process, be it directly to the independent facilitator or in the context of the UK-Mauritius bilateral talks. For the instant, the government of Mauritius has not formally provided its views, although obviously we track its statements in the media and at public speeches.

● Speaking of which, the third round of the talks, which was meant to be held in January, has been cancelled because of the situation surrounding the MPA. Are there any signs of a thaw?

Once again, we made it clear from the beginning of the consultation process that we were looking forward to the third round of talks and that we’re happy to discuss ideas relating to an MPA in the Indian Ocean. We await a time when the Mauritian government feels they can come to the table for discussions.

● Any indication when that will happen?

No, you’ll have to ask the Mauritian government.

● Doesn’t the non-participation of Port Louis in the consultation rather undermine the process?

Any consultation process benefits from the contributions of the largest possible range of people. We can’t force people to submit their views to the process. Having said that, we’re obviously very aware of the Mauritian government’s views on an informal basis.

● Did the Chagossian community and, more precisely, the GRC participate in the consultation process?

They came to the High Commission to submit their views, both on paper and orally.

● Certain environmental NGOs have proposed a “fourth MPA option” that “explicitly considers the future possibilities of resettlement”. What’s your take on this?

It’s proof of the consultation process working. The document makes it clear that there are three broad options in the framework but it also asks participants if they can identity any other options. If people come forward with fourth, fifth or sixth options, that’s part of the process.

● One of the reasons why the project is viewed with suspicion is because the story of the Chagos reads like a litany of tragedies in which people were sacrificed on the altar of geopolitical considerations. What makes the MPA any different?

It’s a transparent process! Our objective is to preserve the environment in the Indian Ocean. In many areas, the UK is at the forefront. The UK has been at the forefront of negotiations to achieve emissions reductions for developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol process. That’s not to say that we’re perfect every country has made environmental mistakes in the past, but in a range of areas the UK is at the forefront of global environmental policy. The MPA is very much in keeping with that. You only have to look around the world to see that there have been cases where fish stocks have declined terribly and the establishment of MPAs can aid in their regeneration and conserve the sea beds. We’re keen to advance to environmental protection in the BIOT area and we’re consulting on whether an MPA is the best way to go about that. It’s as simple and transparent as that.

I appreciate that the Mauritian government and ourselves do not share the same views on sovereignty but it doesn’t change the parameters of the debate because we’ve made it very clear that it doesn’t alter our commitment to cede the islands when they’re no longer needed for defence purposes. Not does it alter the parameters of the issue of Chagossian resettlement.

● What’s the US government’s stance on the project?

I can’t speak on the behalf of the American government.

● The US hasn’t exactly been totally honest with the UK with regards to extraordinary rendition and its nuclear stockpile. Has that created tension between the two countries?

You know very well that the US and the UK are very close allies. We share many defence interests. As with all relationships, there are issues to discuss from time to time.

● Isn’t it paradoxical that the UK wants to create an MPA in a region that houses nuclear weapons?

I don’t think it’s paradoxical. The base in Diego Garcia benefits the security of the whole Indian Ocean and Mauritius is a beneficiary of that. The consultation process will see the expression of a wide range of views, including those of people who believe that it’s better to have an MPA than none at all and vice versa. There are credible scientists out there who will say that, completely separately from the issue of the base, an MPA will advance marine conservation in the area.

● Do you really believe that the two issues be so clinically dissociated from each other?

I don’t think they’re as oppositional as some people would suggest. One of the things that you see around the world, particularly in the BIOT, is that the creation of military bases has created the conditions for the marine environment to flourish. If you compare the reefs in the
BIOT with those around the rest of the Indian Ocean, you’ll see that they’re in pristine condition. It’s an unintended consequence of the base, but a consequence nonetheless.

● Let’s imagine a scenario. The UK goes ahead with the MPA and the ECHR rules in the CRG’s favour thus giving them the right to resettle. Can you categorically aver that the MPA won’t hinder their chances of returning to the archipelago?

Again, I’ll refer you to the consultation document. It’s a simple answer, but it’s a very important one. It notes that the process is without prejudice to the judgment of the ECHR. It also states that following recent court cases in the House of Lords, the current position under the law of the BIOT is that there is no right of abode in the territory: “Under these current circumstances the creation of an MPA would have no direct, immediate impact on the Chagossian community. However, we recognize these circumstances may change following any ruling that might be given in the proceedings pending before the ECHR.” The UK government will respect the end result of the legal process of the ECHR.

● The plan has also been described as a last ditch attempt by the UK to dash any hopes of resettlement ahead of the renewal of the lease of Diego Garcia in 2016. Is there even a remote chance of the base outliving its usefulness?

The UK government is sure of its sovereignty over the BIOT but we commit to cede the islands when the archipelago isn’t needed for defence purposes. That commitment hasn’t changed and nothing in the process affects it. It’s as simple as that. If you look at the exchange of letters between the UK and US governments with regards to the BIOT and the base, it’s clear that the current 50-year lease ends in 2016 and it will be renewed for a further period of 20 years unless either party objects.

● How would you like to respond to all of those who have imputed less than respectable motives to the UK government?

Judge us by what we say and not through the prism of Perfidious Albion.

● But can you understand where those who do speak of Perfi dious Albion are coming from?

If you look at the history of the issue you’ll see that even if we’ve had disagreements we’ve acted in good faith. We’ve paid two rounds of compensation to the Chagossians for the way in which they were deported. The Foreign Secretary has said on several occasions that we regret the way it was done, that we accept it wasn’t right. I think that particular issue of compensation is closed.

● The Chagossians don’t seem to think so…

They’ve pursued the UK government through the UK courts using UK legal aid. They’ve won several cases but they lost the important one when the Appeals Court ruled that full and fair compensation had been paid to the Chagossians in 1973 and 1982. In 1982 their own lawyers had advised them that what was being offered was a full and fair settlement for the wrongs they had suffered. We disagree with Chagossian community on the issue of return but we’ve had free and fair discussions in court, which is proof of the democratic and judicial process at work. It went to the highest court in the UK which ruled in favour of the government.

● Where exactly did the Orders in Council fit in the democratic process?

In the UK, laws are made by the government of the day using the procedures that are open to them. The Orders in Council have been used with regard to the governance of the BIOT and the Law Lords upheld the validity of that.

● What’s your relationship with the Chagossian community in Mauritius?

It’s not widely known but we have a good working relationship with the Chagossian community. We provided almost half the funds for the construction of the CRG resource centre in Pointe-aux-Sables, we’re going to be donating computers to the centre. In addition the British Council will be delivering English lessons at the centre. We’re working with a British NGO to bring two volunteers over here to work at the centre full time. We’ve paid for compassionate visits to BIOT for the Chagossian community, and for teams of masons to restore the graves there. I think the CRG’s reaction to the consultation process has to be seen in the context of the period we’re in.

● Do you think that cooler heads will prevail once the elections are over?

I’m optimistic that the concept of advancing environmental protection in the Indian Ocean gives scope for everyone to work together. Once the consultation document is read in the calm light of day people will see this. In that sense, the MPA needn’t cause huge political difficulties.

Nicholas RAINER
(l'express iD - Friday 19 March)