Publicité

“After half a century, it is good that the UN is given the chance to debate the Chagos issue”

16 septembre 2016, 09:00

Par

Partager cet article

Facebook X WhatsApp

“After half a century, it is good that the UN is given the chance to debate the Chagos issue”

 

Considering the next move of the Mauritian government to take the Chagos matter to the United Nation’s General Assembly and ultimately to the International Court of Justice, Weekly talks to David Snoxell, the co-ordinator of the Chagos Islands all-party parliamentary group and chairman of the Marine Education Trust, and former British high commissioner to Mauritius, about the various aspects of the Chagos Archipelago controversy. Snoxell gives us his candid views, trying to find a way through this labyrinth without spin, exaggeration or economy with the truth.

The Mauritian campaign for sovereignty over the Chagos islands is now accelerating. Mauritius is gearing up to engage the International Court of Justice (ICJ). What is your reading of this next move by the Mauritian government?

In July 2004, when I was British high commissioner, the Mauritian government decided to take the matter to the UN General Assembly with a view to obtaining a resolution referring the issue of sovereignty to the ICJ for an Advisory Opinion. This action was later postponed pending a possible meeting between the two prime ministers but the meeting did not take place. Mauritius has kept this idea on the back burner for the last 12 years. As there had been no progress on discussing sovereignty with the UK, despite numerous requests, Sir Anerood Jugnauth finally decided to take the proposed action.   

Will seeking the opinion of the ICJ seem rather hostile on the part of Mauritius?

It may seem so but I don’t think it is. Any member state of the UN is free to seek an opinion of an international court on a dispute it has with another member. If the dispute can be resolved in bilateral discussion, clearly that is the best way forward. It will be helpful to the UK, as well as Mauritius, to have an opinion from the highest court in the international system on the issue of sovereignty. The court might also give a view on the rights of the Chagossians.

The former British prime minister had asked the Mauritian prime minister to take up the matter with the new government and not to refer it to the International Court of Justice. Doesn't that give the impression that the UK government might now be worried?

Clearly, the UK would prefer to discuss the issues bilaterally rather than in the UN but this offer came too late for Mauritius and it could not be taken for granted that the new government would agree with Mr Cameron’s recommendation.

What is your personal view as someone who has been closely involved in this issue for years?

Personally, I think that after half a century, it is good that the General Assembly is given the chance to debate the Chagos issue. The UK was a founding member of the UN and believes strongly in the comity of nations. So, we should welcome a debate, even though the morality and legality of the UK’s actions will be under scrutiny.

What exactly is the position of the UK as things stand?

The position is clear. The UK is committed to returning the islands to Mauritius when no longer needed for defence purposes.

But they are no longer needed for defence purposes, are they?

Clearly not, so they could be returned at any time. Diego Garcia will continue as a US base for the foreseeable future. Mauritius has, however, been successful in obtaining the endorsement of the African Union and I believe India, for its position on sovereignty. I expect that many more states will support Mauritius at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

So what do you think will be the outcome?

Mauritius and the UK could agree to interim confidence building measures and a timetable for a gradual transfer of sovereignty, starting with the Outer Islands. The US has made it clear on various occasions that sovereignty is a matter for the UK, not the US. But clearly the US has an interest in Diego Garcia and the UK would consult the US about anything, such as a change of sovereignty, which could affect its use. Mauritius has given undertakings to the US that under its sovereignty, the base would continue though Mauritius would expect rent, which the UK does not levy.

What kind of resolution is likely to be drafted?

I hope the resolution will be drafted in friendly terms.  I would expect it to cite the decision of the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal in March 2015, upholding Mauritius’ legally binding right to eventual sovereignty. I suggest that the resolution reflects the willingness of the British government to discuss sovereignty. And there should also be a reference to the right of the Chagossians to return and live in the Islands, especially as Olivier Bancoult, leader of the Groupe Réfugiés Chagos, will be in New York alongside the Mauritian delegation.

Is it still possible to talk about ‘friendly terms’ when the UK supreme court concluded on 29 June in the Bancoult case that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) had withheld important documents?

It might be said that in the past, British governments have deployed a range of tactics to avoid discussing sovereignty, while maintaining in the UN and in international meetings that the “UK remains open to discussions regarding the future of the territory”. Even as recently as February 2013, an FCO minister claimed in parliament that the government was confident that Mauritius’ claims were “without merit”. However, it has been clear that in the last year or so, the British government has firmly acknowledged its commitment to cede the Islands to Mauritius and at last appears ready to discuss the issue.

What is behind this change of heart?

No doubt the 2015 Arbitral Tribunal ruling was a powerful factor behind this.

The Chagossian community of the UK claims that it is the UK which has sovereignty over the Chagos and not Mauritius. Doesn't that make matters worse?

Chagossians born on the Islands or in Mauritius are Mauritian citizens. It is not surprising that those who moved to the UK prefer British sovereignty to continue – that has long been their position – while those in Mauritius prefer Mauritian sovereignty. If the islands had been transferred to Mauritius in 2004, resettlement would have taken place by now and much anguish and litigation avoided. So, if the British government does not agree to resettlement, it will clearly be in the interests of all Chagossians to support Mauritian sovereignty. If the government restores the right of abode, resettlement should begin immediately under British sovereignty. Those who decide to make a new life in the Chagos Islands should be consulted about the future of their islands, including sovereignty. Those who prefer to remain in the UK or elsewhere cannot expect the same level of involvement.

You point out in your article on 'ConservativeHome' that it is perfectly possible that with compromise and diplomacy, an overall political settlement involving the US and Mauritius, which supports resettlement, could be agreed by 29 December. Is this not over-optimistic?

The 1966 UK/US agreement making BIOT available for defence purposes is due to be extended for a further 20 years on 29 December. It makes sense to deal with resettlement and future sovereignty in this extension. 

I think that a skeleton timetable for gradual transition, taking perhaps two or three years, can be agreed by that date. The UK may say that it cannot enter into discussions on sovereignty until the ICJ has given its Advisory Opinion, which could take a couple of years. If agreement on the future of the Chagos Islands can be worked out in discussions, then there will be no need for an Advisory Opinion which would be expensive and require submissions and evidence from both parties.    

 

For more views and in-depth analysis of current issues, subscribe to Weekly for as little as Rs110 a month. Free delivery to your door. Contact us:touria.prayag@lexpress.mu