Publicité

A rebuttal of the UK’s case (Final Part)

21 juillet 2017, 09:42

Par

Partager cet article

Facebook X WhatsApp

A rebuttal of the UK’s case (Final Part)

David Snoxell, Coordinator of the Chagos Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group takes on Mathew Rycroft, the UK’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, by replying to each point of his presentation at the United Nations General Assembly in a series of articles, the last of which we publish today:

We created the British Indian Ocean Territory for defence purposes, and in 1966, concluded an agreement with the United States of America for joint defence use of the territory. The extensive facilities that have since been established, are primarily used as a forward operating location for aircraft and ships, and they make an essential contribution to regional and global security and stability. Moreover, they contribute to guaranteeing the security of the Indian Ocean itself, from which all neighbouring states benefit, including Mauritius. The facilities play a critical role in combating some of the most difficult and urgent problems of the 21st century, such as terrorism, international criminality, piracy and instability in its many forms.

Mauritius supports the US presence on Diego Garcia and over the past 17 years has continued to say so.

Our current agreement with the United States lasts until 2036. We cannot, 19 years away, predict exactly what our defence purposes will require beyond that date. We should not and will not make arbitrary, or ill-informed, or premature decisions. We cannot gamble with the future of regional and global security. Mauritius’s attempted assurances on the base’s future lack credibility. In contrast, the UK stands by its commitment. When we no longer need the territory for defence purposes, sovereignty will pass. That, by the way, is exactly what we did in relation to the very similar agreement reached with the Seychelles in 1965. We ceded sovereignty of islands to the Seychelles when we no longer needed them for defence purposes.

Mauritius has not asked the UK to make arbitrary, ill-informed, or premature decisions, or to gamble with the future of regional and global security. It has asked the ICJ for an advisory opinion on the legal issues. The suggestion that Mauritius’ assurances on the future of the base lack credibility demeans not just Mauritius but also the conduct of diplomacy.  No reason is given for this assertion. Three islands were handed back to Seychelles in 1976 at independence. There is no reason why the Outer Islands of the Chagos Archipelago should not also be returned to Mauritius.

In our dealings with Mauritius, we have tried to set out bilateral relations on a positive, future path, rather than focus on the past. But we should be clear about the past. The simple fact is that we negotiated the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago with the elected representatives of Mauritius – the same people with whom we were, separately, negotiating the independence of Mauritius. The representatives of the Mauritian people had authority to negotiate with us in both negotiations, and in both cases they reached agreements with us.

But the 1965 agreement on Chagos was made three years before independence.  At the time Harold Wilson implied to the Mauritian Premier that independence would be delayed indefinitely if the Mauritian representatives did not agree.

On the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago, they negotiated first, compensation, which we paid; second, various rights for Mauritius; and third, this long-term commitment to cede the islands to Mauritius, when no longer needed for our defence purposes.

Yes but that was 52 years ago at a time when Mauritius was not independent. Some Mauritian politicians expressed grave doubts about allowing the UK to keep the Chagos Islands but were reassured by the UK commitment that sovereignty would revert to Mauritius.

Our promise to cede sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius, when they are no longer needed for defence purposes, is not a sign that we lack confidence in our sovereignty. On the contrary, we were and we remain confident about our sovereignty. In its recent Arbitral Award, the UNCLOS Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction to rule on Mauritius’s sovereignty claim – contrary to what Mauritius has sought to imply in its notes to members of this Assembly.

The Tribunal found that the undertaking given in 1965 by the UK to return sovereignty to Mauritius was binding in international law. Two of the five judges also found that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction. 

In 1965, we undertook to cede the territory in due course because we were setting it up for a specific purpose but could envisage a future situation in which the territory might no longer make a useful contribution to defence purposes. That moment has not yet come. The base is playing a vital role.

Until the moment does come and subsequently, we want to enjoy positive, and friendly, and constructive relations with the people and with the Government of Mauritius. We have much in common and many reasons to work together. For our part, we are always willing to sit down and talk to our partners about contentious, bilateral matters that divide us. Although our efforts so far have not been successful, I repeat that offer now to the Government of Mauritius. This is a bilateral matter for bilateral talks. It is not a matter for an advisory opinion to be given to the General Assembly.

The Outer Islands have never been required for defence and could have been returned to Mauritius long ago.  The UK’s right of reply in the UN since 2000 was “We remain open to discussions regarding arrangements governing BIOT, or the future of the Territory” but the UK has avoided discussion on the future of BIOT. To accept that the ‘offer’ is serious Mauritius needs to be confident that the UK will honour this commitment.

The United Kingdom has always been and continues to be a strong upholder of international law. We are not opposing this Resolution because we have changed our principles, nor because we believe the rule of law does not apply in this case, rather we oppose this Resolution because referring a bilateral dispute to the ICJ is not the appropriate course of action.

The UK is generally an upholder of international law except when it comes to Chagos.  In 2014 the Arbitral Tribunal found the MPA to be in breach of its obligations under the UNCLOS Convention. International lawyers tend to think it is therefore unlawful. The UK has still not amended the MPA to conform with Convention obligations. 

So in conclusion, Mr President, for all of these reasons, we strongly oppose the draft Resolution. A request for an advisory opinion would be a distraction and, I fear, an obstacle to the path of bilateral talks, which is our preferred course of action. And it would set a terrible precedent, both for this Assembly and for the Court. If Mauritius will not withdraw it, I urge members to vote against the resolution.

An advisory opinion would provide a solid basis for a substantive negotiation between the UK and Mauritius. Thus it would set an excellent precedent for resolving international disputes. UNGA resolution 71/292 was adopted by a large majority. Of the 193 member states of the UN only 14 voted with the UK and only two were members of the Security Council and four of the EU. This sent a powerful signal that the UN wants to see an end to the continuing exile of the Chagossians and a settlement with Mauritius over sovereignty.

A rebuttal of the UK’s case (Part I)

A rebuttal of the UK’s case (Part II)

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