Two months ago I wrote an article which attempted to set out the reasons for the UK’s decision to reach an agreement with Mauritius for the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago. In the meantime, Donald Trump won the US presidential election, a new government was voted into power in Mauritius and political and media criticism of the deal grew in the UK. This follow-up reflects what has happened in recent weeks and whether the deal is likely to go through.
In the British Parliament, four debates have taken place in the last three weeks in the Chagos Islands, two in the House of Commons and two in the House of Lords. They did not reveal much new information about the deal but reaffirmed the Labor government’s commitment to it and the key principles behind the decision to reach an agreement with Mauritius. The debates also crystallized the opposition’s lines of attack.
During the first debate in the House of Commons on November 13, initiated by Nigel Farage, a Reform MP, Minister of State Stephen Doughty reaffirmed that the law and international opinion were clearly moving against the United Kingdom. Two concrete examples are the UN changing its maps so that the Chagos Islands are now considered part of Mauritius and the Universal Postal Union no longer issuing stamps for the British Indian Ocean Territory ( the official British name for the Chagos Islands). Doughty also highlighted provisions preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outlying islands, further support for the Chagossians, including their right of return to all islands except Diego Garcia, which hosts the Anglo-American military base. American, and that Maurice would take responsibility for it. for any illegal migration to the islands. The latest issue has been a real scourge for the British government, with the status of a group of Sri Lankans remaining in limbo until recent days. After three years, they were transferred to the United Kingdom.
In response, opposition parties, particularly the Conservatives and Reforms, have been highly critical of the agreement, arguing that Mauritius has no legal or historical claim to the Chagos Islands, that the decision to the International Court of Justice was purely advisory, that the new Trump administration was against the deal (see below), that national security would be compromised, allowing China to gain a greater foothold in the Indian Ocean, and that interests Chagossians had been ignored. Many of these questions were addressed in my previous article, and all have strong and arguably more compelling counter-arguments. For example, while it is true that China has increased its presence in the Indian Ocean, this should not be exaggerated. For Mauritius, the country is not part of China’s Belt and Road initiative and India is its de facto security provider.
Another suggestion made by Farage, during the second debate in the House of Commons on December 2, was that a referendum should be held to determine who has sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. This idea has been taken up by others and a group of peers in the Lords are considering introducing a treaty amendment calling for a referendum. At first glance, this may seem like an effective way to gauge Chagossians’ views on the islands’ future, but in reality it is doomed to failure for two reasons.
First, the status of the islands requires a state solution and must be finalized before anything else. In other words, an agreement is needed between the United Kingdom and Mauritius to correct the decision taken in 1965 to separate the islands from Mauritius just before the latter’s independence. As I argued recently, “it is the decision regarding the division of territory…that is the most important international legal question.” If this separation had not taken place, the Chagossians would now have been part of an independent Mauritius. Second, it would be difficult to agree on who would vote in a referendum. Would it be those who were originally expelled in the late 1960s and early 1970s, 300 or 400 people, or would it include the Chagossians of second and/or third generation who have never lived on the islands? Such difficulties in defining the right to vote have been noted in New Caledonia, whose status remains contested despite three referendums.
It is regrettable that the discussions at Westminster were not more nuanced and that this was reinforced by the fact that the British media generally failed to adequately interrogate the underlying issues involved in the proposed deal to return the islands Chagos in Mauritius. It is perhaps unsurprising that British tabloids like the Express And Email have been extremely critical with headlines such as “Labour sparks fury after snubbing Chagos Islanders on Remembrance Sunday” and “Chagos surrender poses security risk”. But even broadsheets, like The times And Independentwere guilty of lazy reporting. There is no doubt that the proposed agreement is important and until the treaty is published, the details remain limited, but until now the issue has not been given due consideration. However, it is almost certain that the agreement will be approved by Parliament.
Of course, the situation became more complicated following the elections in Mauritius and the United States, which saw the election of new governments. The change of government in Mauritius is perhaps less significant. 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 the financial settlement, he is unlikely to pull the plug due to the benefits that will accrue.
And then there is the new Trump administration and what its view might be. Although no official comment has been made, there is a strong impression that they are against the deal for many of the reasons cited by Farage and early Tory MPs, particularly the Chinese “threat”, but also whether the Diego Garcia’s current exemption from the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Pelindaba) agreement would be maintained (a likely yes). Indeed, Farage has made no secret of the fact that he has discussed this issue with Trump and others, and some suggest that the Conservative Party’s shadow secretary of state, Priti Patel, is being “kept in the loop”.
The UK government remains confident in the deal. Foreign Minister David Lammy said:
U.S. agencies think it’s a good deal, the U.S. State Department thinks it’s a good deal, and most importantly, the Pentagon and the White House think it’s a good deal. It’s not just the top politicians in these regions; this is the system… A new Administration will be reassured about this…
Overall, the deal is likely to be approved, as the underlying legal issues that brought the UK Conservative government to the negotiating table and persuaded the Labor government (and the Biden administration) to strike a deal with Mauritius remain in place. Yet the controversy has highlighted the challenges facing the Labor government more generally from rising right-wing populism, both at home and abroad.
Further reading on international electronic relations