Two months ago, I wrote an article attempting to explain why the UK decided to reach an agreement with Mauritius for the transfer of sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago. Meanwhile, Donald Trump won the US presidential election, a new government was elected in Mauritius, and political and media criticism of the deal was growing in the UK. This follow-up reflects what has happened in recent weeks and whether a deal is likely to go through.
The British Parliament has held four debates on the Chagos Islands in the past three weeks. Twice in the House and twice in the Senate. They did not reveal much new information about the deal, but they reaffirmed the Labor government’s commitment to it and the key principles behind its decision to reach an agreement with Mauritius. The debate also crystallized the opposition’s line of attack.
In the first House of Commons debate led by Nigel Farage on 13 November, Reform MP and Secretary of State for State Stephen Doughty reiterated that international law and public opinion were clearly moving against the UK. Two practical examples are that the United Nations changed its maps so that the Chagos Islands are now referred to as part of Mauritius, and that the Universal Postal Union no longer issues stamps for the British Indian Ocean Territory (the official British name for the Chagos Islands). Doughty also stressed that measures to prevent the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, additional support for Chagossians, including the right of return to all islands except Diego Garcia, where there is a British-American military base, and that Mauritius will be held accountable. I did it. About illegal migration to the island. The last issue has been a major headache for the British government, with the status of the Sri Lankan group remaining unresolved until the last few days. Three years later they moved to England.
Opposition parties, particularly the Conservative and Reform parties, have been highly critical of the deal, arguing that Mauritius has no legal or historical claim to the Chagos Islands, that the International Court of Justice’s ruling is purely advisory, and that the incoming Trump administration will not seek to protect the Chagos archipelago. It was argued that opposition to the agreement (see below) would jeopardize national security, give China a greater foothold in the Indian Ocean and ignore Chagossian interests. Many of these issues have been addressed in previous articles and all have strong and persuasive counterarguments. For example, it is true that China has expanded its influence in the Indian Ocean, but this should not be overstated. In the case of Mauritius, the country is not part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative and India is its de facto security provider.
Another proposal put forward by Farage during the second Commons debate on December 2 was that a referendum should be held to decide who is sovereign over the Chagos Islands. The idea has been taken up by others, and a group of state peers plan to introduce an amendment to the treaty that would require a referendum. At first glance this may seem to be an effective way to gauge Chagossian views on the island’s future, but in reality it is a non-starter for two reasons.
First, the state of the island requires a state-based solution and must be completed first and foremost. In other words, an agreement is needed between Britain and Mauritius to correct the decision to separate the island from Mauritius shortly before British independence in 1965. As I recently argued, “decisions about territorial division . . . This is the most important international legal issue. If that separation had not occurred, the Chagoss would now be part of an independent Mauritius.” Second, deciding who to vote for in a referendum would be difficult to agree on. Will it be the 300 to 400 people who were originally forcibly removed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, or will it also include second and/or third generations of Chagossians who have never lived on the island? These difficulties in defining the franchise were seen in New Caledonia, where the country is still contested despite three referendums.
Unfortunately, the debate in Westminster has not been more nuanced and has been further reinforced by the British media’s general failure to properly investigate the underlying issues surrounding the proposed deal to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. The British tabloid newspaper The express and mail It was overwhelmingly critical, with headlines such as ‘Labour sparks outrage after ignoring Chagos islanders on Remembrance Sunday’ and ‘Chagos’ surrender is a security risk’. But even broad sheets such as times and independentConvicted of some lazy reporting. Undoubtedly the proposed deal is important and details are limited until the treaty is announced, but so far the issue has not been properly considered. Nonetheless, it is almost certain that this deal will be approved by Congress.
Of course, the situation was further complicated by the election results in Mauritius and the United States, where new governments were elected. Perhaps less important is the change in government in Mauritius. The new Prime Minister, Naveen Ramgoolam (who, interestingly, is the son of the leader who agreed to the original separation of the Chagos Islands), has called for an independent review of the draft agreement, with a focus on financial solutions, etc., but the prospects of him pulling the plug are unlikely due to the benefits that will accrue. Almost none.
And then there’s the new Trump administration and its views. Despite no official comment being made, there is a strong impression that Farage and the Conservative frontliners are opposed to the deal for many of the reasons they have claimed, most notably the ‘threat’ from China. The African Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone (Pelindaba) Treaty will remain (probably so). Indeed, Farage has made no secret of the fact that he has spoken to Trump and others about the matter, and there have been suggestions that Tory Shadow home secretary Priti Patel is “keeping informed”.
The UK government is confident in this deal. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said:
American institutions think this is a good deal, the State Department thinks this is a good deal, and most of all, the Department of Defense and the White House think this is a good deal. It’s not just the region’s leading politicians. It’s a system… the next administration will have confidence in it…
On balance, the deal will probably be approved due to the underlying legal issues that brought Britain’s Conservative government to the negotiating table and persuaded the Labor government (and the Biden administration) to keep the deal with Mauritius alive. But the controversy highlighted the challenges the Labor government faces more generally from rising right-wing populism at home and abroad.
Additional Resources on E-International Relations
