After 25 years an overall settlement of the Chagos saga is in sight

On 22 May a treaty was signed by the Prime Ministers of the UK and Mauritius bringing an end to nearly 60 years of tension in the bilateral relationship, the worst violation of human rights perpetrated by the UK in the 20th century, and the UK’s increasing international isolation over Chagos. Compliance with international law, UNGA resolutions and the rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other courts and tribunals will restore the UK’s reputation on the international stage as a law-abiding nation. 

 This treaty is the best outcome for Chagossians, UK, Mauritius, US, the UN and the rule of law. It has been achieved through diplomatic compromise between competing demands and needs.

Background

It is nearly 60 years since the Chagos Archipelago was detached from Mauritius on 8 November 1965 and renamed the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) to provide for a US base on Diego Garcia (DG). In the 1965 Lancaster House Agreement with pre-independence Mauritius, the UK gave a legally binding undertaking to ‘return’ the territory when no longer needed for defence purposes. The 55 Outer Islands never were needed. Although discussions about the future of the islands have taken place intermittently since 1982 the real negotiations only began in November 2022 under the previous British and Mauritian governments.

The UK’s gradual shift from resistance to negotiating an overall settlement has taken 25 years. It was brought about by international isolation, domestic and international litigation. The ICJ and the endorsement of its Advisory Opinion by the UN General Assembly in 2019, judgments by other international courts, UNGA resolutions going back to 1965, UN Human Rights bodies, the Commonwealth, African Union, SADC, EU, NGOs, academics, lawyers, playwrights and diplomats have contributed to this outcome, not least Parliamentarians and the Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) established in 2008. 

Chagossians

The campaign for the return of the Chagossians to their islands began in the 1970s. This major human rights issue attracted international support and helped focus world attention on Mauritius’ rightful claim to the territory. 

Although the Chagossians were deported to Mauritius and Seychelles between 1968-73 the international community, UK Parliament and the public remained largely unaware of what had happened until details emerged in the late 1990s with the release of the files to the National Archives. This led to the first court case and successive litigation which laid bare the full story and a tangled web of deception. Known as the Bancoult litigation, it gave insight into the secretive nature of what had occurred in 1965-1973 and provided the foundation for more recent international litigation. A blanket coverup had deceived officials and ministers, Parliament, the public and the UN into believing that the Chagossians were contract workers from Mauritius and Seychelles and that BIOT was a legitimate overseas territory under British sovereignty.

 By far the largest Chagossian group, the Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) in Mauritius, led by Olivier Bancoult since 1983 supports the treaty. At the invitation of the APPG Bancoult attended the 101st meeting on 13 May. He told members that most Chagossians support the treaty as the only way in which they will be able to return for visits and resettlement. The treaty provides for Mauritius to facilitate resettlement (though not on DG) and a UK capitalised Trust Fund of £40million for the benefit of Chagossians.

Opposition to an agreement

Since the negotiations began opposition to an overall settlement has increased. There are those who want to hang on to every last rock of British colonial territory; there are others who see this as a means of attacking the government and its commitment to international law. They deploy a range of false arguments – a Chinese threat, Mauritius in league with China to provide it for a base, the Chagossians want to remain British, the Islands have never belonged to Mauritius, the UK/US base will be seriously threatened and no longer able to defend Western interests, Britain is surrendering sovereignty, and so on. Leading media are also surprisingly hostile although President Trump and his Administration firmly support the deal, as do almost all states.

The deal and costs

The treaty contains detailed defence and security provisions to protect the base, its maritime zone, sea and airspace. While Mauritius regains sovereignty, Diego Garcia will remain under British control and administration. Mauritius will grant a 99-year lease with an option of a 40-year extension. The financial arrangements are complicated. In summary the average annual cost at 2005/6 prices will be £101 million per year. Mauritius will be paid an annual sum varying between £165m (first 3 years) and £120m (next 10 years). Thereafter payments will be linked to inflation. There will also be an annual grant of £45m for 25 years to support economic and welfare projects in Mauritius. The total expected cost of the financial package is estimated at £3.4bn, not the £34bn often quoted (Explanatory  Memorandum (Cmd paper no 1334)).

The treaty makes provision for the protection and conservation of the marine environment of the Archipelago and the creation of a Mauritian MPA for which the UK will provide scientific advice and support. 

But there are conditions in the treaty on land use which may need an exchange of letters to make clear that there is nothing in the treaty that would constrain resettlement on the Outer Islands. Compromise and good faith will be necessary ingredients in implementation and management of disputes in a Joint Commission to be established.

Parliamentary process

The treaty along with 6 annexes, an Explanatory Memorandum and exchanges of letters were laid before Parliament on 22 May under the 2010 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act which requires 21 working days for consideration of a treaty by Parliament. This period expires on 3 July. Two House of Lords Committees (International Agreements; International Relations and Defence) heard evidence from expert witnesses for and against the treaty including the FCDO Minister Stephen Doughty,Christopher Greenwood and Philippe Sands. The reports of the two committees accepted the need for ratification. At the end of a 4 hours debate on 30 June an Opposition motion requesting the government not to ratify was defeated by 205 to 185 votes. This now clears the way for a short bill to implement the treaty. It could take a further 6 months before ratification which will bring the treaty into force and to adopt the administrative requirements and wind up BIOT. The Government undertook to address concerns expressed in the debate, especially resettlement, accountability of the Trust Fund and enhanced Chagossians engagement. 

Photo: Jan 2024 with President Roopun at State House, Mauritius.

Author: David Snoxell (second from left to right) was a member of HM Diplomatic Service from 1969 to 2004. He served in Geneva and New York; Deputy Commissioner of BIOT (Chagos Islands) 1995-7 in the FCO; HM Ambassador to Senegal, Mali, Guinea, Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde Islands, 1997-2000; British High Commissioner to Mauritius, 2000-04. He has been the Coordinator of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group since 2008. He has written extensively on Chagos issues, advocating a negotiated settlement with Mauritius and the Chagossians.

Co-author: Mike Salem (first on the left) is an Assistant Coordinator of the Chagos Islands APPG, political consultant and a campaign strategist. Originally from Syria, he moved to the UK in 2015 and completed his studies here, graduating from the LSE. Mike has a keen interest in foreign affairs, as well as intelligence and defence, drawing from his experiences in the Middle East.