This House would return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius

The UK should not be controlling territory that is almost 5786 miles away from London. The Chagos Islands should be under the sovereignty of an Indian Ocean country like Mauritius that is much better placed to look after the interests of the islands. The age when countries had the right to control territory half a world away on the basis of might makes right are long gone. The Chagos islands, as with other remnants of colonialism, should be handed over to the nearest state with a good claim. In this case Mauritius. 

If distance is anything to go by then the Chagos Islands should be a part of the Maldives which the islands are 600 miles closer to than they are to Mauritius.^[1] Moreover the Maldives are on the same geographical feature as the Chagos islands; the Chagos-Maldives-Laccadive Ridge.[2] The irregularities of the borders of colonial administration should not determine who rules offshore islands.

[1] Both distances taken from google search.

[2] Whitmarsh, Robert B., ‘Some aspects of plate tectonics in the Arabian Sea’, deepseadrilling.org, p.527, http://www.deepseadrilling.org/23/volume/dsdp23_14.pdf Incidentally this would potentially matter if the Chagos islands were uninhabited as the Maldives might have a claim due to territorial contiguity 

The borders of states that gain independence are set by the administrative boundaries that the colony had prior to independence. This prevents any gaps in sovereignty, or any attempt by the coloniser to keep a chunk of the territory, and the conflict this would inevitably bring. General Assembly Resolution 1514 made this clear “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”[1] This also means that Mauritius should have control of the Chagos Islands which were, up until 1965, a part of Mauritius.

[1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’, un.org, resolution 1514 (XV), 14 December 1960, https://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml

This was meant to prevent colonies being carved up into irregular pieces not to allow a new colonial master over a territory almost 1400 miles away from the main country as the Chagos Islands are from Mauritius. The reasoning for setting administrative borders at the beginning of the 18^th century cannot have any rational bearing on who the islands belong to when those borders are not either clear physical or ethnic boundaries. The borders of Mauritius changed regularly; they originally included the Seychelles until 1903 when they were made a new colony. Two more islands were transferred in 1908 and 1921.[1] Which was the real colonial border?

[1] Sookhoo, Narainduth, ‘Mauritius independence: Myths and realities!’, Le Mauricien, 3 March 2013, http://www.lemauricien.com/article/mauritius-independence%C2%A0%C2%A0myths-and-realities%C2%A0

The most important principle of the international system since the end of the Second World War has been self determination; the right of nations or peoples to "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development".[1] The UK has staunchly defended the right of self determination in other cases such as the Falkland Islands about which the Foreign Secretary, William Hague has stated “We have always been clear that we believe in the rights of the Falklands people to determine their own futures and to decide on the path they wish to take. It is only right that, in the twenty-first century, these rights are respected.”[2] The UK has also said it will accept the result of a referendum in Scotland. If areas that are far more important to the UK are allowed their self determination so should the Chagossians.

[1]  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, 16 December 1966, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en

[2] Foreign & Commonwealth Office, ‘Falkland Islands vote to remain British Overseas Territory’, gov.uk, 12 March 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/falkland-islands-vote-to-remain-british-overseas-territory

The islanders do wish the right to self-determination but that does not have to mean they wish the return to Mauritius. Self-determination would mean a referendum in which the islands might chose to remain British, or possibly become independent.[1] It would not mean simply being handed to Mauritius with no regard to the people’s views.

[1] Morrison, Alex, ‘Chagos Islands’ future lies with UK’, theguardian.com, 25 January 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jan/25/chagos-islands-uk-mauritius

The Chagos Islands have been excluded from almost every human rights treaty from the Geneva conventions (III/IV), the Convention against Torture, through to the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Resulting in what Peter Sand calls “a kind of human rights black hole” which has enabled rendition flights to pass through the base. This is possible because the British government claims they have no permanent inhabitants. Sand suggests “the fiction of the “unpopulated archipelago”, staunchly defended by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office [FCO], will inevitably come back to haunt its authors in the very near future”.[1] With the islands being ‘uninhabited’ they are not entitled to an Exclusive Economic Zone under the UN Law of the Sea. Britain’s claim to the islands as a whole is also made more tenuous.

[1] Harris, Peter, ‘Review Article: Not just a military base: Reframing Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands’, African Affairs, 110/440, pp.491-99, 2011, http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30876673/491.full.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1390995657&Signature=taza7RS2t3sg7FG%2BmU0AR3Y3Byg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline p.496

With the exception of the far greater human rights abuse of the expulsion of the islanders there have been few actual abuses on the Chagos Islands. Mauritius however itself does not have a clean record. The U.S. State Department notes there have been arbitrary arrests, particularly of the opposition parties with the leader of the Militant Socialist Movement having been arrested and interrogated as a result of naming the government a “paedophile government” for not suspending a teacher accused of raping a student. “Other reported human rights problems included official corruption, violence and discrimination against women, abuse and sexual exploitation of children, discrimination and abuse based on sexual orientation, discrimination against persons living with HIV/AIDS, restrictions on labor rights, antiunion discrimination, and child labor.”[1]

[1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ‘Mauritius 2012 Human Rights Report’, State Department, 2012, http://photos.state.gov/libraries/mauritius/882940/huma_risghts_report/Human%20Rights%20Report%202012%20Mauritius.pdf

The UK should not be controlling territory that is almost 5786 miles away from London. The Chagos Islands should be under the sovereignty of an Indian Ocean country like Mauritius that is much better placed to look after the interests of the islands. The age when countries had the right to control territory half a world away on the basis of might makes right are long gone. The Chagos islands, as with other remnants of colonialism, should be handed over to the nearest state with a good claim. In this case Mauritius. 

If distance is anything to go by then the Chagos Islands should be a part of the Maldives which the islands are 600 miles closer to than they are to Mauritius.^[1] Moreover the Maldives are on the same geographical feature as the Chagos islands; the Chagos-Maldives-Laccadive Ridge.[2] The irregularities of the borders of colonial administration should not determine who rules offshore islands.

[1] Both distances taken from google search.

[2] Whitmarsh, Robert B., ‘Some aspects of plate tectonics in the Arabian Sea’, deepseadrilling.org, p.527, http://www.deepseadrilling.org/23/volume/dsdp23_14.pdf Incidentally this would potentially matter if the Chagos islands were uninhabited as the Maldives might have a claim due to territorial contiguity 

The borders of states that gain independence are set by the administrative boundaries that the colony had prior to independence. This prevents any gaps in sovereignty, or any attempt by the coloniser to keep a chunk of the territory, and the conflict this would inevitably bring. General Assembly Resolution 1514 made this clear “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”[1] This also means that Mauritius should have control of the Chagos Islands which were, up until 1965, a part of Mauritius.

[1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’, un.org, resolution 1514 (XV), 14 December 1960, https://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml

This was meant to prevent colonies being carved up into irregular pieces not to allow a new colonial master over a territory almost 1400 miles away from the main country as the Chagos Islands are from Mauritius. The reasoning for setting administrative borders at the beginning of the 18^th century cannot have any rational bearing on who the islands belong to when those borders are not either clear physical or ethnic boundaries. The borders of Mauritius changed regularly; they originally included the Seychelles until 1903 when they were made a new colony. Two more islands were transferred in 1908 and 1921.[1] Which was the real colonial border?

[1] Sookhoo, Narainduth, ‘Mauritius independence: Myths and realities!’, Le Mauricien, 3 March 2013, http://www.lemauricien.com/article/mauritius-independence%C2%A0%C2%A0myths-and-realities%C2%A0

The most important principle of the international system since the end of the Second World War has been self determination; the right of nations or peoples to "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development".[1] The UK has staunchly defended the right of self determination in other cases such as the Falkland Islands about which the Foreign Secretary, William Hague has stated “We have always been clear that we believe in the rights of the Falklands people to determine their own futures and to decide on the path they wish to take. It is only right that, in the twenty-first century, these rights are respected.”[2] The UK has also said it will accept the result of a referendum in Scotland. If areas that are far more important to the UK are allowed their self determination so should the Chagossians.

[1]  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, 16 December 1966, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en

[2] Foreign & Commonwealth Office, ‘Falkland Islands vote to remain British Overseas Territory’, gov.uk, 12 March 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/falkland-islands-vote-to-remain-british-overseas-territory

The islanders do wish the right to self-determination but that does not have to mean they wish the return to Mauritius. Self-determination would mean a referendum in which the islands might chose to remain British, or possibly become independent.[1] It would not mean simply being handed to Mauritius with no regard to the people’s views.

[1] Morrison, Alex, ‘Chagos Islands’ future lies with UK’, theguardian.com, 25 January 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jan/25/chagos-islands-uk-mauritius

The Chagos Islands have been excluded from almost every human rights treaty from the Geneva conventions (III/IV), the Convention against Torture, through to the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Resulting in what Peter Sand calls “a kind of human rights black hole” which has enabled rendition flights to pass through the base. This is possible because the British government claims they have no permanent inhabitants. Sand suggests “the fiction of the “unpopulated archipelago”, staunchly defended by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office [FCO], will inevitably come back to haunt its authors in the very near future”.[1] With the islands being ‘uninhabited’ they are not entitled to an Exclusive Economic Zone under the UN Law of the Sea. Britain’s claim to the islands as a whole is also made more tenuous.

[1] Harris, Peter, ‘Review Article: Not just a military base: Reframing Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands’, African Affairs, 110/440, pp.491-99, 2011, http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30876673/491.full.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1390995657&Signature=taza7RS2t3sg7FG%2BmU0AR3Y3Byg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline p.496

With the exception of the far greater human rights abuse of the expulsion of the islanders there have been few actual abuses on the Chagos Islands. Mauritius however itself does not have a clean record. The U.S. State Department notes there have been arbitrary arrests, particularly of the opposition parties with the leader of the Militant Socialist Movement having been arrested and interrogated as a result of naming the government a “paedophile government” for not suspending a teacher accused of raping a student. “Other reported human rights problems included official corruption, violence and discrimination against women, abuse and sexual exploitation of children, discrimination and abuse based on sexual orientation, discrimination against persons living with HIV/AIDS, restrictions on labor rights, antiunion discrimination, and child labor.”[1]

[1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ‘Mauritius 2012 Human Rights Report’, State Department, 2012, http://photos.state.gov/libraries/mauritius/882940/huma_risghts_report/Human%20Rights%20Report%202012%20Mauritius.pdf

It is in British and US national interests that Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands stay under UK control with the UK continuing to allow a US base on the islands. Diego Garcia is clearly strategically located as a base in the middle of the Indian ocean a base that may be useful for action in any direction. The military base has a significant runway, satellite tracking facilities, and is one of only five control bases for the GPS. It has been used in every US military operation in the Middle East since 1973.[1] The island is therefore a necessary base for combatting terrorism and maintaining a US presence in the region. The UK has said that it will keep the islands until it is no longer needed for defence, with the Middle East as unstable as it ever has been now is not the time to be giving up the islands.

[1] Salter, Mark B., and Mutlu, Can E., ‘Securitisation and  Diego Garcia’, Review of International Studies, 2012, http://www.canmutlu.com/Publications_files/RIS.pdf, p.6

There is no national interest in the Chagos Islands or Diego Garcia. If there were true national interests then Diego Garcia would be a British base not a US one, handing such security over to the US clearly shows that the UK does not have sufficient national interests at stake to maintain a base on the islands themselves. Moreover if it is in the national interests of the United States to have a base there is little reason to assume that the US could not negotiate similar terms from the government of Mauritius as that of the UK to secure those interests. 

Many of the people of the Chagos Islands don’t want to belong to Mauritius. They want the right to return to their homeland, but also that the Chagos Islands should remain British. Allen Vincatassin, a leader of the Diego Garcians in the UK, argues “We were second-class citizens in Mauritius and if they govern the islands, we will be second-class citizens in our own land… We are British Indian Ocean Territory citizens, which we are proud to be. We believe we are part of this country. In a normal situation the people would come first but it seems the state of Mauritius comes before the rights of our people.”[1] The islands when resettled could survive very well as a part of the UK just as other territories such as the British Virgin Islands do with administration done locally but sovereignty remaining with the UK.

[1] Morrison, Alex, ‘Chagos Islands’ future lies with UK’, theguardian.com, 25 January 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jan/25/chagos-islands-uk-mauritius

If there is concern with the Chagossians becoming ‘second class citizens’ then this can be addressed in negotiations to return the islands to Mauritius. The British have not in the past been willing to take the views of the islanders into account, there seems to be little reason why they now should just because the UK might now stand to benefit. Regardless a poll of all Chagossians might equally lead to the islands being handed over to Mauritius.

The UK government has turned the Chagos islands into a Marine Protected Area. This would cover 544,400km2 around the islands with a no take zone preventing any fishing in the zone. The MPA will protect 60-80,00km2 of reefs and eight endangered or critically endangered species.[1] As the biggest such protected area in the world this will be making a critical contribution to protecting global biodiversity. While the Chagos Island’s seas are almost pristine Mauritius has been overfished with the overfishing further damaging coral suffering from coral bleaching.[2] Mauritius has objected to the establishment of the MPA[3] clearly showing that they wish to engage in exploiting the resources of the islands rather than engaging in marine protection.

[1] Sheppard, Charles, ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies: 2011 Biodiversity snapshot, 2011, http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/ot_biodiversity2011_BIOT.pdf p.33, 35

[2] Harris, Ed, ‘Warm seas and overfishing his Mauritius lagoon’, Reuters, 7 June 2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/07/us-mauritius-environment-idUSL074825020070607

[3] ‘The Republic of Mauritius v. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’, Permanent Court of Arbitration, accessed 29/1/2014, http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1429

The establishment of the MPA is clearly an attempt to strengthen UK control over the islands. A State Department cable leaked by wikileaks states “He [Colin Roberts, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) Director Overseas Territories] asserted that establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago's former residents.”[1]

Moreover the UK, or rather the US occupation, is not good for the environment either. The US base at Diego Garcia has accommodated nuclear-powered submarines opening the potential for radiation leaks as has happened before in Japanese ports. Similarly a large amount of air and sea traffic creates the possibility of oil spills; there have been at least four major spills at Diego Garcia, the one in 1991 involved 160,000 gallons being lost.[2]

[1] Mills, Richard, ‘HMG floats proposal for marine reserve covering the Chagos Archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory)’, Wikileaks, 15 May 2009, http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09LONDON1156_a.html

[2] Carey, Sean, ‘The UK’s role in Diego Garcia: green fingers or red faces?’, New Statesman, 7 September 2009, http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/09/diego-garcia-chagos-british