Following the British government’s decision to maintain the ban on the Chagossians right of return to their island, Weekly speaks to David Snoxell, coordinator of the Chagos Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group and former British High Commissioner to Mauritius. He shares with us his disappointment and offers possible ways on how the resettlement could be viable.

The British government has just decided to maintain the ban on the Chagossians returning to their islands. What do you think of that decision?
Shameful and damaging to the UK’s reputation as a country that prides itself on its sense of fair play and support for the defenceless and vulnerable. Our reputation is tarnished by this on-going violation of fundamental human rights which undermines the UK’s commitment to upholding universal human rights and condemning other countries for their violations. We are guilty of double standards and hypocrisy. In its various capacities, the UN has regularly called on the UK to allow the Chagossians to return, the most recent being the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination but also the UN Human Rights Committee which monitors the observance of the UN Covenants on Human Rights. Fifty-one years since the creation of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) and 49 years since the expulsions began must be one of the longest exiles in world history. It was perpetrated by the UK on British citizens who are also Mauritian. Yet, the UK was a principal architect of the UN Charter, international law and the UN apparatus for dealing with violations of human rights. It is ironical that this most recent decision was taken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) minister responsible for human rights and the UN.
 
The leader of the ‘Groupe Refugiés Chagos’ in Mauritius said he would accept the £40 million but he will still continue to fight for the right of return of Chagossians to their motherland. Is that a good move? 
It is pragmatic. For several years, the British government has been providing small project assistance to Chagossians in Mauritius and the UK. What is now on offer is more of the same. Forty million pound sterling may sound a lot but it is over a 10-year period and the Chagossian community worldwide now numbers around 10,000. Neither is it direct financial help nor compensation to individuals. The Seychellois Chagossians have never received a penny in compensation. It will take years to agree and establish these projects and to begin to feel the benefit. So Olivier Bancoult is right not to refuse the offer but at the same time to point out that the money would be better spent on resettlement. Forty million pounds sterling would easily pay for a pilot resettlement on Diego Garcia. This “package” does not prevent the Chagossians, their supporters and the UK Parliamentary Group from continuing to demand the right of abode and resettlement or from pursuing litigation. Mr. Bancoult is likely to do so given the Supreme Court’s conclusion in June that if the government failed to restore the right of abode, there may be grounds for judicial review.   

After eight years of campaigning, why hasn’t the Chagos Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) succeeded in persuading government to allow the Chagossians to return, particularly since the APPG now has 51 members including three former FCO ministers who had responsibility for Chagos, with membership from all 10 political parties in Westminster?
A good question! First, I should say that the Group was outraged by the government’s decision. Members had a forthright discussion with ministers from the FCO, Defence, and Development immediately following the announcement which triggered emergency debates in both Houses of Parliament the next day. Of the 20 members who spoke in the Commons debate, only one supported the government and he was the former minister for the BIOT. The APPG issued a strong statement rejecting the government’s decision. They felt it had ignored the arguments put by the Group and experts over the years. They did not accept the government’s premise that feasibility, defence and security interests, and cost were sufficient grounds for not agreeing to a pilot resettlement, recommended by the KPMG feasibility study. The written statement lacked any reasoned argument as to why resettlement could not be implemented. 

The argument is that the US needs Chagos for defence purposes and that there are security issues involved.
No, we are well aware that the US was not opposed to resettlement and that any security concerns were easily manageable. Given that, with the agreement of the US, the KPMG consultants had visited Diego Garcia and that this island was their preferred option, the government was being contrived to deploy defence and security as a reason against resettlement.

What about the cost of resettlement? Is it fair that it should be borne by the British taxpayer?
The APPG felt that the costs and style of resettlement had been much exaggerated. There is no need for the British taxpayer to fund the entire cost as the ministerial statement had implied. The US, who do not pay rent for the base, could contribute and international funds would likely be forthcoming. The Group also took the view that the continuing damage to the UK’s reputation for the promotion of human rights far outweighed the cost and difficulties of trying out a resettlement. 

What do you think this decision demonstrates?
That British officialdom, which makes recommendations to ministers, is immensely powerful and can override the will of parliament and the public. This could not, for example, happen in the US or in Mauritius. I well remember in June 2004 the US ambassador congratulating me in Port Louis on the Privy Council Orders (conceived by officials and which deprived the Chagossians of their right to return) adding “of course we couldn’t do that in the States!” What he didn’t know was that I had strongly opposed this pernicious use of the Royal Prerogative which bypassed parliament and overturned a High Court ruling. I venture to suggest that the Queen would be troubled by what has been done in her name to her subjects. Democracy in Britain is much weaker between elections, and pre-electoral promises can soon be thwarted by officials, such as the promise in 2010 of the Coalition Government to restore justice to the Chagossians.

Sir Alan Duncan said in the House of Commons that the UK regrets the wrong treatment of the Chagossians by removing them from the islands. If the UK was on the wrong side, what is the logic behind carrying on with the mistake?
There is no logic. Duncan actually went further and apologised in the debate. But I am mindful of the communiqué issued last week on behalf of your prime minister, which noted that “no amount of money and no public apology by the UK government can make lawful what is unlawful”. Indeed, the wrongs of the past have only been compounded by the UK government’s decision. It was good to see the government of Mauritius protesting so vehemently and reminding us that the exile of their citizens “is a manifest breach of international law and outrageously flouts their human rights”. 

The Mauritian government is now taking the battle to court. What do you think the outcome of diplomacy would have been?
After 15 years of trying to persuade the UK to hold talks on sovereignty, the Mauritian government was left with no alternative. Indeed, their courage in taking the issue first to the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal and now to the UN General Assembly is vindicated. As a result, David Cameron agreed to bilateral talks on sovereignty and the future of the BIOT. If those talks do not result in an agreement between the two parties by July next year, then the matter will be considered by the UNGA and most probably referred to the International Court of Justice for an Advisory Opinion. But I hope the talks will be successful. A first session was held in early November in Port Louis and a second is due in London next month. I would expect the future of the Chagossians to feature in these talks and in the final agreement.

Do you think it is the position taken by Mauritius that has triggered the UK to take its decision against resettlement?
No, the UK government has been due to make a decision on resettlement since December 2012 when William Hague commissioned a review of policy which led to the KPMG study. I expect that had Hague still been foreign secretary, the government would have gone ahead with the KPMG recommendation for a pilot resettlement on Diego Garcia. 

However if Mauritius was not consulted about the ministerial statement in advance, and I suspect not, then this was a breach of the spirit of the agreement reached in New York that talks would be held to consider all aspects of the future of the Chagos Islands. The Mauritian government has a responsibility to protect the interests of all its citizens including Chagossians who are Mauritian citizens.   

What, according to you, should now be the next course of action of the government of Mauritius? 
The Mauritian government must give the talks every chance of making progress but if they fail, then Mauritius is perfectly entitled to pursue its case at the UN, in the knowledge that it has no alternative. I would suggest that Mauritius gets down to business at the next session and, if it has not already done so, presents the UK delegation with its ideas on how a gradual transition, with confidence building measures, can be established towards eventual Mauritian sovereignty. That will require a staged timetable. The UK/US agreement in 2036 provides the obvious date for the final transfer of sovereignty though there is no reason why the outer islands should not be transferred long before then. In the meantime, there can be co-management of the islands and perhaps Mauritius can offer help and support for a Chagossian resettlement. Indeed, a possible scenario is that the Chagossians are allowed to return under Mauritian co-management. Perhaps that is what the British government is waiting for. I can see no reason why a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached well before July.    

Do you think the state our relationship with the UK has reached might have repercussions on the business and trade relationships between the two countries?
I don’t think this dispute over Chagos need affect business and trade but the impact of Brexit may well do so.