Weekly speaks to David Snoxell, coordinator of the Chagos Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group and former British High Commissioner to Mauritius, about the latest round of talks between the UK and Mauritius. He also discusses the June deadline for the matter to go to the UN General Assembly and the ‘Trump factor’.

Since you spoke to Weekly last time, the Mauritian and the British sides just concluded a round of talks on 6 March. What happened there?
As far as I know, the British side proposed that a way forward would be to establish some sort of co-management over the outer islands of the Chagos archipelago, excluding Diego Garcia where the US military base is. We have the example in Tromelin where the French entered into a similar arrangement with Mauritius. I don’t know the exact details of what the British proposed though.

What drove the British to come up with the proposal?
For 16 years, the British government sat on its hands and refused to discuss sovereignty with Mauritius. The Mauritian side has on several occasions raised this, both internationally and bilaterally. The major development was the Arbitral Tribunal judgement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) some two years back that decided partly in Mauritius’ favour and urged both sides to come to an arrangement. That put an obligation on Britain to talk about what happens next, especially with respect to the Marine Protected Area (MPA). Then the next step was the former prime minister, Anerood Jugnauth, taking a very strong position last summer when he said that unless Britain was willing to come to a settlement, he was prepared to take the issue to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to get a resolution referring the issue to the International Court of Justice.

Well the Mauritian side turned the British proposal down. Where do the two sides differ?
We are dealing with two issues that are interlinked: sovereignty and the resettlement of the Chagossians. Until recently, Mauritius was not particularly interested in the question of resettlement of the Chagossians, even though they are Mauritian citizens. This is something that I had suggested since 2000 – you cannot address the question of sovereignty and leave out resettlement. I am pleased to see that Mauritius is taking a strong stand now and saying that it does not just want to discuss co-management but wants to talk about resettlement as well. That’s why when last November the British government decided not to allow resettlement, the Mauritian side reacted so strongly. The parliamentary group which I represent agrees with the Mauritian stance on resettlement.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seems to have fought resettlement tooth and nail. In 2015, the KPMG study looking into the feasibility of resettlement of the Chagossians said that it was possible. Then they suddenly decided to add 92 million pounds in security costs. Where did they get that number from?
We don’t know where they got that figure from, or how they calculated it. Let’s be clear: Mauritius regards sovereignty and resettlement as indivisible now, but the British don’t. They would like to deal with Mauritius only on the sovereignty issue as a way to avoid taking the issue to the UNGA. There is nothing at all impossible about resettlement. Even the KPMG study exaggerated the costs of resettlement but its estimates were based on sourcing material from the US and the UK instead of sourcing from Mauritius and other states in the region, which would be more practical. Despite this, resettlement was still found to be feasible. 

What of the British offer of £40 million over 10 years to the scattered Chagossian groups? The way that’s interpreted here is that this was simply to incentivise Chagossians to remain in exile, rather than pushing for return. Is that an accurate reading?
I think that’s an accurate understanding of the motive. Let’s keep in mind we are talking of £40 million over 10 years to Chagossian groups scattered around the world – in Canada, Britain, France, Seychelles, Mauritius and so on. How would that money be spent? The all-party parliamentary group (APPG) prefer that it was spent on resettlement. To their credit, Olivier Bancoult and the Chagos Refugee Group (CRG) have taken a very principled stand. This £40 million may turn out to be a mirage. I fear it could drain away on things like British officials coming out for research and discussions, their per diem, travel and hotel costs and so on. Money can go down very fast like that.

When the proposal to take the matter to the UNGA was first mooted, the US and the UK, one of our biggest export markets and another one of tourism markets warned of ‘lasting damage’ to relations. Was that blackmail?
I wouldn’t call it blackmail; I would call it bluster that was arranged here in Port Louis not from their respective capitals. These ‘threats’ came at the same time as Brexit so I don’t think that there was any way that British ministers could have had the time to get involved. This was done at the diplomatic level. 

Is it normal for diplomats to make these kind of statements without the green light from the FCO? 
It’s not. And I think it’s the first time that the UK and the US have made a joint statement of this kind. The US has always preferred to stay clear of Chagos issues. That statement took me by surprise. It was an empty threat. 

Mauritius has given the British six months before taking the matter to the UNGA. Is the FCO using that time wisely? 
It’s difficult to say. But there have been three sessions of talks with Mauritius, so there is a desire to talk about it; that in itself is a big step. Before this, the FCO simply strung Mauritius along for 17 years. There will be more talks and the deadline for the UNGA is three months away. I understand that Mauritius has not been satisfied with the British proposal of simply co-managing the outer islands in the Chagos. At the same time, the British want some sort of agreement before June because the Mauritian resolution before the UNGA will be automatically triggered and the UNGA will be able to discuss all aspects of Chagos for the first time since 1965. The last thing the UK wants is such a debate in the UN because it certainly will be criticised by many member states not just over sovereignty but from the human rights aspect as well. I would expect that Mauritius would gain the 2/3rds majority necessary to adopt the resolution and take the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). That’s the Damocles’ sword hanging over the UK. 

You mentioned Brexit earlier. With Britain leaving the EU, it’s politically isolated in Europe and needs the ‘special relationship’ with the US more than ever. And now Donald Trump as US president. How will that affect the position of the UK in this matter?
That’s a new factor certainly and nobody knows the answer. Before Trump became president, the US sat on the fence and left the matter to the UK. Although they acknowledged a direct interest in Diego Garcia, they signalled that they had no great interest in the outer islands and in principle raised no objections to resettlement. But you have raised an important point. I don’t think even US officials would have any idea as to the answer to your question. 

What about the UK? You work with British parliamentarians. What do they make of this new factor?
In the Chagos Islands APPG, we have 51 members across the 10 political parties, so that gives it enormous standing. Our members have not discussed the Trump factor as yet. The US has thus far not raised any objections to resettlement either on Diego Garcia or the outer islands, so unless this new administration says otherwise, we will continue on the assumption that the policy has not changed. When Barack Obama came to the UK in April, he had meetings with then Prime Minister David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition and did not object to resettlement. My personal view is that had Cameron continued in office, a pilot resettlement would have already been agreed and Britain would be much further along in talks with Mauritius. But with Cameron’s exit, Theresa May’s government was entirely focused on Brexit these past few months. But they cannot sit on the issue much longer given the deadline for the UN resolution. 

What about the legal fight going on in the UK. Where do matters stand there? 
Well after 19 years of litigation so far, there are two strands of litigation making their way through the British courts. The first is the case concerning the Marine Protected Area (MPA). The Supreme Court is expected to rule on that this year. The other concerns the case brought by Olivier Bancoult to the Supreme Court in June. Although the decision was 3-2 against Bancoult, the judges censured the conduct of the FCO and said that the ban on resettlement needs to be revisited. They said that if the right of abode was not restored, that would be grounds for judicial review. Bancoult’s lawyers have applied for judicial review. But it takes a long time for such a request to make its way through the system and it now hinges upon the grant of legal aid. If they succeed in getting the legal aid, the case will be heard before the end of the year I expect. 

Well, the deadline for the UN resolution to be triggered is June. So the British cannot simply say that we cannot talk about it because the matter is in the courts, can they? 
I agree. The two deadlines just don’t fit. The best thing for the FCO would be to come to an agreement with Mauritius to allow the Chagossians to work and live on the islands and restore the right of abode in the territory. That could enable them to avoid further litigation as they could just plead that they have already agreed the work opportunities and recognised the right of abode. 

Why don’t they simply make such a unilateral declaration? 
Common sense would suggest that the right thing would be to do to that. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) also twice suggested such an out of court settlement. You need the political and legal channels to work together, but all lawyers simply want to win regardless of what it costs Britain in terms of money or human rights reputation. We did come close to resolving the issue of right of abode twice in the past. In 2000, Robin Cook, the then foreign secretary, restored the right of abode in the outer islands to the Chagossians, then it was taken away in 2004 by the Privy Council on the grounds that the 2002 feasibility study showed that resettlement was impractical. In 2010, a senior cabinet minister, Vince Cable, actually announced that the Chagossians would be able to return, but within 36 hours of that statement, the FCO managed to get it retracted. I assume that Cable was not alone, and that such sentiment was shared by others in the cabinet for him to make such an announcement. Then in 2015, the KPMG study disagreed with the conclusions of the 2002 study and demonstrated that resettlement was possible. For the next 10 months, the FCO has temporised with further consultation. Restoring the right of abode would be a confidence-building measure in talks with Mauritius. I can understand the FCO argument that recognising such a right might raise expectations for resettlement, but you have to live with that. Instead, what has happened thus far, is that the FCO has simply pulled together all the old arguments, about defence, security, feasibility, costs and so on that the parliamentary group has been showing are not valid, and released them together in a single document. 

The deadline is nearing and Mauritius wants to include resettlement but the British just want to talk about co-management. If an agreement is possible, what would it look like? 
The long standing position of successive British governments has been that Mauritius’ sovereignty will be restored over the Chagos once it is no longer needed for defence purposes. We know that the outer islands are not needed for defence, the US and the UK have admitted that and never wanted to set up any military installations there. That is not the case for Diego Garcia, where the base is, for the foreseeable future. It is not practical for Mauritius to push for sovereignty over the whole of the Chagos right now, but the outer islands can be a starting point. The proposal for co-management, or sharing sovereignty, over the outer islands is a first step and I think Mauritius would be well advised to seize on that and agree a timetable towards full sovereignty over the outer islands. In the meantime, it should push for the development of employment opportunities in the Chagos to allow the Chagossians a foot in the door. We can start with temporary work opportunities which could turn into permanent resettlement over time. I think they will be able to agree to an eventual transfer of sovereignty over the outer islands. Any agreement should include a target date for transferring sovereignty over the outer islands to Mauritius. 

And the right of abode? Will that too be restricted to the outer islands? 
The distinction between the right of abode and resettlement is clear. People may be displaced by war or natural disasters, but they still do not lose the right to return to their homes. Whether they do so or not is dictated by practical considerations. Their right of abode remains a fundamental right and is inalienable. Now, recognising the right of abode does not require the UK to take people to live there, but it does acknowledge their right to do so. After all, it was a right that was not taken away by parliament, but by a Privy Council order which was done by officials in an undemocratic way as it bypassed parliament and the courts entirely. Restoring that right is the decent thing to do. 

Does restoration of that right figure in the talks with Mauritius? 
I think the British side would agree to make it a condition of any agreement before the UN deadline along with co-management and, with goodwill and compromise, I think that such a deal is possible. 

For more views and in-depth analysis of current issues, subscribe to Weekly for as little as Rs110 a month. Free delivery to your door. Contact us:  (link sends e-mail)touria.prayag@lexpress.mu