David Snoxell, Coordinator of the Chagos Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group takes on Mathew Rycroft, the UK’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, by replying to each point of his presentation at the United Nations General Assembly in a series of articles, the first of which we publish today:

Analysis of UK Statement by Mathew Rycroft on 22 June 2017 to 71st session of UNGA. Agenda item 87: Request for an advisory opinion of the ICJ on the legal consequences of the separation of Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.

(Part One)

Matthew Rycroft: Last September, Mr President, you asked the United Kingdom and Mauritius to engage in bilateral talks about the Chagos Archipelago, which the United Kingdom administers as the British Indian Ocean Territory. We have done that in good faith. Only this week, our new Minister for the United Nations, Lord Ahmad, flew to New York to continue the bilateral dialogue and to meet the Minister Mentor of Mauritius, whose eloquent speech we have just heard.

You were right, Mr President, to ask us to talk bilaterally – we should, as a rule, talk bilaterally to try to settle bilateral differences, and questions on the British Indian Ocean Territory have long been a bilateral matter between the UK and Mauritius. And we firmly hold that these questions should remain a bilateral matter.

David Snoxell: This has been a bilateral matter but no progress was made because of the UK’s refusal to discuss sovereignty.

Matthew Rycroft: So I regret that this issue has come to the General Assembly. It saddens us that a dispute between two UN members, two Commonwealth partners, should have reached this Chamber in this way. A more constructive path is still available and I call for the withdrawal of this draft resolution to keep that path open.

David Snoxell: The UK has been unwilling to compromise in any realistic way which is why after 13 years Mauritius felt it had no alternative but to go to the UNGA. Mauritius first said it would seek an UNGA resolution referring the issue to the ICJ in June 2004 but postponed action pending discussions with the UK.

The claim that a bilateral issue can only be resolved in bilateral talks is disingenuous since the issue is one of fundamental principles (namely decolonisation) of a multilateral treaty, the UN Charter. Clearly the UNGA is entitled to ask for a legal ruling on the application of these principles to Chagos, whether or not the UK is in bilateral talks with Mauritius.

Matthew Rycroft: Despite the terms of the draft resolution, this is not a matter of decolonisation. Mauritius became independent in 1968, through mutual agreement between the Council of Ministers of Mauritius and the UK Government. In separate talks with the Council of Ministers, Mauritius had earlier accepted the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago: an agreement that Mauritius continued to respect until the 1980s. The General Assembly has not discussed this matter for decades.

David Snoxell: While it is true that the pre-independence Council of Ministers under the authority of the British Governor agreed to the detachment of the islands it is doubtful that an independent state should 52 years later still be bound by such an agreement. UNGA has not discussed the matter since 1965 because the UK successfully deceived the UN into accepting that the inhabitants were contract workers and were being returned to Mauritius and Seychelles.

Matthew Rycroft: And yet, here we are today, returning to this issue. Just think: how many other bilateral disputes left over from history could be brought before the General Assembly in this way? The present draft resolution could set a precedent that many of you in this hall could come to regret.

David Snoxell: There are no similar bilateral disputes of this nature between an independent state and its former colonial master. The suggestion that many delegations could come to regret supporting the resolution is a baseless and idle supposition.

Matthew Rycroft: We do not doubt the right of the General Assembly to ask the ICJ for an advisory opinion on any legal question. But the fact that the General Assembly has not concerned itself with this matter for decades shows that today’s debate has been called for other reasons.

David Snoxell: The only reason that it has taken so long for the UNGA to consider Chagos is because the UK successfully managed to keep the issue away from the UN until now.

Matthew Rycroft: Put simply, Mr President, the request for an advisory opinion is an attempt by the Government of Mauritius to circumvent a vital principle: the principle that a State is not obliged to have its bilateral disputes submitted for judicial settlement without its consent. And let me be clear: we do not and we would not give that consent, because we are clear about what was agreed with Mauritius.

David Snoxell: The UK has not provided a sensible reason why it should not have consented to this dispute being considered by the ICJ. Being clear about what was agreed with the Colony of Mauritius is not a valid reason for not allowing the sovereignty issue to go to arbitration. A state that was confident in its sovereignty would not hesitate to agree to the ICJ considering the matter.

In 2004 Mauritius intimated it would refer the matter direct to the ICJ by leaving the Commonwealth but the FCO amended the UK’s submission to the jurisdiction of the ICJ by excluding disputes with former Commonwealth members, thus avoiding Mauritius’ challenge.

Matthew Rycroft: If the draft resolution were passed, the Court would, of course, have to decide whether it could properly respond to the request. Our view is that it could not do so, as it concerns a bilateral dispute between two member states. Many of you here today have told us privately that you too see this as bilateral business and have urged us to use bilateral means to resolve it. So in turn, let me urge all of you who have told us this – and not only you – to vote against the draft resolution today. In particular, any of you planning to abstain because this is bilateral, please vote no precisely because this is bilateral.

David Snoxell: Since bilateral discussions have failed there was no alternative but to bring the issue before the UNGA. Requesting an advisory opinion was also a means of enabling the UNGA to consider all aspects of the issue, including resettlement

Matthew Rycroft: We have made every constructive effort to engage and encourage the Government of Mauritius not to proceed with this plenary meeting today. Precisely because it is a bilateral matter, we entered into bilateral talks in good faith, determined to make them work.

David Snoxell: The UK’s continued avoidance of discussing sovereignty does not indicate a determination to make the bilateral talks succeed.

A rebuttal of the UK’s case (Part II)

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: touria.prayag@lexpress.mu