Mauritius is living through interesting times, caught in a diplomatic bind between India and China over Baie-du-Jacotet. L’express speaks to Satrajit Sardar, the new Chargé d’Affaires at the US embassy, about Washington’s take as well as its take on Taiwan and Ukraine.

So, you are coming in as the new Chargé d’Affaires at the US embassy. Tell us a little bit about where you are coming from? 
It’s been four weeks now since I came to Mauritius from Washington D.C. Previously, I was the deputy director in our office of East African affairs, and so I had the opportunity to learn about our bilateral relationship in the context of the East African region, but to be here and interact with the wonderful Mauritian people is something else. The other day, I had the opportunity to go to Tamarin and Mont-Choisy, its been fantastic. I started in some other countries in East and Central Africa including the D.R Congo, Chad and the Central African Republic, as well as Southeast Asia and the US. 

But its been interesting to see this diplomatic trajectory, I grew up as the son of Indian parents who emigrated to the US in the 1970s, so as a secondgeneration American, that experience has been wonderful because it has allowed me to interact with and cross cultures, to be American from a multicultural setting, is something great about our country as well as here in Mauritius, which also has as great multi-cultural setting. 

What are some of the bilateral issues that you are prioritizing during your tenure here? 
Fortunately, I am coming in standing on the shoulders of other Chargés and Ambassadors who have done wonderful work to build our relations and I told the President and other key personalities here that Mauritius and the US have a wonderful relationship and friendship and that there is always to grow that relationship further whether it is in terms of security, which is a shared challenge, or on democracy and pluralism, regionally and globally. Climate change, Covid-19 and other health challenges and also economic ties and the two-way trade between Mauritius and the US which has grown thanks to the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and finally looking at exchanges in terms of the willingness of Mauritians to study in the US as well as of Americans looking to come and learn about Mauritius. We have wonderful scholarship opportunities such as the Fullbright programme, we want to maintain and grow strong people-topeople contacts. 

Are there any particular projects/goals that the embassy is working towards for the next few years? 
The Biden Administration sees African countries, including Mauritius and Seychelles, as partners in pursuing our shared global and regional priorities – from ending the Covid- 19 pandemic and building back to a more inclusive global economy, meeting the climate challenge and building resilience while creating opportunities in clean energy, advancing democracy and promoting respect for human rights around the world, to working toward peace and security. I am particularly excited about the new US embassy that is starting construction soon. The new US embassy facility will welcome Mauritians and Americans to come together, whether for events and ceremonies or for the daily work of a diplomatic mission. 

You are coming in interesting times. You must be aware of what has come to be dubbed locally as ‘sniff-gate’, where an Indian team came in and intervened in our SAFE cable landing station at Baie-du-Jacotet. What is the US embassy’s view about what’s going on? 
I was asked about this also at our national day event, where this came up. We are observing and seeing what’s going on in the news with this issue. There are a number of developments and the domestic conversation about what has happened. We are not here to intervene in those domestic conversations. For us there is an important principle, not just for our diplomacy here in Mauritius but globally, that is individual freedoms and obviously that transcends into the digital space. I think for the paramount issue is hoping that whatever outcome occurs, that is the priority. 

Are you concerned about what has happened? 
I think, you know, it’s hard to comment on an ongoing discussion. But as a friend and partner of this country to highlight that importance of those freedoms, particularly when it comes to the area of privacy and security. 

Given that the US is trying to push India as the main security provider in this region and India that has been implicated in Baie-du-Jacotet, do you see this as a setback to that strategy? 
You’ve correctly identified that the partnership between India and the US, just as the relationship between Mauritius and the US, is very close. This administration, as previous administrations have done, has maintained that partnership with India, not just bilaterally with India but regionally through our QUAD format that also includes Australia and Japan, have demonstrated that there are shared challenges as well as opportunities. Again, I don’t have much to add to this issue aside from the fact that we are continuing to observe this issue.

There is the question of Agalega as well. What is the US take on the Indians building a military facility there? 
Well, I think, with respect to those reports, we don’t have a comment on that. But taking a step back, I would say again that there are shared challenges and opportunities to work together on, which is the idea of a rules-based international system, countries adhering to those rules and this extends to the maritime area and maritime domain awareness. There are clearly shared threats with respect to maritime security and we hope to work, as I said with Mauritius, but with our other partners in preserving that security. 

So, you see the facility in Agalega as promoting those goals? 
I frankly don’t have enough information about this issue. It would be irresponsible of me to comment on that given that I am observing the issue just as everybody else is. 

What is also happening is that the Chinese embassy has made a number of statements recently. The first is that given that the Indian press has highlighted the role of Huawei, the argument from the Chinese side is that the US and other Western states cannot stomach the fact that a Chinese firm is becoming a global tech leader. How do you respond to this argument that the Huawei issue is just a commercial rivalry coloured in a geopolitical tint? 
Well, first off, I think we should take a bigger picture of the relationship between the US and China, here on the ground I have had the opportunity to meet my Chinese counterpart and I look forward to meeting with him again, just as our senior officials engage regularly. Secretary Blinken and other officials have made it clear that the US and China have differing worldviews. 

What about Huawei? 
I will get to this issue. But there are areas of shared cooperation and interest such as climate change, which is why it’s important to have dialogue and a conversation. Even though two individuals or countries can disagree on the path forward, there still needs to be that conversation. Our view is that what a system should look like is one that is committed to international norms and standards, individual liberties and freedoms and a protection of privacy. To that end, whenever we identify entities that undermine that, not pressing countries to join in, but valued partners who share that vision, we’ll raise those concerns. The previous and current administration as well have maintained policies that raised concerns about Huawei and taken steps to make sure that the US government does not use those technologies. That is a codified US policy and that decision was not taken lightly, it was taken through investigation and assessments taken by the US government and as such we do have those concerns and I think it’s important to underline the position of the US government as well as the concerns regarding that, as well as any other actor undermining those values that we talked about. 

Here is the problem: the Chinese side maintains that yes the US and others have raised those concerns but have not furnished any proof that Huawei is a security threat. Within Mauritius too, the Indian press has talked about concerns that New Delhi has had about Huawei, but no evidence has been presented. So how would you respond to that argument? 
I will leave the context of Mauritius to other stakeholders to speak to. Within the US there has been a thorough assessment and analysis of vulnerabilities raised which is why decisions like these have come into place. The information available to the US have led us to the conclusion that incorporating such technologies would lead to the undermining of our security.

Are these potential threats, or actual actions that Huawei has been caught taking? 
I would hesitate to go further because there are sensitivities here involved that go beyond this conversation. Whether there are potential or actual vulnerabilities involved, there are vulnerabilities. So I think it’s important to keep that in mind. 

Another argument from the Chinese is the parallel that they draw between the Chagos and Taiwan. Do you agree with this parallel? 
I think it’s difficult to make such comparisons for two different situations. I think such comparisons lead to concerns about our assessment and analysis of these sets of issues and lead to difficulties in resolving these sets of issues. Let’s take the issue of Taiwan; it is the policy of the US, as well as Mauritius, to accept the One China policy. The sovereign government is that in Beijing. In the US, we have the Congress and other institutions that have established friendly ties with Taiwan, other administrations have as well. Now decisions were made recently by independent members of the legislature… 

Independent? Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the House of Representatives, the third most powerful position within the United States. 
Congress is an independent branch of government. Before the visit, the administration had consultations with the Speaker, as she should as a senior ranking official… 

This does not seem to be an isolated incident. Back in October when the US President was asked whether he would defend Taiwan if China intervened, he said yes. This would suggest that the traditional policy of strategic ambiguity, or dual deterrence: deterring Beijing from invading Taiwan and Taiwan from declaring independence, is being abandoned. If the US President is making such remarks, clearly this is a problem that goes well beyond the Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
The policy has not changed. 

The US President Joe Biden was wrong? 
The President and the White House elaborated further that the policy has not changed and that the US is committed to the One China policy and also a policy of friendship to Taiwan and a peaceful resolution of the issue between Taipei and Beijing. That there can be a collective understanding and a peaceful arrangement; any actions involving bellicose rhetoric, military engagement or cutting off diplomatic engagements will have the opposite effect. It’s important to establish the fact that we have a policy of encouraging a peaceful resolution, but this doesn’t mean not having strategic relationships with a host of actors or partners as we do. 

Did Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan help or hurt that policy goal you are describing? 
I don’t think we should look at it with that lens. We have established that senior officials will undertake visits, not with an intention to destabilize, but to establish relationships and friendships which is what happened. 

Even if that contradicts US policy? 
I don’t think it contradicted US policy. The US remains committed to the Taiwan Relations Act which has been codified. There has been no deviation of that. The principle is to resolve this issue peacefully with dialogue rather than rhetoric or actions that undermine that goal. 

Let’s come to the Chagos now. The problem is that these islands have been recognized as Mauritian territory by a vast majority of the member-states of the United Nations. In the meantime, Mauritian diplomats and the government itself has stated its willingness to sign a deal with the US to maintain the base on Diego Garcia should it get the Chagos back. So what is stopping the US from signing a deal with Mauritius? 
My predecessors have addressed this before and our policies on this have not changed, we recognize the claims of the UK on these territories… 

…Even if the vast majority of the international community do not? 
We respect the decision that sovereign countries are making. Our position as a sovereign country is to respect the claims of the United Kingdom. Just as we have a partnership with Mauritius, we have an iron-clad partnership with the UK. Decisions have been made by several previous administrations, and this one as well, to continue to support the UK’s claims on that territory. What we do encourage is for Mauritius and the UK to enter into bilateral negotiations to address these sovereignty issues, and we feel that the best way to address them is in a bilateral, rather than multilateral context, and we have made that clear with our Mauritian partners as well as with others. 

Doesn’t the US see the voting record at the UN on this issue and isn’t the state department disturbed by how isolated it seems to be on this question? 
I am a career diplomat who has worked at the UN that it’s not just the US, but every country looks at the voting record. The US has an interest because it’s important to see what the opinions of our friends and allies and fellow members of the UN are. We are committed to our own policies and we understand that our policies won’t always be in alignment with other countries, but we are always prepared to have discussions with other member-states. We are aware of the realities, but as far as the standpoint of the US government is, that has not changed.

Mauritian diplomats have talked about it, and letters have been written. But has the US government received a formal offer from the Mauritian government to keep the base on Diego Garcia? 
I will refrain from going into that, because these are diplomatic discussions best left in the diplomatic domain. 

Let’s talk about another conflict. Mauritius is feeling the economic pressure because of the conflict in Ukraine. What is the end-game that the US would like to see in Ukraine? 
This is perhaps the greatest nearterm threat to international peace and security. From the moment that the US administration identified, with the help of Mauritius, that the belligerent actor here is Russia, whose government took the decision to invade Ukraine that set off a number of security concerns and risks that have affected the global economy. There is a narrative out there that it is Western support for Ukraine that is undermining the global economy. That is far from the truth. If you want to find a culprit that is undermining the global economy, it is Russia. If they did not take that step we would not have had the economic problems we are having. 

At the same time, we recognize that the war is having an effect on our African partners which is why the US announced a significant $3 billion food aid package, we are working on the release of grain shipments, but we are also mindful of Russian attempts to undermine those agreements such as their attack on grain storage facilities in Odessa which demonstrates their lack of consideration for human life. 

Well, what are the US’ war aims? The reason I am asking this is because the Ukrainian President Zelensky has announced that his war aim is to recover all territory lost to Russia since 2014, including Crimea. Does the US share the same war aims as Kyiv? 
The administration has been very clear about this, through Secretaries Blinken, Austin and President Biden, that the sovereignty of Ukraine must be upheld and it is for the Ukrainian people to determine what that sovereignty looks like. The international community as a whole has spoken in favour of that sovereignty, we will continue to maintain that position. The danger is that should not be upheld, the precedent that this would set would undermine the international order and undermine the values and goals that not just the US, but also our partners and allies such as Mauritius on, believe in as well. Once that is undermined, as it is right now due solely to the actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin, that would have catastrophic consequences on global peace and security. 

When you say upholding the sovereignty of Ukraine, do you mean the Ukraine pre-2014 that Zelensky refers to, or does that include the possibility of a Ukraine divested of Crimea, and possibly its Eastern territories? 
I think that is an evolving conversation. I don’t think that I have anything to add on what the contours of that would look like. We are consulting with our partners in Kyiv and other partners as well on what that context will look like. But that being said, the security of the people of Ukraine is our paramount objective. 

Here is one problem: on the one hand, you are telling me that the Russians cannot simply chop up Ukraine; but on the other hand, isn’t this what the UK did to Mauritius when it took the Chagos out of it in 1965? How can you condemn the Russians but back the UK on the Chagos. Isn’t there a contradiction? 
I would say that I think it is challenging to make historical comparisons when dealing with policy issues and it becomes difficult to find solutions. We need to separate these two cases. In the Ukraine, you had a sovereign country that was invaded brutally by a regime that felt it could disregard international norms. What Putin is doing to the Ukrainian people is unacceptable and there is one individual to blame for that. With respect to the Chagos, we have said that while we respect and acknowledge the UK’s claims, we recognize that may not be a position aligned with other member-states, we are encouraging at least a dialogue. We of course have our security priorities with Diego Garcia which we believe not only provides good for the region, but for our partners and allies around the world. That is a security equity that we wish to maintain and which we have established with our UK partners. This is not something that is not known. The government here and elsewhere recognizes the importance of Diego Garcia, so I would caution against drawing such paralells. 

Now I would come to another bilateral topic: the AGOA. It’s become very important for Mauritian exports. But it’s going to expire in 2025. Can you give us some indication about what’s going to happen then? 
AGOA has provided substantial benefits and helped in enhancing bilateral trade. It benefitted not just Mauritius, but many countries in Africa. I don’t have any updates here, because that is done through the US congress. There have been consultations about what can happen, I will say though that with President Biden’s Africa Leader’s Summit in December to which we have invited the Mauritian head of government as well as heads of state from across the African continent, that we want more commercial and investment engagement. So that is happening. 

At the moment, the US embassy does not have a full-time ambassador. When will the new ambassador arrive? 
The process for sending a new US ambassador abroad is quite involved and reflects the equal importance of our three branches of government. Earlier this month President Biden nominated Henry Jardine to be Ambassador to Mauritius. After nomination by the President, ambassadors need to be confirmed by the Senate before beginning their position. Unfortunately, the timeline for that process to be completed is not fixed.