Good and bad news making the headlines in the last couple of weeks. The good news is that the UK has finally decided to open a chapter of negotiations with Mauritius about the Chagos archipelago. The bad news is the atmosphere of terror and intimidation felt by opponents and journalists alike. We talk to Jean Claude de L’Estrac, journalist and former minister of foreign affairs about both…

All eyes turned towards you when negotiations about the Chagos archipelago were declared open. Did you get something wrong in this chapter?
Thank you for trusting my views on this issue. But you are right: from my very in-depth study of this saga over the last 40 years, I have learned to be rather suspicious of the British political class. The whole history of Chagos is one of deceit by Westminster. I am not sure everything will turn out to be as rosy as some of us would think.

Some experts like David Snoxell, former high commissioner to Mauritius, foresees a dénouement sometime next year. Is he wearing rosy spectacles too?
Our friend David, who has written a very positive foreword of my book on the Chagos Archipelago, has been very supportive of the Chagossians’ cause as the coordinator of Chagos Islands Allparty Parliament Group of the House of Commons for many years. He has long been pleading for a settlement, although his stand on Diego Garcia itself is not very clear. He has proposed resettlement on the other islands of the Archipelago, a proposal I have also made a long time back.

Do you agree with him, then, about a possible dénouement?
The question is what is it that we would call a “dénouement”. We have here two completely different sets of issues: one is the question of sovereignty of Mauritius on the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia; the other is the right of return of the Chagossians the islands of their birth.

OK. Let’s take each of those two points separately, starting with the sovereignty issue…
If we go by the statement made in the House of Commons, the government of the United Kingdom is seeking to secure an agreement with Mauritius “on the basis of international law”. If the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice is now recognised law by the UK, it could only mean that the sovereignty of Mauritius will be established on all the islands forming part of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). I am still sceptical as far as Diego Garcia is concerned. We shall see. 

What about the return of the Chagossians to the islands? Is that likely to happen?
I see no reason why it should not be made permissible but resettlement is likely to be a very costly operation, perhaps beyond the financial means of Mauritius. And I am yet to be convinced that Chagossians really want to go back to coconut picking.

A related issue is of course the political implications of such a return...
Yes, I have seen stronglyworded advice by UK jurists against this eventuality because of fear that Chagossians living in the archipelago might claim the right to self-determination under the UN Charter. Self-determination is a core principle of international law. It is for this reason that the British have always pretended that Chagossians were only contract workers not living permanently in the Chagos. In one of the court cases lodged by Olivier Bancoult in the UK, his lawyers produced documents showing that this stand was taken by London to avoid the provisions of Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations which required each State to submit information about the populations of its dependant territories to the secretary general of the UN.

Based on all this, what shape do you think the resolution expected will take?
It will be an agreement between two States. Many very complex issues will have to be thrashed out. At this stage, based on the very general terms of the announcement, it’s too early to say. But already, we know that if the Anglo-American military base is to operate under Mauritian sovereignty, the question of the responsibility of Mauritius as a State harbouring a foreign military base will be raised. It is a multifaceted issue. Diego Garcia is not only a military base; it is known that it has been used by the CIA as a transit post to incarcerate suspected terrorists and accusations of torture have been levelled. The allegations have even been debated in the House of Commons. What are we going to make of all this?

You have always called for the sovereignty and resettlement issues to remain separate. Isn’t it time we had that debate?
We won’t be able to escape that debate. The two issues you mentioned are separate and intertwined at the same time. Some Chagossians have already evoked their right to self-determination. A group of Chagossians is already seeking a place at the negotiating table. They want to ensure that their social, cultural and economic needs are taken care of. I don’t know who is paying attention to what Philippe Sands, our lawyer on the Chagos case, has revealed in his recent book, The Last Colony. After talking to the Chagossians living in exile in Britain, Sands said that some of them are anxious that a return to Chagos might mean rules being imposed from Port Louis, without any autonomy; some hope that Chagos might even become an independent country; others are in favour of an autonomous status on the Rodriguan model. Maybe we should remember that there is a provisional government of Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands in exile supported by some British MPs.

What do you think prompted the UK to accept to negotiate with Mauritius? The change in leadership, the on-going fight for sovereignty that the country has embarked on since independence or, as the MSM will surely want to portray, the fight of the Jugnauths singlehandedly?
First, let us render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. The Anerood Jugnauth who went to the United Nations, in October 1982, to raise the issue for the first time since independence, was the prime minister of an MMM-PSM government. I was his minister of foreign affairs. At the risk of sounding boastful, I have to say that the speech Sir Anerood delivered on that day, recalling resolution 1514 of the UN against the dismantlement of colonies before the granting of independence, was written at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs under my guidance and informed by my previous report as chairman of the Select Committee on the Excision of Diego Garcia. It was also as prime minister of an MMM-PSM government that Sir Anerood introduced, in the legislative assembly, an amendment to the constitution redefining the State of Mauritius to include Diego Garcia and the Chagos archipelago. I am making the point to the attention of the uninformed who levelled accusation of anti-patriotism against those who know better. This said, it has been to the honour of Sir Anerood, and more recently of Prime Minister Pravind, to have pursued the case against all odds. You ask what has prompted UK to try to reach an agreement, I don’t know at this stage. We shall see clearly when the terms of the agreement are disclosed.

Political analysts like Lindsay Rivière have also acknowledge the role played by Paul Bérenger and Navin Ramgoolam. Bérenger for his ability to keep the flame for the Chagos alive and Ramgoolam for his fight for the Marine Protected Area and for having secured good lawyers who are still defending the cause. Do you agree with that?
Yes of course! If you want to pinpoint that this is a national cause, not just the Jugnauths’ battle, you are right. You can also add Sylvio Michel and his Organisation Fraternelle who were early supporters of the “Ilois” as the Chagossians were then called. You can even add that I was, personally, the spokesperson for the Comité de soutien aux Ilois, who discussed the issue with Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam.

On the political and social scenes, there seems to be much to worry about. As we speak, a slew of journalists are worried about their safety and fed up of what they see as the intimidation and harassment campaign carried out against them in all impunity by groups close to power. What is your reaction to this?
Intimidation and harassment against journalists, when they occur, are definitely not acceptable, in a democratic society. Who are the intimidators? They may be groups of people close to power, as you say. They must be called to order if they break the law. Journalists have cause to worry; we would expect the commissioner of police to give public assurance that the safety of journalists is not at stake. In the meantime, the damage caused to the reputation of the country on the international front is immense. The incident will fuel the ever-increasing international reports portraying Mauritius as an emerging authoritarian country.

«Ask Lindsay Rivière why he left the country with his family to emigrate to Australia under the regime of Sir Anerood.An MSM pattern seems to exist.»

Does the series of arrests of political opponents on drug charges – some think trumped up – worry you?
No. I hope I am not naïve but I cannot think that the police will bring trumped up charges that will be quashed in a court of law. I know that our police force is not in the good book of the press, and sometimes rightly so, but let’s be cautious. Our society will go to the dogs if we constantly bring disrepute to our police force. We won’t want to disparage the press because we have some disreputable journalists. Oh yes, they exist!

By saying that the police cannot plant evidence, are you also saying that Bruneau Laurette is a drug trafficker?
I am only saying that I don’t think the police can be so stupid.For the rest, it’s for the court to decide.

Where is all this likely to lead?
To chaos! Make sure journalists are not party to the drama. 

But journalists are scared! Radio Plus’s Nawaz Noorbux openly stated in front of the police station where he and some other colleagues colleagues filed a precautionary measure that his worry comes – among other things – from the fact that there is a precedent in the form of Soopramanien Kistnen’s murder. A worrying statement, isn’t it?
I am afraid a bit of overdramatisation! Kisten was actively involved in the underworld of party politics; Nawaz is a professional journalist who is prepared to take risks in exercising his profession. I think his best protection is to remain the professional he is. In more than 200 years of free journalism in our country, we have yet to count a casualty although cases of harassment have occurred before. Ask Lindsay Rivière why he left the country with his family to emigrate to Australia under the regime of Sir Anerood. An MSM pattern seems to exist. But Navin Ramgoolam also hit hard against newspapers by ordering the financial boycott of l’express. This is the reason why I resigned from the chairmanship of the National Empowerment Foundation and sued the government.

There is talk of a hit list and a climate of terror. Paranoia or an unprecedented attempt to silence citizens, particularly opponents?
Please don’t ask me to comment on the anonymous diatribes of social media. I never do. Professional journalists should do the same.

Many citizens now feel that almost all institutions have become under the control of the prime minister. Do you agree with that or is that too an exaggeration?
Pravind Jugnauth is clearly an authoritarian prime minister bent on exercising the maximum control of the state apparatus. The powers he has got under the constitution allow him to do so. Our prime ministers have got more powers than presidents elected by universal suffrage. The prime minister claimed that what is being done is constitutionally feasible. But political scientists know that the best way to establish an authoritarian regime is to promote it under the garb of democracy.

There is now a growing category of citizens that feels that considering the submission of all institutions to the MSM, the amount of money amassed in various ways by the party and the divide-andrule campaign, we have to accept that the Jugnauths will be in power for a long time to come. In so doing, they think the only way not to feel persecuted is to join them. Your reaction?
This is a very cynical reading of political and electoral forces at play in an open society at election time. The only reason Pravind Jugnauth may get another mandate is the absence of a credible alternative prime minister in the divided opposition. Remember Anerood Jugnauth defeating Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam however powerful the latter might have been. Remember the same Jugnauth defeating Navin Ramgoolam and Paul Bérenger together. And Pravind Jugnauth defeating both Ramgoolam and Bérenger.

What would you do if you were in the opposition?
Be the shadow prime minister…