The UN resolution to take the Chagos question to the International Court of Justice was a major political victory for Mauritius. Ninety-four countries backed Mauritius, 15 opposed it and 65 abstained. So what was the logic behind the way that states voted on the resolution?

It’s no surprise that the US and the UK harped on about bilateral talks. Generally, in international disputes, stronger parties love bilateral talks. It lets them set the tune, rushing, slowing, cancelling or stonewalling at their leisure. The weaker side usually opts for internationalising an issue to get others to put pressure on the other side to move forward in talks.

But why did everybody else vote the way they did? The African and Latin American states solidly backed Mauritius sympathetic to the decolonisation argument. In Asia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh also backed Mauritius; they are all too familiar with the British habit of mangling other people’s borders.

Those that abstained did so for various reasons. First, there are those that wanted to send a message. The EU, for instance, wanted to take the UK down a peg by sending it a message that it cannot do without the collective diplomatic muscle of the bloc. At the same time, they want to leave the door open to London to rejoin the EU, so they took the middle road and abstained. Mexico, wrangling with the US over immigration and Canada involved in trade disputes with Washington, wanted to signal their displeasure with Trump, but did not want to burn their bridges completely either. So they too abstained. Second, there are those that abstained out of fear of setting a precedent that could boomerang on them or who don’t want the ICJ to feel more confident. China does not like the ICJ much after it had ruled in favour of the Philippines last year regarding the South China Sea. And Beijing does not want to encourage the ICJ to start poking its nose into territorial disputes in case it starts talking about China’s border disputes with India, Tibet or Taiwan. Moscow wants to keep the ICJ out of Crimea and the Ukraine. Myanmar doesn’t want the ICJ to start asking questions about its own Rohingya problem either. The resemblance with the Chagossians is too strong.

Then we come to those that stood against the resolution. Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea, dependent on the US for security and afraid of China, don’t want to rock the boat by supporting a resolution that could lead to some calling into question the legitimacy of a US base in the Indian Ocean. So they voted against Mauritius. Bulgaria, Croatia, Montenegro and Lithuania (recent NATO entrants) thought the same thing. Except they are afraid of Russia. The Israelis too think that it’s not the ICJ’s business to talk of territory. Obviously. They’re busy in a project of classical settler-colonialism in the 21^st century. Plus, the Americans regularly veto UN resolutions against Israel, so Tel Aviv obliged by voting against the resolution.

These, in the main, are the different calculations that went into the way that other states voted on the resolution.

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(link sends e-mail)(link sends e-mail)(link sends e-mail)(link sends e-mail)