| Thu. December 26, 2024 | |
|
|
|
 The British Indian Ocean Territory is one of the final vestiges of the British Empire, a small collection of islands located south of the Maldives with only 3000 inhabitants [1]. The most critical of the atolls and small landmasses which make up this British Overseas Territory are the Chagos islands, which had been subject to an ongoing sovereignty dispute between the United Kingdom and its Commonwealth ally, and former colony, Mauritius. The joint announcement by British Prime Minister Kier Starmer and Mauritian Prime Minister Pravin Jugnauth on October 3rd, 2024, that the Chagos islands, and the rest of the atolls within the British Indian Ocean Territory, would be handed back to Mauritius seemed to close an increasingly inconvenient debate for the United Kingdom [2]. However, a number of security concerns, broken parliamentary conventions and matters of pride have erupted from within British society, indicating that should the deal be realized in its current proposed form, it will remain deeply unpopular with a vocal group of conservative MPs and right-wing Britons. Furthemore, arrangements to keep a joint US-UK military and naval base on Diego Garcia, the largest of the Chagos islands, for a 99-year period indicated that the British Government had been able to uphold its military interests in the region, in spite of the territorial concessions it had made to Mauritius [3]. Yet the reelection of Donald Trump as President of the United States could prove to reshape the terms of the deal and potentially leave the United Kingdom in an awkward position between American military interests in the Indian Ocean, and its own attempts to gradually improve the global perception of Britain, beyond being a neo-imperialist nation, steadfastly proud and unapologetic about its colonial practices. Losing the British Indian Ocean Territory would mean that for the first time since 1815 the sun will set on the British Empire, as one of the globe’s faces will be without a territorial strip of the United Kingdom. But despite the immediate positive or negative reactions that some may feel upon hearing this fact, the British Indian Ocean Territory changing hands will rework the dynamics of global security interests in the Indian Ocean as well as the presence of British forces on an international scale. The British Indian Ocean Territory Much like Gibraltar, Bermuda and the Falkland Islands, the British Indian Ocean Territory is an overseas dependency of the United Kingdom. Despite not maintaining any representation in the House of Commons or House of Lords, the territory is entirely governed from Westminster and its inhabitants are British citizens. However, unlike the previously mentioned territories, the British Indian Ocean Territory is scarcely populated by residents and features no major town or villages. The territory is unable to be visited by anyone traveling for purposes other than military activities, as islands are solely reserved for British and American soldiers, military contractors, and government officials. These activities center on the Naval Support Facility on the island of Diego Garcia which the British Ministry of Defence leases out to the United States Navy [4]. The Chagos Islands came to belong to Britain in 1814 after the Treaty of Paris transferred a number of colonies from Napoleon’s French Empire, including Mauritius and the Seychelles, to the British Empire. At the time, the Chagos Islands, as well as the atolls which would form the British Indian Ocean Territory, were grouped as part of a broader collectivity centering on Mauritius, but in the 1960’s, following discussions with the US Government over naval strategy, the British Government decided to split off the islands and create a new crown territory. However, in the process of constructing naval infrastructure, the local population of the Chagos Islands, the Chagossians, were forcibly expropriated to Mauritius and the Seychelles [5]. The Chagossians are not native to the islands as they are the descendants of African slaves who were brought to the islands by French colonial powers. However, their coerced removal from the islands, as well as the Chagos’ previous status in having been connected with Mauritius, created ambiguity over what state should hold sovereignty over the atolls in a post-colonial world. The Chagos Islands dispute never fully derailed UK-Mauritius relations but was instead a slowly boiling inconvenience for the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The dispute was taken to the International Court of Justice in 2017, which ruled two years later that “the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible” and cede the islands to Mauritius [6]. This ruling was advisory only, and thus legally non-binding. But nonetheless, the ruling gave a clear position behind which international bodies like the United Nations General Assembly rallied. Behind the scenes, the Conservative British Government entered into quiet negotiations with the Mauritian Government, although these seemed to manifest in very little thanks to the hardline position adopted by the UK. It was only following a change of government following the landslide British General Election of 2024 that the Labour Party settled on a deal to reunite the Chagos Islands with Mauritius. The Terms of the Deal and Controversies Although the agreement being ratified is subject to the “finalization of a treaty” which has not yet been drafted, the terms of how the transfer of the Chagos will be handled were outlined in a joint statement between the respective UK and Mauritius Governments on October 3rd, 2024. Mauritius will be recognised as “sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago”, including Diego Garcia, and will be given “a new trust fund” to help repatriate the formerly exiled Chagossians back onto the atolls. In return for “a package of financial support to Mauritius”, the United Kingdom will be allowed to keep their military installations on Diego Garcia for a 99-year period, in terms that ironically echo the 1898 Hong Kong treaty which gave the British Empire sovereignty for the same length of time [7]. This agreement was seen by the Labour Government, fronted by Foreign Secretary David Lammy, as being an unnecessary weight lifted from the nation’s shoulders. Mauritius’ legal challenges will cease, and despite having to pay annual sums to the country the most important aspect of the British Indian Ocean Territory’s existence, the military installations, will be allowed to remain placating American interests. Yet, a range of criticisms and controversies have emerged from the agreement, categorized into three broad categories: legislative, political, and community criticisms. The legislative criticism of the deal emerged from how the agreement was announced. The sudden declaration that the British Indian Ocean Territory would eventually be handed over to Mauritius was put forward in a press release rather than proposed and announced on the floor of the House of Commons in Westminster [8]. The Labour Government had no plans to discuss the proposed handover in parliament until coerced by Conservative and right-wing MPs. Even Speaker of the House of Commons Lindsey Hoyle asserted that it was “frustrating” that MPs did not have “the first opportunity to question the Secretary” rather than hearing about the deal “through the media” [9]. Labour have asserted that the were not trying to dodge questions on the agreement but instead cited a lack of experience in how to propose legislation due to being out of government for longer than a decade. However, with demands for reparations and discussions on the lingering impact of the British Empire threatening to impact British foreign policy considerations, the Labour Government likely wanted to the pass the deal as quickly as possible to put forward a cooperative global image, rather than engage in a difficult conversation on the legacy of imperialism in parliament. The political case for why the deal has been controversial has been championed primarily by Conservative and Reform UK MPs, with Nigel Farage calling the agreement a “damaging capitulation” and former Prime Minister Boris Johnson asserting that “Leftie idealogues” were trying to sabotage British global prestige [10]. A number of MPs take issue with the notion of paying Mauritius on an annual basis. The reason for this sum is due to the lack of infrastructure on the island beside the military installations, with no towns or villages available for returning Chagossians. Some MPs also assert that because the Chagossians are not native to the islands, the territory should not be returned to these people. It should be noted, however, that Falkland Islanders are also not native to their archipelago, but their rights are passionately, with MPs asserting their longstanding presence in the region and history on the islands. Thus, theoretically, the same standard of self-determination should apply to the Chagossians. MPs were also concerned about the implications that this deal could have on other British Overseas Territories, particularly the aforementioned Falklands and Gibraltar. Lammy has asserted that the status of other territories is not up for discussion and that the Labour Government’s support was “unwavering”, but this has not stopped Argentine politicians asserting that a similar agreement should be reached pertaining to their dispute with the UK, including Foreign Minister Diana Mondino who claimed that the islands “are and will always be Argentine” the day after the Chagos deal was announced [11]. Finally, the Chagossian community has also expressed concerns over the content of the deal. The notion of money being given to Mauritius rather than the Chagossian community itself has worried a number of community members who caution that these sums may not be directed towards the betterment of the territory but perhaps other ventures. Furthermore, a number of community members were alarmed by the lack of consultation given to Chagossians throughout the negotiations, offended by the notion that Mauritius’ government speaks for them [12]. Dynamics of the Indian Ocean On the surface, this appears gto be a deceptive façade with very little changing within the Indian Ocean once a treaty is formally drafted and ratified is presented. Although the Chagos Islands will be reincorporated into Mauritius, the actual territory is not particularly significant and offers Mauritius very little tangible power. Furthermore, the United States and United Kingdom’s militaries will continue to hold a strong presence in Diego Garcia, giving them a foothold within the Indian Ocean for at least 99 more years. However, should a handover manifest with the terms of the agreement currently proposed, the Indian Ocean will be subjected to a range of subtle reconfigurations that could have far wider impacts. Despite Diego Garcia’s military base remaining under British suzerainty, the actual island itself will belong to Mauritius which has grown increasingly close to China under the administration of Prime Minister Jugnauth [13]. Indeed, most of the island nations of the Indian Ocean have increased their economic ties with China, including Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and the Comoros. The British Indian Ocean Territory reverting to Mauritius has concerned some British military strategists, skeptical of a potential security and data breach from Diego Garcia’s military installations, should Chinese naval vessels be allowed close to the islands; a decision which would be entirely subject to the Mauritian government. India has already flagged its concerns over Chinese research vessels docking in Sri Lanka and the Seychelles, weary that these ships may be carrying potential spy equipment [14]. The Chagos Islands could become another potential port of call for Chinese vessels to find a placement within the Indian Ocean. Furthemore, Western powers in the Indian Ocean will find their position entirely reliant on Mauritius’ consent. The Biden administration is reported to have firmly pressured the United Kingdom into accepting an agreed settlement with Prime Minister Jugnauth in order to secure the status of the military installations of Diego Garcia [15]. However, the Biden administration may have unwillingly undermined its own territorial security. Whilst under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, the position of US forces in the British Indian Ocean Territory was entirely guaranteed. Now, however, American lawmakers will have to continually placate Mauritian government personnel in order to ensure Diego Garcia continues to hold Naval personnel. Furthemore, despite the assurances of a 99-year lease, the exact terms of the agreement have yet to be revealed, potentially meaning that Mauritius could write in a loophole or disagreeable terms that undermine the permanence of United States forces. The United Kingdom has found itself isolated by governments who have a change of heart before, with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser having nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956, erasing British presence in a territory it had ownership over. Furthermore, the United States continues to face controversy over its disputed lease over Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. If the US is eager to remain within the Indian Ocean, it could find itself in conflict with a hypothetical pro-Chinese Mauritian government who decides its is in the national interest to expel American forces, an ironic scenario which could undermine the global hegemon’s security presence in an increasingly relevant area of the world. Finally, the end of the British Indian Ocean Territory is being hailed as an act of decolonization, and thus the only other imperial power to still maintain an overseas territory in the region, France, is feeling the pressure. For years France has been in conflict with the Comoros over the status of Mayotte, a French department which separated from the island chain nation in 1974 [16]. With the absence of the old colonial rival Britain in the Indian Ocean, France remains the final European territory to hold sovereignty over a small piece of Africa. The Deal’s Future On November 8th, 2024, Dame Priti Patel, the shadow Foreign Secretary for the Conservative Party, advised the Labour Government in Westminster to abandon the Chagos deal in light of Donald Trump’s election [17]. The new and returning President of the United States is well-known to be heavily skeptical of China, protective of America’s military interests, and close friends with Nigel Farage and key figures of Britain’s right-wing. It may very well manifest that Trump will reverse Biden’s pressure of the United Kingdom to accept a deal wth Mauritius, insisting that the island nation’s close relationship with China makes it too risky to maintain a heavy sway over the fate of US naval interests, and demand that the sun remains permanently shining upon the British Empire [18]. The agreement to handover the Chagos Islands and effectively dissolve the British Indian Ocean Territory is still subject to a range of moving factors, despite a skeleton agreement having been designed by the United Kingdom and Mauritius. Regardless of the exact terms, the stage is set for a developing showdown regarding sovereignty, the legacy of colonialism, and the position of the West within the Indian Ocean. Amidst its ongoing decline on the international stage, the United Kingdom continues to find itself caught between imperial pride, international strategic interests, and the need to fully decolonize. It may not ultimately be the United Kingdom’s decision as to whether the Chagos islands remain British or are given to Mauritius. Lachlan Forster is an Australian writer, academic and professional who is studying at La Trobe University. A 2023 New Colombo Plan Scholar to Singapore and Malaysia, Lachlan has been published on the website of the Victorian Parliament, worked with a number of diplomatic and political personnel and held positions on a Consular basis within Melbourne, as well as across Southeast Asia. Bibliography:
|
|
| Contact Us | About Us | Donate | Terms & Conditions |
|
All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2002 - 2024