While I was following the international news, I couldn’t help but notice that, at every turn, international media seems compelled to make mention of the Chagos Islands when reporting on Mauritius. And, what I do see is US President-elect Donald Trump’s senior advisor declaring to Nigel Farage that Diego Garcia was “the most important island on the Planet”. And, as if the plot weren’t exciting enough, we all saw, almost simultaneously, the violent bickering at the British Parliament over the conceding of complete sovereignty to Mauritius of the entire Chagos Islands, declared jointly by the former Prime Ministers of both Mauritius and UK on October 3rd of this year. At the very same conjecture, we also have a new political team in government, with former (and now, current) PM Navin Ramgoolam having himself been directly involved in directing a few kicks at that geopolitical anthill. We must also remember – and we are not often reminded of it – that Navin Ramgoolam also had direct and concrete experience in another of our sovereignty battles, as he entered into an agreement with France over Tromelin Island. India, for its part, is, as is China, also very, very, keen to maintain and grow a strong foothold in the Indian Ocean. In short, what we are witnessing is a broiling geo-political cauldron of planetary proportions.
In my opinion there is much to win or to lose in this unique situation, depending on the ingredients you hold in your hand, or up your sleeve. I would tend to think that we stand to gain most when faced with a party who does not seem to give up their demands (the Diego base). According to our Constitution, Mauritius’ territory consists of: two main islands, namely, Mauritius and Rodrigues, and an ocean territory comprising Saint Brandon, Agalega, the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia, and Tromelin. Our exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Indian Ocean spans an impressive 2.3 million square kilometers. With a ratio of 627:1 of sea versus land area, as well as our geographical position in the Indian Ocean, our own stakes regarding our rights and management of our territory as a sovereign nation are probably at a historic high, and we must gauge and take strategic actions on any threats as well as opportunities presenting themselves within the current context. Who are the main actors we are dealing with, and what are the stakes?
The UK/US, on Diego Garcia
The Chagos Archipelago was separated from Mauritius in 1965 through the creation of the BIOT (British Indian Ocean Territory). The UK then leased Diego Garcia, one of the Chagos islands, to the US in 1966 for an initial fifty years in exchange for a US 14 million dollar discount on the purchase of nuclear-armed, submarine- Polaris ballistic missile systems. The lease arrangement was extended and is set to expire in 2026. Over time, Diego Garcia has grown to be a “key” military base for the US (with minor UK presence).
In May 2019, 116 member states voted at the UN General Assembly in favour of a clear and unambiguous resolution stating that the UK should give up the Chagos to Mauritius within six months. This came following an advisory ruling by the International Court of Justice.
Some time ago, precisely on 3rd October of this year, we heard, very suddenly in fact, of a joint Mauritius-UK Governments’ statement whereby the UK was agreeing to Mauritius’ sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago, but that the military base on Diego Garcia was to be maintained under US/UK control, against a “financial package to Mauritius to support its economy,” to include an “indexed annual payment”. Much speculation has been entertained locally around this vague commitment, with dollar signs dancing before the eyes of those who seem to forget that some things just cannot be bought off, even by millions of dollars (or pounds sterling, as it appears that it is the UK that would be dishing out this “rent”). As far as reparation for the ongoing colonial crime committed against the Chagossians in their eviction from their homeland, all the statement had to say was an unconvincing “setting up of a trust fund” to “support” the descendants of the Chagossians, leaving it to Mauritius to implement a resettlement programme. As for the concept, or motivation, or tactic, of the agreement, you will find that it is not about granting, or giving back, sovereignty, but about its exercise. Another scheme to shut us up once for all, kiss and make up, allowing both the UK and the US to get on with the business of protecting and reinforcing their own interests. Still, the current debates in the UK are revelatory, however, of the US and UK’s determination to not give up the Diego base. As Mauritius too, is adamant on its sovereign territorial rights, the question now is whether we should even accept some form of arrangement. Thus, we should know what exactly has been retroceded to us, and what exactly we would have control over. The entire analysis must be left to the domain of experts in a number of different disciplines, and to those with the relevant diplomatic experience. As LALIT pointed out in a recent article, all these tactics may unfortunately pull the wool over our deciders’ eyes and we might end up compromising our national sovereignty altogether. I also have a few other concerns:
(a) In what might well be a repetita of the crime committed against the Chagossians, we now learn that Sri Lankan Tamil refugees, arriving in boats on Diego Garcia, have been held there in a camp in inhuman conditions, only to recently be tossed out like trash following the latest UK/Mauritius agreement. The UK says that Chagos has been costing it (the UK) tens of millions of pounds every year, with the bulk of this expense being categorised as “migrant costs”; that the costs are increasing, reaching as much as 50 million pounds this year. What does this mean for us if we were to take back the islands?
(b) With all the talk about a referendum amongst the Chagossians, we have to remind everyone that the Chagos Islands have meaning and significance for the Republic of Mauritius well beyond issues regarding displaced Chagossian people and their descendants;
(c) ALL of the Chagossian people’s issues now become ours to manage, including resettlement programmes;
(c) With no access nor authority over whatever goes on at Diego Garcia, even though it belongs to us, we would, under the present agreement, condone and be party to the activities of the military base, who their missiles are directed to, what nuclear presence they may have, and whatever they may or may not be up to in interrogations or surveillance.
France and Tromelin
Amidst this flurry of speculative and diplomatic scheming over the Chagos, we in Mauritius often forget Tromelin, another one of our islands. Every year, the matter of sovereignty is debated before the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, as both France and Mauritius claim Tromelin as their territory. In an effort to ease tensions, France and Mauritius signed an economic, scientific, and environmental co-management agreement for Tromelin and its surrounding maritime areas on June 7, 2010, an agreement that has never been ratified in either parliament.
France says that their main stake in Tromelin’s sovereignty relates to the waters surrounding the island (The EEZ delimited by France around Tromelin Island is 250,000 square kilometres), and its halieutic ressources. “Illegal” fishing in Tromelin waters by Asian tuna longliners, capturing between 5000 and 10000 tons of tuna as well as protected species such as sharks and other marine mammals remains a faraway fact for most Mauritians. What do the citizens of Mauritius know about the EEZ surrounding Tromelin? Will this matter be integrated within the proposed Blue Economy plans, especially in regard to the fishing sector? And what of future plans regarding sovereignty of the Tromelin territory, post-Chagos?
India and Agalega
Agalega, home to only 300 people is also a territory of Mauritius. However, it is seamlessly being transformed into a strategic naval base for India, even if former PM Jugnauth denied this. What else would a three kilometre long airstrip constructed there be used for??
As we can see, Mauritius and her Islands are clearly becoming increasingly important for major powers, and not limited to those I have mentioned above. Today we have a globally-acknowledged strategic value which can give us a greater bargaining power than we ever had in the past. However, we are a small nation, a small fish in a huge lake of competitive and powerful players with their own overt and secret interests, and so we should be watchful, and maneouver carefully so that any negotiations and agreements serve our interests.
Perhaps, as a People, it is time for us to reflect, then express our views, on the way we wish to see our entire territory be considered, used, and managed. And perhaps, thanks to the impetus of the new winds blowing from the recent change in government, an opportunity may be present to broach some important but difficult issues, such as the legal and practicable statuses of ALL our EEZs; the transparency we demand regarding the nature and extent of bilateral or other agreements regarding our territories; sovereignty and/or shared management of territories and what benefits accrue to the Republic and its citizens; the exact nature of “assistance” we sign up for from India/UK/US/France/ China, and how such assistance is aligned with stated and agreed goals, such as in the development of the Blue Economy, and our position regarding peace at home and in the region.
As we seek to build new economic sectors, and pursue our developmental goals, we may think of our unique position, geographically and politically. We may think of our extensive EEZs and our strong diplomatic skills, and of our ties with other nations. But we must do so upon strong foundations of unique Mauritian values of integrity, dignity, peace and freedom. Granted, with our capacity and resource limitations, we may not exclude the development of partnerships or requests for technological or scientific or other assistance. However, by standing firm in our demands for reparation and sovereignty, and by an insistence on the upholding of values that seem to have gone out of fashion (such as peace, harmony, compassion…), we would be demonstrating not only our importance, but also our greatness.
Anita Ramgutty, PhD.