By: Ranvir Batra and Suryansh Singh
The authors are Fourth-year students at the Jindal Global Law School of O.P. Jindal Global University. They can be reached at 21jgls-rbatra@jgu.edu.in and 21jgls-ssingh8@jgu.edu.in
Image Source: Authors
Scope of Analysis
This analysis will examine the relationship between the 2019 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on the Chagos Archipelago and India's historical and evolving positions within the United Nations (UN) framework. The write-up also discusses the Chagossians' current scenario and future prospects. In addition, there’s a comparative analysis between the Chagos and the Falkland Islands as well.
Background
Mauritius and the UK have been embroiled in a simmering conflict over the Chagos for decades. The descendants of labourers who were transported to the uninhabited islands now desire to go back. Along with many other French possessions, including Tobago and Saint Lucia, Mauritius was given to Britain at the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1814, which put an end to the Napoleonic Wars. The former British colony of Mauritius (1814–1968) views the Chagos as a dependency. The separation in 1965 and the establishment of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), allegedly to create a US military post on Diego Garcia, are at the heart of the matter. Even after attaining independence, Mauritius still has limited access to the Chagos, primarily because of a marine park created by the UK that prohibits return [i]there[1] Therefore, the two important issues that strike out are, The Legality of the UK's Detachment of the Chagos Archipelago and
India’s Evolving Position on the Chagos Issue.
What does the Law say?
The UN twice condemned the UK's detachment of islands from Mauritius for a military base. Resolution 2066 (1965) urged the UK to keep Mauritius whole, while Resolution 2232 (1966) declared such actions violate the UN Charter's principles and Mauritius' territorial integrity. The UN Resolution 1514 (XV) was an important foundational resolution in the Chagos dispute. Although not legally enforceable, it established a solid foundation for claims against the UK's activities and increased international support for Mauritius' claims. The resolution underlines all indigenous peoples' right to self-determination, which includes territorial integrity. This notion provided the foundation of arguments opposing the United Kingdom's separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius. In its 2019 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) specifically referred to Resolution 1514 as reflecting customary international law at the time of the Chagos detachment. The Court declared the separation unlawful and requested the UK to terminate its administration.
India's historical and evolving positions on the issue
India manages the Chagos problem delicately. Its strong support for decolonization and Mauritius' sovereignty claim is demonstrated by its adherence to ICJ decisions and UN resolutions. India is aware of the US facility in Diego Garcia's strategic importance for keeping an eye on Chinese activity in the Indian Ocean, though. As a result, a delicate balance is struck between upholding its anti-colonial image and admitting the existence of power dynamics. In the end, India's strategy appears to be more pragmatic than idealistic, giving strategic interests precedence over abstract principles.
This is similar to India's approach to Diego Garcia during the Cold War. It felt that Western countries would continue to have a significant presence despite local opposition, and it saw the Chinese threat as ideological rather than military. Therefore, India unwittingly encouraged Western countries to maintain their position of dominance while openly supporting anti-colonial sentiment in the area. This strategy benefited from Western naval security while increasing its influence among smaller countries as a counterweight to communism.
Why is India in a confused state of mind?
India's near borders, both continental and marine, are now under the influence of Great Power politics due to China's extraordinary military and economic growth and its position as the main rival to US hegemony. Second, the conflict during the Cold War was mostly ideological, even if China posed an imminent threat. However, these days, China's influence in the area is mostly exerted through its fast maritime power growth, infrastructure and connectivity projects, and economic support. [ii] Finally, even though Delhi secretly supported US participation in the Indian Ocean throughout the Cold War and beyond, US involvement in the IOR is now dubious, and India cannot rely only on US power. For instance, there is a direct conflict between Indian and Chinese interests in the Indian Ocean; as a result, the stakes are higher and a more active and involved approach is required rather than just following the US lead.[iii]
If India has to rethink its stance concerning Diego Garcia, it should do so while upholding and respecting Mauritius' rights and interests. Though it could seem conflicting to support both the US base in IOR and Mauritius' claims to the Chagos Archipelago, Delhi must distinguish between its commitment to decolonization and a change in its strategic interests.
Comparison with the Falkland Islands
It is noteworthy that the United Kingdom maintains a civilian population alongside a naval base in the Falkland Islands, a territory disputed by Argentina. This situation raises a question regarding the apparent disparity in the UK's approach to the Chagos Archipelago. While the Chagossians do not seek the closure of the military base, only their right to relocate, the UK has maintained a stricter stance on civilian habitation in the Chagos. A comparative analysis of these situations could prove insightful in understanding the UK's policy considerations regarding the Chagos archipelago.
While the Falkland Islands have a long history of civilian settlement, the Chagos Archipelago was tragically emptied of its inhabitants to make way for a US military base. Unlike the Falklands dispute, which has long been in the global spotlight, the plight of the Chagossians has only recently gained widespread attention. Just as the Falkland Islanders have a claim to their homeland, so too do the Chagossians. The UK government should formally recognize this right and commit to bringing them home. To ensure a successful resettlement, it is essential to invest in the economic revitalization of the Chagos Archipelago through initiatives such as fisheries, tourism, and other sustainable industries. By acknowledging the Chagossians' rightful return, implementing a gradual resettlement process, and fostering economic growth, the UK can work towards a fair and lasting resolution to this complex issue.
Conclusion & Future Prospects
In 2012, the UK government explored options for the Chagossians. A KPMG survey revealed a strong desire among those surveyed to return. The report also deemed their return feasible, particularly with US cooperation, and estimated the maximum cost at around £500 million. However, former Prime Minister Cameron recently stated that despite efforts during his tenure to find a solution for relocating Chagossians to the outer islands, it ultimately proved impractical.[iv] During Rishi Sunak's time as Prime Minister, the Chagos Archipelago situation saw little significant change. Sunak's administration adhered to the position of previous governments, asserting the UK's sovereignty over the islands despite international legal decisions and pressure from Mauritius and other global bodies. While the Sunak government professed a commitment to international law, it did not take concrete steps to resolve the dispute or implement the ICJ's advisory opinion, with a strong focus on the strategic importance of the US military base on Diego Garcia.
In contrast, Keir Starmer, as leader of the Labour Party, has shown a readiness to engage more with international institutions and prioritize human rights. His administration might pursue negotiations with Mauritius, potentially considering the return of the Chagos Islands and the resettlement of the Chagossians. While Sunak's tenure maintained the status quo, a Starmer-led government could adopt a more conciliatory and human-rights-centred approach to the Chagos issue, although practical and strategic factors would still play a significant role in shaping any changes. Not all is lost, though. London, Mauritius, Washington, and New Delhi should rethink their approaches to reach a mutually beneficial settlement, instead of viewing Diego Garcia as a zero-sum game. This would entail balancing the strategic, political, and humanitarian interests of key players: the UK, Mauritius, the US, and potentially India. Diplomatic negotiations would be essential, ensuring that each party's main concerns are addressed while prioritizing the rights and interests of the Chagossians.[v] By treating the situation as a collaborative opportunity rather than a zero-sum conflict, a sustainable and fair resolution could be achieved by all involved.
References
[i] A Place and a Base: Guam and the American Presence in East Asia | Andrew S. Erickson. www.andrewerickson.com/2006/11/a-place-and-a-base-guam-and-the-american-presence-in-east-asia/ Accessed 27 Mar. 2024.
[ii] “How Will the Belt and Road Initiative Advance China’s Interests?” China Power Project, 8 May 2017, https://chinapower.csis.org/china-belt-and-road-initiative/ Accessed 27 Mar. 2024.
[iii] India’s Strategic Choices: China and the Balance of Power In Asia, https://carnegieindia.org/2017/09/14/india-s-strategic-choices-china-and-balance-of-power-in-asia-pub-73108 Accessed 27 Mar. 2024.
[iv] Baldwin, Clive. “‘That’s When the Nightmare Started.’” Human Rights Watch, 24 July 2023, www.hrw.org/report/2023/02/15/thats-when-nightmare-started/uk-and-us-forced-displacement-chagossians-and. Accessed 27 Mar. 2024. Accessed 27 Mar. 2024.
[v] Finding compromise in the Chagos Islands saga. (n.d.). Www.lowyinstitute.org. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/finding-compromise-chagos-islands-saga Accessed 6 Aug 2024
The views expressed in this article are those of the author (s). They do not reflect the views or opinions of Diplomania or its members.
Comments