CHAGOS YES, MALVINAS NO

What can London's sudden recognition of Mauritius' sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago mean and why could it not do so in similar situations?

 

Sidney Hey

London's surprise recognition of the sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius in the central Indian Ocean, which had been under British colonial control, has triggered a number of questionings and observations that could be odious when compared to other situations. 

In a sudden twist, the Chagos archipelago in Mauritius' territorial waters has for decades been a strategic enclave for Britain's interests, but more importantly, for NATO, it has been recognised as a territorial jurisdiction of the Republic of Mauritius, which the authorities in Port Louis, its capital, are delighted about. But as remarkable as this news is, on closer inspection it is not so remarkable.

For decades, the situation in the archipelago remained under the iron control of Britain and the USA, which was responsible, among other things, for placating the political opposition that disputed the established status quo. From 1967 to 1973, with the Port Louis Agreement, the British cleared the island of Diego Garcia and other adjacent islands, forcing the native inhabitants to move to Mauritius and the Seychelles. As you can guess, any inhabitant who resisted the process would have been ‘democratically’ persuaded to do so, and even if that had involved the use of force, who would have known about such arbitrariness against these remote settlers in those years?

Of course, with that sarcastic character as part of the British idiosyncrasy, they gave the Chagossians a paltry compensation to say that they had no claim to anything. Of course not, most of those families did not resolve their lives with this forced handout and were subjected to living in total marginalisation. For the British, the Chagossians were then, and must still (behind closed doors) be regarded today, as ‘inferior’ and for the Americans as little more than human.

Even today it is no secret that the British misled the United Nations by falsifying reports that Diego Garcia had no permanent settlers as a way of making the Chagossians invisible. For London and Washington DC the sector represents a highly strategic point for US global military and intelligence operations in the quadrant where the archipelago is located with the particular aim of keeping an eye on China.

It is precisely in this archipelago that the island and base of Diego Garcia is located, from where the US and Britain have carried out several of their operations of attack and interference in the sovereignty of other latitudes, as in the cases against Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and any other enclave where military operations were carried out. So, if this island is part of the archipelago, its full sovereignty will also be recognised in Mauritius. Well, no.

As can be seen, what initially appeared to be very auspicious for Mauritius and a novelty in decolonisation processes, had a small catch in the announcement, or as they say, a clause in very small letters as an inescapable condition for it to be viable. PM Starmer has not granted this without gaining something in return and it may have more to do with cost-cutting than with political recognition. Hey, it's a deal with the British and like old pirates they know all the tricks and gimmicks not to lose even when it looks like they do.

If the British were really changing the nature of their foreign policy or somehow trying to make amends for their colonial past, they could do the same with similar situations such as the Falklands, Sandwiches and South Georgia archipelago in the South Atlantic.

But in reality, neither London is doing this for the benefit of Port Louis nor is the situation in the South Atlantic archipelago comparable to that of the Chagos. We should not overlook the fact that the British have a strong influence in the Indian Ocean government, so the deliberations to reach an agreement have not been traumatic, let alone confrontational; they simply do what suits London's interests.

The case with Argentina is already very different. In 1982 Buenos Aires took a decision which on the face of it nobody expected, least of all in London. The military action taken on 2 April that year was not the wild adventure of a drunken dictator. It was a well-plotted act which, although militarily the Argentines did not win (thanks to NATO and the treachery of Washington DC), legally they did. This is where the British have a bittersweet taste, for by that action Argentina interrupted the legal term of occupation that would have given Britain perfect title to the archipelago.

While today Argentina poses no military threat to the islands and this is reinforced by the presence of NATO and an Argentine political class with its asses bought, London has to deal with that 1982 non-recognition of the Argentines and a much more serious unresolved problem at home and that is the Kelpers. That's right, the islanders are more dangerous to the British Establishment than the Argentines because the former have something the latter lost: the initiative to take their autonomy from London.

Although politicians and bureaucrats in London dismiss the political aspirations of the Kelpers, whom they regard as second-class islanders because they are an insignificant number on the islands, they should not overlook the fact that the enterprises that already exist there can finance an independent state, raise an army of their own and become like one of those Persian Gulf monarchies where money buys even the inhabitants.

Who knows, the Kelpers might have a ‘Prince Leonard’ among them and imitate the Aussies and turn the Falklands into a kingdom of their own or an independent ‘Big Island’ as Australia did in March 1986 and with enough power to sustain itself there and repel any attempt by London, and it will be British and Argentine politicians who will have to negotiate together to deal with this possible spawn.