British deal with US over Chagos Islands not its finest hour
Critics say the UN telling Britain to end its administration of the Chagos Islands is a question of decolonisation.
Thursday 23 May 2019 17:07, UK
It was not Britain's finest hour. 聽In the mid-60s Harold Wilson wanted Polaris missiles, the US sought a base in the middle of the Indian Ocean. 聽
A deal was done. Britain was to detach a bunch of islands from other oceanic territory and together with the Americans build a military base on one of them, Diego Garcia.
There was a catch though. Between 1,500 and 2,000 catches. People who had lived there, for a few generations at least.
In a dispatch revealed by Wikileaks decades later one British official described them as "Tarzans and Men Fridays".
There were efforts to entice them off the islands, including apparently an effort to kill their pet dogs. And through a mixture of subterfuge and coercion they were cleared off the archipelago.
They have lived ever since as second class citizens in Mauritius and some of them in the UK.
Because they had not owned property at least on the islands, living in accommodation given them by absentee landlords, instead their compensation if any was less than generous.
They have campaigned ever since for the right to return. It has been a tortuously protracted battle but one that is now beginning to pay off.
And they have gathered more and more support in higher and higher places.
Welcoming the news from the UN General Assembly, MP Andrew Rosindell, for instance tweeted: "The outer islands of Chagos are a long way from Diego Garcia and that is where the dispossessed Chagosian people would like to return to - it is feasible for this to happen and the UK should end this shameful episode and allow them to return to their homeland!"
The vote in the UN GA is not binding but it puts greater pressure on the UK to hand over the Chagos Islands, including Diego Garcia to Mauritius.
The UK insists the archipelago was never a part of the Mauritius, because it was carved off before Mauritian independence.
Britain says its sovereignty goes back to 1814 and points out that the decision in 1965 to divide it from other territory was agreed with Mauritius in return for fishing and other rights.
And the UK insists the continued existence of the military base is vital for allied interests, to "combat conflict terrorism, drugs, crime and piracy" in the words of British ambassador to the UN Karen Pierce.
Air offensives on Iraq and Afghanistan have been launched from the base and it is thought to play an important role as a listening station for intelligence purposes.
Britain is not about to surrender its claim and let the islanders return. But critics say it shows the UK's waning diplomatic influence and America's too.
European allies who might in the past have supported the British case abstained. Only Hungary, Israel, the US, Australia and the Maldives voted with the UK.
For all the emotion surrounding the case, legally it boils down to two competing arguments.
Britain's critics say it is a question of decolonisation, a bit of unfinished British imperial business receiving its just desserts.
The UK says it is a matter of sovereignty that should be resolved bilaterally between itself and Mauritius and the vote sets an unfortunate precedent.
If the UN were able to adjudicate issues of sovereignty around the world by general assembly vote it is argued any number of territorial disputes could be reopened with the potential for renewed conflict and destabilisation.