News Diego home, Garcia: UN court rules that Chagos belongs to Mauritius

Human rights as regards chemical warfare and not annexing new territories or waterways but human rights has nothing to do with islands handed over 50+ years ago. The people 'deported' from these islands were given money by the UK in exchange for doing so (which is no doubt spent), they have spent 50 years developing new lives in Mauritius. It is not these people who want the island back if we're being honest, it is the Mauritian government. It therefore has nothing to do with human rights and falls back on the bilateral agreement made 50 years ago.

You deprived those islanders of the right to live on their homeland with a measly compensation thrown in to assuage them and lighten your burdened conscience. Those whom you threw out are Mauritian citizens. Hence the GoM is taking up their claims. Something that the ICJ has upheld.The GoM has contested UK's claims to the Chagos islands since the very beginning. Hint - Re read the article.Are you really this thick or are you?
Because they have been encouraged to try it on by various troublemakers/asshats. E.g. the Chinese, the Russians, the EU, George Soros, possibly even some lawyer looking to make money. The real question is why it took them 50 years to do so. I would say that by far exceeds any sensible statute of limitations on such a matter.

And UK has been a saint in this regard, haven't they? Their record in the past 4 centuries with respect to fair play and justice in international diplomacy has been stellar. Worthy of emulation.

Sometimes, I feel you need a cyber slap. Your reasoning isn't just juvenile. It's goddamned retarded.
As far as the timeline goes - re read the article. This time S - L - O - W - L - Y.


No point, I know the answer. China has no belief in self-determination, human rights or international law. But for some reason Britain suddenly gets targeted after leaving the EU. It appears that for some reason international law holds legitimate democracies to higher standards than dictatorships and in doing so chases down 50 year-old bilateral agreements, issuing damning statements, instead of pursuing more recent, and even current acts. In all honesty I think we'd get less grief from the ICJ and UN if we just stopped holding elections and invaded the rest of Mauritius too. Seems to work for Russia and China.

Cry me a river. Glad you finally realised it's an unfair world. After receiving the short end of the stick.

What's preventing you then from invading Mauritius?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amal
You deprived those islanders of the right to live on their homeland with a measly compensation thrown in to assuage them and lighten your burdened conscience. Those whom you threw out are Mauritian citizens. Hence the GoM is taking up their claims. Something that the ICJ has upheld.The GoM has contested UK's claims to the Chagos islands since the very beginning. Hint - Re read the article.Are you really this thick or are you?


And UK has been a saint in this regard, haven't they? Their record in the past 4 centuries with respect to fair play and justice in international diplomacy has been stellar. Worthy of emulation.

Sometimes, I feel you need a cyber slap. Your reasoning isn't just juvenile. It's goddamned retarded.
As far as the timeline goes - re read the article. This time S - L - O - W - L - Y.




Cry me a river. Glad you finally realised it's an unfair world. After receiving the short end of the stick.

What's preventing you then from invading Mauritius?
They took the compensation money offered and left. Nobody took them off the island in handcuffs and shackles. The Mauritian government is not making the claim so that these islanders can return to Chagos, they've all built new lives over the last 50 years with the compensation funds provided. None of them intend to return.

Clearly it hasn't contested it since the very beginning since it made a bilateral agreement.

Four centuries is a long time.

If they've contested it for 50 years, which they obviously haven't, why has the ICJ only just came to a decision now? That is one slow judge.

Because we're not Russian or Chinese. But the point is that if we did, the UN/ICJ would just give up on us and not bother us anymore. This exact tactic has worked admirably for Russia and China.
 

The power of example : America’s presence in Diego Garcia​

In remarks delivered at the US State Department in early February, President Joe Biden championed the rule of law as part of “America’s abiding advantage” and spelled out his vision for a nation leading “not just by the example of our power but by the power of our example”. In its swing toward competition with Beijing, the US has made every effort to draw attention to China’s disregard for international law, while conveniently ignoring that law’s application to the US military presence on Diego Garcia and the US presentation of itself as a champion of the rules-based order.

Diego Garcia is the largest of 55 islands split off by the United Kingdom from its Seychelles and Mauritius colonies to create the British Indian Ocean Territory in 1965. Devised exclusively for military use, the BIOT has been the key US strategic outpost in the Indian Ocean since 1966. Shuttering civilian industry and removing Diego Garcia’s original inhabitants paved the way for initial construction of British-US military facilities in 1967. These facilities were used to great effect in tracking the Soviet navy throughout the Cold War, although it was India’s request for American support against China in the 1962 Sino-Indian War that drove Amercia’s initial request for access to the archipelago. The Chagossian population was given the option to resettle in Mauritius or Seychelles. Some were able to relocate to the UK. This unceremonious exile went largely unremarked at the time – to most, it was a small subplot in the high drama of the Cold War. But not to Mauritius, nor to the Chagossians.
Diego Garcia became a critical node of American expeditionary warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq. It remains an invaluable operating location in a region with few permanent American bases. But rules and values are now at the centre of intensifying competition between Washington and Beijing. While the US claims the Chinese Communist Party is seeking to overturn the rules-based order, it has done so in the face of Mauritius’ calls for restoration of its territory and near-universal rejection of British claims upon the archipelago.

Attempts to justify a continuation of British control of the Chagos Islands look like destroying the rules-based order in order to save it, and reinforce China’s vision of world in which the weak suffer what they must.

Mauritius has the law on its side. A prolonged campaign by Mauritius to confront the UK over the status of the Chagos Islands was finally addressed by the International Court of Justice in 2019. In a stunning rebuke, the court handed down an advisory opinion which stated that Britain’s claim to the archipelago was illegitimate and that its retention of the archipelago constituted a failure to fully decolonise. A subsequent non-binding UN General Assembly resolution, passed by an overwhelming majority, demanded that the UK withdraw its “colonial administration” from the islands by the end of 2019. In 2021, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) added its own confirmation of Mauritius’ sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, and criticised the UK’s failure to comply with the 2019 UN resolution.

The US is not inclined to abandon its strategic foothold in the Indian Ocean, nor is the UK’s Conservative government prepared to relinquish its claims to this colonial holdover. Both fear the potential consequences of ceding control, being subject to the whims of a state that might evict them from their unsinkable aircraft carrier. Admittedly, returning the islands creates risk – sovereignty trumps lease rights. A future Mauritian government might be less welcoming of the US and could revoke the lease. The US would also likely be forced to negotiate for benefits that it currently enjoys.

But the Mauritian government has sought to assuage those fears by offering, twice, to lease the land to the US for up to 99 years, if it is returned to their control. Mauritius’ UN ambassador made clear that it favoured a continued US presence at Diego Garcia, as well as its stabilising influence in the Indian Ocean region. Mauritius’ prime minister offered his own assurances following the ITLOS judgement, stating that “The end of UK administration has no implications for the US military base at Diego Garcia, which Mauritius is committed to maintaining”. Mauritius has offered both the US and UK a way to underline their commitment to the rules rather than flout them, while maintaining critical military access well into the next century.

6847280575_eeba5d96b9_k%20copy.jpg
US naval base at Diego Garcia in the 1970s
(US Navy Seabee Museum/Flickr)

Thus, the Biden administration has an opportunity to remove tension between its hard strategic interests and its declared support for a rules-based order. In consultation with London, Washington should move quickly, announcing support for the transfer of the Chagos Archipelago to Port Louis’ control, accept the offered 99-year lease and sign a defence agreement with a democratic partner as an equal under the law. The fact that the British political opposition has already telegraphed its intent to comply with the UN directive at the earliest opportunity is further reason for haste. With international opinion increasingly opposed to continued British control of the islands, the case for their return is not only ethically correct but strategically sound.

To continue in the current arrangement leaves the UK and UK open to criticism for hypocrisy in their approach to international law. London’s refusal to comply with the ITLOS ruling can be likened to Beijing’s rejection of the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s 2016 award on the South China Sea, as both legal bodies are convened under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It is only with a shocking lack of self-awareness that either country could accuse Beijing of undermining the rules-based order while defying the UN over Mauritian sovereignty. Better to seize this opportunity to demonstrate commitment to the rule of law than to remain defiant and isolated on a question of human rights.
By demanding China conform to the rules-based order, the US and the UK have set a narrow rhetorical gate through which they themselves must walk. Attempts to justify a continuation of British control of the Chagos Islands look like destroying the rules-based order in order to save it, and reinforce China’s vision of world in which the weak suffer what they must.

Decisive action on behalf of the Biden administration to facilitate the return of Diego Garcia is not only ethically correct, but one that reinforces American commitment to international law and human rights. By committing itself to this course, Washington can avoid negative impact upon American strategic interests, while simultaneously bolstering the rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific.
 

An Unclaimed Reef Adds a Wrinkle to the Dispute Over Diego Garcia​

A coral reef in the middle of the Indian Ocean, owned by no- one, is fast becoming a focus of international controversy.​

Lowy interpreter
A photo from a declassified 1982 British Foreign and Commonwealth file showing a Union Jack flag planted at Blenheim Reef - highlighting added (FCO 31/3436 / Lowy Interpreter)
[By David Brewster and Samuel Bashfield]

A remote sandbank in the middle of the Indian Ocean, known as Blenheim Reef, is hitting the international news. The Mauritian government has sponsored an expedition to the reef to embarrass Britain in their long-running dispute over ownership of the Chagos Archipelago – which is home to the US military base at Diego Garcia.

But there’s a lot more to Blenheim Reef than meets the eye. Blenheim Reef is a coral atoll located in one of the remotest places in the Indian Ocean, between the Chagos islands to the south and Maldives to the north. Although the ring-shaped atoll is almost 10 kilometers north to south and nearly five kilometers across, the sand and coral is only exposed at low tide and is covered in water at high tide.

As part of its ongoing attempts to regain administration of the Chagos Islands from Britain, the Mauritius government chartered a ship to visit Blenheim Reef after informing the British government (but not seeking their permission).

Although the expedition is officially conducting a “survey” of the reef, it is clear from the composition of expedition members (officials, lawyers, exiled Chagossians and journalists) that an underlying political purpose is to embarrass Britain.

What can the British government do in the glare of international media? Will this visit create a precedent for future unauthorized visits? The expedition seems to be a deft political move by Mauritius in further pressuring London over Chagos.

But the story is actually a lot more complicated than it initially appears.

In fact, it seems that Blenheim Reef may be terra nullius. Decades ago, the British government secretly concluded that the reef was not British territory and was owned by no-one, but declined to do anything about it.

The reef “is outside my jurisdiction”
According to now declassified Foreign Office files, the British government began puzzling over ownership of Blenheim as far back as 1975. Prompted by enquiries from an American visitor about ownership of the reef, Collin Allan, the Commissioner of British Indian Ocean Territory (effectively the civilian governor of the territory) concluded in a telegram to London that “the Reef is outside my jurisdiction.”

It seems that Blenheim Reef was not included in the 1814 Treaty of Paris that transferred Mauritius, Seychelles and their island dependencies (including Chagos islands) from France to Britain. Nor was it part of the 1965 Order in Council that detached the Chagos islands from Mauritius and established BIOT. It had been forgotten about.

Allan proposed claiming the reef as British territory. He was concerned that someone might, in his words, “do a ‘Minerva’ on us” and declare the reef to be an independent country (as had been attempted at Minerva reef near Tonga in the early 1970s).

But as subsequent analysis by Foreign Office officials made clear, it’s not as simple as that. The trouble is that, based on limited observations, the reef seems to be completely under water at high tide. This would make it a “low tide elevation” which as opposed to “rocks” and “islands” can’t generally be “appropriated” as national territory. Nor under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea can low-tide elevations be used to generate territorial sea or an exclusive economic zone (as China has found out to its chagrin in the South China Sea).

Britain plants the flag
The Foreign Office decided to do nothing about these revelations. But in 1982, officials were shocked to receive an overnight telegram from Navy Commander GN Wells, the senior British military representative in Diego Garcia. Wells told London that on 15 March 1982 he had landed on Blenheim Reef with a naval party “dressed in full white Naval Uniform” and planted a British flag on the sand (cemented into a 50 gallon oil drum so it wouldn’t float away).

According to the Wells telegram: “The British flag was raised over Blenheim Reef … and the territory formally claimed as part of the British Indian Ocean Territory.”

The Foreign Office was horrified – one official wrote the words “Good Grief” on the file. British Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, responded within hours with a cable stating that this action was not authorized, not to take any further action and to “suppress any publicity generated”.

In considering what to do about the situation, the Foreign Office bureaucrats were, in their own words, “nonplussed.” Wells’ action may have been unauthorized, but it was done with the best of intentions, and he was a senior British official in BIOT. Did it have any legal effect? According to their best advice, the reef wasn’t British territory and probably could never be, but they certainly didn’t want that publicized. On the other hand, taking the flag down would lose considerable face with the Americans.

One official concluded in an internal memorandum that it was best to do nothing, commenting that:

the flag be allowed to wither gently on its flagpole which it will no doubt do sooner rather than later, given the fact that it may well be under water some of the time.

“Terra nullius”?
But there were continuing fears that the Soviets or others may grab the reef. Indeed, during this time, there was a Soviet spy ship anchored at nearby Speakers Bank and there was concern that they may seek to establish a permanent presence. According to a memorandum from the Foreign Office legal advisor in April 1982:

Until sovereignty over it is asserted, it is terra nullius. In the absence of a claim to sovereignty by us it would be open to any other State to claim sovereignty over it.

Control over Blenheim Reef may matter even more today, for a lot of reasons. Ongoing controversy over these and future visits to BIOT could be a major embarrassment for London, even if it is not technically claimed as British territory.

The potential for another country to claim it – and, say, build an artificial island upon it – could have a major impact on the US base at Diego Garcia.

Mauritius also wants to use Blenheim Reef as part of their assertions of a much extended exclusive economic zone in their maritime boundary dispute with neighbouring Maldives.

A lot depends on whether any features of Blenheim Reef (coral or sand) remain above water at high tide. Even if they did not several decades ago, they may now, as over time, coral atolls tend to grow into islands.

In coming days or weeks we may well see a Mauritian flag planted on Blenheim Reef, proclaiming it as Mauritius territory. How that would play out is anyone’s guess.

This article was produced as part of a multi-year project being undertaken on the Indian Ocean by the National Security College, Australian National University, with the support of the Australian Department of Defence. It appears here courtesy of the Lowy Interpreter and may be found in its original form here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amarante

China And Diego Garcia: Why India Will Be Closely Watching Mauritius Prime Minister's US Visit​

Pravind Jugnauth, the Prime Minister of Mauritius, is currently visiting the United States to hold talks with President Joe Biden.

The visit has the potential to be an important moment in the ongoing dispute over the sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago in the Indian Ocean, which includes the strategically important island of Diego Garcia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amarante

US blocks British court from British territory​

The US government has blocked a British court hearing from taking place on a British territory, citing security concerns, according to official documents.

The supreme court of British Indian Ocean Territory (Biot) was due to hold a hearing this week, attended by the BBC, on whether a group of migrants was being unlawfully detained on the island of Diego Garcia.

The island hosts a secretive UK-US military base and access is heavily restricted.

The US last week said it was “withdrawing its consent” for lawyers representing the migrants and “members of the press” - the BBC - to access the island, according to official communications we have seen.

It said it would not allow participants of the hearing to board US military flights to Diego Garcia and would not provide “housing, transportation, and food for the visit”.

The US said it would be “willing to reconsider” if the visit was “conducted in a manner” that addressed its “security and operational concerns”
. (…)
 
Quite possibly some Russian/Chinese spies or Islamic extremist types that got more than they bargained for and thought they were still under EU rules.