Informatives Buch über die Abspaltung des Chagos-Archipels, das eigentlich zu Mauritius gehört und in den 60er Jahren von UK in einem rechtswidrigen Akt abgespalten wurde. ( )

I stumbled across this recently and am very glad I did.

The blurb states:

After the Second World War, new international rules heralded an age of human rights and self-determination. Supported by Britain, these unprecedented changes sought to end the scourge of colonialism. But how committed was Britain?

The little known Chagos Archipelago was, at that time considered a dependency of Mauritius which itself had been ruled by the British, it having been ceded by France under the Treaty of Paris of 1814, which ended the Napoleonic Wars (which France had earlier taken from the Dutch and before that claimed by Portugal).

Britain, like other colonial powers increasingly come under pressure to cede independence to its dependencies, and took steps to do so for Mauritius.

But in the 1960s at the request of the USA, Britain looked to 'detach' the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius before granting the later independence in order that Britain grant a lease or similar over Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Archipelago to the USA so it could construct and operate a military base, as part of similar bases in The Philippines, Australia, Guam etc.

Britain had be bend itself into knots to try and argue that the detachment was within international law and conventions. It forcibly removed some 1500 residents, asserting that there were merely temporary and had not ongoing attachment to the islands, notwithstanding many of them having been born on the islands to parents who themselves had been born there and having spent their whole lives there. No compensation was initially offered or paid, with derisory compensation being paid years later.
As a result, Britain claimed to have formed what it called the beautifully named British Indian Ocean Territory!

Over the next 40 years, culminating in a successful 2018 World Court (The Hague) challenge against Britain's actions, the Government of Mauritius, as well as the displaced residents, sought a remedy that would see this farcical situation being rectified.

The rules of the Court were such that any ruling would be non binding on the parties but, particularly given the very heavy majority against the British contentions, Britain was met with a lot of anger when it announced it would not accept Court decision nor its order to take steps to cede control of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius and remove the military base to allow the displaced residents to return.

There are suggestions that Britain's position was racially influenced given Britain had consistently maintained that it would not give any consideration to ceding control of the Falklands Islands to Argentina unless and until the (white) residents of the Falklands favored that, and yet Britain did not consult with Mauritius (or the residents of the Chagos Archipelago) before 'detaching' the Archipelago and/or granting the USA rights to build and maintain its military base there. Perhaps it is explicable if the USA had no interest in the Falklands, but was it made 'easier' by reason that the displaced residents were not white?

The author was one of the lead lawyers who lead that court challenge on behalf of Mauritius, and who interacted with many of the displaced residents. He provides (in an easy 150 or so pages) a clear picture not only of the legal basis of the shenanigans and legal challenges, but also of the personalities involved. Indeed the decision concluded that '[the detachment] was not based on the free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned' (p 133, which is it is understood quoting from the Court decision).

In an epilogue, it is told that a number of the displaced residents travelled to the Chagos Archipelago in 2022 for a short visit. I understand, but am happy to be corrected, that Britain has not formally withdrawn from its position and it seems that the world and (more importantly) the displaced residents awaits resolution.

This is a story I was not familiar, with though I was vaguely aware that the USA had a military base on Diego Garcia, though I was not aware of how that came to be not of Britain's role in that.

It is a salutary lesson as to how much I am not aware of, even as to matters within my own life time.

Big Ship

29 November 2022 ( )