If Cleo, the goddess of history, is the handmaiden of victorious nations, international law is often the expression of their will. They disregard the opinions and decisions of international arbitral bodies or courts if they go against their interests. So has been the case with China in matters relating to the South China Sea and so is likely to be Britain’s approach to the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) opinion in the Chagos case. But true to form the British would seek to clothe their interest in some form of legal justification even if the ICJ has shed light on British perfidy as it gave up its colonies in the last century.
The ICJ gave its advisory on the Chagos islands (CI) issue on February 25. It opined that Britain’s continued hold over the islands was illegal and that they should be returned to Mauritius. How it reached this conclusion, the manner in which the case reached the Court, the facts of the matter and associated power politics offer a fascinating study. At the heart of it all lies the large US-British military base at Diego Garcia, the main island of the CI group, which is situated within the Chagos islands. But first the background of the case and its facts.
CI are a group of small atolls situated around 500 Km south of the Maldives. They are also around 1700 Km from the Rodrigues an autonomous island territory of Mauritius which lies about 560 Km west of the Rodrigues. The British acquired Mauritius from France after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. They began to “administer” CI as the ICJ states “as a dependency of the colony of Mauritius”. This arrangement continued till 1965. CI were uninhabited when they were discovered by Portuguese mariners in the 16th century. Human habitation began in the 18th century when the French brought in labour to develop coconut plantations in Diego Garcia. The labour force became permanently settled and became about one thousand individuals.
The British established an Air Force base during the second world war in Diego Garcia. By the early 1960s the decolonisation movement led by India, among other countries, had become strong and the colonial powers were being forced to give up their colonies. Besides Britain at one time the world’s largest colonial power was economically becoming incapable of sustaining its remaining colonies and possessions east of Aden and was decolonising them. Mauritius was one of them. The US which was leading the Western Alliance began to fill its place in strategically located territories. It therefore initially asked Britain to set up a communications station in Diego Garcia and later it decided that it was an ideal place to set up a large air and naval base.
The US did not want to deal with a future independent government of Mauritius so it asked Britain to detach CI from it. The difficulty was the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) had resolved in 1960 that the non-self-governing territories should become independent. Mauritius was one of them. The resolution also stated that changes in the territorial disposition of these units should not be changed. Britain did not pay heed to the contents of the UNGA resolution and coerced the leaders of Mauritius to part with CI. It virtually made it a condition of granting independence to the island state. What was worse the US also insisted that CI inhabitants should be “resettled”. This was only a euphemism for being evicted from their homes. Thus was CI ‘detached’ from Mauritius, its people thrown out for the strategic interests of great powers and a new British Indian Ocean Territory created by London in 1966.
For decades neither Mauritius nor CI inhabitants could get a hearing. They were forcibly settled in Mauritius and the Seychelles. CI inhabitants moved the British courts and got rulings in their favour too but the country’s highest judicial forum upheld the cynical ‘administrative arrangements’ that led to their being ousted from their hearth and home. Within Mauritius some leaders made it their life time ambition to get justice for their country.
Finally, a clever stratagem was conceived by the Mauritius within the UN system. Along with sympathetic countries it invoked the UNGA to assert that its decolonisation process was incomplete in terms of the Assembly’s 1960 resolution for CI was detached from it through coercion. Despite the strong opposition of the UK the UNGA decided to ask the ICJ for its opinion on the detachment and the inability of the original inhabitants to return to their homes.
The ICJ over ruled Britain’s contention that it had no jurisdiction to render the advice sought by the UNGA. It held that Mauritius’s decolonisation was incomplete with the detachment to CI and that Britain is “under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible”. It also held that all UN member states are obliged to assist the UN to complete Mauritius’s decolonisation. This marks a great legal victory for the island country against Britain.
Britain has said that it would study the ICJ opinion which is non-binding. It has stressed the importance of the Diego Garcia base. These are not indications of complying with the Court’s decision. In making its final decision Britain would also have to take the behind-the-scenes but guiding US view which is naturally comfortable with the present arrangements.
Thus, it is unlikely that the Chagos people will be able to see their original home soon.
vivekdkatju@gmail.com
Vivek Katju