Written evidence submitted by David Snoxell (CHA0001)

Biodata: member of HM Diplomatic Service 1969-2004. My first assignment was to join the UK delegation to the UNGA in New York on the Decolonisation Committee of 24 during the 1969 session. From 1976-81 I was at UKMis Geneva responsible for human rights, humanitarian law (ICRC), refugees (UNHCR) and other UN bodies; 1986-91 Director of British Information Services in New York; 1994-97 Deputy Head of Southern Africa Dep’t, FCO and Deputy Commissioner of BIOT; 1997 -2000; HM Ambassador to Senegal and four neighbouring countries; 2000-04 British High Commissioner to Mauritius. Since 2008 I have been Coordinator of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG.

My reason for submitting evidence in my personal capacity is to assist the Subcommittee in assessing complex historical issues from 30 years of involvement.

Historical background

1.Although the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) was created in 1965 and the Chagossians expelled between 1968-73 the international community, UK Parliament and the public remained largely unaware of the true extent of what had happened until details emerged in the late 1990s with the release of Government files to the National Archives. This led to the first court case in a long series of litigation that progressively laid bare the full story and a tangled web of deception. Known as the Bancoult litigation, these cases have provided much insight into the secretive nature of what occurred between 1965 and 1973 and was also the foundation for recent litigation in international courts and tribunals.

2.The collective memory of the early years of the BIOT during the 1960/70s was largely forgotten in the FCO as officials retired or moved on to new postings, and briefings for incoming ministers omitted the more unsavoury aspects. Unawareness of these issues, even by those who were responsible for BIOT in the FCO (I was Deputy Commissioner of BIOT 1995-7) is not therefore surprising. A blanket coverup had deceived officials and ministers, Parliament, the public and the UN into believing that the population were contract workers from Mauritius and Seychelles and that Chagos was a legitimate albeit new overseas territory under British sovereignty, renamed BIOT[1].

Detachment of Chagos from Mauritius in 1965

3.Where would the Chagos Archipelago and its people be today if the UK had not detached the islands from Mauritius, 3 years before independence? The answer is obvious. Chagos would have continued to remain an integral part of Mauritius and many of the people would still be living there today. As with Rodriguans, the inhabitants of the Mauritian island of Rodrigues 390 miles east of Mauritius, Chagossians would likely have had a measure of devolved self-government, an Executive and elected Assembly to represent them and to enact local legislation. The current UK/Mauritius negotiations hold out a similar prospect.

External and domestic influences on UK policy

4.For the long and convoluted history behind official intransigence I refer the Committee to my chapters in two books, Fifty Years of the British Indian Ocean Territory (2018)[2] and the International Court of Justice and Decolonisation (2021)[3].

5.There were many external and domestic influences that brought the current British government to agree to negotiate an overall settlement when successive governments and their officials since 2001 had opposed compromise and used a smokescreen of historical and legal misrepresentation to defend their position. These influences were:

6.The Bancoult cases and international litigation; the ICJ  Advisory Opinion and its implementation by the UN system and Specialised Agencies; the judgment of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS); UN General Assembly resolutions from 1965; the decisions of UN human rights bodies such as the Human Rights Committee and the Committee for Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD); the African Union, Southern Africa Development Community, the Commonwealth, the European Parliament and EU Commissioners+; the Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group, the media, Non-Governmental Organisations such as Human Rights Watch, Wikileaks in 2010; academics, lawyers, novelists, playwrights and diplomats. These all played a part in revealing the truth and bringing about a change of heart in government as did the Chagossian people who have not ceased to campaign for their right to return.

7.Several historical accounts, novels, films and a play on the Chagos saga have been published over the years. The most recent was in 2022 by Philippe Sands KC, titled ‘The Last Colony, a tale of exile, justice and Britain’s colonial legacy’[4]. This book reaches back to 1945 and blends the author’s personal experience of Chagossians with the litigation, historical and political narratives. The book provides an incisive and accurate understanding of this long and complex story.

What finally changed official attitudes

8.What changed official attitudes and broke the logjam were international judgments, the loss after 71 years of the UK seat on the ICJ held by Sir Christopher Greenwood in November 2017 and UK isolation in the UN brought on by the UK’s perceived diminishing reputation for upholding international law and the UK stand on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine which exposed HMG to charges of hypocrisy. The UK seemed to be saying that international law applied to Russia’s illegal occupation of parts of Ukraine but not to the UK’s illegal occupation of Chagos. Furthermore the expulsion and callous treatment of the Chagossians undermined its claims to be a defender of humanitarian and human rights law. It was a combination of all these factors, several of which came together, that necessitated a U-turn in UK policy. A settlement could have been achieved at any time since 2000 but there was never sufficient political will to bring it about. The present Government and its immediate predecessor should therefore be acknowledged for having made the decision to negotiate a settlement.

Six failed policies, 2002-2019

9.There were six major policy failures: the 2002 flawed resettlement feasibility study; the 2004 Orders in Council banning resettlement; the 2010 declaration of the Chagos Marine Protected Area; the 2016 rejection of the KPMG feasibility study which concluded that resettlement was feasible; the automatic rollover without any conditions of the 1966 UK/US agreement until 30 December 2036 and the 2019 rejection of the ICJ Advisory Opinion and the UNGA resolution which required the UK to implement the ICJ ruling within 6 months by 22 November 2019.

Announcement of policy U-turn in 2022 

10.This sea change was announced on 3 November 2022[5], coincidentally the 22nd anniversary of the 2000 High Court judgment, which allowed Chagossians to return to the Outer Chagos Islands. The UK and Mauritius jointly stated that they would:

“begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over BIOT/Chagos Archipelago taking into account relevant legal proceedings to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues, including those relating to the former inhabitants. This will allow the UK and Mauritius, as close Commonwealth partners, to work even more closely together to tackle the regional and global security challenges that face us all. We will seek to strengthen significantly our co-operation on Indian Ocean security, maritime security and maritime protection, conservation of the environment, climate change and respect for human rights, and on tackling illegal migration, illegal fishing, drugs and arms trafficking, as well as bilateral cooperation on a range of other issues. We will work to do this in cooperation with key allies and partners in the region.

The UK and Mauritius have reiterated that any agreement between our two countries will ensure the continued effective operation of the joint UK/US military base on Diego Garcia, which plays a vital role in regional and global security. We recognise US and India’s interests and will keep them informed of progress.

The UK and Mauritius have agreed to engage in constructive negotiations, with a view to arriving at an agreement by early next year.”

Parliamentary involvement

11.Parliamentary involvement goes back to the 1970s. In 2007-8 the FAC[6] held hearings on Chagos and concluded that “there is a strong moral case for the UK permitting and supporting a return to BIOT for Chagossians. The FCO has argued that such a return would be unsustainable, but we find these arguments less than convincing”. In 2008 the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG was established with the purpose "To help bring about a resolution of the issues concerning the future of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) and of the Chagossians". Currently there are 52 members of the APPG from all 7 political parties in Westminster, several of whom were FCO and other ministers. The 93rd meeting was on 7 November 2023.

12.The APPG has supported the current UK/Mauritius negotiations to reach an overall settlement of all issues pertaining to Chagos and the Chagossians, based in international law. The FCDO conducted four online consultations with Chagossians in 2023. Neither Britain nor Mauritius can accept non-governmental participation in the negotiations as these are inter-state talks but both governments are consulting Chagossian groups. The APPG has always advocated the right of Chagossians to return to the islands and to resettle, irrespective of how many may wish to do so permanently. The APPG also strongly supports further compensation to Chagossians though this is a matter for the UK and US, not Mauritius.

13.On the issue of sovereignty the APPG has accepted the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 2019 and+ the resolution of UNGA[7] endorsing it which set a deadline of 22 Nov 2019 for implementation. An Advisory Opinion advises UNGA on the obligations and requirements of international law on an issue of international importance. Both governments have an obligation to inform the UNGA of progress towards resolving these issues which are both bilateral and international.

Defence and Security issues

14.Defence and Security is a more complex aspect of the negotiations. India is building a small defence facility on Agalega Island which belongs to Mauritius, the French have a base on Reunion (130 miles from Mauritius) and the UK/US on Diego Garcia. The potential for an alliance comprising UK, US, Mauritius, France, Australia, and India would act as a bulwark in the Indian Ocean against supposed Chinese threats. Such an alliance would reflect the objectives of the UK’s 2021 updated defence review[8] published on 13 March 2023 which states that a core tenet of the UK's approach in the Indo-Pacific is that "territorial integrity is respected and disputes resolved".

The China ‘threat’

15.The Indian Ocean is hardly threatened by China and may never be. A campaign by the Daily Mail alleging that Mauritius wants the islands to hand them over to China to build a military base is fanciful.  In a clear attempt to destabilise the negotiations, the press has reported alarmist claims in the US and UK, that Mauritius would hand the islands over to China for a military base, and that Britain is breaking off the negotiations. As a member of the Commonwealth, Mauritius’ closest ties have long been with India, and it maintains excellent relations with the UK, US and France. It is inconceivable that Mauritius would prioritise future relations with China over an agreement with the UK/US concerning the security of Diego Garcia. An agreement with Mauritius will give her a stake in protecting the base  and ensure she remains a close ally of the West.

Reaching agreement on protecting the UK/US base

16.The most likely cause for the delay is reaching agreement on the UK/US base (or facility) on Diego Garcia. In answer to a parliamentary question on 22 June[9] the Foreign Office minister said, “The US fully supports the process of bilateral negotiations between the UK and Mauritius on the exercise of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago”. This was confirmed by the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken when he met the new Foreign Secretary David Cameron on 7 December 2023 with Blinken telling the Press “This is a bilateral matter for the UK and Mauritius to work out and we support their engagement to resolve the differences”.

17.Mutual confidence is at the heart of achieving a satisfactory solution. Mauritius has made its support for the base clear by offering a 99-year lease. Although the Mauritian government holds to its position that in accordance with international law it must exercise full sovereign rights over the territory, the use of the term “exercise of sovereignty” in the 2022 joint statement would not rule out an interim solution whereby the UK administers Diego Garcia on behalf of Mauritius for a defined period, say until 2036 when the 1966 UK/US agreement comes to an end. A continuing temporary administration by the UK or the US over Diego Garcia could be a way of resolving the confidence issue.

18.Alternatively, all islands could be subject now to Mauritian law but with jurisdiction over the base and UK and US personnel governed by visiting forces agreements as is standard practice elsewhere in the world. Others have suggested an arrangement such as the sovereign base agreement that the UK has with Cyprus. It is likely that the bilateral talks have discussed these possible solutions. A treaty, registered with the UN between the three parties, which enshrined arrangements for the future of the base, should be enough to reassure the US and UK on security of the base in an increasingly hostile and unstable world, reminiscent of the Soviet-era Cold War period.

Mauritian commitment to Chagossian resettlement

19.While the UK remains opposed to resettlement the Mauritian Prime Minister has said repeatedly that Mauritius will facilitate and help fund resettlement for Chagossians wishing to return but as he made clear to a question on 4 July 2023[10] from the Leader of the Opposition, Mauritius needs to conduct surveys and an assessment mission to Chagos of the practicalities and requirements. The 2015 KPMG study is out of date and its estimated costs exaggerated. Since 2020 the Mauritian budget has set aside funds for resettlement. The UK government remains silent about resettlement, although officials would probably be relieved if Mauritius took on a resettlement programme to which the UK and US could contribute. Under Mauritian control Chagossians would be able to visit and return to all the islands and resettle if so desired. It is important to note that under international law self-determination belongs collectively to all Mauritians, whether in Mauritius, Chagos, Agalega or Rodrigues. In contrast the right of the inhabitants of Gibraltar and Falklands to decide their own future is independent of what Spain and Argentina may think.

The Marine Protected Area

20.The policing of the Chagos MPA created in 2010 is complex and expensive with no sign that illegal fishing has been effectively reduced. An agreement on its handover and continuation should be straight forward and satisfy the conservationists. Mauritius would implement a zoned MPA. The reefs and islands are a valuable resource for research. Hopefully Mauritius will take on the current scientific, conservation, environmental research capacity and the UK would assist Mauritius accordingly. It has long been argued that Chagossians would make the best custodians of this unique marine environment and could be employed to enforce and monitor the MPA[11].

BIOT an artificial construct

21.There are other pressures on the UK which make its continued occupation of the Chagos increasingly unmanageable, costly to the taxpayer and damaging to the UK’s standing and reputation. Legitimacy of BIOT and its sham legal system is increasingly challenged. The BIOT Supreme Court consists of one judge sitting in London. BIOT itself is an artificial construct, in practice administered by FCDO officials in London. Britain’s denial of the application to BIOT of human rights conventions and law makes the UK look hypocritical in its approach to international law.

Conclusion

22.The sooner BIOT, the UK’s post-colonial creation of 57 years ago, is returned to Mauritius, the sooner Chagossians can return to their islands, the UK’s international reputation is restored, and UK/Mauritius relations put on a productive course for the benefit of both nations. For the UK, an architect of international law and a founding father of the UN system a negotiated settlement to this long-standing dispute is inescapable.

23. Soon after arriving in Mauritius in September 2000 as British High Commissioner, I concluded that the problems of Chagos could be resolved but that it would require a negotiated settlement with Mauritius, getting the US on side, and providing for resettlement of Chagossians who wanted to return. After retirement I had a letter published in The Times on 12 February 2007[12] which asked, “Is it not time that HMG brought together Chagossian leaders, Mauritius and the US to sort out this relic of the Cold War and rectify one of the worst violations of fundamental human rights perpetrated by the UK in the twentieth century?”