Connect with us

Opinion

UK’s deal with Mauritius will be a win for all

Published

on

Location of the Chagos archipelago (circled) Wikipedia

Freedom for Chagos islands:

by Peter Harris
Associate Professor of Political Science,
Colorado State University

Britain is close to resolving its territorial dispute with Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago, located in the central Indian Ocean.

For years, Mauritius has claimed the island group as part of its sovereign territory. It says that Britain unlawfully detached the islands from Mauritius in 1965, three years before Mauritius gained independence. The Mauritian position is backed by international courts and the United Nations, creating enormous pressure for Britain to decolonise.

London, however, has been reluctant to abandon the Chagos Archipelago. This is because the largest island, Diego Garcia, is the site of a strategically important US military base. Britain pledged to make Diego Garcia available to its American ally and has been anxious to avoid a situation where it is prevented from making good on these promises.

The US, for its part, has declined to become publicly involved in the dispute. Its private position is merely that the base on Diego Garcia should not be placed in jeopardy.

In a deal announced in a joint statement, London and Port Louis have agreed that all but one of the Chagos Islands will be returned to Mauritian control as soon as a treaty can be finalised. This comes after nearly two years of intense negotiations. It seems as though settling the dispute was a top priority for Britian’s new Labour government.

Though the deal isn’t done yet, it is expected to go through. Both Britain and Mauritius, along with the White House, have endorsed the agreement, indicating that the toughest negotiations are complete.

Diego Garcia will remain under British administration for at least 99 years – this time with the blessing of Mauritius – enabling Britain to continue furnishing the US with unfettered access to its military base on the island.

In exchange for permission to continue on Diego Garcia, Britain will provide “a package of financial support” to Mauritius. The exact sums of money have not been disclosed but will include an annual payment from London to Port Louis. Both sides will cooperate on environmental conservation, issues relating to maritime security, and the welfare of the indigenous Chagossian people – including the limited resettlement of Chagossians onto the outer Chagos Islands under Mauritian supervision.

I’ve studied the Chagos Islands for 15 years, first as a master’s student and now as a professor. It often looked as though this day would never come.

The deal that’s been announced is a good one – a rare “win-win-win-win” moment in international relations, with all the relevant actors able to claim a meaningful victory: Britain, Mauritius, the US, and the Chagossians.

Win for Britain

Britain went into these negotiations with one goal in mind: to bring itself into alignment with international law.

London suffered humiliating setbacks at the permanent court of arbitration in 2015, concerning the legality of its Chagos marine protected area; at the International Court of Justice in 2019, when the World Court found that Mauritius was sovereign over the archipelago; and at the UN general assembly that same year, when a whopping 116 governments called on Britain to exit the Chagos Islands.

Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos group had even begun to be inscribed into international case law.

London could probably have defied international opinion if it had wanted to. Nobody would have forced Britain to halt its illegal occupation of the Chagos Archipelago. But such a course would have badly undermined Britain’s global reputation and its ability to criticise others for breaches of international law.

This agreement will give Britain exactly what it wanted: a continued presence on Diego Garcia that conforms with international law.

Win for Mauritius

Mauritius, of course, went into these negotiations intent on securing full decolonisation at long last. Britain and the US now recognise that the Chagos Archipelago belongs to Mauritius.

Mauritius will not have day-to-day control of Diego Garcia, but it will be acknowledged as being sovereign there. The public description of the agreement also doesn’t seem to prohibit Mauritius from exercising its sovereignty over Diego Garcia as it relates to non-military domains.

Win for the US

The US is another clear winner from the deal. In fact, hardly anything will change for America. Washington will continue working closely with London, and will not need to negotiate an agreement with Mauritius on its rights to the base or the status of forces.

Indeed, Pentagon officials should be thrilled that their base on Diego Garcia has been put on firm legal footing. This is something that Britain alone was unable to offer. The bilateral agreement with Mauritius will ensure the security of the base for 99 years – no small feat.

Good for Chagos Islanders

Finally, the deal is good for the Chagos Islanders.

British agents forcibly depopulated the entire Chagos group between 1965 and 1973. The point was to rid the archipelago of its permanent population so that the US base on Diego Garcia would operate far from prying eyes. Britain deported the Chagossians to Mauritius and the Seychelles, which is where most Chagossians and their descendants still live. Some have migrated onwards, including to Britain.

Britain had long opposed the resettlement of the Chagos group by the exiled Chagossians. Mauritius, on the other hand, has indicated its openness to resettlement of the Outer Chagos Islands – so, not Diego Garcia – something that Port Louis is now free to pursue.

Not all islanders have welcomed news of an agreement. The Chagossians are a large and diverse group, with differing views about how their homeland should be governed. Some would have preferred Britain to administer the entire archipelago long into the future, feeling that Mauritius was an unwelcoming host to the exiled Chagossians. But Britain could not hold onto the Chagos Islands forever – at least, not lawfully.

For their part, the largest Chagossian organisations are content with the deal as it has been announced, and will now work with Mauritius on a resettlement plan.

The critics

This is the first instance of decolonisation that London has attempted since returning Hong Kong to China in 1997. Predictably, some in Britain are opposed to the settlement.

Some accuse the Keith Starmer government of “giving up” the Chagos Archipelago. But the islands were never Britain’s to give up – they were always Mauritian sovereign territory, and Britain was an unlawful occupier.

They are also wrong to blame this deal for jeopardising the base on Diego Garcia. The opposite is true: for better or worse, the agreement will resolve any uncertainty about the US base’s future. It will have total legal security.

Finally, critics are grasping at straws when they raise the prospect of Mauritius permitting a Chinese base in the Chagos Archipelago. This is a baseless smear. There is no indication whatsoever that Port Louis has any interest in hosting the Chinese military.

What happens now?

Britain and Mauritius still need to reveal the text of their bilateral treaty. But the deal is highly unlikely to fall through. Both governments, plus the White House, have welcomed the agreement – a sure sign that the hard work of negotiations is over.

All that remains is for the treaty to be ratified – a process that does not require a parliamentary vote in the House of Commons. There is no reason why this cannot be done quickly.

This could be the end of a shameful saga that went on for too long.

(Courtesy of The Conversation.)



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

A new dawn for Sri Lanka

Published

on

by Ayampillai Dharmakulasingham,
(Retired Sri Lankan career diplomat)

The Communist Party of India won Legislative Assembly elections in the Indian states of West Bengal and Kerala, establishing their respective governments. Leftist parties were also influential in some other states, especially in Tamil Nadu, though they could not capture power there.

In Sri Lanka, JVP/NPP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s rise to the presidency marks a new chapter in the country’s history. The upcoming general election, on 14 Nov. holds significant importance and has raised hopes that Sri Lanka is undergoing a transitional period for good. It may mark the first time a left-wing party comes to power in Sri Lanka. There are other factors that make the upcoming election important. Major political parties have become notorious for corruption, mismanagement of national resources, family dynasties, elitist politics, etc. Corruption has been widespread throughout government, accompanied by nepotism, lack of transparency, and mismanagement of public funds

It is indeed true that the JVP’s presence in the northern and eastern regions, is not as strong as in the south, such as Galle, Matara, Hambantota, Anuradhapura, Kurunegala, and other districts. However, Anura’s popularity has drawn attention in the north as well. For the first time, substantial support appears to be emerging for the JVP in the northern and district districts of Jaffna, Batticaloa, Ampara, and Trincomalee. However, every parliamentary election has been similarly heralded as “historic” by the press and media, though often without substance. The major parties – the United National Party, Sri Lanka Freedom Party, and Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna – have ruled Sri Lanka repeatedly, with the media often playing a supportive role by portraying each election as historic, ultimately misleading the public.

Sri Lanka’s first left-wing political party, the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), once had widespread support across the country and grew powerful enough to become a significant opposition force. The plantation population, in particular, supported both the LSSP and the Communist Party. The LSSP achieved major victories in parliamentary elections after the 1940s. In response, the first Prime Minister, D. S. Senanayake, revoked the citizenship of people of Indian origin, stripping them of their political rights. As a result, the LSSP lost a significant portion of its support base. When the citizenship rights of people of Indian origin were revoked, the prominent Tamil leader G. G. Ponnambalam served as a key Minister in the UNP Cabinet. Although he opposed the provisions of the Act within the Cabinet, Prime Minister D. S. Senanayake ultimately prevailed. Despite his opposition, Ponnambalam failed to take meaningful action to protect the political rights of the hill-country Tamil population. This perceived betrayal led S. J. V. Chelvanayakam to leave the Tamil Congress Party and establish the Federal Party.

In the northern and eastern regions, the parties and organizations that once formed the traditional alliances of the Tamil Alliance and other Tamil parties have fragmented. They are now contesting the general election as separate alliances. Like it or not, the Federal Party remains somewhat influential today, although its support base is not as strong as it once was

Tamil parties have often criticized and blamed the major national parties as being racist. Ironically, most Tamil political parties – such as Thamil Arasu Katchi, Tamil Congress, and the Tamil National Alliance – include “Tamil” in their names. In contrast, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, United National Party, and Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna do not reference any race in their names. Yet, Tamil parties have continued to win elections by appealing to Tamil-speaking people with claims that only the major parties are racist. Some insights into racism are important here. Muslim citizens representing major parties have been elected as members of Parliament in predominantly Sinhala areas. However, the stark reality is that the Muslim population in the North and East has been alienated by the Jaffna-centered major Tamil parties.

G. G. Ponnambalam, the leader of the Tamil Congress, advocated for 50/50 representation for the Sinhalese and other ethnic groups, despite the fact that Sinhalese people are the majority. This 50/50 representation demand is seen as an extremely racist slogan. In other words, he openly undermined the representation and political rights of the majority Sinhalese people. S. J. V. Chelvanayakam left the Tamil Congress and founded the Federal Party due to G. G. Ponnambalam’s perceived betrayal of the upcountry Tamils. However, Chelvanayakam’s own performance was not markedly better than that of Ponnambalam. Chelvanayakam’s own words deserve attention. In 1970, when the SLFP coalition swept the parliamentary elections, Chelvanayakam famously declared, “Only God should save the Tamils from now on.” It is essential to closely examine the underlying implications of this statement. The first implication is that the UNP government is preferable. The second is that Sirimao’s party will not benefit the Tamils. Notably, Chelvanayakam’s loyalty to the UNP correlates with the historical voting patterns of the Tamil (Jaffna) people, who have traditionally supported UNP candidates in all elections within the Colombo Municipal limits and the adjoining areas of Dehiwela and Ratmalana.

On 27 Oct., a book titled “Jaffna on Fire” (Tamil version) was launched in Jaffna. Original Sinhalese book was translated by well-known media personality and translator, Manoranchan, into Tamil.  The author, Nandana Weerasekhara, presented evidence that the Jaffna Public Library, modern market, and other locations were set on fire during the presidency of J. R. Jayewardene, allegedly with his blessing. Another notable aspect is that Tamil leaders, both before and after this incident, provided full political support to the UNP.

President Dissanayake’s NPP is expected to win significantly in the upcoming general elections. This expectation arises from the fact that most Sri Lankans are seeking change. President Dissanayake has emphasised the need to elect representatives from the NPP in large numbers to cleanse the Parliament. It is understandable that the President requires a strong Parliament to effectively govern the country with new legislative measures. During a meeting in Kilinochchi on 04 Nov., Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya captured the attention of the audience by stating that Parliament should be cleansed. She emphasised the importance of electing the right representatives in the upcoming general elections. The overwhelming response from the audience reaffirmed the prevailing mood of the country.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Franklyn Amerasinghe: an appreciation

Published

on

Amerasinghe

It was 1979. I had just married and was trying to manage my fledgling legal practice in Kurunegala when Franklyn Amerasinghe attracted me to the Employers Federation of Ceylon (EFC). I basically followed what he did 5yrs earlier; the exception being that when he left Kurunegala, he also left a lucrative Practice built by his late father. From then onwards, for the next 45 years he was my colleague, boss, friend and above all; professional and personal guide. I was indeed fortunate as a young professional in the EFC to have had S R de Silva, the doyen of Sri Lankan Industrial Relations and the late Franklyn as my bosses. I am ever grateful to them both for whatever I achieved professionally; ending my working career with the International Labour Organisation in which they served with distinction before me.

I will not dwell herein on the professional attributes and achievements of Franklyn. Neither can I do justice to that aspect in this short piece.  Instead, I will attempt to capture what I knew of Franklyn the man. He was personally exposed to the vicissitudes of life in his youth and again thereafter when his loving wife Neelanthi passed away while their two daughters were still school going. These circumstances which would have drained a lesser mortal brought out the best in Franklyn’s innate strong character. Whilst being the devoted father to his young children and successfully managing his professional career, he was also the “go-to person” to so many in need of professional or personal help.  With his children grown up and on their own feet, the demands on Franklyn’s time from others only increased. Regardless of social or official status, old or young, he gave wise counsel ungrudgingly and always found time for them. What fascinated me was his ability to make all those who knew him feel that there was a special place in his heart for each of them. They in turn considered him to be special.

Perhaps, it was this unique gift that enabled him to give inspirational leadership to those who worked with him. His faith in humanity was boundless. He genuinely believed that no person was useless.  It was this faith that drew him to help the helpless. Few would know of all what he has done or the sacrifices he has made, to assist the less fortunate get on their feet, without breathing a word of what he had given or lost in the process. The “Diamond Trust” he initiated with the support of close friends and family in later years to facilitate learning for handicapped children was a dream come true for him. The Trust was his precious baby in the last days of his life.  His wish to see the baby nurtured into adulthood is now in the able hands of his daughters and family.  While he will be remembered for his philosophical strengths, he will also not be forgotten by those of us who knew him personally for his social camaraderie. A sportsman himself, he loved sports. So was it with music. His wit and humour was infectious. Many were the long hours he spent with family and friends signing old favourites around a Piano, late into the night at parties. This sense of camaraderie he shared with his office colleagues as well.

We who were at the EFC with him, will recall the family atmosphere he promoted among us. He was truly a man for all seasons. It was my privilege to have had known Franklyn. It will not be easy to fill the void he has left in my life and that of my family. The last audible words he said to me were “I will soon let you know what it is like on the other side” I know for certain that wherever he may be the grass there will be far greener than on this earth. To Michelle and Sharon, the loving daughters of a devoted Father, the tender care you showered on Dad, particularly in his final days was truly exemplary.

Gotabaya Dasanayaka

Continue Reading

Opinion

Social responsibility of the media

Published

on

In Sri Lanka, established media channels, particularly television, play a crucial role in shaping public perception on various aspects of life, including both local and international politics. Social media, however, has also become a powerful force, frequently spreading biased or manipulated content that risks fragmenting communities and damaging the social fabric, especially during sensitive times such as general or presidential elections.

Sri Lanka’s media has long been aware of the full spectrum of public life in the country—the good, the bad, and the troubling. They understand that political corruption and malpractice have significantly contributed to social unrest, economic decline, and the deterioration of essential services like education, healthcare, and nutrition. This has prompted many citizens to emigrate, leading to a damaging “brain drain.”

Media outlets also recognise the challenges in electing better leaders. Entrenched politicians have erected legal and financial barriers to safeguard their positions, making it difficult for ordinary citizens to participate effectively in elections. Additionally, the high cost of media exposure during election seasons makes it nearly impossible for average citizens to run for office. While media organisations often use this period to maximise profits, it would be commendable if they could support underrepresented and less privileged candidates, contributing to the public good.

As we approach a pivotal general election, we urge these influential media institutions to uphold their social responsibility. Since media ultimately relies on public support, directly or indirectly, they have to prioritise the public interest. At this critical moment, we, as citizens, need to elect honourable, honest, and patriotic individuals who can act as “watchdogs” in Parliament and help guide our nation toward better governance. We respectfully request that significant media outlets dedicate at least a small amount of airtime to non-political candidates vying for a seat in Parliament. Providing even a few minutes of prime airtime for these candidates to present their mission and vision would be a meaningful gesture toward equal representation. This commitment to the nation’s well-being would be widely appreciated. After all, true equality—the very principle that media frequently champions for its own survival—is now an ideal that can extend to all.

Chula Goonasekera (admin@srilankaleads.com)

On behalf of the LEADS forum

Continue Reading

Trending