Whether the Prime Minister is in London for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee pageant as a royal fan or as the representative of our sovereign Republic, only he knows. What we are led to believe is that he will be having summit talks on the ever contentious subject of our sovereignty on the Chagos including Diego Garcia.

What will he say? His Robertson/Sands legal advice will urge him to claim that there has been rendition of suspected terrorists and related torture on the US base of Diego Garcia. That this constitutes unlawful practice under the rules of international law and is in breach of United Nations principles of human rights. Correct, absolutely dead on! It’s a crime to obtain confessions by means of coercion and oppression including torture. But, would such a ‘moan’ make our legal claim on sovereignty any stronger?

In domestic law, basic landlord and tenant rules will state that bad behaviour of one party may constitute a breach of the tenancy, for which there would be remedies in law. It does not make the tenancy illegal. It surely does not get to the extent of the lessor losing his proprietary rights. Here we are being made to believe that, because the Yanks have behaved as bad boys, the UK should relinquish ownership of the BIOT and hand over control to Mauritius. Where is the rationale?

What if the Yanks were not using Diego for torturous and repressive practices, What if Diego based USS marines were not involved in their dirty business in Iraq and Afghanistan. What if the USA had no nuclear arsenal on the atoll. What if Diego was not even leased to the US. Would all that make it more lawful for the UK to have detached these islands from mainland Mauritius and its territorial waters, that’s the question!

Has there been breach of the rules of public international law? Yes! They are to be found in the circumstances and manner in which the former Chagos Archipelago was detached from Mauritius prior to obtaining independence from Britain. In the manner in which its inhabitants were coerced to vacate their homes leaving behind belongings, livelihood ... history!

Successive UK governments have been constantly and systematically ignoring directions from international forums including the United Nations. UN Resolution 2066 specifically called on Britain not to dismember the Mauritian territory and not to violate its territorial integrity prior to independence. Documents recently disclosed by the Commonwealth and Foreign Office show the sheer coincidence of the UN debates in 1965 and the UK calling for its pseudo Constitutional Conference of the same year in London. It would later claim that there was acquiescence and consent from Mauritius on the subject of Chagos.  In 1980, there was also the OAU African head of states vote calling for an unconditional return of the Chagos to Mauritius as was the case of Aldabra, Farquhar and Soloman Islands to Seychelles in 1976.

Britain has always claimed that there was consent from the Mauritian state as to the splitting up of its territory during the 1965 London Conference. Thus they claim there is treaty obligation. How could that be? There is no evidence of related parliamentary debates nor council decisions. The 1965 delegation never had a mandate to discuss Chagos.

The British Indian Ocean Territory was the creation of a Statutory Instrument, not an act of Parliament. With the importance equivalent to that of a road traffic regulation! There was no Bill, it was never debated in the House of Commons nor ratified by a vote. If there were treaty implications, there should have been proper parliamentary scrutiny and a vote as required by the Ponsonby Rule. As it is, there has been no involvement of either parliament. Therefore, if treaty there was, it would be procedurally improper and illegal.

There is no undermining of the plight of the inhabitants of Chagos. Having had to vacate their homeland and lead a life of refugees in Port Louis: some of whom have now ended up in the faubourg of Crawley. Britain has always denied the existence of people living there stating they have been contract workers. There is overwhelming  evidence of social and economic life through generations. This community has existed way beyond the Paris Treaty 1814 when all these islands changed hands from France to Britain. The manner in which they were coerced and conned to vacate their homes constitutes clear violation of acceptable norms of human rights. Do we not have a case under the rule of Jus Cogens which makes illegal any treaty violating human rights, the equality of states and the principles of self-determination!

(The Author did an extensive research on this legal issue as part of his Law Degree and submitted to the South Bank University in 1994.)