Sale and Lease of Land to Generate National Income

National Sovereignty and Development

Was the Mauritian government desperate to finalize the agreement before Parliament’s dissolution, and hence agreed to the terms imposed by the UK?

By Prakash Neerohoo

Everybody was taken by surprise last week with the announcement, on the eve of the dissolution of Parliament, of a deal (political agreement) between the UK and Mauritius regarding the transfer of sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago from the occupier to its rightful owner. Some were pleasantly surprised as they saw in the deal a long-awaited recognition of Mauritian sovereignty over the archipelago by the British occupier. Others were unpleasantly surprised by the surrender of our “sovereign rights” over one island in the archipelago (Diego Garcia, which has hosted an American military base since 1967.

The two countries still need to negotiate a bilateral treaty to formalize the transfer of sovereignty to Mauritius. However, the deal has already become a topic of significant controversy in both Mauritius and the UK. In Mauritius, opposition parties (both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary) have denounced it as a “sell-out” of territory to a foreign power that has been occupying the Chagos illegally since independence in 1968. In the UK, prominent right-wing politicians (including former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the leader of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage) have come out against the proposed transfer of sovereignty over the Chagos, which they still consider as British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).

It was the former Conservative government (led by Rishi Sunak), though that started negotiations for the transfer of sovereignty following the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion of 2019, which affirmed Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago. Whether those negotiations would have continued under a new Conservative government after the July 4th elections in the UK is doubtful, considering that some Conservative Party members, such as former Foreign Minister David Cameron, questioned the validity of the ICJ’s opinion.

The new Labour government under Keir Starmer resumed negotiations with Mauritius to finalize a political agreement on October 4th, just before the writ of elections was issued by the president of the Republic. The timing was indeed curious, if not intriguing, as British Foreign Secretary David Lammy admitted that the deal had to be announced before the elections in Mauritius. Why didn’t the UK wait until after the elections on November 10th to negotiate the deal with a new government in Mauritius? Was the Mauritian government desperate to finalize the agreement before Parliament’s dissolution, and hence agreed to the terms imposed by the UK? These are legitimate questions.

Multi-dimensional issue

The transfer of sovereignty over the Chagos is a complex matter with several dimensions: legal, geopolitical, and economic. Legally, international law experts may have differing views on whether a transfer of sovereignty followed by a leaseback of Diego Garcia Island to the UK for 99 years (renewable upon the exercise of a right of occupation) constitutes full sovereignty or limited sovereignty to all intents and purposes. Under the deal, Mauritius will delegate its “sovereign rights” over Diego Garcia to the UK, which will exercise the rights and authorities of Mauritius regarding the use of the island, as stated in the political agreement. Delegation of rights and authority implies that the British occupier will have full authority to use the island as it deems fit (military purposes or otherwise).

Under a normal lease agreement, legal ownership of the island would remain with the lessor (owner) while possession was transferred to the lessee (occupier). If that were the case, the political agreement would have mentioned transfer of possession (or occupancy) instead of transfer of “sovereign rights.” With the ability to exercise sovereign rights over Diego Garcia, the UK has obtained a major concession from the Mauritian government of Mauritius, that is the right to occupy the island for two consecutive leases of 99 years each (the first lease to be automatically renewed at the UK’s discretion).Read More… Become a Subscriber

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 11 October 2024