Chagos Islands: UN General Assembly Resolution
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
Thank you, Mr Sharma, for chairing our proceedings. I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for securing the debate—at least, that is what I thought 20 minutes ago.
I think it would be helpful if I set out the background to the Government’s position on the British Indian Ocean Territory. The UK has administered the islands that make up the British Indian Ocean Territory since 1814, when France ceded the islands to Britain. It also ceded Mauritius, which then included the Seychelles. For administrative convenience, and following French practice, the islands were administered as a dependency of Mauritius until 1965, when, with the full agreement of the Mauritian Council of Ministers, they were detached to form part of the newly established colony of the British Indian Ocean Territory, which we know as BIOT.
Mauritius entered that agreement in return for certain benefits, including a sum of £3 million and a UK commitment to cede the territory when it is no longer needed for defence purposes. That UK commitment still stands. Mauritius affirmed the 1965 agreement numerous times following independence, and the agreement was held to be legally binding by a UN convention on the law of the sea tribunal in 2015. No international court or tribunal has ever found our sovereignty to be in doubt.
In 1966, the UK agreed with the US to make BIOT available for the defence purposes of the UK and the US. The UK does not lease the territory to the US and receives no financial payment from it. The US presence on BIOT is governed by a series of letters, called exchanges of notes, of which the overarching agreement sets out that the whole territory should be made available for UK and US defence purposes for an initial 50-year period from 1966 to 2016.
On 16 November 2016, the Government announced that neither the US nor the UK had given notice to terminate the agreement. Therefore, the US presence on Diego Garcia will continue for a further 20 years until 30 December 2036. BIOT has been a key strategic asset and continues to be vital for defence use by the UK and its allies. The joint UK-US facility on the territory has helped us and our allies to combat some of the most challenging threats to international peace and security, including from terrorism, organised crime and piracy. It is increasingly important at a time of conflicts of international significance, and those functions are only possible under UK sovereignty.
When Mauritius took the matter to the UN General Assembly in 2017, it did so using the argument that our continued administration of BIOT means that the process of decolonisation remains incomplete. That argument completely fails to acknowledge the 1965 agreement. Mauritius’s claim to sovereignty over the islands, which we strongly refute, is not a decolonisation matter, but a bilateral dispute between Mauritius and the UK. It is therefore disappointing that the matter should ever have been referred to the International Court of Justice by the UN General Assembly. It is an accepted international principle that states should not be compelled to have their bilateral disputes adjudicated on by the ICJ without their consent, particularly on questions of sovereignty. Circumventing that principle sets a very dangerous precedent.
Nevertheless, the Government have considered the Court’s advice carefully. We have concluded that the approach set out in the advisory opinion failed to give due regard to material facts and legal issues that the UK Government explained in detail in our submissions to the ICJ. For instance, it did not take account of the 1965 agreement with Mauritius or the numerous affirmations of that agreement made by Mauritius since independence. Furthermore, it fails to address the fact that the UK and US have entered into a binding treaty obligation to maintain UK sovereignty over the whole territory until at least 2036.
When the UN General Assembly voted on the matter in May this year, following the ICJ advisory opinion, we fully expected a large number of member states to support the resolution in Mauritius’ favour, framed as it was around the emotive theme of decolonisation. However, it is important to note that nearly 80 member states did not vote in favour of the resolution. Many of them shared our concern that Mauritius had circumvented the principle that the ICJ should consider bilateral disputes only with the consent of the states. Furthermore, some states explained publicly that they had voted in favour of the resolution out of respect for the ICJ and not necessarily because they agreed with the substance of the resolution.
The UK, too, respects the ICJ. Despite our concerns, we participated fully in the ICJ process so as to ensure that we could present accurate facts and arguments, including on why granting the Court jurisdiction on a bilateral dispute without the consent of both parties could have wider implications for all UN member states in the future.
The issue of sovereignty has recently become entangled with arguments about resettlement, which we have just heard. We need to remember that the outer islands are not just remote but tiny, the largest being no bigger than Hyde Park. They are also extremely low-lying and have no functioning infrastructure. The UK commissioned an independent feasibility study on the practicalities of resettlement, and the study recognised that there would be significant challenges. An interesting comparison to note in passing is that Scotland has 790 islands, of which only 94 are inhabited.
In my role as Minister for Europe and the Americas, I am proud to play my part in the UK’s efforts to defend and strengthen institutions such as the UN and to uphold the norms that underpin the rules-based international system.
Alex Chalk
In his speech, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) suggested that the UK was somehow flouting international law, but we are a nation of laws. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree with me that it would be a gross mischaracterisation to suggest that that has happened in this case? What we are discussing is not a judgment that is binding on the UK, but an advisory opinion, which is not; there is a difference. Does the Minister agree?
Sir Alan Duncan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as indeed was my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge); and, in acknowledging what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) has just said, I say very clearly that the UK continues to be seen as one of the most prominent international champions of the rule of law across the globe.
The UK recognises the important role that the UN has played, and continues to play, on the issue of decolonisation, including in territories formerly administered by the UK. We will continue to engage fully in the UN General Assembly and to be a staunch defender of human rights institutions and norms. We will also continue to support the role of international courts when states have failed to meet their responsibilities. That is clearly not the case in this instance. We regret that this issue continues to occupy the time and attention of the General Assembly. The UK remains committed to seeking resolution of this bilateral sovereignty dispute with Mauritius through direct, bilateral dialogue.
I have to say, as I conclude, that I do rather sense—
John Grogan
The Minister is very generous. I think that he was directly asked whether he or another Minister would come to the all-party parliamentary group to discuss this issue in more detail, out of respect for Parliament. Is that date definitely in the Minister’s diary now? Has the United Kingdom had any direct discussions with Mauritius about this matter? Was it not a little bit petty to cancel the Queen’s birthday party, and was that a ministerial decision?
Sir Alan Duncan
The party was cancelled because it did not seem appropriate. That was not a petty protest; it just did not seem appropriate to have a celebration of that sort, given the mood. Given that there are likely to be changes in this Government within three weeks and the primary responsibility for this matter rests with my noble Friend Lord Ahmad, I cannot commit as the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) requests. It is the responsibility of Lord Ahmad; I merely answer on the issue here in the House of Commons.
I shall conclude, having listened to so many salvos from the hon. Member for Glasgow North, merely by saying that I feel the reasoned and clear legal points that we have always put as the Government do rather sit in contrast to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, which I think can only be characterised as confected, specious, sarcastic nonsense.
Question put and agreed to.