A UN tribunal has ruled the UK of creating a marine
protected area (MPA) to suit its electoral timetable, snubbing the rights of
its former colony Mauritius and cosying up to the United States. The ruling
effectively throws into doubt the UK’s assertion of absolute ownership,
restricts the Americans’ ability to expand their facility without Mauritian
compliance and boosts the chances of exiled Chagossians being able to return to
their homeland. The five-judge panel found that the creation of the MPA,
announced by the former foreign secretary David Miliband in the final months of
the last Labour government, breached its obligations to consult nearby
Mauritius and illegally deprived it of fishing rights. The US was “consulted in
a timely manner and provided with information”, all five judges state, whereas
a meeting with Mauritius in 2009 reminded the tribunal “of ships passing in the
night, in which neither side fully engaged with the other regarding fishing
rights or the proposal for the MPA”.
Opinion from two of the five judges on the permanent court
of arbitration at The Hague is even more scathing, stating that “British and
American defence interests were put above Mauritius’s rights” both in 1965 when
the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) was established and in 2010 when the
marine zone, which involves a ban on fishing, was set up. The ruling, which was
made under the 1982 United Nations convention on the law of the sea to which
the UK is a signatory, is binding. It torpedoes the status of the MPA and
orders the UK and Mauritius to renegotiate. (By coincidence, the government
this week declared another marine protected area around Pitcairn Island in the
southern Pacific.) A US telegram records a meeting with British officials in
2009 in which one is alleged to have said: “BIOT’s former inhabitants would
find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on
the islands if the entire Chagos archipelago were a marine reserve”. The main judgment
says: “The UK has not been able to provide any convincing explanation for the
urgency with which it proclaimed the MPA on 1 April 2010.” It adds: “Not only
did the United Kingdom proceed on the flawed basis that Mauritius had no
fishing rights in the territorial sea of the Chagos archipelago, it presumed to
conclude – without ever confirming with Mauritius – that the MPA was in
Mauritius’ interest.”
Mauritius has argued that the UK illegally detached the
Chagos archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 – before the country was given its
independence – contrary to UN general assembly resolution 1514, which
specifically banned the breakup of colonies prior to independence. The judgment
declares: “The United Kingdom’s undertaking to return the Chagos archipelago to
Mauritius gives Mauritius an interest in significant decisions that bear upon the
possible future uses of the archipelago. Mauritius’ interest is not simply in
the eventual return of Chagos archipelago, but also in the condition in which
the archipelago will be returned.”
No comments:
Post a Comment