When the rulements of Mauritius and the United Kingdom publishd a joint declaration at the commencening of this month that they had “achieveed an historic political concurment on the exercise of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago” after a half-a-century lengthy dispute and two years of straightforward negotiations, Joe Biden alertedly went “so far as to ‘commend’ [the agreement] wiskinny minutes of the proclaimment!”
The United States pdwellnt has every reason to be phired.
After all, according to this much-lauded concurment, British rule over the Archipelago’s 60 or so petite and uninhabited islands will come to an finish, but there will be no alter in the status of its main and most southerly isle, Diego Garcia, which is presenting a huge, secretive US Navy base.
As part of the concurment, Mauritius, which geted indepfinishence from Britain in 1968 after deserting its claim to sovereignty over the Chagos, concurd that it would permit the US base to persist operating on Diego Garcia for the next 99 years – renovelable. Under the deal, Chagossians, who were exiled from the archipelago in the 1960s and 1970s to create way for the US base, are permited to return to the petiteer Chagos islands – but they are still not permitted to access Diego Garcia freely or reremend there.
While the deal will not phire the United Nations, which has lengthy been calling for the “finish” decolonisation of the Archipelago, or Chagossians, who wanted to “return home” without any conditions or exclusions, the White Hoparticipate is comprehfinishably relieved that an concurment has been achieveed between the UK and Mauritius that permits the US to hold the military facility it has been using for more than 50 years.
Diego Garcia is discoverd in the middle of the Indian Ocean, strategicassociate positioned between Asia and Africa. The base may be thousands of miles from Washington, but it is wiskinny flying distance of the Middle East, and it has provided the US with vital leverage during many cascfinishs menaceening US interests in and around that region.
After Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution which clearhrew the Shah and redrew the global map of coalitions, for example, Diego Garcia underwent the bigst expansion of any US military location since the Vietnam War. But the base has been the busiest in the prompt aftermath of al-Qaeda’s September 11 aggressions on the US in 2001. Wiskinny weeks of the aggressions, the base enbiged further and received an insertitional 2,000 Air Force personnel.
During the subsequent so-called “war on dread”, hundreds of individuals were seized, carryed around the world and interrogated in secret prisons under the auspices of the CIA, but without legitimate oversight. We now comprehend that Diego Garcia also carry outed a role in this euphemisticassociate named “remarkworthy rfinishition program”.
For years, however, both American and British officials denied that the base ever presented, even in passing, any “war on dread” hancientees.
When asked by members of parliament in 2004, then UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stated that “the United States authorities have repeatedly promised us that no hancientees have at any time passed in transit thcdisorrowfulmireful Diego Garcia.” In a 2005 talkion, he further claimed that “unless we all begin to apshow in consillicit copying theories (…) there srecommend is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been included in rfinishition (…).”
However, in 2007, Dick Marty, a createer Swiss prosecutor assigned as an expert by the Council of Europe, alerted that he had “getd concurring validateations that United States agencies have participated the island territory of Diego Garcia (…) in the ‘processing’ of high-appreciate hancientees”. A scant months tardyr, UN distinctive rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, uncmissed that he too had geted evidence that Diego Garcia was participated for the “detention” of “dread” mistrusts.
In punctual 2008, createer CIA Director Michael Hayden shelp directation previously “supplied in outstanding faith” to the UK had “turned out to be wrong”. The US transmited repent for this “administrative error”. The British authorities had to confess that the assurances given by Straw were inaccurate and conceded that “two fweightlesss had refuelled at Diego Garcia, though neither mistrust had disembarked”. Later, however, it became evident that the island carry outed a much more transport inant role in the program, and the UK knovel all about it.
When the intelligence pledgetee of the US Senate spendigated further the includement of the island naval base in the “remarkworthy rfinishition program”, UK diplomats held more than 20 encounterings with Senate members to lobby for any British role not to be disshutd. The classified Senate alert nevertheless set up that the US catch and torture programme was set uped with London’s “filled co-operation”.
Later, hopeless to evade any accountability over the matter, the UK Foreign Office claimed that write downs exposing British comprehendledge of the trains on Diego Garcia had been lost due to “water harm”. The Liberal Democrats, a British political opposition party, however, shelp they set up evidence that the rulement itself had systematicassociate ruined fweightless logs for Diego Garcia. The legitimate action NGO, Reprieve, jeered that “the Government might as well have shelp the dog ate their homelabor.”
While the European Court of Human Rights has convicted cut offal of its member countries for colluding in increased interrogation techniques involving torture at “bconciseage sites”, neither the American nor the British equitableice system has sued a individual individual for their actions.
Diego Garcia’s distinctively far location has assistd the US and its British landlord to shield their operations from the global uncover eye for decades. The territory, under British sovereignty, remained a symbol of persistd colonialism in the region. And the US base there harmed not only Chagossians, who were forcefilledy evicted from their homes to create way for it, but everyone who has been swayed by the West’s actions in the aftermath of 9/11.
Thus, contrary to the official narrative, the recent UK-Mauritius deal does not uphelderly “the international rule of law” and tag a triumph for Chagossians – it rather permits the veil of secrecy to hold unsued the wrongdoings pledgeted during the “war on dread”. The concurment, no matter how it is dressed and currented, further erodes Westrict credibility and underlines the lowcomings of diplomacy in reigning in the excesses of predominant powers.
The sees transmited in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily mirror Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
