Bill Review - Chagos Reversion: Lords Demand Justice and Security

The debates in the House of Lords focused on the rights of displaced Chagossians, the security of the base, and the management of the fund for affected residents. During the discussions on the bill regarding the military base at Diego Garcia and the reversion of the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius, emotions ran high on the night from Tuesday to Wednesday. On the second day of the committee's review, the Lords analyzed the implications of the treaty transferring sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius while maintaining military use of Diego Garcia for the UK and the US. The debate highlighted the tensions of a colonial legacy: the fate of the Chagossians, forcibly displaced half a century ago, and the security guarantees of a strategic base. It revealed a divide between the Labour government, eager to ratify the agreement, and an opposition made up of Conservative and Northern Irish unionists, concerned with rectifying historical injustices.

The treaty, signed last May between London and Port Louis, provides for an annual rent of £101 million over 99 years for the use of Diego Garcia, as well as a £40 million fund for the Chagossians. Ratified by the House of Commons in October after a swift review, it awaits approval from the Lords to come into effect. The amendments discussed aim to suspend the main clauses (2 to 4) until further negotiations on the employment of Chagossians, fund management, and protection of the base from potential interferences.

At the heart of the exchanges, the rights of Chagossians – approximately 2,000 individuals expelled between 1968 and 1973 – crystallized criticisms. Lord Callanan (Conservative) denounced the absence of provisions for their employment at the base, in contrast to the rights granted to Mauritians under Article 10 of the treaty. "The treaty provides for the employment of Mauritians but nothing for the Chagossians," he stated, highlighting fears that the displaced would be treated as "second-class citizens."

He mentioned a Trust Fund managed by Mauritius, financed by London, without British oversight, recalling a previous £4 million fund from the 1970s that was deemed poorly managed. "Do we have assurances to prevent mismanagement or corruption?" Lord Callanan questioned, calling for a parliamentary report before the treaty goes into effect.

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (non-affiliated), supported by the Chagossian community in the UK, condemned identity erasure: birth certificates would replace "Diego Garcia" or "Peros Banhos" with "Mauritius." According to her, this practice violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN principles on internal displacement. Her amendment 50A demands British diplomatic intervention to preserve these records, with an annual report to Parliament. "The Chagossians have been expelled once, their homes destroyed. What they demand today is the truth about their identity and place of birth," she argued.

Lord Hay of Ballyore and Lord Weir of Ballyholme supported these claims. Lord Hay's amendment 38A proposes limited charter flights for British Chagossians to Diego Garcia, without disrupting base operations. Lord Weir, a co-signer, lamented the lack of democratic consultation, advocating for a self-determination referendum.

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative) discussed the economic viability of a return: isolated tourism, an oceanographic university on Peros Banhos, and the export of medicinal plants like Madagascar periwinkle or an observatory. He argued that some private initiatives could succeed, similar to the Falklands, whose population has doubled since 1982 with UK support. Estimated cost in 2015 by a KPMG report: £400 million, "a fraction of what we pay Mauritius" (£3.4 billion according to the government, £35 billion according to the opposition).

Lord Jay of Ewelme (crossbencher) recalled the absence of a unified Chagossian position and the need for lengthy negotiations between London and Port Louis. He praised the inquiry from the International Relations and Defence Committee, as well as a survey of Chagossian wishes.

Expedited Notification and Fears of Interference

Security dominated the second half of the debates. Baroness Goldie (Conservative), former Defence Minister, scrutinized Annex 1 of the treaty, demanding "expedited notification" to Mauritius in the event of an armed attack from Diego Garcia against a third party, excluding defensive actions. "If a ship or aircraft leaves the base and is attacked, is there an obligation to inform Mauritius? We cannot leave these ambiguities for future discussions when incidents occur," she warned, citing a letter from ministers that confirms post-event notification without prior permission.

Lord Callanan emphasized that providing prior notification could jeopardize British and American security. His amendment 67 delays notification until the end of the attack. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon reminded of the 2019 negotiations: "After 11 rounds, the agreement could not be concluded due to the lack of security assurances."

Lord Weir pointed to the risks of a "mission creep" by China in the outer islands, citing precedents in Sri Lanka or the Solomon Islands, while Baroness Hoey (non-affiliated) questioned protections against the establishment of foreign bases for non-security purposes: "How do you evict a hostile country once it's entrenched?" Lord Kempsell (Conservative) called for renegotiation in light of Indo-Pacific tensions, and Baroness Foster demanded mandatory consultation with the United States, highlighting Diego Garcia's central role in US-UK operations.

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (crossbencher) defended the treaty: "The Americans consider it a 'monumental achievement.' The Indians see it as a barrier against Chinese influence." Lord Beamish (Labour) compared the mechanism to Cyprus, where notification occurs post-event, as with sovereign bases.

The fate of asylum seekers was addressed. Lord Callanan recalled the arrival, in 2021, of 60 Tamil Sri Lankans, detained for three years on Diego Garcia, and proposed that responsibility be transferred to Mauritius. Baroness Hoey insisted that any new arrivals be treated with dignity, quoting a Chagossian: "We have been exiled once, but we must not tolerate another injustice."

Ministerial Responses: Assurances Without Concessions

In response, Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour), Foreign Minister, dismissed the amendments. Regarding the fund: "We are discussing transparent management with Mauritius." On identity: "We will ensure places of birth are accurately recorded." On employment: "Chagossians already have access; job offers are on GOV.UK." On flights: "We are planning heritage visits, including to Diego Garcia."

Lord Coaker (Labour), Defence Minister, clarified that notification does not require prior approval: "Expedited means as soon as reasonably practicable." Regarding asylum, he noted that Mauritius assumes jurisdiction and that arrangements compliant with international law are underway.

All amendments were withdrawn, but Lord Callanan promised their return: "These issues will come back." Lord Weir secured assurances on fund management before the final report.