The Chagos issue has been on, under or around the table for what seems like eons now. Acts of great injustice often take on lives of their own so that both the perpetrators and the victims are condemned to dwell upon them until time finally lays them to rest. To what extent can we claim that the appropriation of the archipelago by the UK, and its subsequent leasing of Diego Garcia to the US, is an injustice? More importantly, what can we do about it?

The Chagos issue goes to the very core of our sovereignty. Firstly, it is considered an affront and ignominy that the UK persists in preventing Mauritius from claiming what is rightfully hers whilst simultaneously reaping huge financial rewards from the “rent” paid by the US. It is no longer a secret that we ceded control of the Chagos islands as a prerequisite for independence. British colonial rule was coming to an end in the 1960s; so it is possible to question the political wisdom and necessity of the decision; yet, in the realist world of geopolitics, it would be missing the point entirely.

In its war on terror, the US has demonstrated an intransigence and unilateralism that has greatly damaged its international standing and even estranged it from traditional allies. Given Diego Garcia’s strategic importance, it would be difficult, if not outright impossible, to envisage the global hegemony withdrawing from the region on the grounds that it was obtained in less-than-legal circumstances.

The British government’s infamous feasibility study on the resettling of the islanders unashamedly states that, as a result of global warming, the exercise would be far too expensive and even dangerous. In addition to being completely subjective, the study fails to add that global warming is being caused by countries like the UK and US. Footing the bill for the repopulation of the archipelago is the least they should do; yet, once again, geopolitics takes precedence over all else. By pretending to be concerned for the safety of the Chagossians, the UK is applying Machiavellian shrewdness. “It is not important for the prince to have values but it is very important for him to appear to have them”, wrote the advisor to the de Medici family.

The above is common knowledge. The stance of Blair’s government blatantly contradicts the Declaration of Commonwealth principles of 1971, which states: “We oppose all forms of colonial domination. We will therefore use all our efforts to foster human equality and dignity everywhere, and to further the principles of self-determination.” However, American paranoia about its security and Blair’s reputation as Bush’s lapdog will ensure the perpetuation of the status quo for the foreseeable future.

The possibility of the Mauritian government seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, a decision that would compel the country to abandon its right to Commonwealth membership, is evidence of the government’s desire to rectify the injustice. One has to question the effectiveness of such a move, though. Advisory opinions are in no way legally binding. So, apart from drawing attention to the plight of the Chagossians, they don’t really hold much water. Will the British be sufficiently embarrassed to rectify past injustices and forego the extremely lucrative Diego Garcia leasing business? It is difficult to say…