As an expat Brit, who believes that white supremacy gave way to colonialism and slavery, I was dismayed that the US and Britain combined to continue the practice of ignoring human rights in the South China Sea.
The US Secretary of State Antony Blinken castigated China for making extreme maritime claims in the South China Sea “that violate international law.”
Yet there is a need to get our own house in order, and that includes being sure that our ally Britain’s current approach to international law — especially the law of the sea — is seen as a serious problem for America. Britain’s “absolute commitment to upholding the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea in all its dimensions” may not be the case.
Both appear to see the law of the sea as a useful tool to clobber China, especially following a legally binding arbitral award handed down in 2016 by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. The tribunal ruled that China’s claims over vast swathes of the South China Sea, were illegal.
The case was brought by the Philippines under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, a binding global charter on all aspects of the world’s oceans adopted in 1982 after years of negotiations.
However, the United States is one of the few countries not to have joined the treaty — but it supports most provisions as reflecting general international law.
The State Department promptly welcomed the 2016 Philippines-China award. Yet today, Britain, a party to this Convention, is undermining the Biden administration’s effort to use that same body of rules to rein in China’s maritime claims. Read on to find out why.
55 islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean known as the Chagos Archipelago, for 150 years they were part of the British colony of Mauritius. Then, in 1965, at the instigation of President Lyndon Johnson, Britain decided to separate the islands from Mauritius and, at just the time that the world was agreeing the era of colonialism was over, created a new colony, called the British Indian Ocean Territory.
One of the islands, Diego Garcia, was leased to the United States for a military base.
Mauritius got its independence in 1968, but without Chagos. The entire population of the islands — about 1,800 Black people, mostly descendants of slaves who lived and worked on copra plantations there — were forcibly removed and transported to other parts of Mauritius, the Seychelles and Britain.
The episode, which the British government itself has since called “shameful,” had not been widely known — until now, as these events come back to haunt Britain and, indirectly, America.
Mauritius has long sought to get Chagos back, and its effort has been widely supported by numerous states
In February 2019, the International Court of Justice, in The Hague, ruled that Chagos has been separated from Mauritius illegally, in violation of both the right of self-determination and the territorial integrity of Mauritius. The U.N.’s official maps have been changed to show the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, as belonging to Mauritius, not Britain.
But the British have refused to leave, which has resulted in another case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Britain “did a China” and thumbed its nose at the rulings and the international rule of law.
The British government’s position is in direct conflict with the principles it invoked in a diplomatic note to Beijing in September, complaining that China’s claim to having historical rights over areas of the South China Sea violates international law.
Britain’s double standard is damaging, considering the U.S. military base on Diego Garcia, it undermines the Biden administration’s effort to hold China to account for its expansionism.
We cannot approve a continuing colonial policy with racist undertones. How can the Biden administration support an ally while rejecting it for Mauritius and its Black Chagossian population?
Mauritius already has offered the United States a 99-year lease over Diego Garcia, providing a long-term security that is lacking under America’s current arrangement with Britain, which expires in 2036. In return, the Chagossians would be allowed to come back to parts of Chagos. A marine protection area could be established to conserve a pristine maritime environment.
Security, human rights and the marine environment should be protected. The NABWMT support efforts against racism.
The opinions herein are not necessarily those of the NABWMT board but are in accordance with the NABWMT Statement of Purpose.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/opinion/uk-mauritius-china-us.html?referringSource=articleShar
