Dr. Shafick Osman: “I am in favour of co-sovereignty for Tromelin and Chagos”

Dr. Shafick Osman, PhD Geopolitics from Paris-Sorbonne, thinks that Mauritius must exert constant pressure on France and the UK regarding its sovereignty on Tromelin and the Chagos. He considers that co-sovereignty is as a mid-way solution for these two disputed territories. Mauritius will celebrate this Saturday its 48 years of Independence. We must be proud for having able to shield our territory against foreign interference. Mustn’t we? Yes and no. Yes, because we do not have any foreign power that has invaded us or nor have we had any coup from any foreign State or organisation. No, because Mauritius is too closely linked to a few Western powers, international organisations and to India also. So, our room for manoeuvre is quite limited at times and in certain circumstances. But it’s a fact that States give up some sovereignty to world bodies like the World Bank and IMF… Yes, indeed, and that’s sad. We could add the European Union also. When one gets embedded in organisations like The World Bank, IMF, the World Trade Organisation, etc., it is very difficult to get out of the trap afterwards. A few countries that have tried to do so have heavily paid the consequences. Even a regional organisation like the Indian Ocean Commission, with so much influence from the European Union and France, can influence Mauritius on a number of issues. The most important thing for the State of Mauritius is to always stick to its values and principles but it is very often more easily said than done, unfortunately! [[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"12738","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-20979 alignleft","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"393","height":"290","alt":"Shafick-Osman"}}]]Moreover with the issues of Tromelin and Chagos Archipelago, can Mauritius be still considered as a sovereign State even if it does not have complete and exclusive control of all its territories? Yes, but it’s a bit weird as the country cannot control and manage two of its territories. What Mauritius should do is to have constant pressure on France and the UK for these territories or go legal on the international scene. It will be easier for Tromelin than the Chagos as Mauritius will have to quit the Commonwealth and even on that point, there is a new piece which stipulates that no former nation of the Commonwealth can sue the UK in Court! Can you imagine that? Is that not pure neo-colonialism? But experts in international law will find a way to get out of that, I am sure, if Mauritius so decides. I am personally in favour of co-sovereignty for these two territories as a mid-way solution and hopefully, a win-win situation as we cannot keep important issues dragging on for years and decades to the benefit of the ‘occupiers’! Do you share the views of a few Mauritians that we have forever lost Chagos Archipelago because of the strategic importance of the US military base on Diego Garcia? This is why I am favouring since the last visit of former prime minister Navin Ramgoolam to Washington DC in 2014 for a co-sovereignty solution or something alike. We have heard, last year, that the British are now saying that there had never been any formal lease from the UK to the USA and that was an ‘arrangement.’ What shall we conclude? That the 50-year lease was an eyewash and that the optional additional 20 years is just a formality or perhaps, it is an agreed and done deal already? Or shall we understand that as there is no lease, according to the new position of Britain, the Chagos could remain with the US for an indefinite period, i.e. not even an optional 20 years’ additional lease? This is most scary and it’s high time to stop that mockery and Mauritius should take firm stands and act accordingly! Taking into consideration the foreign military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, sovereignty does no longer provide absolute protection to an independent territory. The issue that you are addressing is a very valid one and this has been said also for foreign interventions in countries for humanitarian reasons also. What we must understand is that the mode of operation of the UN Security Council must be revamped as that was set up some 70 years ago and is no more valid today. Can you imagine that the Permanent Members of the Security Council, i.e. those who have the real power to veto, etc. have remained the same since 1945! One can argue that the world’s security is in the hands of the US, UK, France, Russia and China only but what about Germany, the emerging nations and regional powers like Brazil, India, Japan, etc? Either the Permanent Club should be reviewed to accommodate more States or the Permanent Members should have a term of 5 or 7 years and then get changed again and again. A better proposal is in fact to eliminate the Permanent Members and keep only a number of States, representative of the different regions in the world, as Roving Members for 2 or 3 years. In reality, the world is still ruled by a few powerful nations and it’s high time to get that changed! In the era of globalisation, boundaries are more porous. Is there need to redefine sovereignty? Not necessarily, but I agree that there are more and more regional blocs where there are no more country boundaries or check points. This is a good thing in theory for the economy, circulation of people and goods, etc. But in practice, this eases the way for drug-traffickers, arm dealers and other criminals. I don’t have a clear answer but I guess the best thing is to get the right balance between free circulation of goods and people and the control of illegal trafficking...