Chagos Archipelago: Treaty of Pelindaba at a crossroad with INF

Abstract:

Chagos Archipelago occupies an important strategic piece of Island for several reasons; firstly, it is within the continent of Africa and plays an important part to actualization of the Treaty of Pelindaba. Secondly it is a strategic piece of trophy of colonialism, a treasure to Britain, leased, and occupied by USA military. But recent pronouncement by International Court of Justice reaffirms the legal status of the Island as an inseparably part of Mauritius. This brings to focus recently defunct INF and the full observance of Treaty of Pelindaba in line with Protocol 1 and 2 to which the NWS are signatories.

Acronyms 

NPT-Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

ANWFZs-African Nuclear Weapon Free Zones 

INF-Intermediate Range Nuclear Force

ICJ-International Court of Justice 

NWS-Nuclear Weapon States

UNGA-United Nation General Assembly 

INTRODUCTION 

The decision by USA and the Russian Federation signaling end to the INF is of a highly regrettable outcome. But its impact goes beyond these two countries concerned and have a reverberating and dominos effect on other regions of the world. Africa has never been spared from geopolitical muscling of great powers given the extractive nature of desired raw minerals. This compounds the ideological influence of world powers within the continent and so can not be indifferent as military power comes into play. This then prompts the need to revisit one of the most contentious and contested issue within the Treaty of Pelindaba-Chagos Archipelago. Although many signatories to the protocols have signed but reservations remains. It would be recalled that the Diego Garcia which forms part of Chagos Archipelago was recently a subject of International Court of Justice ruling. This unfortunately was against British and Americas interest with respect to the Island . This brings into sharp focus the secretive military activity within the Island and considering the issue surrounding intermediate range nuclear force Treaty.

Was this piece of Island ever contested? The answer is, Yes. The position of the Island was highly debated during the panel of expert negotiations of Treaty of Pelindaba for which the Russian Federation had and still have reservations. To put it simply, the idea of NWFZs in the African contest is as good as being held hostage by the fact that there are unresolved issues. The underlining statement affirming; ‘the reservation that Russia’s signing of the treaty does not apply to the U.S. base of Diego Garcia, which is located on an island of the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean,’ challenge Africas quest for a total continental Nuclear Free Zone supported by the recent ICJ ruling. The consequences of the above challenge is but not limited to, the positive and negative responsibility of Nuclear Weapon State to shield Nuclear Weapon Free Zones which is compromised. The reason for the above assertion comes from the fact that the Island in question is within and is African. This articles looks at sovereignty of the Island and write to urge parties concern to safeguard the integrity of the Treaty. 

Background: Chagos Island

As the colonial states were winding down control of the various colonies one state after another, the issue of Mauritius was handled differently by Britain. Three years towards granting the country independence Chagos Archipelago was separated from the country and around 2000 of its inhabitants moved to other areas of the country. It was subsequently leased to the USA for military purposes. It remained a thorny issue not only to Mauritius but to Africa especially as the ANWFZs was negotiated and had undue influence on the final outcome of the Treaty. This meant that not all African territoriality where automatically covered as illustrated by the map of the Treaty of Pelindaba. 

In 2017, the UNGA took a decision to seek the advise of ICJ on the lawful conclusion of decolonization. The court through Justice Yusuf, made the following pronouncement: ‘The court having found that the decolonization of Mauritius was not conducted in a manner consistent with the right of peoples to self-determination, it follows that the United Kingdom’s continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago constitutes a wrongful act entailing the international responsibility of that State.’

Implications of the Judgement to the Treaty of Pelindaba 

   Though the jurisdiction of the Court is a contentious issues yet, its ruling is still significant simply because it adds to rule based, norm importance of international institutions. We all know the idea of anarchy and how it plays out at that level of states interaction. The constructivist analogy of ‘anarchy is what states makes of it,’ deems it necessary that key stakeholders especially those with maximum power led by example. International law in the case of the ruling of ICJ can become a means to an end of anarchy as states starts changing their behavior. This helps to maintain such rule based institutions which in essence supports the liberal democratic order. 

  It can be recalled Africans position on the territory integrity as mapped out on ANWFZS coverage; ‘that Diego Garcia be unconditionally returned to Mauritius and that its peaceful character be maintained.’ The phrase ‘peaceful character,’ supports the purposes and spirit of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which includes support for ‘positive and negative assurance.’ But still renunciation isn’t enough as association by default could cause devastating nuclear consequences. Given the above and in line with ANWFZs observance of NPT protocol, the decision regarding INF becomes not just a bilateral issue between USA and Russia but also of African imperative. This is why refocusing on the importance of ICJ ruling could help bring finality to the Treaty observance within the spirit of the law.

The defunct INF (Intermediate range Nuclear force), poses danger to African continent as great power struggle enters new phase. Regardless of how Africa tries to ignore the current status of INF which unfortunately, is not only to the interest of the parties concern but is of utmost important to the general welfare of peace and security within African continent.

This is why it is necessary that based on the pronouncements especially the recent judgement of ICJ, we should seek for transparency on Chagos Archipelago for the interest of peace. However, irrespective of the non binding nature of the judgement, yet recalling that Manila won a landmark case against China at an international tribunal. At the same time, recalling the position of United State of America which urged China to abide by the court ruling. Therefore, inline with spirit of fairness and unambiguity towards maintaining rule based order, it would be helpful if USA and Britain abide by the court ruling,  Bearing in mind that there is the need for leadership for which both USA and Britain as architects to current world order needs to uphold. This means living by example could help return the world on the right part of working within constructed world order. To this end, no doubt should be created towards protecting one of human greatest achievements on nuclear management-NPT. 

Finally, the onus is us to advocate for a world free from nuclear weapon especially within the continent of Africa even if the competing powers see no need for it. The decision to upend such Treaty as INF, opens the world to nuclear arms race is regrettable and unfortunate. We have come thus far and cannot allow great power tussle to steal the shine. The need to remain proactive to issue of nuclear weapon to safeguard the rest of the world from doom is now.

Celestine Chidi

Revanchism: Hawks and Doves In USA Foreign Policy

The play between this two dominant view point in USA foreign Policy is aimed at recovering lost status. And it worth saying that, USA and the West has kept the world safe from major war similar to WW1 or 2 under the current international order. The diminishing outlook of USA hegemony if ever has left room for various competing ideas, approach and methods. Whilst the doves and hawks varies on how America tackle, engage on various world issues, the problem the two ideas presents lies within the state of total confusion in terms of messages sent out at varying times. This only worsen the already messy world politics and creates room for anarchy to thrive. For this reason firstly, it is important to consider the issue bothering on North Korea and Iran. Secondly, US hegemony and Trumps offshore balance of power. 

 The absence of consistency on tackling the first is reflected on haphazard policy objective given the competing interests for relevance between the two-hawks and doves. 

At various times in the USA grand strategy-liberal internationalism, Isolationism and primacy, it has obvious that hawks and doves have played a role in deciding how hard or soft such policy should be pushed to achieve results but never to this level. The liberal internationalism grand strategy, much of President Obama policy were mostly dovish in approach which resulted in negotiations for Iran nuclear deal and adopting a strategic patience on North Korea. He even tried to resist pressure from third parties on the ‘red line in Syria’ to avoid a new war. Although he failed into the Libyan trap and was unable to find a peaceful solution that would bring the country back to stability.

The current approach of stick and carrot is totally unprecedented because it is applied to different actors with similar motives or objectives. The North has achieved nuclear ambition whilst the Iranian regime is trying to get one-so they are acting against NPT objectives. Therefore, the general accepted fact that both Iran and North Korea are working against the current established international order lead by the West. Whilst the USA uses Iran to correct the mistakes made on the issue of North Korea with many years of inaction or supposed uncoordinated action that finally resulted to current situation of North Korean possessing nuclear weapons. The policy runs the risk of eroding trust, creating doubt and torpedoing possibilities of denuclearization simply because, when the USA abandoned a well worked out program to curtail Iran nuclear ambitions-JCPOA. The North Korean regime on the other side, sees an opportunity to play a double game, given heightened skepticism on USA commitment to abide to agreement. So, denuclearization in principle remains unrealizable given the above except if the current White House administration finds a way to navigate through current miscalculation or quagmire in Iran nuclear deal. The reason is simple,  trust which is the bedrock to international agreement has been eroded by none commitment to P5+1 accepted Treaty formula. To this end, we can read between the line to point to what states potentially can do or what their motives might be, although not totally laid out. 

Now given the above consideration, the big question is: what is the tactics or end game brought in by the North Korean in negotiations with or without knowing the intentions of the USA? what is Iran going to do next after deciding to breach the agreement? Does North Korea hope to fully denuclearize or is the regime seeking opportunities beyond this maybe sanctions relief? My bet would be that on the last question, the North would play hard ball too, this is because the game of indecision-dovish and hawkish proponents within the admission has left the White House between the rocks and hard place. The first and second question resultant outcome arose from the indecisions resulting from the competing approach of the two approach.The stalled Venezuela situation is a case in point. 

With all options for Iran being screwed tight, the latest followed the sanction on Iran foreign Minister, we might be back to a long unending journey of trials and errors, where Iran dogs-in and USA adopt a measure stricter or less. My bet is, the current carrot and stick adopted by Trump administration is hard to predict of possible outcome. The Revanchism of Bolton who represents the hawks and the moderate in the person the President Trump, are in battle of unending outcome steeped in errors and without insurance. The international community should brace for a long, protracted journey. The possibility of a results with the current position being maintained-sending mixed messages that requires rather a clear approach, is simply ambiguous and far from over. Although I can bet, Trump would not succumb to war anytime soon but this approach leave nothing but confusion. 

Celestine Chidi