Hello! I hope you are doing well. This week, we’re looking at how Chagossians — the former inhabitants of the Chagos archipelago situated in the middle of the Indian Ocean — are staking claim to their homeland which is controlled by the United Kingdom. But we’re also reading through the United States’ new Indo-Pacific strategy and tracking the latest updates from the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
Before we begin, I want to thank all of you once again for your continued support and for taking out time every week to read the newsletter. It means a lot to me.
Let’s get started now.
This day that year
2010: WikiLeaks, the international non-profit organisation that publishes anonymously-sourced classified documents, published the first tranche of US government documents disclosed by American soldier Bradley Manning (now Chelsea Manning).
1946: The Royal Indian Navy sailors staged a mutiny at the Bombay (now Mumbai) harbour. The movement spread across British India leading to the involvement of 20 shore establishments, 78 ships and about 20,000 sailors. It was joined by sections of the Royal Indian Air Force and police personnel in some areas.
Chagossians stake claim
This week, a small group of Chagossians — the original inhabitants of the Chagos archipelago — raised the Mauritian flag for the first time on the islands located at the centre of the Indian Ocean. This is significant because the islands are controlled by the United Kingdom (UK) under the name “British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)” but are claimed by Mauritius. This was the first time that the former islanders were able to set foot there unsupervised.
The Chagos Refugee Group’s trip to the atolls was organised by the Mauritian government and the BBC quoted Mauritian Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth as saying that the expedition was “historic” and a “very emotional moment” because “we are able to rule in our own territory”.
The Chagos archipelago’s history is complicated. The group of seven atolls is located in the middle of the Indian Ocean. In the early 19th century, the British took over control of the archipelago and the rest of Mauritius from the French. But the native Chagossians, who primarily worked on coconut plantations, continued to live there. Amid a wave of decolonisation in the middle and the second half of the 20th century, the British started withdrawing. But when the UK granted independence to Mauritius in 1968, it held on to the Chagos Islands because the US was interested in using the isles as a military base to establish a presence in the Indian Ocean region. So, the British transferred the largest of those islands — Diego Garcia — to the US in a secret arrangement. But before the military base was built, the UK forcibly expelled about 1,000 (all) inhabitants to Mauritius and the Seychelles. The US’ original lease expired in 2016, but the arrangement was renewed until 2036.
Diego Garcia is the only inhabited island in the archipelago today and provides the US military with over-the-horizon capabilities. The base was used by the US during the 1991 Gulf War, operations in Afghanistan in 2001 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Just about 3,000 people live in BIOT now — most of them are UK and US military personnel and staff.
Watch: ‘How the U.S. Stole an Island’ by Johnny Harris
While the UK has tried compensating the islands’ former Chagossian residents for their expulsion, the exiled Chagossians have been fighting a prolonged legal battle to take back their homeland. They have had some success so far. Citing the International Court of Justice’s opinion, the United Nations General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution in May 2019 declaring that Chagos islands were an integral part of Mauritius. With a 116:6 majority, the assembly asked the UK to complete the process of decolonisation “as soon as possible”.
The resolution said that the “Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia Island, was illegally removed from Mauritius”. The UK impinged Mauritius’ territorial integrity and prevented the country from “exercising its sovereignty over the area and those forcibly expelled from exercising their right to return,” the resolution added.
In January 2021, the UN’s maritime law tribunal also ruled that the UK doesn’t have sovereignty over the Chagos islands. The UK has not heeded to these calls so far, except, the British foreign ministry maintains that they have “no doubt” that it has sovereignty over BIOT. The Chagossians’ fight continues.
Pin it on the map
Time for some head scratching: This satellite image shows an airport. It’s one of the main international airports of the country it’s situated in. It was used as an airbase by the US Air Force in the early 1990s. With a total area of approximately 776 square kilometres, it’s the largest airport in the world (by area). The colour of the soil would give you a hint of what region of the world it’s located in. What place is this?
The answer is at the bottom.
What else?
Russia-Ukraine crisis updates
More countries asked their citizens to leave Ukraine while commercial flights were still available. The US moved all its remaining Kiev embassy staff to the city of Lviv, closer to the Polish border.
On February 14, in an address to the nation, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged Ukrainians to mark February 16 — the date reportedly speculated by the US intelligence as the possible day of the potential Russian invasion — as “Day of Unity”. His office was quick to clarify that his reference to February 16 as the day of potential invasion was said with irony. Nevertheless, on February 16, some people did turn out to defy fears of an attack. For many others saying “we know nothing will happen,” it was an ordinary day (Watch The Washington Post’s video: Ukrainians carry on amid warnings of war).
On February 15, the Russian defence ministry had claimed that some of its military deployed around Ukraine were already moving back to their barracks. However, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) said that there was no evidence of Russian forces withdrawing. In fact, Russia's military build-up had continued, according to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
Meanwhile, Russia’s parliament — the Duma — voted to ask Putin to recognise independence of the two Russia-supported separatist regions (Donetsk and Luhansk) in eastern Ukraine. Any such move by Putin would kill the Minsk Protocol, adding fuel to the fire.
On February 17, US President Joe Biden said that the invasion threat remained “very high” because Russia has “moved more troops in” instead of pulling them out. “Every indication we have is they’re prepared to go into Ukraine, attack Ukraine.”
Blinken at UNSC
On the same day (February 17), US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken told the UN Security Council that the situation in eastern Europe was the “exact kind of crisis” that the powerful body was “created to prevent”. Blinken then listed what he claimed the world “can expect to see unfold” if Russia invades Ukraine. The intention was to get Moscow to publicly rule out an attack and to stick to diplomacy.
According to Blinken, Russia is planning to manufacture a pretext for its attack (something that has been speculated for a while). The pretext could be a “violent event that Russia will blame on Ukraine”, or Moscow could “[fabricate] so-called ‘terrorist’ bombing inside Russia”. Incidentally, on the same day, the Ukrainian military and Russian-backed separatists blamed each other for shelling across the ceasefire line in eastern Ukraine.
Russia could, Blinken claimed, “use invented discovery of a mass grave, a staged drone strike against civilians, or a fake — even a real — attack using chemical weapons” and describe it as “ethnic cleansing or a genocide”. The “highest levels” of the Russian government would then “theatrically convene emergency meetings to address the so-called crisis” to declare that it needs to respond, Blinken suggested. Russia would then use missiles and bombs across Ukraine and jam communications. “Cyberattacks will shut down key Ukrainian institutions.” With that, Blinken claimed, the Russian military will move its soldiers and tanks into key locations in Ukraine, including the capital, Kyiv.
“If Russia doesn’t invade Ukraine, then we will be relieved that Russia changed course and proved our predictions wrong. That would be a far better outcome than the course we’re currently on. And we will gladly accept any criticism that anyone directs at us.”
— Blinken, February 17 at UNSC
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin said that Blinken’s assessment was “regrettable and dangerous”, but didn’t explicitly rule out an invasion.
I wonder if these public statements by the West — putting out dates for a possible invasion or predicting Russia’s invasion strategy — are helping deter a conflict or are leading to a crying wolf situation.
America’s new Indo-Pacific strategy
Last week, the Biden administration released its new Indo-Pacific strategy. The policy document is to help guide American actions in what has been described as the “most dynamic region in the world”. The statement issued by the White House said: “The Biden-Harris Administration has made historic strides to restore American leadership in the Indo-Pacific and adapt its role for the 21st century.” If we look closely, the usage of the word “restore” almost concedes that the US has lost control/dominance over the region.
“Competition with China” has been explicitly cited as one of the driving factors behind the policy.
The Biden administration has sought to justify its new Indo-Pacific strategy and “intensifying American focus” on the region by citing growing challenges, particularly from China. The White House explicitly said that the People’s Republic of China is synergising its economic, diplomatic, military and technological strengths to pursue a “sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific and seeks to become the world’s most influential power”. Chinese “coercion and aggression spans the globe, but it is most acute in the Indo-Pacific,” the White House alleged in the document.
The US sought to highlight China’s “economic coercion of Australia”, conflict with India along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), “growing pressure” on Taiwan and “bullying of neighbours” in the East and South China Seas. “Our allies and partners in the region bear much of the cost of [China’s] harmful behaviour”.
According to the document placed in the public domain, the US intends to lead an Indo-Pacific economic framework and will try to reinforce deterrence “including across the Taiwan Strait”. The US hopes to strengthen the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), besides working with its AUKUS and Quad allies. “We will support and empower allies and partners as they take on regional leadership roles themselves, and we will work in flexible groupings that pool our collective strength to face up to the defining issues of our time, particularly through the Quad.”
On India: Washington DC is hoping to strengthen its strategic partnership with New Delhi through “regional groupings” to ensure “stability in South Asia”, and collaborate further in areas such as space and cyberspace. The US is looking for India to “contribute to a free and open Indo-Pacific”. The strategy document suggests that the US recognises “leading” India as a “like-minded partner and leader in South Asia and the Indian Ocean (region), active in and connected to Southeast Asia, a driving force of the Quad and other regional fora, and an engine for regional growth and development”.
On Quad: The US administration wants to strengthen the Quad as a “premier regional grouping” so that the forum can deliver on “issues that matter to the Indo-Pacific”. Quad members will focus on the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and “global health security”, and work on emerging technologies, improving cyber capacity in Southeast Asia and Pacific Islands, sharing satellite data for maritime domain awareness and climate response. This part of the document does not explicitly describe the Quad’s role in countering China's economic and military rise. The document, as expected, also stops short of attributing a military role for the “strong and reliable” Quad. Remember, China has described the Quad as an Asian NATO.
The full strategy document can be read here and the White House’s strategy fact sheet can be read here.
Turkmenistan’s snap polls
Turkmenistan’s dictator Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov announced last weekend of a snap election as he has decided to not seek another term after ruling the central Asian country for 15 years. Berdymukhamedov, 64, wants the next generation to take over. His son Serdar, 40, has confirmed that he will contest the March 12 election, to take his father’s job.
Turkmenistan is one of the neighbours of Kazakhstan, which saw a major unrest last month with demonstrators calling for the “old man (their former president Nursultan Nazarbayev)” to get “out (lose his influence on power)”. I wonder if the unrest was one of the factors that drove Berdymukhamedov to quit the presidency at this stage. Turkmenistan is an absolute dictatorship with an overall score of 1.66 (out of 10) as per the Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2021 Democracy Index (in fact, the country is in the last seven ranks on the index), and Berdymukhamedov faces little organised political opposition.
Serdar, who is the current deputy prime minister, is expected to face little opposition in getting himself elected.
I liked two ‘Real Dictators’ podcast episodes on Berdymukhamedov’s predecessor Saparmurat Niyazov. The first part, particularly, talks about Turkmenistan’s foundation under ‘Turkmenbashy (the leader of Turkmen)’ Niyazov after the Soviet Union collapsed. But these episodes also provide good insights into the secretive dictatorial state.
Interesting stuff on the Russia-Ukraine crisis
I think it’s a good time to plug this Foreign Affairs piece in which international relations scholar John Mearsheimer argues that the US and its European allies are the ones mostly responsible for the crisis in Ukraine. The piece was published in 2014 when Russia had moved in to annex Crimea, but the argument is valid even in today’s context (irrespective if a Russian invasion happens or not). Mearsheimer wrote in 2014: “Russia’s invasion of Georgia in August 2008 should have dispelled any remaining doubts about Putin’s determination to prevent Georgia and Ukraine from joining NATO.” This can be applied to what we are seeing now.
Earlier this month, former Portuguese minister for Europe, Bruno Maçães argued that Russian President Putin’s method of “fragmentation and control” to push through “a constitutional reform by which the occupied provinces in eastern Ukraine would be admitted as members of a new federal structure: Ukraine would become a federation — allowing Russia to acquire a Trojan horse inside the country, and with it the ability to thwart important foreign policy decisions, such as admission to NATO or the EU (European Union)”. Read the pull piece here.
Researcher Harun Yilmaz has written in Al Jazeera that a full-scale war in Ukraine doesn’t fit into how Moscow has so far used “hard power in its geopolitical games”. Yilmaz looks at the cases related to Georgia, Syria, Libya and Ukraine (so far) to show that the Kremlin uses a cost-efficient policy. Deploying forces along the Ukraine border, Yilmaz argues, “is not targeting Kyiv, but the West. Moscow wants to force Western countries to finally sit down for negotiations on issues of European security”. Read the full opinion piece here.
‘Pin it on the map’ answer: The King Fahd International Airport, located near the Saudi Arabian city of Dammam. It's close to Bahrain.
Before you go…
Do ‘follow’ us on Twitter and Instagram if you haven’t already. That’s where all the mid-week updates go.
I always look forward to your feedback. You can also send a quick email to untwinednewsletter@gmail.com (I really read and respond to all of them).