- Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour): « The (UK) Government will bring forward primary legislation, which will be scrutinised and debated in the usual way »
- Lord Callanan (conservateur): « This Government seem to almost constantly hide behind legal advice, but at some point Ministers must take responsibility for the political choices that they have made »
En marge de la décision, lundi, de la High Court du Royaume-Uni pour le Fast Tracking des procédures de Judicial Review du Chagos Deal à la demande de Chagossiens installés à Londres, la House of Lords a rejeté par une majorité de 203 contre 183 la motion de Lord Callanan du parti des conservateurs pour bloquer la confirmation de la souveraineté de Maurice sur cette partie du territoire de la République. Ce vote est intervenu lundi soir, après un peu plus de quatre heures de débats avec pas moins d’une quarantaine de Peers de tous bords politiques confondus, intervenant sur ce qui a été reconnu quasi unanimement comme étant « a fascinating and interesting debate ». Résumant les débats et justifiant la décision du gouvernement britannique de conclure un accord sur fond de Droit international, Lord Collins de Highbury, Deputy Leader de la House of Lords, Parliamentary Under-Secretary du Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office et porte-parole du gouvernement britannique, a pris l’engagement formel de la présentation d’un projet de loi pour des débats à la Chambre des Communes avant toute ratification du traité sur les Chagos. De son côté, Lord Callanan, auteur de la motion, ne s’est épargné aucun effort pour tenter de mettre K.-O. le gouvernement Starmer sur le dossier des Chagos.
Intervenant à la fin des débats, le porte-parole du gouvernement britannique a remis les pendules à l’heure en dénonçant la campagne de désinformation orchestrée à différents niveaux au Royaume-Uni. « I personally think it is very sad that, instead of it being about a political judgment, it has become a partisan party-political issue. Some of the comments that have been made are very regrettable, because, as my noble friend Lady Liddell summed it up, the Government are absolutely committed to the security of this country—as were the previous Government—and that is what this agreement is about », dit-il en guise de préambule à son intervention. Il a également salué la recommandation du rapport de la House of Lords International Agreements Committee en faveur de la signature du traité anglo-mauricien (voir Le Mauricien du vendredi 27 juin).
Retraçant les étapes menant au Landmark Agreement du 22 mai dernier, Lord Collins of Highbury concède que « this was a difficult decision, and one we took after great consideration—because it matters. The military base on Diego Garcia is a strategic asset which underpins our national security, supporting operations that keep the British people safe, enabling the rapid deployment of operations and forces across the Middle East, east Africa and south Asia, and helping to combat some of the most challenging threats, including from terrorism and hostile states. »
Presque sur le champ, le Deputy Leader de la House of Lords devait rassurer au sujet de la transparence des procédures en amont à la signature du traité. « The treaty was laid in the House for scrutiny on the day of signature under the usual processes set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson; he knows that I greatly admire his oratory, but before the treaty is ratified, the Government will bring forward primary legislation, which will be scrutinised and debated in the usual way », fait-il ressortir, tout en réitérant que « this deal will protect the safety and security of the British people for generations, making sure that the United Kingdom retains the unique, important capabilities we need to deal with a range of threats in the months and years ahead. »
Plus tard, il ajoutera : « so let me be absolutely clear to the House: ahead of ratification, this Government will commit to making a ministerial Statement in both Houses providing a factual update on eligibility for resettlement and the modalities of the trust fund. This will enable further discussion in a proper manner. »
Auparavant, Lord Collins aura repris l’argumentation développée dans le rapport susmentionné de la House of Lords pour mettre en garde contre des risques d’infraction au Droit international si le traité est rejeté par la partie britannique. « The serious consequences for the base operations cannot be overstated. Put simply, it would not be able to operate as it should, putting at risk our national security and prosperity, and the impact could be felt extremely quickly. Legally binding provisional measures could be issued within weeks of a case being brought, potentially affecting our ability to patrol the waters around the base and undermining the base », fait-il ressortir.
Le porte-parole du gouvernement britannique a voulu être rassurant au sujet des garanties en matière de sécurité des opérations et manœuvres militaires menées à partir de la base de Diego Garcia. « Some of the base’s capabilities are rightly secret. They include airfield and deep-water port facilities. These support a wide range of air and sea operations, including berthing our nuclear-powered submarines and sensitive satellite communications. In recent years, the facility on Diego Garcia has helped to collect data used in counterterrorism operations against high-value Islamic State targets. This included information that was used to disrupt threats to our country and reduce the risk to coalition operations significantly », devait-il avouer.
Lord Collins s’est également attardé sur toute communication de Londres à Port-Louis en cas d’entrée en opération de la base militaire de Diego Garcia en cas de conflit armé. « This does not need to be in advance, and no sensitive details of military activities would ever be passed on. I am sure that noble Lords will have already noted that the International Agreements Committee tested this point in particular and agreed that the treaty did not oblige the UK to notify Mauritius in advance of operations », a-t-il maintenu pour dissiper tout doute entretenu jusqu’ici.
En conclusion à son intervention, le porte-parole britannique a commenté le cas des Chagossiens déracinés de leur archipel natal et de la nécessité de les engager dans les consultations bilatérales. « Many noble Lords have confirmed the strength of feeling about the impact of the treaty on the Chagossians. I am absolutely sympathetic to that point, and certainly to the concerns raised by both the committee and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in his Motion. The Government have expressed deep regret for the way Chagossians were removed from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s, but the negotiations on this treaty were necessarily state to state. Our priority was to secure the full operation of the base on Diego Garcia, and this is what we have achieved », fait-il comprendre.
Présentant sa motion dénonçant le Chagos Deal, Lord Callanan trouve que « let us be under no illusion: the deal that the Government have agreed to is a strategic capitulation. We are preparing to hand over sovereign British territory which has been under continuous British control for over two centuries and—as if that were not embarrassing enough — the British taxpayer is being asked to pay £30 billion for the privilege. » Il devait accuser le gouvernement britannique de se cacher derrière de faux prétextes dans le dossier des Chagos.
Faisant un appel dans une vaine tentative de rallier une majorité de la House of Lords derrière sa motion, il dira « for now, I will merely say that this Government seem to almost constantly hide behind legal advice, but at some point ministers must take responsibility for the political choices that they have made. We should stand firm, and we should defend our territory, our interests and, ultimately, our credibility on the international stage. »
