When the (Chagos) sovereignty issue between the UK and Mauritius is over, the U.S. will be a partner either way

If you did not come across it, it’s surely worth sparing 57 minutes. The first episode of ‘Conversations Live’, a new podcast made in Mauritius, saw the participation of the U.S. ambassador for Mauritius and Seychelles, Henry Jardine. The captivating talk addressed pertinent issues like elections, democracy, climate change, the Loss and Damage Fund, and the economic and military position of the U.S. In this edition, we bring you the key features of this enriching and informative interview. 

2024 is a year where elections will be held in the U.S. and most probably in Mauritius as well. Can you share your perspectives? 

It’s interesting. About 60 percent of the global population is going to have an election this year. India, Indonesia, the United States, Mauritius among them. For me, it shows that this year is really fundamental for democracy. More than half the globe is going to be experiencing this act of democracy and the importance of democracy, and we struggle with it. There’s no such thing as a perfect democracy, because it’s an institution of people and people are inherently flawed. The institutions are only as good as we are.

As a government employee, I remain and will be apolitical. We are going through a process in the United States, and you can see the challenges to democratic institutions in the United States, people questioning them, people asking should-we-be-doing-this-or-that questions about the merits of the approach. I think the key thing is that democracy is a really messy system, but it’s the best system we have. It’s the best way to make sure that you’re getting the voice of the people, that you can have a peaceful transfer of power, that you can keep governments in check, that you can make sure that abuse is limited. I think every other system, if you look out there, whether it’s a sort of a dictatorship of one person or it’s a group of people, saying it’s more efficient, it’s more strategic, but you see that it doesn’t work, ultimately.

When there is no check and no accountability, people have a tendency to do things that lack reason, or rational, and ultimately become very oppressive. And you see this time and again where a system that does not have a check becomes more and more oppressive and more fragile fundamentally. It becomes contingent on a person or a very structured institution, whereas a democracy can be very dynamic and it can bring in different ideas, different people.

Here in Mauritius, my hope and expectation is that everybody’s committed to this very peaceful, fair, open, transparent, electoral process. I hope we have that in the U.S. as well. It’s important to support the institutions. In the United States, for instance, people say the votes were rigged and then there’s no evidence of it. That’s a very problematic thing. If for political reasons, people start to sow doubt in the political process and say, basically, “I believe in democracy as long as I win”, or “the vote is fair only when I win, and when the other person wins, it’s obviously a fraud”, I think that really undercuts the contract that democracy stands for.

It’s a compromise. It’s a premise that I will go along with the system, understanding that if my ideas, my approach is more popular, I will win. On the other hand, if I don’t, if I can’t convince voters, I lose and I wait my turn. I come back later and I try to make the case later.

It’s really important for Mauritius for the United States to support the institutions, and also to allow for the freedom of those institutions.

The media being able to talk about it is really important. The media play a huge role. They have to report accurately, fairly, but they fundamentally have a key role in the process. They are the ones that hold to account and make sure that if the political figures – regardless of the parties, regardless of their backgrounds – say something, that what they say is true, and if they do something, that they’re held to account on it. The media institutions have a critical commitment to the democratic institutions or process, not trying to undercut it or run it down.

It’s about ensuring the freedom of actors, and everybody should have a fair opportunity to compete. We have to accept the idea that we’re all going to compete fairly. If we lose this time, we accept the results and we try again.

Coming to the Chagos issue, can we agree that further to the decision of the International Court of Justice, a foreigner or a tourist would need consent from Mauritius to enter the Chagos Archipelago?

It depends, because my understanding is it was nonbinding, and there are ongoing negotiations. The Mauritian government was hoping to work through the details in negotiations with the UK. They were trying to see if they could have a negotiated resolution and they’ve gone through nine rounds. My understanding is that they were coming quite close to an understanding of how to address these issues.

It is soon going to be four years since the decision of the International Court of Justice. What is your perspective of the current situation? What can we expect going forward from the U.S.?

The sovereignty issue is not one for the U.S. to resolve. The Mauritians have the leadership and have undertaken to negotiate the resolution of the sovereignty issue directly with the UK. They have been moving through that process. We’ve always said that for us, the concern and the focus is on the continued operation of Diego Garcia.

We see Diego Garcia as a very important platform. It’s one that can benefit the regional security, the global security, and I’ve been very encouraged when the Prime Minister publicly reaffirmed the value and the need for continuation of Diego Garcia. I’ve seen other political figures across the political spectrum saying the same thing.

From the US perspective, when the sovereignty issue between the UK and Mauritius over the Chagos is resolved, the U.S. will be a partner either way. We’ve got a great relationship with Mauritius. This would just be another facet of the relationship. We continue to build it and it would allow us to engage and collaborate in a lot of different ways. Based on that process, I’m encouraged that there’s an opportunity for us to have a collaborative approach with Mauritius.

Why is Diego Garcia still important to the United States?

When we look globally at the role of the United States, it’s about trying to maintain security, peace, the sort of global commons. When you look at the situation in the Red Sea, for instance, with the Houthis, they’re attacking shipping and it has a huge impact. 15 percent of global shipping goes through the Red Sea and it directly impacts Mauritius, Seychelles and the other islands here, because you are so reliant on the shipping. It’s not just about the ships or the crew-men that are getting hurt and damaged. You would hate to see people getting killed because of that violence, but it’s also people dependent on those goods that are coming through, whether it’s medicines or food, it’s needed supplies. A lot of people are being impacted in the United States through Operation Prosperity Guardian, and a number of other nations, including Seychelles, which is also signed up for this, are trying to maintain that peace and security of the global shipping. Diego Garcia allows the United States, the UK and others to be able to provide and project that security so that we can maintain secure global commons.

To stay in the maritime security topic, we have an exponential growth of drug trafficking and human trafficking on the Indian Ocean Route. How big is the problem? How do we tackle this? 

We work very closely with Mauritius and with other islands or countries in the region, like Seychelles. To give a sense of the impact, I’ll take an example, Seychelles. There’s a population of 100,000 people in Seychelles, and the government is very open. They think about 10 percent of the population is addicted to heroin. It’s 10,000 people out of a population of 100,000. That has a huge impact on the safety, the health, but also the economic development of that country. I’ve spoken to people there about how they’ll have people who are working for them show up and they will be either coming off of a heroin addiction or a heroin high, or desperate to get another one. They just don’t know how to work, how to do anything, because they can’t. Their business can’t function if their workers are addicted to heroin.

Seychelles is just a little bit north of here. We’ve seen a recent interception of about 300 kilograms of heroin that was done by the local Coast Guard here (Mauritius), and we know that any time there’s an interception, that’s a small percentage of what’s coming through. Anecdotally, when I speak to NGOs, health care workers and educators, they talk about how they see the impact of drug use as something that’s really concerning.

I think there is a challenge here, and it’s one that we’re trying to grapple with. Getting an understanding of the scope is very hard. I wouldn’t want to conjecture how much it’s here, but it’s got to be a significant percentage that’s going to have an impact on the well-being and the economic development and the quality of life in Mauritius. We have been working with the government. We have a drug enforcement agency that comes in regularly and does training, and we’re looking at having an extended presence of the mentorship program with a DEA agent coming in and working with local authorities. We’ve also been sharing intelligence that has been helpful for Mauritian police and others to do the interceptions they need to do.

In January, I had a chance to go along with our deputy assistant secretary for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, Toby Bradley, to inaugurate a new training simulator with the Prime Minister. It’s basically like the superstructure of a big ship. It’s down at the port facilities right next to the Mauritius Revenue Authority. This is a mock of a superstructure where the revenue authority, Coast Guard and others can train on doing a seizure, like going into a ship, doing a full search and identifying illicit contraband.

We just inaugurated this new large simulator, and it was an example of how we fund the UNODC. They help in implementing a lot of our program. A significant amount of money of the U.S. government goes into UNODC activities here. In addition, the UNODC, with the U.S. government funding, has been working with police, prosecutors and the courts on how you go through what they call legal finish. In other words, if you seize people on the sea and they’re doing criminal activity, narcotics smuggling or piracy, how would you prosecute them? How would you make sure that you could bring them to justice? So that’s another thing what we’ve been funding.

Is the U.S. still interested in being a military superpower amid the world economic power shift from the West to the East? 

If you look back, prior to World War II, the United States was not seen as a superpower. The United States was seen as a sort of a marginal player and it really was the post-war period that saw the transition. If you look at other countries like the UK, those roles and status can always change. I wouldn’t say we should be complacent, but I would push back on the narrative and the perception that the economic power has shifted. The Economist wrote an article earlier last year about the amazing perseverance of the U.S. economy, and they cited a few interesting data points. In 1990, the United States represented about 25% of the global GDP, with an economy of about 25.5 trillion dollars. China at the time was 4%, and is now about 18%. The distribution of economic influence has changed, but the position of the U.S. hasn’t so much. If you look at other indicators, it’s actually increasing in a way. For instance, they drew a connection that the United States per capita exceeded European per capita in 1990 by about 24%, and now it’s about 30%. There’s about a 6% increase. They also said something similar about Japan at the time. The U.S. per capita was about 17% more than Japan in 1990, and it’s now about 58% more. The fact the United States is a fairly open market, a very dynamic market, it’s one where it just allows for a lot of change, a sort of chaotic disruption. As a result, you’ll have these moments like the financial crisis, where the US was heavily impacted, but the economy adapted quite quickly. We were heavily impacted by Covid, but again, we were able to adapt. I think what happens with the US economy is that it goes through these rough patches. The perception is it’s on the wane, and then it adapts.

What about the military perspective? 

If you look at the absolute numbers, the military budget of the U.S. is still significant and greater than several countries combined. There is a debate about what the commitment of the U.S. is from a global perspective, and whether we should continue to sustain that. I’m not sure that’s going to end. There’s an ongoing discussion in Congress right now about the assistance of the U.S. to Ukraine, Israel, etc. These are fundamental questions. The consensus within the U.S. is that you can pull back some, but at the end of the day, the problems of the world are going to come back to you. We’re part of this global community. What happens to the global community will affect us. The idea that we can pull back and be separated from what’s happening outside is something that I think we can’t do. It’s sort of an illusion. I think it’s a challenge in the context of U.S. internal debate because the U.S. is a continental country. It’s so large, and many people, who may not even travel outside the United States, have no understanding of why we’re committed to NATO or why we’re committed to alliances in Asia, with Japan, Thailand, the Philippines, Australia and others. The challenge for American leadership is always to educate, because a lot of the American community is very much focused on what’s happening in the US. You can’t blame them in a way, because at the end of the day, what matters to you is what matters to your family, your neighbours. These other issues seem fairly abstract and far away.

Moving to COP 28, which took place earlier this year in Dubai, the Loss and Damage Fund was a burning topic. There is this gap between the $5 Billion being requested and the $700 Million allocated. Can you shed some light on that?

When it comes to money, you could always use more, but I do agree that that is something that we need to be responsive to. There is a strong effort to see how we can allocate those resources. The Loss and Damage Fund is one part of the money. The question is, can you really be responsive to that? The U.S. is committed to trying to meet its obligations under that. We’re looking at how, with Congress, we can meet that commitment. The U.S. has already allocated funds in other aspects. When you talk about climate change, adaptation and mitigation, the United States is committed in a lot of different ways. So, the one thing I would be a little cautious about is saying that you’ve got this Loss and Damage Fund, and not everybody signed up. That sort of ignores the fact that there’s lots of money that the U.S. government is putting on the table to address this. For instance, we’ve been working extensively with the World Bank to see how we can help in financing more programs and projects that would help in that area.

So, that money may not be under the umbrella of Loss and Damage, but it’s a significant amount of financial investment in that area that would potentially support that.

The argument at COP 28 was that since the industrial revolution, developed countries such as Europe and the U.S. have progressed by having factories, car production, massive use of fossil fuels… We’ve seen recently in Mauritius the damage climate change can create with the massive flooding that we’ve had. We don’t have any planet B. 

There is a commitment of $700 million. You could argue that it should be $5 billion. I’m not going to dispute that because at some point, it’s very hard to capture it. The nature of climate change is that it creates this sort of chaotic climate. Obviously, the resources need to be identified. It’s a bit inaccurate to say the money is not there because it’s not labelled as Loss and Damage. The World Bank is trying to fund or finance projects and programs that would in effect facilitate mitigation.

If you look at what happened here with cyclone Belal, it was completely unexpected. Well, not really. The issue is that when it rains a lot in Port Louis, what happens? It typically floods. What needs to happen is a design for addressing some of those challenges with the flooding, the construction. We’ve seen this in the U.S. as well. When you look at, for instance, the horrible flooding in Austin, Texas, they realized at one point that there had been construction over the sort of areas, the green spaces that would have allowed for the normal outflows of water. I think you have to think about these things.

Mauritius is in a cyclone belt. We’re going to have cyclones. We may see increasing intensity, but one could argue that Belal actually wasn’t as intense as it could have been. The initial direction was that it was supposed to go over Mauritius, and it didn’t. It went over Reunion, and then passed out. So, arguably, that could have been a much worse storm. This is an example of where, collectively, we need to work together as leaders and think about the real mitigations that need to be done, whether it’s an issue of zoning, and if construction should be occurring in a certain place or if that should allow for water to disperse or to percolate.

We’re dealing with it in the US. It’s not unique to Mauritius. When they’re looking at urban design, they’re realizing that if you have concrete over huge areas, the water has nowhere to go. It’s going to create floods. If you go into areas where the natural flow of water has historically been and you construct in there, you’re creating blockages and you’re going to create flooding. So you need to come in, you need to look at it and be smart about the designs, using technologies that allow for sort of permeable surfaces and just basic water flows.

These are engineering issues. These are design issues. These are zoning issues. These are public policy issues. And they can be addressed in ways that don’t require a huge amount of money. If you anticipate that construction in a certain area is going to impede the flow or the dispersal of water, you shouldn’t construct there. That doesn’t require any money if you just come up with a zoning plan that says these areas are not permissible for construction. If you construct, you have to be permitted in such a way to allow that flow not to create a flood.

I’m not discounting what has been said, that there’s an issue of funding, but I would argue that it’s a bit more complicated than that. We can’t just throw money at something and say, “Here’s a billion dollars, do good stuff”. You’ve got to really think about what we can do in advance to mitigate. There are things that could be done that are at no cost. A zoning law that says don’t build here, ostensibly, is not going to cost you anything more. But after the fact, if you didn’t do that and someone constructs something or creates a situation where it exacerbates the flow or the flooding, then you’re in a situation where there is a huge cost.

I’m not disagreeing that we need to think about the resources. I’m just saying we should be a bit more thoughtful about how we approach these issues, because it’s not as simple as putting money in.

The full podcast interview is available on the YouTube channel of ‘Conversations Live’, as well as on LinkedIn and Facebook.