Pen for Rights Seeks Clarification from UK Foreign Secretary on the Diplomatic Process Behind the Proposed UK

Malé, Republic of Maldives

Pen for Rights has today submitted a formal letter to the Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, requesting written clarification of the diplomatic process through which the proposed United Kingdom–Mauritius treaty concerning Folhlhavai ( colonially known as Chagos) has been advanced. The letter follows the organisation’s recent correspondence with the Attorney General for England and Wales, which sought clarification of the legal and evidential basis upon which advice was provided to Ministers. Where that earlier letter was directed to the constitutional office responsible for legal advice, the present correspondence addresses questions that fall within the Foreign Secretary’s ministerial responsibility: the conduct of diplomatic consultations, the historical advice relied upon by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the United Kingdom’s obligations towards affected Commonwealth members and third States, and the completeness of the information that will be placed before Parliament.

The letter does not seek to advance a political argument for or against the proposed treaty. It asks whether particular categories of diplomatic consultation, historical assessment and international obligation were addressed before the Government resolved to proceed towards ratification, and whether Parliament will receive the full background necessary to discharge its scrutiny function under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Pen for Rights has made clear that the correspondence is not directed against the identity, dignity or rights of the present-day Chagossian community. Its questions concern the diplomatic and foreign policy process through which the proposed treaty has been advanced.

The letter asks whether the diplomatic process, the consultation of affected parties, the discharge of Commonwealth obligations, and the background material to be placed before Parliament were each adequate to support a decision of such international significance.

Five Areas of Clarification

The correspondence organises its questions into five thematic parts, each addressing a distinct aspect of the Foreign Secretary’s ministerial responsibilities.

The first examines the diplomatic record and asks whether His Majesty’s Government was aware of the Republic of Maldives’ publicly asserted sovereignty claim before the principal terms of the proposed treaty were concluded, whether any formal reassessment of the diplomatic position followed that assertion, whether direct communication with the Government of the Maldives has taken place, and whether the FCDO determined that the Maldives was not an affected State for the purposes of consultation and on what basis.

The second addresses the historical advice relied upon by the FCDO and asks whether that advice covered the pre-colonial and cartographic record of Folhlhavai, the pre-plantation population history of the islands, and the constitutional position of Mauritius at independence, and whether alternative historical assessments were considered before negotiations concluded.

The third concerns Commonwealth obligations and relations and asks whether His Majesty’s Government considered whether proceeding without prior consultation with an affected Commonwealth member is consistent with Commonwealth principles, what implications such an approach may have for the conduct of relations between Commonwealth member States where competing territorial claims arise, and whether any Commonwealth mechanism for addressing competing claims was considered.

The fourth examines international obligations and asks whether His Majesty’s Government considered the recommendation of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination concerning consultation with all affected parties, whether the legal interests of third States were assessed, and whether the implications under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of proceeding where unresolved competing claims had been formally asserted were addressed before the Government resolved to proceed.

The fifth and final section concerns parliamentary accountability and asks whether Parliament will be informed of the Maldivian sovereignty claim, the CERD recommendation, and any unresolved third State interests before it is invited to consider ratification.

Why the Foreign Secretary?

This correspondence is addressed to the Foreign Secretary rather than to Ministers responsible for policy announcements or parliamentary management because the questions it raises fall within the specific ministerial responsibilities of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Those responsibilities include the conduct of diplomatic consultations with affected States, the assessment of international obligations bearing upon the proposed treaty, the management of Commonwealth relations, and the preparation of the background material that will be placed before Parliament. The present letter concerns those responsibilities directly, and is distinct from the legal and evidential questions raised in the earlier correspondence with the Attorney General.

Published in Full

Pen for Rights has made the correspondence publicly available in the interests of transparency and evidence-based public discussion. The organisation believes that questions concerning diplomatic process, Commonwealth relations and international obligations should be capable of examination through primary documents rather than through selective quotation or commentary. The organisation looks forward to receiving a written response from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Any substantive response received will be published in full as part of Pen for Rights’ continuing public archive of institutional correspondence concerning Folhlhavai.

Document Information

Recipient: The Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
Institution: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Date Submitted: 2 July 2026
Subject: Proposed United Kingdom–Mauritius Treaty concerning Folhlhavai (colonially known as Chagos): Request for Written Clarification on Diplomatic Consultation and International Obligations
Reference: PenForRights_Letter_to_Foreign_Secretary_Folhlhavai_(Chagos)_Treaty_Clarification_2026-07-02.pdf
Category: Chagos Case Updates
Status: Awaiting Response

The complete correspondence is available below as a public reference document.

📄 Download the complete letter (PDF)

Related Documents

Additional institutional correspondence relating to the proposed treaty will be added to this archive as it becomes available.

Pen for Rights is an Indian Ocean decolonisation initiative engaged in historical, archival and legal research concerning unresolved questions of sovereignty, colonial administration and decolonisation in the Indian Ocean.