Member

I cannot substantiate the report, but it was widely circulated that a large Chinese delegation arrived in Port Louis immediately after 22 May, when the Mauritius treaty was signed. The provisions of this treaty invite international instability where previously peace and concord have prevailed. Thus, not only does this treaty not meet the interests of the United States by taking huge amounts of money away from defence, but it uses that money to provoke global instability where previously there was none. The report prompts key questions for both the United States and Parliament. Given that the India-Mauritius listening post deal has apparently already been done, when did His Majesty’s Government provide their consent under paragraph 3.d of Annexe 1 to the treaty? More importantly, why did they offer their consent? I hope the Minister will be able to answer that. The Government had no business doing so, because this treaty has not yet been ratified. Are we confronting a situation in which the Republic of Mauritius did this deal with India without seeking UK consent, in direct violation of Annexe 1? If they did act in this way, they have already provided us with an object lesson in how the assurances provided by this treaty, such as they are, are in fact worthless, making it very clear why we should not be ratifying the treaty.