Empire: World History - 230. Britain’s Last Colony: Trump, Brexit, and Russia-Ukraine (Ep 2)

Episode Date: February 18, 2025

The future of the Chagos Islands hangs in the balance as world leaders debate how really owns the islands and who should be allowed to live there. Since the 1970s, the evicted Chagossian people have been using legal channels to fight their expulsion from their Indian Ocean homes, challenging Britain's claim to its last colony. Led by Olivier Bancoult, a Chagossian activist expelled from Peros Banhos in the 1960s, hundreds of people have been campaigning to be granted the right to return to their land. Despite winning their case in October 2024, the election of US President Donald Trump has thrown the status of the Chagos Islands again into jeopardy. So, as the weeks roll on since Trump's inauguration, the Chagossian people are asking: when will Britain let us go home? Listen as William and Anita are once again joined by barrister, writer and academic, Philippe Sands, to discuss the uncertain future of the Chagos Islands.  _____________ Empire Club: Become a member of the Empire Club to receive early access to miniseries, ad-free listening, early access to live show tickets, bonus episodes, book discounts, and a weekly newsletter! Head to empirepoduk.com to sign up. Email: [e-mail] Instagram: @empirepoduk  Blue Sky: @empirepoduk  X: @empirepoduk goalhanger.com Assistant Producer: Becki Hills Producer: Anouska Lewis Senior Producer: Callum Hill Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

If you want access to bonus episodes reading lists for every series of Empire, a chat community. Discounts for all the books mentioned in the week's podcast, add free listening and a weekly newsletter, sign up to Empire Club at www.mparpoduk.com. Hello and welcome to Empire with me, Anita Arnan. And me, William Drimple. And once again, we are joined by The Man Who Matters at the moment. We're talking about the Chegos Islands. and the history of why everybody is scrapping over it today

and why it's in your headlines quite as often as it is. Philippe Sands, author, broadcaster, human rights lawyer is with us again. And thank you very much. You did kind of slacken our jaws with some of the facts you were throwing at us in the last episode. The images that you left us with, dogs being abandoned and swimming after their owners, people being separated by virtue of the colour of their skin, whether they'd be over on the deck or under the deck. I mean, these are things that are unthinkable and they're going on that.

recently. And the crucial detail we didn't quite get to, which is that some of them end up in are you been desperate to get that in? I'm very poor. I've always been keen on the crawly element of the story. It's really important. What happens is, I mean, the community initially sets up in Mauritius and in Seychelles and some are then given the right of abode in the United Kingdom. They fly or are flown to Gatwick Airport and as has happened a few years earlier, there's no one there to meet them. They've got nowhere to go. What's the nearest town to Gatwick Airport? Crawley. And they end up setting up shop in Crawley. And that's why the Chagosian community is so strong in Crawley. I'm intrigued by this detail. I mean, they sort of bed down in Gatwick for a

week. Yeah. Yeah. Do they speak the language? Do they speak the language? Do they speak the language? Are they're a bit cold? They're not wearing the right clothes? It's awful. At that point, as I'm told, speak Creole. They've arrived in a country in which Creole is not widely understood. They've got nowhere to go. They sleep and told at the airport for a few days. And then they are given some form of housing in Crawley. And then the community establishes itself. And it's been established there ever since. And what's significant here, the Chagosian community is a fabulous community. but like many communities, it is divided in its views. Some would like Chagos to be part of Mauritius.

Some would like it to stay with the United Kingdom, and some would like the independent republic of Chagos. Wait a minute, some want it to stay part of the United Kingdom, even though this happened on the UK as what? If they've grown up in cruelly, they don't leave them to stay five. So to put things in context for today, you've got, I think, probably around five generations. Olivier Bancoe, who was born in Peres Banias, in the 1960s, in the 1960s, four-year-old contract laborer. Just to clarify, this is a sarcastic.

I mean, he was characterized as a contract labor. By your legal colleagues. Not my colleagues, I hope, by British co-nationals who happen to be lawyers. And he is characterized as a contract laborer at age four. I mean, it's staggering. And he then leads the charge. for the Chagosians to be able to go back, which all the Chagosians want to go back too. I think for many of those who were in the United Kingdom, second, third, fourth generations,

and Olivier refers constantly to the first generation, somewhat perhaps inelegantly in current parlance, as Lin Natif, the natives, those who were born on the Chegos archipelago, and he believes that they should be given sort of dominance in determining what happens next. and most of them, and almost all of them, want to be part of Mauritius and want Chagos to be part of the Mauritius, because in realist terms, they know that's the only way they're ever going to get to go back. There's a very significant community and a very decent community in Crawley who are firmly committed to remaining British. In large part, when I talk to them, because I get the sense that they are so unhappy with the way they were treated by Mauritius when they arrived in Mauritius. It's a very complicated situation.

Right. Sounds in it. does the legal shenanigans of your world? Sure. Where does all that start revving up? In simple terms, it's not until 1982 that the Mauritius government begins to agitate at the United Nations and call for Chegos to be reinstated as part of Mauritius. But the litigation starts not at the international level.

It starts in the English courts led by Olivier Banqu who brings a series of cases. Banquou number one, Banquo number two, right up to Banquou number five. and Banu No. 6. Largely successful, gets a determination by the English courts, the Court of Appeal, that they can go back. And that is then overturned by Tony Blair's government after the events of September the 11th when the military significance of Diego Garcia becomes paramount. We don't want any of these people around. Can we play the thought game that if there hadn't been in September the 11th, then Banquhart and all of his family and friends would be back in the Jacob Simon.

much certain that if September 11th had not happened, Robin Cook's decision to let them go back would not have been overturned. But instead, Cook gets sacked, Jack Straw comes in as someone more pliable for the invasion of Iraq, and suddenly they think of a new use for the Chegos Islands and Diego Garcia. What you need to know is that the bombing of Iraq and Baghdad started with planes that left from Diego Garcia. So we've left the... We're just let that have. Hang in the air for a second. Say that again. Just say it again. Not only did the bombing of Baghdad occur on the first days of the war from planes that left from Diego Garcia, but in the next period, some of the flights that participated in what is known as extraordinary

rendition carrying a person from country A to country B for the purpose of being waterboarded or otherwise tortured, stopped at Diego Garcia. And this caused significant trouble for the British government in around 2007-2008, when having given undertakings to the British Parliament in Westminster that there had been no such flight stopping at Diego Garcia, it turned out that some flights had stopped. But can you tell me, I mean, after September the 11th, or even before September the 11th, what is sort of like the legal standing of the base at Diego Garcia?

Does anyone have to ask the British for permission to use it? do the Americans come and go as they please? Who's in charge of it? Who does the cleaning? Who does the radar? You know, like, who does this all come under? The British claim to have sovereignty throughout this whole period. They enter into an agreement with the Americans.

The Americans basically have free use, but for any operational mission, which includes bombing, etc., they must have prior sign-off from the British government. I've now come to understand only since. my involvement much later, that the reason the British Attorney General in 2003 had to give a legal opinion justifying the use of military force against Iraq without a security council resolution was because the bombing was going to begin from Diego. And this is pulled off through a legal gimmick orders in council, which means it doesn't have to go through Parliament. None of this has gone through Parliament. It's all been signed off with executive agreements

between the United Kingdom and the United States, ordering counsel. Parliament has never debated any of these issues. Parliament is not even aware of the deal between the British and the Americans back in the 1960s in which support for the Polaris missile system would be obtained in return for giving, in effect, a long-term lease for Diego Garcia. What is their legal pushback against what you've said? What would they say? You're saying, look, they had to sign off. They had to make it go under the table because it was going from Diego Garcia and it's got British fingerprints on it. What does the British government say in response? Because they're not going to say, oh yes, Philippe. That's what we did exactly. What are they saying?

The British government has given successive ministers have given statements in Parliament that for operational uses, there has to be prior approval by the British government. So that's not contested. It's accepted. But nothing more than that. They won't say. Nothing more than that. We don't know many of the operational details for obvious reasons because these are national security issues. Let's go back to the islands. most of the islands which were cleared out, leaving just dogs, starving dogs. And one donkey. And one donkey.

They run wild. Presumably the vines have overcome the houses, the sort of semi-ruins there. But Diego Garcia has been developed into a major effort space. What sort of scale base is it? How many people live there? A scale beyond imagination. We do not know exactly how many people live there, but it has been described as one of the largest and most important U.S. military bases, Air Force bases in the world.

And there's no photographs? There are some images that occasionally sailors going across the world pop off there and tell stories and take photographs. I do know people who have been there, but all accounts point to the conclusion that this is a base of major significance. And that becomes very important in the story going forward. I mean, what are the sort of stories that there's a submarine base, that they're using it for communications.

How many football pitches for leave? How many football pitches are we talking? It's large. There are many long-distance bombers stationed there. There are many naval vessels, including submarines, that apparently visit there. I don't want to get into the speculation about what kinds of armaments are kept there.

But the important point for all of this is Mauritius is close to the United Kingdom and the United States. And once it began to agitate for a return, that started in 1982 with the then Prime Minister Sir Anurud Jugnath. It was then followed by litigation in the English courts by Monsieur Bonkou, and that was then followed by the phone call to me from Prime Minister Ramgulam. By that point, there is cross-party support in Mauritius, except for a couple of parties with extreme views, that Diego Garcia, as a military base,

We'll continue to operate. Okay. So what are the arguments going on in Mauritius? You know, this is a place with one donkey and lots of dogs and a bloody huge, massive military base. So why are the Mauritians saying, we want that back? We really want that back. Give it back now and, you know, that it steps up the way it steps. When I am hired in 2010, the position of the Mauritian government and successive

Russian governments is they want sovereignty over the whole of the Chegos archipelago, including Diego Garcia. the base will continue unchanged under Mauritian sovereignty on the basis of a long-term arrangement, not between the United Kingdom and the United States, but between Mauritius and the United Kingdom with a longer term lease from the United Kingdom to the Americans. I mean, would a Seneca be right saying it's about the money, honey? You get big rental. You've already got the property, the beachfront property.

No. Then why? I think it was pretty clear to me when I was first instructed. It was really an issue of principle. It was really a desire to complete the decolonization of Mauritius. There was a hurt that their territory had been, part of it had been hived off. There was a real concern about the Chagosians and a real desire to allow them to go back to the islands other than Diego Garcia. And there are 57 other islands.

And there was one of the fact that we haven't touched on. The catalyst, why did I get the phone call in 2010? I got the phone call because a year earlier, as it was coming to the end of its term, the British government, a Labour government, decided in the face of all the problems with Diego Garcia on the bombing of Iraq on extraordinarily rendition flights to create the largest marine protected area in the world across the entirety of the Chegos archipelago. Did that in 2009. That coincided with something called Wikileaks. One of the WikiLeaks documents that came out was a telex from the American Embassy in London to the State Department in Washington, which, and I paraphrase, basically said, we have been talking to our British colleagues. They are going to create the largest marine protected area in the world at the Chegos Archipelago. And one of the great benefits of this marine protected area, which will allow the base to continue, because it won't affect

the operation of the base, is that the, quote, Man Fridays, end of quote, will never be able to go back. They call the Man Fridays. They call the Man Fridays. And that's a very much. And that's a 2009, and this causes outrage in Mauritius. You don't talk to us like that. Correct, correct. 2010, I get the phone call. Mr. Sands, will you help work with my fabulous team in Pau, and they are a fabulous team, to design a legal strategy to recover the Cheyghals archipelago.

Step one, Mauritius files a case before Law of the Sea arbitration panel, which rules unanimously that the marine protected area created by the United Kingdom is. illegal. There's a second part of the case in which Mauritius has asked the arbitration tribunal, a panel of five arbitrators, to rule that Mauritius has sovereignty over the Chegas archipelago, not the United Kingdom, because the deal of 1965, frightened them with hope deal, was done by duress and is illegal. The arbitration tribunal rules by three votes to two, so a narrow defeat for Mauritius on the key point that it has no jurisdiction to decide who is the coastal state. It only has jurisdiction over maritime.

time matters not sovereignty over land territory. That takes us to 2015. A new government is then elected in Mauritius. The new prime minister, Sir Anna Rujugnaouth, summons me to Paul Louis, with the team of fantastic Mauritian lawyers, and says, I instruct you to get the case to the International Court of Justice. The only way we can get the case to the International Court of Justice is by a request for an advisory opinion from the General Assembly of the United Nations. Do it, says the Mauritian Prime Minister. Because it's escalating fast. Well, 2015, our view is no chance in hell of winning a vote against the British and the Americans. They're just going to outmanoeuvre us.

What is Mauritius saved by? Mauritius is saved by Brexit, which comes along in June 2016. And the consequence of Brexit is that support for the United Kingdom at the UN evaporates in an instance. Holy guacamote. The vote is taken in June 2017. And by 94 votes to 16, the General Assembly votes to send the case on whether the decolonization of Mauritius has been completed in accordance with international law, having regard to the separation of Seagos, was it lawfully completed? That question goes to the ICJ. There's then two years of pleadings.

We have a hearing in September 2018 and the advisory opinion following the testimony of Lisbee-Ele, which is, to my mind decisive in the proceedings, comes down in February 2019 when the International Court of Justice, 14 judges, rules without dissent in an advisory opinion that Mauritius has sovereignty over the Cheygos archipelago, not the United Kingdom, and orders the United Kingdom to end its unlawful occupation of the Cheygos archipelago immediately. But can I just say these are a string of extraordinary small things that lead to very big things. The first thing that sticks in my head is that you have a leaked document referring to people as Man Fridays, which puts the back of a nation up. You talked about 9-11.

Had that not happened, then this would have slipped very quietly under the radar and people would have been allowed to return home. And now you're saying that because Brexit happened, people were feeling very unfriendly to Britain and a vote they should have walked in the dark with their eyes closed, didn't go their way because people were a bit pissed off with them. All of that, you have summarised it perfectly. That is exactly what happened in another world. It would have been very different. Look, let's take a break while we all just gasp. Join us after the break. Welcome back.

Now, just before the break, we were talking about these teeny, well, I mean, they're not teen, they're world events. Okay, 9-11 is not a teeny-weening event. But had these events not happened, things could be very, very different. And Philippe Sands, who is right in the middle of all of this and is absolutely the best person to talk us through this, started to explain what was, now you called it an advisory,

an advisory panel, advisory adjudication. What are we talking about here? Because not everyone speaks legally. So the International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Which is the guys who've been in the headlines a great deal lately about the various adjudications on Gaza and whether it's genocide.

Correct, correct. And the court has two types of cases. there are contentious disputes between states. So, you know, Iran versus the United States or something. And those are one type of case. The second type of case is when a body of the United Nations, the General Assembly, sends a request to the court for an advisory opinion for legal guidance on an issue.

And that's what happened in June 2017, when the General Assembly of the United Nations voted by a large majority to ask the International Court, of Justice to give a decision on whether the decolonisation of Mauritius was completed in relation to this separation of the Chegos archipelago, and that's effectively asking who has sovereignly. But how much muscle does it have? If it's got the word advisory in it, just, I mean, how much? So it is not binding on the states that are members, but it is binding on the United Nations itself. So when the court gave its advisory opinion in February 2019, it's addressed to

United Nations. The consequence of that is the UN changes its map to show that the Chegos Archipelago is part of Mauritius, not disputed and not part of the United Kingdom. The Universal Postal Union rules that any stamp with the word British Indian Ocean Territory will no longer be lawful and used. The Food and Agricultural Organization rules that the United Kingdom can no longer have fishing rights around the Chegos Archipago and so on and so forth. So it has authoritative legal consequences. Things change overnight as a result of this. Things change overnight. The General Assembly then passes a resolution accepting that it will implement the Chegos ruling by the International Court of Justice. Interestingly, in that case, the majority against the United Kingdom

is even greater. The United Kingdom persuades only five countries in the world out of 200. Can you remember which ones there? I can. Australia. the Maldives, Israel, Hungary and the United States. The vast majority of the rest vote to accept the advisory opinion. What happens next? The government of Theresa May has to decide what to do. It decides, in effect, to stick two fingers up in the air to the International Court of Justice. We will not give effect to this advisory opinion. National security trumps everything. Have they done that before? Have they said, you know... been on the receiving end of an advisory opinion before. And this is problematic in the United

Kingdom context because its brand in part is a commitment to the rule of law. So people are rather surprised. That persists from 1999 until 2022. What changes? Now, I would love to be able to say that Philippe Sands, what changed it? Filippe Sands's book, The Last Colony, published in September 2022, changed the situation. It did not. The Russian invasion. of Ukraine changed the situation. And you look at me with wonderful puzzlement on your face. William, what is he talking about now? The foreign secretary at the time was a lady called Liz Truss. A most esteemed by minister ever. Indeed. She went around the world trying to find support for the coalition of countries to support the United Kingdom in its effort to respond to the illegality of

Russia's occupation of large parts of the territory of Ukraine. As one prominent, very prominent, African ambassador based in Brussels said to me, it was very interesting, Philippi, said, the British came to us, Foreign Secretary, would we help end the illegal occupation by Russia of Ukraine? And we said to them, huh, that's interesting. Let me see if we've understood this correctly. You, who are illegally occupying a part of Africa, the Chegos archipelagos. Wow. wish us to support you in removing Russia's illegal occupation of Ukraine. We don't think so. Bugger off.

And that is one of the reasons why so few African countries have supported the West in relation to Russia, Ukraine. How interesting. So nominally obscure group of islands with only 2,000 people ever living in them. Tipping the balance of power. Because every time the British or the Americans complain about, Ukraine or the South China seas, the Russians and the Chinese say, Chega. Well, you know what?

It's a refrain in the global South and you see it. You see in adverts for commodities and jokes and cartoons, do as I say, not as I do. You know, it's a sort of thing. Well, here, we're in Jaipur. India becomes very important in this matter. Because India totally supports the position of Mauritius. And we now find a situation in which the United Kingdom,

which claims to have excellent relations with India and generally does, needs to curry favour with the Indians, and what happens is that in September 2022, the British government position changes. What I can tell you is this. Liz Truss's foreign secretary had communicated to Mauritius privately that her own view was there should be an agreed settlement on the Chegos issue in accordance with international law. But, she said, her prime minister would not allow her to see that through, Mr Johnson. She said, if I become Prime Minister, everything will change. Frankly, Mauritius and I thought, hmm, this is, do we believe this or not? Well, she did become Prime Minister and within a

though famously for less long than a lettuce. But long enough, long enough over those 49 days to invite the Prime Minister of Mauritius at that point Mr. Pravind Jugnath to a meeting at the United Nations at which the two agreed they would negotiate. a solution to Chegos on the basis of international law. And so, Conservative Prime Minister Liz Truss unleashed the negotiations that would lead to a settlement of the issue. Can I just say something very curious, therefore, I would just put it to you. I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen. It's very curious that actually now that Labor is doing that, that the voices from the conservatives are saying, we would never do that. This is outrageous. You sellouts. And I mean,

I think this is not your game, but I'm not seeing this wrongly, am I? I mean, these are the same voices that would have backed Liz Truss's move, which are now saying Labor doing this is making a terrible mistake and plunging, you know, national security. 13 rounds of negotiations, only two of which were under a Labour government. It's a Tory agreement. All its principal elements were drafted by successive foreign secretaries, Mr. Cleverly and then Lord Cameron, essentially begging Mauritius to enter into an agreement to resolve this matter on the basis of international law so that everyone can move on. When Labor then took it up... And then we get more support in their view for gangs up against Russia. Exactly.

Now Britain at this moment in time is slightly isolated. It needs friends in many places, including India, including other former economies. Why is India so interested that Marrits? Why is India so interested that Mauritius should retain rights here. Because there is an ethnic dynamic to this, I know, because you know, you've had successive prime ministers of Mauritius who are of Indian origin at some point. You know, we've done the whole story of indentured labour and the mass migration.

There's a real empire story. But is that it? Is that what is it? I don't know if either of you've ever been to Mauritius and met many Mauritians, but you will notice that they bear a remarkable resemblance to many of the people who are currently at the Jaiport. Literally festival.

Isn't it as simple as that? It's as a connection. When I hear that these people who say we're really worried Mursis is going to cut a deal with China, it's hopeless. It's like India cutting a deal with China. That said that Indians are having a big squabble at the moment with the Maldives that also look very like Indians.

Well, this is another thing that comes up. It seems that a lot of British politicians are unable to tell the difference between the Maldives and the Mursians. That doesn't surprise me in the least bit. I myself have had an entire conversation over lunch with a former British Solicitor General who spoke to me about his fears of Mauritius doing another deal with the Chinese and it was only after the lunch that I realized. You think about the Maldives?

Can I just say one other thing, we're sort of presuming knowledge and we ought to maybe explain, but India does not have good relations to put it mildly with China. India is worried China is on its border. Nor does it have good relations with the Maldives currently. Yeah, but we're just talking about China at the moment because the whole argument is, is that if Mauritius gets this archipelago back, it will sell it to the Chinese at an enormous profit than what's going to happen to national security. And what you're saying is this Indian kind of connection and ethnicity means they would never sell to China. We should also say something that we haven't said so far that this whole area is an area of naval contention between China and India. And over 20 years,

from about the 1990s through to the 210s, the Chinese very successfully built what they call the string of pearls, which is a series of deep water ports, where Chinese nuclear submarines and other bases can operate. Entirely ringing India. India seemed not to notice. India was so obsessed with Pakistan that at this point in history, they allowed the Chinese to take Colombo, Trinkumali,

in two major ports in Sri Lanka, Guada in Pakistan, and a series of other major ports. So India, in a sense, has found itself ringed by potential Chinese bases. So this would be a very good... This is exactly the point, William. So the agreement has been essentially concluded.

It has not yet been made public, but what it essentially provides for is sovereignty of Mauritius, the long-term security of the base, Diego Garcia, run by the British and the Americans, the return of the Chagosians, and the creation of a proper and lawful marine protected area. So from the point of view of India, you replace a situation of manifest uncertainty with long-term security and stability. A British and American presence close by, the Mauritians not upset anymore that their lands have been taken over by others.

The Chagosians having justice done to them and a decent Marine. It's a win-win situation for those countries. You just said something that was very interesting. You said a British and American base. I mean, do you have any conception of, is there a British base of one end of the island and the American base on the other end of the island or runways that they're both using? What's the system? No. I mean, the agreement that has been negotiated and essentially concluded is an agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom on the understanding that the United Kingdom will then effectively sublet the base to the Americans. The base is run by the Americans, as I understand it, with a British presence on the base, but it's essentially an American base. And at that point, there had been no Mauritian trip to Chegas Archipelago ever.

The first time the Mauritians organized a visit to the Chegas Archipelago was in February 2022. I was on the boat with 25 other people, including five Chegosis, including Olivier Bonku and Lisbee. Elis. Very excited. Hugely excited. The moment we entered the exclusive economic zone, 200 miles from the nearest island, magically, the internet on the boat failed. And for five days... 200 miles away. And for five days, we had no internet.

Right. And we were followed by a British patrol vessel. A British airport. At distance, which I communicated with and which I had. have a recording of... How did you communicate? Hello. Yes, I can play it.

I can play it later. Can you play it now? Yes, I've got it. Yes, I've got it. Let's pause and I'll get it up for you. I'll play it now. Grampian front of... What are they doing there?

What are they doing that? May I say it. Yeah, good morning. Good morning, Captain. We were just asking, which is your purpose in Chargos? Over. Well, I should explain the context. The captain, who is in a wonderful Italian called Masha, told us there's a boat following us.

And I said, oh, are you able to contact the boat? She said, yes, I can. She said, they've turned off their transponder so they think we can't see them on the radar, but I've spotted them with my binoculars. And I noticed they turned off their transponder. Can you contact them? So she says yes.

So she sends out a message to ask them who they are and what their location is. We were amused by being followed by a British patrol vessel. And how does this voyage? end. Do they stop you going anywhere? It was very moving. No, we went all the way. It was the first Mauritian trip and we arrived at Peres Père Stegroix. We circumvented Diego, Gasset. We didn't want to cause any trouble, so it went way past. You didn't want to end up in a black site. I wanted to end up back in London. And we arrive on Peris Banyos. We go into the,

through the reef, into the lagoon. It's incredibly moving because Lisby points to the place where she was born. We drop anchor, we get onto a little boat, and we observe the five Georgosians returning to their island for the first time without a British military protective group. And they're a very religious community. The first thing they do is they sink to their knees on the sand and they pray. And the second thing they do is they go to the remains of the church and they start cleaning up. It was extraordinary. And they described that they were baptized here. And then they take us to the cemetery and we see the graves of their forebears, their grandparents, their great-grandparents, going back a long time. And it's one of the most moving experiences

I've ever had. I will never forget being there. It's one of the most remarkable places on earth. Are they still there? Or did they have to leave with? No, no. We left after five, six days. One of the five is this remarkable fellow called Marcel, who was a fisherman, and who just would, you know, drop his line in and bring out a 20-pound tuna just like that, just like that. And he wanted to stay. He wanted to stay, and we told him, no, we felt we really needed to bring him back. The Mersians planted Mersian flags, sung the Mersian National Anthem. And it was then, you know, five days back to Mersians. It was an extraordinary trip. So, Philippe, just bring us now up to the present. What's the last and latest point this case has reached? Well, after 15 years, there is an agreement. Marius and the United Kingdom have managed to effectively come to a position where they are on the same page. That agreement, there was a slight hope that it would be signed before Mr. Trump acceded to the presidency, but the British government decided that it was important that Mr Trump should have a chance in his administration to exceed, you know,

to say he's comfortable with this, so it's now on his desk. And we are waiting to see what happens next. Well, when it does happen, when you come back and talk to us? With great happiness. And would you like to come with us to Chegos? Because it is an incredible... Are you serious?

We are so coming. Really? There will be a trip. There will be a trip. Oh, my God. Yes. Can us in. Yeah.

I mean, we went. with three journalists last time, including Andrew Harding from the BBC, Cullen Murphy from the Atlantic magazine, and own Boccott from The Guardian. And I think all three of them would tell you it's possibly one of the most extraordinary trips. Well, move over Harding. You're booking a place on that page. Listen, it's been an absolute delight. Thank you so much for putting it all in context and maybe giving everybody some idea of why this is so important, why it will continue to be in the headlines, until we hear what Donald Trump thinks about this treaty where the ink is almost dry. I haven't got a good feeling that Donald Trump's not just going to hand over.

Well, can I just say, can I, okay, can I put my newsy hat on? So a lot of people are saying this, but one thing I find significant is he himself has not uttered the words, I don't want this treaty to be ratified. He hasn't said it. It's all sort of his surrogates for him. State department's voices are saying, he hasn't said it. And I think, I don't know, in my experience, that's kind of important, isn't it? Oh, Philippe.

Philippe could not have just made a gesture of slipping his lips. He's not going to sleep. But his eyes said, yes, Anita, thou art wise. Anyway, let's leave it there. Until the next time we meet, it's goodbye from me, Anita Arnins. And goodbye from me, William Durember.