Office of the Historian

71. Memorandum From the Director of the Office of International Security Operations, Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs (Stoddart) to the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (Stoessel)1

Washington, September 14, 1972.

SUBJECT

  • US–UK Agreement on Diego Garcia

Working-level negotiations on the proposed agreement with the UK for the use by the Navy of Diego Garcia as a limited naval communications facility have been completed, and the agreement is now ready for formal approval by both governments. An airgram is attached which authorizes our Embassy in London to sign the agreement.2

As you know, this agreement has been the subject of lengthy negotiations with the British beginning in December 1970, conducted pursuant to the 1966 Agreement with the UK on defense uses of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Several major points that were at issue with the British have been satisfactorily resolved. These include: [Page 225]

1.
Area of the facility. The US had originally desired exclusive use of the entire island, while the British had sought to delimit narrowly the extent of the facility. The problem was resolved by delimiting the area in which permanent construction could take place without further UK approval. The British retain the right to build their own defense facility within that area, provided there is no interference with US operations. We have freedom of access to the entire island, and may also undertake construction in support of the facility in areas other than those reserved for permanent construction with the prior agreement of UK authorities.
2.
Civil aviation. Another question arose over possible use of the island by civil aircraft, especially those chartered by BOAC and the Military Airlift Command. We were concerned that such use might cause third countries, including the USSR or its satellites, to assert rights to use the airfield under the Chicago Convention. As finally worked out, the agreement simply states that “state aircraft owned or operated by or on behalf of either Government” may use the airfield; this phraseology should serve to preclude such third-country claims.
3.
Protection and security. The original British draft had called for ininter-governmental consultation concerning threats to the security of the entire Chagos Archipelago. Our more limited language, now accepted by the British, calls only for consultation if there is any threat to the facility. We believe that this language will help us to avoid Congressional criticism when the agreement is published in the TIAS series.

In addition to the foregoing, the relocation of the former copra workers on Diego Garcia has worked out fairly well, with little adverse publicity, although resettlement is not yet completed and the possibility exists that unfavorable publicity may still result from this process. TheUK is responsible for the resettlement, but the US cannot escape identification with the problem.

The Department of Defense has cleared the Agreement. Your approval is required in order to authorize the Embassy to conclude the Agreement.3

  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, DEF 15 IND–US. Confidential. John E. Kelley (PM/ISO) and cleared in L/PM, L/T, H, NEA/RA, AF/RA, and EA/RA. Sent through Burns (EUR/NE). The memorandum was a revised OASD/ISA Files: FRC 330–75–125, Box 3, Indian Ocean Islands 000.1 1972)↩
  2. Not attached. Notes were exchanged on October 24. (Airgram A–1567 from London, October 25; National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, DEF 15–IND US)↩
  3. Stoessel initialed his approval on September 15.↩