The UK Chagos Support Association

Photo: Getty images

An article by Dr Sean Carey, published in the UK Independent blog, is reproduced below:

“Being in Chagos is an incredibly special experience,” says Rachel Jones, deputy team leader of the Aquarium at ZSL London Zoo, in a new YouTube posting extolling the “unique” environment of the warm, pristine waters of the archipelago. “It’s literally like going back in time… It’s what reefs, I imagine, were like 50 or 60 years ago. She adds: “It’s very special being somewhere where you know you’re the only one there. There’s no one else around.”

How nice, you might think, that UK marine scientists can explore the corals and monitor shoals of fish in the British Indian Ocean Territory. But what Jones omits to mention is that 50 or 60 years ago there was a vibrant community of around 1700 islanders living in harmony with the environment. The only reason there isn’t now is that the entire population was exiled.

The shameful history of what happened was neatly summarised by Baroness Whitaker in the debate on the Queen’s Speech in the House of Lords recently. She said: “In 1965 our Government detached the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in order to form a separate British Indian Ocean Territory, in defiance of four UN resolutions. They reclassified the inhabitants as contract workers, made the largest, most southerly island Diego Garcia, available to the United States for use as a military base, and gradually removed the Chagossians from all the islands, eventually depositing them in Mauritius and the Seychelles during 1971 to 1973.”

Since then the islanders, the descendants of African slaves and Indian indentured labourers, have been fighting a marathon legal campaign to restore the right of return. After a series of spectacular victories in the lower courts, the Chagossians, led by Port Louis-based electrician Olivier Bancoult, were narrowly defeated by 3-2 majority in the House of Lords in 2008. There was a further setback last December when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the case was inadmissible, because many of the islanders exiled in Mauritius (though not those in the Seychelles) had accepted compensation from the UK in 1982.

Back in the Upper House, Lord Astor, the Coalition Government’s spokesman replied with customary courtesy. “The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked why the Chagos islanders could not return. We regret what happened in the late 1960s and 1970s. The responsibility for decisions taken then has been acknowledged by successive Governments. However, the reasons for not allowing resettlement, namely feasibility and defence security, are clear and compelling.”

Lord Astor was clearly reading from an old brief because the Foreign & Commonwealth Office is now being forced to come to terms with overwhelming evidence that neither reason given is clear and compelling. Why? Well, first the base is around 140 miles from the outer islands in the Archipelago, such as Peros Banhos and Salomon, which could be resettled. It’s simply not credible to believe that a few hundred Chagossians would jeopardise US operations. Secondly, if Diego Garcia remains viable for some 3,500 military personnel and ancillary workers then logic dictates that the other islands can also be made suitable.

Furthermore, pressure continues to mount both in the UK and internationally. Earlier this year in an article for The Mirror, former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott made his feelings clear. “I’m ashamed the UK governments allowed this to happen. It was wrong and we must make amends,” he wrote. (Since then Lord Prescott has joined the Chagos All Party Parliamentary Group; so too has former Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Lord Ashcroft.)

A few days ago, in an article for Libération, JMG Le Clezio also denounced the brutal removal of the islanders from their homeland as an “organised denial of human rights”. He claimed that the failure of the court in Strasbourg to take action was a “denial of justice” and a clear example of “moral cowardice”. The 2008 Nobel Prize winner for literature, who holds dual French and Mauritian nationality, calculates that it is part of the “indifference of the powerful” to those who are obliged to live on the margins.

It’s difficult to disagree – unless, of course, you work for the ZSL and other conservation groups which are apparently content to ignore the misfortune and misery of those who were in Chagos long before they were.

Yesterday’s debate on the Queen’s Speech included the following speech by Baroness Whitaker, supported by Lords Ramsbotham and Avebury. They mention the pre-election commitment of the government to deliver justice to the exiled Chagossians. In the limited time the Minister has to reply to a long debate covering foreign affairs, defence and development he simply reads off the lines from a general brief provided by officials. Clearly the bit on Chagos had not been updated for some time but no attempt is made to answer the points raised by speakers.

Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench)

My Lords, in noting the antics in the other place following the non-inclusion in the gracious Speech of a possible referendum on Europe, I am confident that they will not be repeated in this House if my contribution is devoted to the surprising absence of another issue. Before I come to that, as a vice-chairman of the Chagos Islands all-party group I agree with everything that will be said by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on the Chagossian return.

Baroness Whitaker (Labour)

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for his trailer for my remarks, and for his support.

The gracious Speech promises to “ensure the security, good governance and development of the Overseas Territories”.—[ Official Report , 8/4/13; col. 3.]

This is sorely needed for the Chagos Islands, the inhabitants of which were exiled from their homeland by the British Government in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I am indebted to our former high commissioner to Mauritius, Mr David Snoxell, for his advice.

It is not as if anyone now thinks this exile was an example of good governance. On 23 April 2009 the then shadow Foreign Minister, Keith Simpson, said: “There is no doubt that there is a moral imperative”, and that, “I suspect … the all-party view is that the rights of the Chagossian people should be recognised, and that there should at the very least be a timetable for the return of those people at least to the outer islands”.—[ Official Report , Commons, 23/4/09; col. 176WH.]

In a letter to a member of the public on 23 March 2010 the shortly to be Foreign Secretary William Hague said: “I can assure you that if elected to serve as the next British government we will work to ensure a fair settlement of this long-standing dispute”.

I will briefly remind noble Lords of how this tragic fate overtook the Chagossians. In 1965 our Government detached the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in order to form a separate British Indian Ocean Territory, in defiance of four UN resolutions. They reclassified the inhabitants as contract workers, made the largest, most southerly, island, Diego Garcia, available to the United States for use as a military base, and gradually removed the Chagossians from all the islands, eventually depositing them in Mauritius and the Seychelles during 1971 to 1973. Some came to Britain from 2001.

Now, fewer than 700 of the original islanders remain. The United States base on Diego Garcia is 140 miles away from the outer islands, to which some would like to return. When the Government of the United States were asked by our Foreign Office publicly to affirm, as was reported in a WikiLeaks cable from the United States embassy in London, that they required the whole of the British Indian Ocean Territory for defence purposes, they did not do so. The State Department has indicated informally to a member of the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) All-Party Parliamentary Group, of which I also am a member, that if asked it will review the security implications of a limited return. Our Law Lords described official letters that claimed that there was a defence risk as “fanciful” and “highly imaginative”.

In 2014 the agreement with the United States will come up for renewal. I suggest that this gives an excellent opportunity for exploring whether a small number of Chagossian people could return to the outer islands. It would seem to have no security or defence implications for the base on Diego Garcia. I am assured that many will not want to return, but all want their right to do so restored, and some will want only to visit their homeland and come away.

Would this be a burden to the British taxpayer? The Foreign Office set up a feasibility study in 2001, which claimed that resettlement was not feasible and anyway was very expensive. The infeasibility argument has been discredited by one of its own consultants and by others, most recently in a report by Professor Paul Kench of Auckland University. As for the cost, it would be idle to pretend that justice would not carry some. However, the United Kingdom would not have to bear the whole burden of restoring the tiny infrastructure. The European Union high representative has confirmed to Charles Tannock MEP that funds are available. The UNDP may have capacity and it would surely be right for the United States, Mauritius and the Commonwealth to do their bit.

What of the marine protected area, with its full no-take ban on fishing—except, as it happens, around the waters of Diego Garcia, where recreational fishing can be practised—which was hastily declared by David Miliband, as Foreign Secretary, just before the last election? It is unlike most other MPAs, for instance around the Galapagos Islands, where the people who live there help to maintain it.

There is worldwide support for a marine protected area that takes account of the interests of the Chagossians and Mauritius. However, it should have been properly conceived, with a defined role for inhabitants. As it stands, there is only one vessel to patrol the ban over 640,000 square kilometres, and I have seen photographs of very recent substantial illegal fishing operating within the MPA.

The MPA was proclaimed without taking account of the views of the Chagossians, who applied for judicial review in the high court, or of Mauritius, which has brought a case under the Permanent Court of Arbitration for breach of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. There is much work to be done to make the MPA what it ought to be so that everyone can wholeheartedly support it.

In the time available I have simply tried to pinpoint the chief aspects of a manifest and agreed injustice of a fundamental kind. This hardly matches the human rights standards of the Commonwealth charter, which we signed only last March. However, it is very good news that the Foreign Secretary has shown indications of a positive attitude to righting these wrongs in his statement following the end of the human rights case in Strasbourg, and that he is reviewing the policy on resettlement. I hope that the Minister can say how the Government will now proceed and when Parliament will be consulted about the review of that policy.

Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I warmly echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on the right of the Chagossians to return to their homeland, from which they were ejected many years ago in one of the most shameful episodes in British colonial history. I also join her in welcoming the review by the Government of their Chagos policy, which I hope will lead to the removal of this blot on our reputation.

Lord Rosser (Labour)

At this point, I refer to the speech made by my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the issue of the Chagos islanders—a matter also referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Avebury. The issue is whether they should be able to return to the outer islands. My noble friend referred to the statement made in 2010 by the now Foreign Secretary that he would,

“work to ensure a fair settlement of this long-standing dispute”.

My noble friend asked what the Government were doing or intending to do in the light of that undertaking. I do not know what that statement by the Foreign Secretary was meant to mean. I hope that the Minister will provide a direct answer to my noble friend’s question when he responds.

Lord Astor of Hever (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Defence; Conservative)

The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked why the Chagos islanders could not return. We regret what happened in the late 1960s and 1970s. The responsibility for decisions taken then has been acknowledged by successive Governments. However, the reasons for not allowing resettlement, namely feasibility and defence security, are clear and compelling. The Government will continue to look at the issues involved and engage with all those with an interest.

Photo: Gail Johnson

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 33rd meeting on 10 January 2013 to consider the situation following the Strasbourg ruling that the case of the Chagos Islanders was inadmissible and the political options available for making progress.

While noting that Strasbourg had not ruled on whether the treatment of the Chagossians had been a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights the Group understood that Court procedure did not allow for appeals to the Grand Chamber against a majority decision of inadmissibility by the seven judge Chamber. Leaving aside other legal options the Group considered how best to respond to the Foreign Secretary’s statement, following the Court’s decision, that “the Government will take stock of our policy towards the resettlement of BIOT” and that “we will be as positive as possible in our engagement with Chagossian groups and all interested parties”. The Group felt that this was an encouraging response and that it offered an opportunity to begin the process of bringing about an overall political settlement of all the issues concerning the future of the Chagossians and BIOT. These issues were the right to return and resettlement, defence and security, feasibility, and cost, the need for an independent scientific study, conservation and the Marine Protected Area and future management and sovereignty of the Archipelago.

The Group considered a range of ideas for helping the Foreign Secretary to move forward on these issues and to establish the common ground between all the parties. It was agreed that the Chairman should write to Mr Hague to set out the Group’s ideas and to ask for a meeting to discuss them. Members also decided to table a number of PQs and to ask for urgent debates in both Houses of Parliament. The Group felt that substantial progress should be made this year before 2014 when the 1966 UK/US agreement comes up for renewal and potential renegotiation. 2015 would be the year of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of BIOT, the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Mauritius and the end of the Coalition’s five year mandate. For the Government to meet its pre-election promises of a just and fair settlement in time it was important to begin discussions as soon as possible.

Photo: Gail Johnson

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 32nd meeting on 5 December 2012. The Chairman welcomed a new member, Henry Bellingham MP who is the fifth former FCO Minister with responsibility for BIOT or the Indian Ocean to have joined the Group.

Members considered legal developments since the last meeting on 17 October. They noted that the Judicial Review of the MPA had been postponed to March to allow the FCO more time to prepare their case, in view of additional pleadings agreed by judges on 13 November, concerning traditional fishing rights and the requirement under the EU Treaty for social and economic development of the OTs. The Group also discussed the Mauritius case at ITLOS which would be heard by a Tribunal next July. Until these cases were resolved it was difficult to see how the MPA ,declared on 1 April 2010, could progress. The Group discussed ways in which these issues might be resolved through diplomacy and compromise, such as providing Mauritius with a role in the MPA and the Chagosians with a designated fishing zone, as is provided for the Pitcairn fishermen in the forthcoming Pitcairn marine reserve.

The Group also considered the implications of the Information Commissioner’s Decision that the BIOT Administration was subject to FOIA and EIRs. There seemed to be no good reason why the FCO should want the BIOT Administration, which is part of the FCO, to be immune from freedom of information and disclosure of environmental information. It was possible that the FCO would appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. The Chairman said he would table a further PQ on the subject.

The FAC meeting (postponed to 11 December) concerning the Overseas Territories White Paper, at which the new FCO Minister Mark Simmonds would be questioned, was discussed. Andrew Rosindell, the Vice Chairman of the Group, would be raising various issues regarding the section in the WP concerning BIOT.

The Group discussed the 1966 UK/US Exchange of Letters, due for renewal in 2014. It was felt that this provided a golden opportunity to discuss with the US an overall settlement of the issues and that the sooner these discussion began the better.

Lord Avebury’s intervention in the Lords debate on piracy in the Indian Ocean on 24 October was discussed. He had proposed that following up the meeting between the two prime ministers of 8 June, and once the court cases were out of the way, discussions between the UK and Mauritius on the future of the Chagos Islands should take place. Since Lord Avebury had received an unsatisfactory reply to his proposal during the debate it was suggested that he should write to the Minister concerned.

The next meeting of the APPG will be on 13 February 2013. As Philippa Gregory and the Comite Chagos were unable to meet the Group on this occasion it was agreed that they should do so before the next meeting.

Photo: Gail Johnson

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 29th meeting on 16 May.

The Group discussed the position on the various legal cases.They noted that there was no news on when the ECHR in Strasbourg would deliver its judgment though July looked possible. The Information Appeal had been listed for hearing by the Information Tribunal in early July.

The Chagos Islanders’ Judicial Review on the MPA was also expected to begin in July. Members thought that if the judge found the MPA unlawful it was a simple matter for the FCO to take account of Chagossian interests by designating a coastal area for local fishing. This had been proposed  before the MPA was proclaimed by many contributors to the FCO Consultation, including the APPG in its submission of 10 February 2010. Whether the MPA was lawful in international law would be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal established under UNCLOS to hear the case brought by Mauritius, though this could take another year or so. In the meantime it was clear that the MPA remained a largely paper exercise although a full no-take fishing area had been imposed. The Group noted the FCO press release on the 2nd anniversary (1 April) of the MPA and that the FCO was optimistic that in future they could “involve more of our neighbours in developing what is an asset for the whole world”. The Group thought this referred to Mauritius, Maldives and Seychelles. They also  noted that the management plan was now into its third year of drafting but assumed it could not be finalised until the legal cases had been resolved.  Members were pleased to see in the press release that the FCO would shortly be launching an environmental education programme for Chagossians and hoped that this would include those living in Mauritius since it was they who were the most likely to want to return.

The Group considered Lord Howell’s answer of 27 March to Baroness Whitaker’s question on whether, in view of the recently announced MPA for South Georgia and Sandwich Islands, which contained a sustainable fishery zone, the FCO would amend the  BIOT MPA to recognise the fishing rights of Mauritius and the Chagossians, in accordance with UNCLOS. The Group felt that Lord Howell’s answer that the FCO had no plans to do so and that the MPA was “fully compatible with UNCLOS” might not be the view of the neighbouring states, or of ITLOS.

The Group considered the various answers to PQs about the costs to the tax payer of 12 years of Chagos litigation. They were keen to know the total cost, including diplomatic and legal staff costs. From the information so far gleaned they thought it could well be in the order of £3.5m or higher, but costs were still being incurred.

Recalling its own proposal for UNESCO world heritage status the Group was pleased to note that a draft resolution for consideration by the 5th session of the World Conservation Conference of IUCN in September called on the UK and Mauritius to jointly nominate the Chagos Archipelago for World Heritage Listing and to develop a management plan with the active participation of the Chagos Islanders.

The Group took note of the petition to President Obama, which had collected 28,700 signatures, calling upon the President to redress the wrongs against the Chagossians by providing relief in the form of resettlement on the Outer Islands, employment and compensation.They looked forward to his reply. Members noted that 2014 was the deadline for the UK to renegotiate the 1966 Agreement with the US. They expected the FCO to begin discussions with the US this year.

The  recently released 2011 FCO annual report on Human Rights and Democracy was considered. The  Group noted the statement  in the section entitled ‘Promoting Human Rights in the Overseas Territories’  that “The UK Government’s long-standing objective is for the Overseas Territories to abide by the same basic human rights standards that British people expect of the UK Government”, but that there was no mention of  the human rights of the exiled people of the Chagos Islands.

The Group agreed to the request from the makers of the documentary “The Queen and Us”, which will consider the use of the Royal Prerogative in respect of Chagos, to interview the Chairman and film the start of the next APPG meeting.

The next meeting (also the fourth AGM) will be on 11 July.

David Snoxell, Coordinator of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group, likens the attitude of the current government to that of unwilling backseat passengers in an article for Conservative Home, saying:

“There is not much evidence that Ministers are succeeding in challenging the status quo on Chagos and applying political will and compromise to finding workable solutions – though, unlike the previous government, it is pretty clear that they would like to do so. They give the impression of being unwilling passengers bound and gagged in the backseat of a car driven doggedly by their officials.”

Mr Snoxell notes that the UK remains in violation of several UN human rights instruments and decisions and that its international reputation continues to be badly damaged by accusations of double standards. He finishes the article by encouraging the government to resolve the Chagossian injustice in 2012, a year in which the eyes of the world will be focussed on the UK:

“What better year than 2012, when the eyes of the world are on London for the Olympic Games and the Diamond Jubilee, to restore the human rights and the dignity of the Chagossian people? What better way to mark the Queen’s long reign, which has seen the transition of the British Empire to a Commonwealth of Nations, by bringing to an end this tragedy and relic of Empire in the Indian Ocean? Jeremy Corbyn, the Chairman of the APPG, has asked for a debate early in the session. This will be the opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to tell Parliament about the progress that he is making towards a settlement of the issues.”

You can read the full article here.

So explains David Snoxell, co-ordinator of the British All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Chagos, in an interview with L’Express Weekly, Mauritius. The piece covers issues ranging from De L’Estrac’s English translation of his book ‘Next Year in Diego Garcia’ to a recent meeting of the APPG with William Hague, and how people can get more involved in supporting the Chagossians. The article is available here.

Photo: Gail Johnson

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 26th meeting on 15 December 2011 in Parliament. The meeting was preceded by a 45 minute meeting with the Foreign Secretary in the FCO, attended by 8 members from all parties and both Houses, the Coordinator and two officials from Overseas Territories Department.

Members expressed their views on a wide range of issues including review of the 1966 UK/US agreement, defence and security, pre-election Coalition commitments to the Chagossians, the case at Strasbourg, the UK’s human rights obligations, feasibility of resettlement (sea-levels etc), availability of funding, the need for a new independent study, the legitimacy of the MPA, conservation and future sovereignty. Members urged the Foreign Secretary to discuss any US defence concerns with Hilary Clinton directly and to seize the opportunity of the 2014 review of the 1966 agreement in order to make provision for the return of the Chagossians to the Outer Islands. The Chairman of the APPG suggested that one way of making progress would be to establish in the FCO a cross cutting unit, independent of Overseas Territories Department, which would bring all issues from human rights to conservation together, dedicated to bringing about an overall settlement, and which would call on expertise from outside the FCO. With political will and compromise, solutions could be found. It was pointed out that a speech by the Foreign Secretary entitled ‘The best Diplomatic Service in the world: strengthening the FCO’ noted that “our diplomats excel at finding deft, realistic and workable solutions”.This offered cause for optimism.

Mr Hague acknowledged that participants represented a wide cross section of Parliament and that they possessed in-depth knowledge and considerable experience of the issues. He had listened carefully to their suggestions but whilst he was sympathetic to many of the views expressed he could not take matters forward until the court cases had been concluded when a different situation could prevail. He understood that a decision by Strasbourg might take until the early summer. Members urged him, in the meantime, to take forward discussions with the US and Mauritius. Mr Hague reiterated FCO positions on defence and feasibility, whilst recognising that the practical aspect of resettlement was secondary to the principle of the right to return. He mentioned the strengthening of links between the FCO and Chagossian groups through meetings and visits. Mr Hague agreed to a further meeting with the Group after the ECtHR had given its decision. The Chairman thanked the Foreign Secretary for a cordial meeting and said that the Group would write to him about the issues which members had raised. Mr Hague welcomed this.

The subsequent meeting of the APPG reviewed the meeting with the Foreign Secretary and felt that it had been useful and encouraging. It was agreed that the Chairman would table a request for a 90 minute Commons debate early next year. The APPG took note of the Chairman’s response, on behalf of the Group, to the FCO Consultation on the Overseas Territories. The Coordinator reported on the Linnean Society and CCT MPA conference on 24 November which he had attended on behalf of the Group, and also on his recent visit to Strasbourg.

The next meeting will be on 1 February 2012.

Photo: Gail Johnson

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 24th meeting on 19 October 2011.

The Group reviewed the answers to recent Parliamentary Questions and letters from Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Ministers. Most had simply re-stated standard FCO arguments on feasibility and defence which were neither clear nor compelling. These replies remained unconvincing. The Group was pleased to note that the Foreign Secretary would meet members on 9 November 2011 to discuss the issues.

The meeting discussed the need for talks to be opened with the USA on the future of BIOT well in advance of 2014. The US had never said publicly that it required the Outer Islands for defence purposes, though this was frequently asserted by the FCO. It was felt that the Ministry of Defence should also be invited to express a view – they had never done so. The Group would continue to press for a meeting with the US Ambassador to discuss the threat, if any, that resettlement on one of the Outer Islands might pose to the security of the US base or to military operations on Diego Garcia, 140 miles away. The Group felt that the Foreign Secretary should discuss the matter directly with his counterpart, Hilary Clinton, and if necessary persuade her that resettlement posed no threat to the US base. It was thought that since Robin Cook was Foreign Secretary his successors had not discussed the matter with their US counterparts.

The Group took note of the decision by the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) to consider its request that the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration be extended to cover the two uninhabited Overseas Territories, British Antarctic Territory and BIOT, since these territories were directly administered by the FCO. In its 7th report of the 2007-8 session the FAC had stated “We conclude that there is a strong moral case for the UK permitting and supporting a return to BIOT for Chagossians…The FCO has argued that such a return would be unsustainable, but we find these arguments less than convincing”.

The Group considered a complaint to Treasury Solicitors by the lawyers, acting on behalf of the Chagossians, that the FCO had failed in its Duty of Candour to the Courts in the litigation. This had seriously damaged the Chagossian Islanders case and may have led to a miscarriage of justice. The Group were puzzled to learn that the FCO had declined to confirm that the Duty of Candour also applied to submissions to the European Court of Huamn Rights.

The Group took note of a recent report of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination urging the UK to include information on the implementation of the Convention on Racial Discrimination, and its recommendation that all discriminatory restrictions on Chagossians entering BIOT should be withdrawn. The Group also noted the address on 24 September 2011 of the Prime Minister of Mauritius to the UN General Assembly, concerning Chagos.

A letter from the High Representative and Vice President of the European Commission, Baroness Ashton, in which she looked forward to a fair resolution of the issue of resettlement was noted. The letter concluded that “should the UK Government decide in favour of a return of the Chagos Islanders to their islands, the EU will closely examine all possibilities of support, if such a request for support is made by the UK Government”.

The Group asked the Coordinator to represent it at the joint meeting on the Chagos MPA of the Linnean Society and the Chagos Conservation Trust on 24 November 2011.

The 25th meeting of the APPG will be on 23 November 2011.

Photo: Gail Johnson

The Chagos Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) held its 23rd meeting on 7th September 2011.

The Group reviewed developments during the parliamentary recess. Members were pleased that Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) officials had held a meeting on 27th July 2011 with Chagossian Leaders, but noted that the agenda had been restricted to visits, restoration and environmental work; the right of return, resettlement and the proposal for a scientific station supported by Chagossians living in a nearby village (put forward at the Chagos Regagné Conference held at the Royal Geographical Society, London, on 19th May 2011) were excluded by the FCO on grounds that these were ‘political’ issues. While welcoming these on-going projects, the APPG took the view that they could not be a substitute for resolving the underlying issues. The Group also noted that recent press briefings by the FCO had described these ‘initiatives’ as part of of an ongoing ‘strategy’ for BIOT. It was particularly important, in the run-up to the consideration of the Chagos islanders case by the European Court of Human Rights, that this strategy did not distract attention from the fundamental issues before the Court.

The meeting discussed the correspondence concerning the defence security of Diego Garcia between the Chairman, Jeremy Corbyn and the US Ambassador, and the Vice Chairman, Andrew Rosindell and the Foreign Secretary William Hague, noting that both the US Ambassador and Mr Hague had not replied. The Group looked forward to a meeting with the Foreign Secretary which the Chairman had first requested in early February 2011. It was understood that Mr Hague was keen to meet the Group and that a date would be fixed. In June 2011 the Group had asked for a meeting with the US Ambassador.

The Group learnt that the case before the European Court of Human Rights had been delayed, once again at the request of the FCO, by a further month. The date for final submissions on the implications of the Al-Skeini case was now 30th September 2011. In view of the continuing delays to the case, first lodged 7 years ago, the Chagossian lawyers had re-activated the application for a judicial review of the Marine Protected Area.

The next meeting of the APPG is 19th October 2011.