The UK Chagos Support Association

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.

A response to the stance of Yannick Mandarin with regards to the Chagos Marine Protected Area is published below:

Further to the letter of Yannick Mandarin.

We the younger generation of the Chagossian community expresses our complete disapproval of the stance taken by Yannick Mandarin. We believe that he has been grossly misled.

We live in Mauritius but the dream to go back to our forefathers’ homeland remains ours and not to be snatched cruelly by anyone.

Our identity, origins, norms, traditions and values are inspired and derived from the Chagossians’ culture. Despite the fact that we have never been to Chagos, our parents and/or grandparents have ensured that the culture is not eradicated.

Ultimately, we would one day like to visit, develop and stay on our forefathers’ homeland.

We strongly reject the assertion that the Chagossians natives should be expected to forget the land where they were born. We are not against the preservation and conservation of the environment but we do not accept that these measures should be implemented at the expense of fundamental breaches of Human Rights.

It is be to be noted that the hearing regarding the judicial review contesting the legality of the unilaterally declared Marine Protected Area “MPA” a claim brought by Olivier Bancoult, Leader of the Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) is currently being held at the Royal Court of Justice, London.

Regards,

Mr. Claudy Pauline,

Police Inspector

National Coast Guard

Mauritius Police Force

Gsm +(230) 259-5092

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 34th meeting on 13 February 2013. The Chairman welcomed two new members, Lord Prescott, former Deputy Prime Minister, and Lord Ashcroft.

Members discussed the letter of 15 January from the Chairman  to the Foreign Secretary, in which the Group’s views on the way forward had been set out and  a request made for a meeting to follow up the last one with him in December 2011. As no reply had yet been received the Group asked the Chairman to send a reminder. Members felt that Parliament should be closely involved in consideration of the policy options being put by officials to the Foreign Secretary, before decisions were taken. These could best be discussed in a meeting with him.

The  Group discussed the decision on 15 January of the Arbitral Tribunal (of the Permanent Court of Arbitration) on the Mauritian case, lodged  with ITLOS in December 2010, challenging the legality of the MPA. The Tribunal had decided against the FCO and that it would consider both jurisdiction and merits together, but this would probably not be until the middle of 2014. The Group felt that this provided ample time for the FCO and Mauritius to come to an accommodation and settle out of court. Members did not think it was appropriate to describe the Mauritius case as being hostile and aggressive litigation. Cases came to court to enable  judges to decide whether or not there had been a breach of the law. This was a legal, not a hostile process. Also in a case between states, especially as they were both members of the Commonwealth, there was plenty of opportunity to come to a diplomatic solution. The Group noted that the 2015 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting would be held in Mauritius. It was therefore crucial that the FCO and Mauritius settled their differences in a friendly manner before then. Mauritian support for Chagossian resettlement was noted.

The Group considered the 19 Parliamentary Questions  on Chagos issues which had been tabled and answered since their last meeting. Members detected, for the most part, a more positive and open minded approach to the issues. Lord Prescott, whose article in the Sunday Mirror of 19 January, was considered, suggested that he should raise the issues with the Commissioner for Human Rights of  the Council of Europe and in one of the Council’s Monitoring Bodies. Members agreed to continue to press for debates in both Houses of Parliament. They also asked the Chairman to invite David Miliband, who had just been appointed a Co-Chair by the Pew funded Global Marine Conservation, to attend an APPG meeting.

The next meeting will be held on 20 March 2013. A further meeting on 17 April 2013 was pencilled in so that the Group could meet Olivier Bancoult, since he would be in London at that time for the Chagos Islanders Judicial Review of the MPA.

As the government faces legal challenges to the Chagos marine protected area in UK courts and an international tribunal, hope for an out-of-court settlement remains.

In a piece in the left-wing weekly The Tribune, David Snoxell writes that political will could bring a swift resolution to the Chagos situation.

Following the European Court of Human Rights’ decision that it has no jurisdiction to rule on the Labour government’s use of the Royal Prerogative to block resettlement of the islands, the Foreign Secretary William Hague has said he will “take stock” and engage with the islanders.

“The islanders hope the coalition will live up to its pre-election promises of a just and fair settlement,” writes Snoxell. “With political will, diplomacy and compromise a resolution of the issues has always been possible. It would save the taxpayer yet higher legal costs and further damage to Britain’s human rights record.”

Britain’s decision to split the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius when the country was made independent will have to be justified before the UN’s tribunal on the law of the sea.

The ruling by the permanent court of arbitration in The Hague that it can hear the case is a challenge to the UK’s unilateral declaration of a marine reserve around Chagos.

Read The Guardian‘s report here.

The ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on 20 December 2012 that the Chagos Islanders’ case was inadmissible was not the end of the road for Chagossians (RV article 29 December). It may be the end of the Strasbourg road but there are other ways of attaining the Holy Grail.

Leaving aside remaining legal options the best way forward and always has been, is in the political arena. The Foreign Secretary, William Hague clearly had this in mind in his response to the Strasbourg ruling – “The Government will take stock of our policy towards the resettlement of BIOT.” This presumably is the review of policy promised by Mr Hague soon after the Coalition Government took office in May 2010. It has been a long time in coming but Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) officials had persuaded Ministers that until Strasbourg had given its verdict the policy could not be changed lest it prejudice their case, although the Court had on two occasions invited the FCO to seek an out of court settlement. Even when Vince Cable, a leading Liberal Democrat member of the Cabinet, announced on 9 September 2010 that the Coalition Government was “dropping the case in Strasbourg, opting instead for a friendly settlement” he was obliged to recant a week later.

How then could an overall political settlement be achieved? Firstly the parties have to talk to each other – they include the main Chagossian groups in Mauritius and in UK and the Governments of the UK, US and Mauritius. There have never been substantive discussions on the future of BIOT and of the Chagossians. Perhaps an envoy of international standing could be invited to facilitate these discussions.
The issues break down into five interrelated areas – the right to return and resettlement, defence and security, feasibility and cost, conservation and the Marine Protected Area (MPA) and future sovereignty. All need to be treated separately as well as collectively for an overall settlement to be reached. There must be complete transparency and confidence building measures so that trust can be established between the parties. A deadline should be set, as there was for the handover of Hong Kong to China. An obvious deadline is 2015 which is the year of the fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of BIOT, the end of the Coalition Government’s five year mandate, a UK general election and the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Mauritius. It is also the year by which the 1966 UK/US agreement, which made BIOT available to the US for defence purposes, can be re-negotiated before it is rolled over for a further twenty years in 2016.

Mr Hague envisages an inclusive process. As he said, “we will be as positive as possible in our engagement with Chagossian groups and all interested parties”. The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group is clearly an interested party. Since it was established in December 2008 it has held 32 meetings and in that time has made many suggestions to Ministers for resolving the issues. Its purpose is “to help bring about a resolution of the issues concerning the future of the Chagos Islands and the Chagossians”. It has forty members which include several members of the current Government. Five former FCO Ministers who had responsibility for the Indian Ocean have joined, although two have since left Parliament. With its all-party complexion and wealth of parliamentary and ministerial experience the Group is well placed to offer advice and suggestions.

But what could be the overall shape of a settlement? In my view it should consist of the following elements:
1. Restoration of the right of the Chagossians to return to their islands.
2. In consultation with the Chagossians an independent scientific study by leading world experts into the practicalities of resettlement and a survey of the number wishing to re-settle. Without sound science future policy will continue to be based upon the false assumptions of the past.
3. Depending upon the results of that study and survey an experimental settlement for a viable group of Chagossians, initially on Peros Banhos. Mauritius supports resettlement – many Chagossians are both Mauritian and British.
4. Discussions with the US leading to an understanding that a settlement 130 miles away from Diego Garcia does not threaten the security of their base and that the US will give benign support to the settlement.
5. Resumption of talks at ministerial level between Mauritius and the UK to consider the future of the Archipelago and a time table for how the UK’s oft-repeated commitment, to return the islands to Mauritius when no longer needed for defence purposes, is to be discharged. As a first step this could be co-management or joint sovereignty of the Outer Islands.
6. Agreement on how the interests of Chagossians and Mauritius are to be safeguarded in the Marine Protected Area. This could include an inshore fishing zone for Chagossians, a management role for Mauritius in the MPA and a joint application by the UK and Mauritius to UNESCO for designating the Archipelago as a World Heritage Site.
7. Provision for Chagossians who resettle to be employed in conservation work, managing the marine reserve and protecting the unique marine and terrestrial environment of the Archipelago.

After 13 years of litigation and mistrust none of this will be easy. It will take courage, reconciliation and compromise through diplomacy and negotiation to achieve. But it surely must be in the interest of all concerned, not least that of the Coalition Government, finally to put this relic of the Cold War behind them and redeem Britain’s reputation for upholding human rights. 2013 could be the breaking of the Chagos logjam.

David Snoxell
Coordinator of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group
British High Commissioner to Mauritius 2000-04

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.

The response to a petition requesting that the US Government redress wrongs against the Chagossians is published below. The petition, signed by 30,037 people, included the statement that “The United States should provide relief to the Chagossians in the form of resettlement to the outer Chagos islands, employment, and compensation.” 

The language of this response follows closely the language of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). Indeed, one might think from the style that it had been written by the FCO! The UK govenrment has, in reality (as opposed to spin), done little for Chagossians, especially the majority who live in Mauritius. Whatever the UK has done for Chagossians in recent years cannot be seen as a substitute for the loss of a fundamental human right, enshrined in both Magna Carta and the US Constitution

The US is, with the UK, complicit in denying the Chagossians their human rights but the US has done nothing to support the Chagossians. The  compensation paid to the Chagossians in 1982 (30 yrs ago – the last compensation) was small, used to repay debts and quickly disappeared. The UK failed to provide any material assistance, or help Chagossians, who were not used to a money economy, plan savings, expenditure and debt repayment. The FCO is not actively engaged with Chagossians in Mauritius, as claimed, and has never sought to bring about a resolution of these issues. Instead, they have applied the divide and rule principle with their ‘support’ and ‘engagement’ with the various Chagossian groups.

Finally, the response to a petition requesting that the US Government  was released within 24 hours of the ECHR ruling, despite the petition being closed on 4 April 2012. This would appear to be a cynical attempt to distract from the real issue: resettlement.

Response to We the People Petition on Redressing Wrongs Against the Chagossians

By Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Michael Posner, Assistant Secretary for European & Eurasian Affairs Philip Gordon, and Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro.

Thank you for your petition regarding the former inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago. The U.S. recognizes the British Indian Ocean Territories, including the Chagos Archipelago, as the sovereign territory of the United Kingdom. The United States appreciates the difficulties intrinsic to the issues raised by the Chagossian community.

In the decades following the resettlement of Chagossians in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the United Kingdom has taken numerous steps to compensate former inhabitants for the hardships they endured, including cash payments and eligibility for British citizenship. The opportunity to become a British citizen has been accepted by approximately 1,000 individuals now living in the United Kingdom. Today, the United States understands that the United Kingdom remains actively engaged with the Chagossian community. Senior officials from the United Kingdom continue to meet with Chagossian leaders; community trips to the Chagos Archipelago are organized and paid for by the United Kingdom; and the United Kingdom provides support for community projects within the United Kingdom and Mauritius, to include a resource center in Mauritius. The United States supports these efforts and the United Kingdom’s continued engagement with the Chagossian Community.

Thank you for taking the time to raise this important issue with us.

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.

The High Court will consider new evidence on the Chagos islanders’ historic fishing rights and the government’s flawed feasibility study of resettlement, when it hears a judicial review of the Chagos marine reserve next year.

The marine reserve, put in place in 2010, effectively bans the Chagos islanders from returning home. The islanders are challenging it in the courts, arguing that the consultation that preceded the decision was flawed. The case was originally due to be heard this month but has now been put back.

The new evidence comes from recently uncovered documents about the 2002 feasibility study (which the Foreign Office had previously said did not exist) and newly released evidence from Foreign Office archives about historic fishing rights in Chagos.

Judges have also asked the consultant that conducted the feasibility study for the government to release all documents they hold that relate to it.

US diplomatic notes released by Wikileaks suggest that preventing the islanders from going home was in fact one of the government’s intentions when it created the marine reserve. The Foreign Office officials named in the leaked cable will be cross examined as part of the judicial review.

A case by the Government of Mauritius at the International Tribunal on the Laws of the Sea will be heard in July.