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.

Photo: Gail Johnson

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its postponed 35th meeting on 24 April 2013.  Olivier Bancoult, the Chairman of the Chagos Refugees Group, visiting the UK for the Judicial Review of the Chagos MPA, was invited to address the Group. He was accompanied by the new chair of the UK Chagos Support Association, Sabrina Jean.

David Snoxell, former British high commissioner to Mauritius, wrote a letter to the Guardian in response to its Editorial, making further pertinent points in relation to the judges ruling on the admissibility of Wikileaks evidence:

If the judges rule (Editorial, 19 April) that communications (eg WikiLeaks) emanating from diplomatic missions are protected by the Vienna convention, all such material held by their receiving governments will also be protected. The purpose of the convention was to protect diplomatic missions, not the archives of home governments which have more effective means of security protection. Do judges have the power to extend the scope of internationally negotiated UN conventions and would the Foreign and Commonwealth Office agree that this is desirable? Judges and government probably need more time to consider fully the implications of such a ruling than a complex judicial review on the legitimacy of the Chagos marine protected area allows.

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

A recent Guardian article and editorial highlight the latest attempt by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to suppress the truth about its motivation for the creation of a Marine Protected Area around the Chagos Islands, by insisting that evidence sourced from Wikileaks was inadmissable as evidence according to Diplomatic Privileges Act. This is the latest example of how the FCO, through its taxpayer-funded lawyers, has used every trick in the book to avoid facing up to the truth of Wikileaks. The Guardian states:

Clumsy vanishing tricks are back on the stage, this time in connection with the Chagos Islands. In a shaming chapter of British colonialism, the islands’ inhabitants were cleared away as part of a deal to create a US airbase, in which US backhanders and the misleading of parliament are established facts. Even William Hague is not trying to deny it all; his more modest – but still audacious – ambition is to get the courts to pretend that they have never seen a devastating memo that emerged as part of the 2010 US embassy cables. It records Colin Roberts – a mandarin now set for installation as the governor of the Falklands – allegedly explaining that a purportedly environmental scheme to create a “marine conservation park” including the islands will in fact “put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago’s former residents”, breathtaking evidence of a gulf between public policy and private motivation.

Faced with litigation concerning the lawfulness of the conservation policy, at the start of this week the Foreign Office was following its customary tactic of refusing to engage on the basis that it never confirms or denies leaks. Suddenly, however – and apparently without written argument – it switched strategies and announced that the memo could not be considered without violating the Vienna convention, which protects diplomatic correspondence.

We await the court’s written ruling, but the judges have already indicated they may accept an argument, which in effect recognises that the memo is authentic. That is only one bizarre implication of what could prove a very British cover-up. For if the law requires that this newly authenticated document be put back under wraps, where does that leave the likes of the Guardian, which has already released it? Must it now be “unpublished”, and taken down from the web? It is of course a ridiculous prospect, but then fear of ridicule never gets in the way of a good English scramble to pretend unfortunate things have never been seen.

Photo: Gail Johnson

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

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.