The UK Chagos Support Association

Photo: Gail Johnson

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 27th meeting on 1 February 2012.

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 AGM and 22nd meeting on 13 July 2011. The current office holders (Chairman – Jeremy Corbyn MP; Vice Chairmen – Lord Avebury, Lord Ramsbotham, Andrew Rosindell MP; Secretary – Andrew George MP) were re-elected. Henry Smith MP was also elected Vice-Chaiman. David Snoxell and Richard Gifford were respectively re-appointed Coordinator and Legal Adviser.

The Group took note of the progress that had been made since the general election and the evident desire of current  Ministers to find solutions to the long standing issues concerning the future of the Chagossians and the Chagos Islands. The Vice Chairman, Andrew Rosindell, reported on a meeting that he and the Patrons, Chairman and Vice Chairman of UKChSA had held with the Foreign Secretary on 27 June 2011, and on a subsequent exchange of letters in which the Foreign Secretary had listed  on-going initiatives and had expressed the hope that others would be possible. While the meeting had been positive and encouraging, as were the proposed small projects, Mr Rosindell had appealed to the Foreign Secretary to go beyond the constraints of official briefing and deal with the fundamental issues of the right to return and resettlement.

While in opposition, both Coalition parties had expressed a determination to work for a just and fair settlement. The Government had already had more than a year to find an agreeable solution. Members of the Group asked when the  all-party meeting, to which the Foreign Secretary had agreed in early May 2011, would take place. The Chairman said he would remind Mr Hague.

The Group considered the Chairman’s letter to the US Ambassador of 10 June 2011, proposing a meeting with the Group to discuss any potential defence security issues over resettlement. Since no reply had yet been received the Coordinator was asked to remind the US Embassy.

The Group also considered the Chairman’s letter to the Chairmen of the Public Administration and Foreign Affairs Select Committees concerning the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner with regard to the Overseas Territories. The Group agreed that the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights should also be seized of the issues.

The Group discussed the ECtHR’s (Strasbourg) judgment of 7 July on the Al-Skeini case (that the UK was responsible under the European Convention for the human rights violations of its soldiers against civilians, since the UK had control and jurisdiction in Iraq at that time). The disposal of the Al-Skeini case cleared the way for the Court to consider the Chagos Islanders case and this was expected in the autumn. The Group felt, however, that this judgment had such important implications for the Government’s case in Strasbourg that it would be prudent, and much cheaper for the taxpayer, for the UK to withdraw from the case and settle out of court.

The next meetings of the APPG will be on 7 September and 19 October 2011.

William Hague meets Chagos representatives / Photo: Foreign and Commonwealth Office

William Hague with Chagos representatives / Photo: Foreign and Commonwealth Office

The officials said that Diego Garcia was mentioned as a possible site for a science station and Miss Gregory said that the Chagos people would welcome that as a site for the Chagos eco-village, which might give Chagos people work opportunities as well as solving issues about fishing, communications, and safety. Mr Rosindell asked Mr Hague to find out whether the Americans had serious views against a return of the Chagos people. Mr Hague remarked that the US was a premier ally with important treaty obligations. Andrew Rosindell pressed this point, saying that when he had visited Washington he had not heard it mentioned that the US wanted to exclude the Chagos people.

This is a statement from David Snoxell, co-ordinator of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Chagos.

1971 and 2004 apart, 2010 was the worst year I can remember for deception and disillusionment. It started with the rushed PR consultation exercise leading to the sudden designation of a Marine Protection Area, just before the Easter recess (despite the 253,000 Avaaz  and 1,600 MET petitioners who called for the Foreign Secretary to work with the Chagossians and Mauritius); the emergency debates which the designation triggered in both Houses on 6 April; the revelations in The Times of 22 April (‘Paradise dossier was doctored to keep deported families from their homes’); the Coalition promises in opposition to restore the right to return and work for a fair and just settlement; the Foreign Secretary’s meeting with Dr Philippa Gregory on 9 July in which he said that whilst he had taken no decision concerning the future of the Islanders it appeared  that the best solution would be for the Chagos people to return to the Outer Islands; the undermining of Coalition commitments by the FCO during the August recess; the brief elation when on 9 September Vince Cable announced that  the  Government was dropping the case at Strasbourg and that steps were being taken to ensure the return of the Chagossians, quickly overturned by the FCO; and finally the revelations on 2 December in the US Embassy cable, demonstrating that the British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) Commissioner and Administrator from the Overseas Territories Department of the Foreign Office saw the MPA as a means of preventing resettlement.  Then on 21 December Mauritius announced that it had taken a case against the UK to ITLOS (International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea) on the grounds that the MPA was not compatible with the UN Convention for a number of reasons, including that the leak of the US cable showed that a motive for the MPA was to make resettlement impossible. There is also an application from Olivier Bancoult to the English Courts for a Judicial Review of the MPA which a judge in November postponed until after the case in Strasbourg has been decided.As for 2011 it is to be hoped that the Coalition Government will honour its commitment to the Chagossians of a fair and just settlement.  Clearly the ball needs to be rescued from the legal long grass and the only sensible way forward is a pragmatic resolution of the issues with all the parties, through patient diplomacy and negotiation.

Our full January update is now online here.

The UK Foreign Office misled the UK parliament over its reasons for proposing a Marine Protected Area (MPA) around the Chagos Islands, according to secret US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, and reported in the Guardian. New leaked documents show that the Foreign Office privately admitted its plan to declare the islands the world’s largest MPA would end any chance of the expelled Chagossians being repatriated. The admission completely contradicts public claims by Foreign Office ministers that the proposed park would have no effect on the islanders’ right of return. In fact, the creation of a marine park was a ploy to block their return, as it would make it impossible for them to live there through the ban on fishing, their main livelihood before expulsion.

The disclosure follows years of criticism levelled at Whitehall over the harsh treatment of the islanders, many of whom have lived in poverty in other countries since their deportation. In the past, National Archive documents have revealed how the Foreign Office consistently lied about the eviction, maintaining the fiction that the islanders had not been permanent residents. The latest leaked documents are US state department cables recording private meetings between Foreign Office mandarins and their American counterparts.

In May 2009, Colin Roberts, the Foreign Office director of overseas territories, told the Americans “We do not regret the removal of the population since removal was necessary for [Diego Garcia] to fulfil its strategic purpose,”. Roberts, admitting the government was “under pressure” from the islanders, told the US of the plan to set up the marine park on 55 islands around Diego Garcia, known as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). “Roberts stated that, according to [Her Majesty's government's] current thinking on a reserve, there would be ‘no human footprints’ or ‘Man Fridays’ on the BIOT uninhabited islands,” according to the American account of the meeting. The language echoes the racist terms used in 1966 when Denis Greenhill – later the Foreign Office’s most senior official – described the inhabitants as “a few Tarzans and Man Fridays”. The documents also highlight the cynical calculations on how pressure from environmental groups could be used to support the creation of an MPA, with Mr Roberts stating that the “environmental lobby is far more powerful than the Chagossians’ advocates.”

The struggle for the Chagossians has been long; the UK High Court has ruled numerous times in their favour, the UN has advised on their repatriation and the Organisation of African Unity has appealed that the Chagos people be allowed to return to their homeland where they will undertake and enhance conservation work, and not threaten US security. How is this to become government policy when unelected officials at the Foreign Office appear determined that it shall not be so?