Greenpeace under fire for overlooking Chagossians’ human rights
Greenpeace has come under fire from some of its own supporters for failing to give sufficient consideration to the Chagos islanders’ human rights.
The environmental campaign group has put itself full-square behind the proposals to establish a no-take marine reserve in Chagos – even using its mailing list to advertise a petition that has been heavily criticised for its neglect of the Chagossians’ rights and concerns. However, some Greenpeace members have reacted with hostility to the organisation’s apparent lack of empathy with the indigenous people of Chagos.
In November 2009, when Greenpeace first floated its support of a marine protected area (MPA) in Chagos, its website received numerous comments from supporters of the Chagossians’ right of return. Now, one Greenpeace activist has even taken action to write to elucidate the truth about Chagos and how the territory came to be devoid of its native population. Meanwhile, discussion has been taking place on Internet message boards, where one activist has noted:
“Greenpeace people might think [the no-take marine reserve proposal] quite innocent, but unless its explicitly contracted in to any proposals, the Chagossians would almost certainly lose the rights to fishing [...] were they ever allowed back. From what I understand from talking to a few in Crawley (who came over mainly from Mauritius), there’s a strong fishing link there (not everyone, but it would be important).”
Â
This comment really hits the nail on the head. Try as Greenpeace might to insist that they are campaigning for the waters of the Chagos to be held “in trust for the Chagossian people,” the reality is that a no-take MPA in Chagos would erect yet another obstacle in the path of the Chagossians being able to return home. This is something that Greenpeace as an organisation should not be supporting.
Greenpeace’s riposte to this argument is that, in the event of the Chagossians being allowed to return, then the terms of an MPA could be re-negotiated. However, this is a flawed argument for several reasons:
(1) An MPA should be a durable, far-sighted marine conservation measure; it would undermine it’s effectiveness if it was created with the specific intention of reorganising it some years down the line.
(2) Greenpeace should be campaigning for the Chagossians’ human rights to be restored as a matter of course, rather than hiding behind the ongoing court battle as a way of abdicating responsibility for campaigning on their behalf. In 2008, Rex Weyler, one of the original founders of Greenpeace, wrote a strongly-worded defence of the Chagossians’ rights, linking their displacement in the 1960s and 1970s to the environmental degradation of the region. This emphasis seems to have been lost in the past eighteen months.
(3) Greenpeace claim that, “At the moment, the Chagos Islands are being administered by the UK government, and whatever way you look at it, taking steps to protect the marine life there is a good idea.” True enough, but the islands will not be administered by the UK Government forever: the UK has repeatedly promised to cede the islands to Mauritius at some point the future. For its part, Mauritius has made its support for an MPA conditional on the islanders’ right to return being restored, and so the long-term viability of marine protection in Chagos would be put in serious jeopardy if the issues of environmental protection and human rights continue to be kept separate.
The UK Chagos Support Association’s mantra of “Environmental protection and human rights must go hand-in-hand” is not just a slogan, it is a statement of political reality.
Greenpeace should reconsider its policy on Chagos and throw its weight behind an MPA proposal that would explicitly make provision for the Chagossians’ rights - making mere mentions of the Chagossians is simply not good enough.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by edd_hind: RT @chagosuk: Blogged: “Greenpeace under fire for overlooking Chagossians’ human rights” @greenpeaceuk @guardianeco @natures_voice http://bit.ly/bFMg0G...
As a long time Greenpeace worker and activist, i am saddened by the fact that the organisation has trown in it’s support for a Marine reserve around the Chagos Archipelago, without insisting on the inclusion of the the Chagossian people in any discussions with regards to this UK government proposal. Greenpeace has obviously decided that the rights of one species (fishes) is more important then human rights… I’ve always thought AND believed they had equal rights…
I also always thought AND believed that the Peace within the name Greenpeace stood for disarmament.. GP’s support for the Marine reserve proposal also sidelines that, as the offensive US base on Diego Garcia (leased to the US by the UK), would not fit within any proper criteria of an marine reserve, due to the nuclear arms stored there, the destruction and crushing of it’s reefs to build a huge airstrip, so their B1′s can take of from there. The fuel facilities for those bombers (think fuel spillages into the surrounding waters) and other going ons related to their military (= toxic) activities… Hopefully Greenpeace will take a step back and retract their unconditional support of this blatant attempt of whitewash (green-wash) by the UK government. Remember your roots Greenpeace!…
Greenpeace has given support -with one of their ships, the “Esperanza”- to MSF during the recent Haitian earthquake, it did the same during the SE.Asina Tsunami, evacuated the US nuclear test victims of Rongelap (Marshall Island) and worked closely with the French Polynesian people to stop nuclear testing, to name just a few campaigns which both incorporated environmental and human right issues. I sincerely hope the organisation will admit a mistake was made, set the record straight and come to the aid & support of the Chagossians. Only then we will be able to achieve a sustainable future for all, included for the fishes & reefs of the planet….
Clearly the Chagossians should be involved in the discussions, but there are more ways to make a living from the seas than fishing, and besides, the catch just out the protected area would be extraordinary, as it always is when you do a no-take zone.
A valid point James – however, whilst the Chagossians may well prove able to pursue other ways of making a living (the exact details of their resettlement will have to be negotiated with all of the parties concerned), low-intensity fishing would doubtless have to included as one element of the mix.
Furthermore, isn’t it morally wrong to ban indigenous people from fishing their own waters? Exceptions are made across the world for indengeous peoples’ fishing rights…
@ Greenpeace
Ever heard of something called the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? And what about Article 10(c) of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity:
“Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate (…) [p]rotect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements.”