Chagos Refugees Group UK: 2013

Monday 30 December 2013

Chagos Newsletter December 2013

CHAGOS NEWSLETTER DECEMBER 2013

PARLIAMENT

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 39th meeting on 20 November 2013

The Group considered the ministerial statement of 19 November to Parliament concerning the new feasibility study and the draft terms of reference (ToRs) athttps://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/british-indian-ocean-territory-feasibility-study

Members congratulated the FCO on the thorough, far-reaching and objective nature of the draft ToRs. They were pleased to note the emphasis placed on possible resettlement in Diego Garcia and assumed that this indicated prior consultation with the US. They felt that having different options for resettlement was a sensible approach. While recognising that this would entail a more elaborate study they agreed that there ought to be some simplification of procedures and a shortening of the timescale in order to meet the deadline imposed by the May 2015 general election and to reduce costs. Given that the Foreign Secretary had announced a stock taking of policy towards resettlement on 20 December 2012 they had expected the study to be completed by the summer recess (July 2014), so that decisions could be taken well before the election. On the timetable proposed it looked as if it might not conclude until shortly before the election, since the ToRs would not be finalised until next year, followed by a period for selecting consultants. This would hardly allow enough time for the BIOT Policy Review into which the conclusions of the feasibility study will feed. It is understood that this review will consider all aspects of BIOT policy, including re-negotiation of the UK/US Agreement, sovereignty and future management of the MPA and the Chagos Islands.

The Group urged that there be no more procrastination and that the proposed feasibility study timetable be shortened to meet the overriding deadline of a general election. A future government might well decide to carry out its own policy review. The Group was also concerned that no progress appeared to have been made in identifying the wide ranging experts who would carry out the study, and their availability. It was not clear whether there would be a tendering process for consultants or if the FCO itself would invite experts to participate, and how their suitability for this complex task would be determined.

Members took note of the PQs and Questions answered since the last meeting on 9 October, the interventions made by Lords Luce and Ramsbotham in the debate on the Commonwealth on 17 October and also Early Day Motion 649 tabled by the Chairman which reads:

"That this House congratulates the Chagos Refugees Group on their conference in Mauritius to mark 30 years since their foundation following their displacement from the Chagos Islands; and recognises that this historical wrong can best be corrected by allowing and facilitating their return to the Islands." The Coordinator gave a report on the conference and on his meetings in Mauritius.

The Group was also informed of the Chagos Conservation Trust conference on 18 November which marked its 20th anniversary. Members were pleased to hear about developments in the Outreach programme for Chagossians living in the UK. They noted that Chagossians living in Mauritius and Seychelles were more likely to want to live in the Chagos Islands and that conservation and marine skills education was more appropriate for their needs.

Members were pleased to learn that Dr Mark Spalding of The Nature Conservancy, respected by Chagossians and the Chagos science community, had been appointed the new BIOT Science Adviser. They congratulated the FCO and Dr Spalding on his appointment.

The Group was informed that the Judicial Review of the MPA was set for appeal at the end of March and that the Mauritian case at ITLOS remained active. It was noted that the draft ToRs of the feasibility study referred to the possibility of amending the MPA. Members wondered why the MPA had not already been amended to take account of Chagossian and Mauritian interests, thus obviating the need for litigation.

The Group held its 40th meeting on 17 December 2013 and reviewed the progress made since its first meeting 5 years ago, on 16 December 2008. Members recalled the purpose of the Group was "to help bring about a resolution of the issues concerning the future of the Chagos Islands and the Chagossian people". The Group had also decided that "following the end of legal proceedings (Law Lords judgment Oct 08) the responsibility for the Chagos Islanders now rests with Parliament". At its second meeting on 29 Jan 2010 the Group agreed several objectives one of which was. "A truly independent study of the practicalities and way in which a limited resettlement of Salomon and Peros Bahnos can be achieved..... drawn up in consultation with interested parties, not least the Chagossians". They were pleased to note that after 5 years the FCO had now agreed to a new study. They were disappointed that another of its objectives ("Discussions with Mauritius on the future sovereignty of the Outer Islands") had not so far begun although its objective ("Re-negotiation of the Agreement with the US by 2015, to reflect the right of the Chagossians to live on the Islands and any changes to the sovereignty of those Islands") appeared to be on course.

Members discussed the proposed TORs for the new feasibility study. They endorsed the points made by Baroness Whitaker, Lord Avebury and Lord Luce in the Lords debate on 27 November, in particularly that it would be necessary to cut the length of the study from 12 to 6 months in order for decisions to be made and implemented before the general election. Members agreed that they should continue to monitor the process and timetable closely.

The Group decided that the Chairman should write to the Foreign Secretary about this and other concerns such as the need to engage Mauritius in a diplomatic dialogue concerning the future management of the Islands and of the MPA. As Lord Luce had said in the debate " it is essential that they (Mauritius) are regarded as a vital player in any Chagossian solution". Members agreed with Lord Avebury's suggestion, made in the Lords debate, that to help break the ice the new BIOT Science Adviser, along with members of the BIOT Science Advisory Group, should have meetings with their Mauritian counterparts to discuss a joint approach to the science of Chagos, sharing data and current research. The Group decided to invite the Mauritian High Commissioner to a meeting.

Members were keen to take up the Foreign Secretary's offer of a further meeting which he had made at the last meeting with the Group on 15 December 2011.

The Group also discussed legal developments. They took note that permission had been granted by the High Court for an appeal against the judicial review of the MPA to be heard on 31 March on the three grounds of improper motive, fishing rights and EU law. Members were interested to learn that, with respect to the ruling of the Law Lords in Oct 2008, lawyers had recently written to the Treasury Solicitor alleging a miscarriage of justice, on the grounds that the flawed feasibility study and the way it had been influenced, was a key factor on which the majority judgment had been based. The letter invited the Foreign Secretary to set aside that judgment and restore the right of return,

The next meeting of the Group is on 5 February.

David Snoxell

Coordinator of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG

On the 27^th November a fifty-four minute debate in the House of Lords demonstrated the determination of Peers to maintain pressure on the Government. The full text of the debate is attached to this newsletter, and included a contribution from the cross-bencher Lord Luce recalling the first time he became aware of the human rights violations inflicted against the Chagossians:

“I think that it was in early 1982, when I was a Minister of State at the Foreign Office and had responsibilities for the African continent and the Indian Ocean, that I paid my first visit to Mauritius. When we landed, we were the only aeroplane at the airport. I came down the steps and the high commissioner whisked me away. At that point, I noticed that there were some 2,000 people at the airport. I expressed surprise that for one aeroplane there should be 2,000 people and I asked him why they were there. He said, “That’s a demonstration”. I said, “A demonstration against whom?” He said, “A demonstration against you”. So I said, “Look, if there’s a demonstration, the important thing is to meet the leaders. Please lay on the demonstration again and ask them to demonstrate again”.

They demonstrated the next day outside the high commission. I invited the five leaders, five marvellous Chagossian ladies, to come in and have tea. That was the first time that I realised that what we had done in the late 1960s and early 1970s by expelling 1,500 people, going back two, three and even four generations, was a really black mark for our country. It was serious abuse of human rights. I very much regret that, because I decided with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to resign very soon after that, I did not do more about the issue at that time.

I believe that the issue has undermined our voice in the case that we put for human rights all over the world. If we are going to argue for upholding the Commonwealth charter on core values, which we do, we have to be able to say that we are strong, in our own country and in our own foreign policy, on respecting human rights. Last week, on 21 November, we had a splendid debate, led by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in which I could not take part, on human rights all round the world. When we do that, we need occasionally to pause to remember that we abuse human rights from time to time. In this case, we have, and we need to put it right.”

CRG 30^th ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE

At the end of October the Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) marked the 30^th anniversary of its establishment with an international conference in Mauritius. APPG Coordinator David Snoxell was one of several to have addressed the audience and a full copy of his speech is attached with this edition:

“Clearly, after more than a decade of intransigence, the FCO needs a thorough and objective review of all its policies towards Chagos. And here I pay tribute to today’s FCO for recognising this. The Policy Review announced ten months ago by the Foreign Secretary on 20 December 2012 was a belated but welcome step forward. I believe that it

is a genuine attempt to be open, objective and fair.”

As promised, our Chair Sabrina Jean, who represented our Association, has provided us with some wonderful images from the conference:

BIOT POLICY REVIEW: DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE PUBLISHED

Minister for the Overseas Territories Mark Simmonds made a written statement to Parliament on November 19^th confirming that a draft of the terms of reference for the forthcoming feasibility study had been published:

“Over the summer, FCO and BIOT officials sought initial views from over 400 people, including members of the Chagossian community in the UK, Mauritius and the Seychelles.

These initial consultations show that views within Chagossian communities vary widely on the issue of resettlement. Though a clear majority of Chagossians expressed a preference to return to BIOT, there were significant differences in the detail. Numerous concerns and issues were highlighted, by Chagossian groups and others, which will need to be carefully considered during the Feasibility Study. These include the scale of resettlement, the extent of the provision of modern infrastructure and facilities, access to employment opportunities, and the need to protect the unique environment of BIOT.

The input provided has helped to shape the draft Terms of Reference(TORs) for the study which will be published immediately on the Overseas Territories webpage on GOV.UK and placed in the libraries of both Houses. The Feasibility Study will look at the full range of options for resettlement and will include all the islands of the Territory, including Diego Garcia with its vital military base. Following the Study, in assessing the potential options for resettlement, the Government will wish to balance a range of factors including whether this could be accommodated in a way that does not inhibit the scale and output of the existing base, and whether the base can continue to operate undisturbed alongside any potential resettlement.”

A summary of the draft TORs published by the Foreign Office last month is also attached to this edition of the newsletter. The closing date for submissions passed before our December edition was published but we will await confirmation of the finalised TORs in the New Year. UKChSA joint-patron Philippa Gregory provided the following submissions on behalf of our Association:

“The UK Chagos Support Association is aware of submissions from other stakeholders and would want to support the comments made by the Chagos Refugee Group, The Alliance, and The All Party Parliamentary Group on Chagos, and add the following thoughts:

Working, as we do, in support of all Chagossians, but with especial contact with those exiled in the UK, we would like to draw your attention to the urgency of the feasibility report. The Chagossians have already waited far too long for the right to return to their homeland, and every year now sees more deaths in exile. We are particularly concerned at the length of time proposed for the feasibility report, especially as this might take the reporting period over a general election. Accordingly we call upon the FCO to speed up the process. Also, we think it appropriate that the legal changes necessary to the MPA legislation and to the Chagos citizenship status be investigated now - so that Chagossians can start their return as soon as possible. We also would want to know that the feasibility report will be accepted by all parties, in the event of a change of government.

The political social and cultural aspects of the feasibility report must take into account the needs for a full community of islanders to return to their homes. The report currently rules out issues of citizenship and compensation and we believe that this is a grave mistake. Chagossians cannot return to their homeland without clarity about their legal status. The current Chagos-only citizenship and visa arrangements which are acknowledged to have been drafted in error and are a practical obstacle to the Chagossian people will have to be reviewed and amended. At the moment they divide families. If people are to live on Chagos, Mauritius, and the UK, if they marry other nationalities and if their children are born in either Chagos or the UK what is their legal status to be? We recognise that these are complex and complicated issues but the feasibility report cannot answer on the 'feasibility' of return, unless it addresses this fundamental need. We suggest that the Home Office be requested urgently to prepare a mini-feasibility report on the legal status of the Chagossians and that this should mirror, as is only fair and just, the status of other British Overseas Territories, without special Chagos clauses, and report at the same time as this FCO feasibility report.

Political - we require that the necessary approaches and negotiations with the US government regarding the terms of the use of Diego Garcia are made public. We are concerned at the suggestion that, until now, the US has not been made aware of the Chagossians wish to return. It is not feasible that the USA should continue to use Diego Garcia as her base excluding the Chagossians. The report will need to consider what arrangements can be made. Please note the Chagossian willingness to negotiate.

Economic - on behalf of the Chagossians we welcome the exploration of a sustainable lifestyle on Chagos and hope that the report considers two potential income streams: the money which could be raised for fishery protection by the Chagossians, the sustainable industry of artisan fishing and sustainable agriculture, and the income which presumably the US government will pay for the continued use of the Diego Garcia base.

Consultation - we welcome the feasibility report's intention of consulting stakeholders, and we respectfully remind the FCO that while there are many interested parties, there is only one community of indigenous inhabitants: the Chagossians, and that their views should be paramount. They are particularly concerned that consultations about the environment and the suitability of island developments be made with them, as active and participating observers and reporters. They are particularly concerned about their legal position as Chagossians, British Overseas Territory dwellers and British subjects. We, as the supporters' association, support them completely in their determination to be allowed to decide their future on Chagos and elsewhere.”

Olivier Bancoult provided the following submissions on behalf of the CRG:

“The Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) has met on two occasions, and has also consulted a broad range of experts about the draft TORs and the conduct of the Feasibility Study more generally. The General Assembly was held on Sunday 8th December and was attended by the majority of the native Chagossians living in Mauritius. The General Assembly made a list of recommendations and as a result we wish to propose several changes/refinements to the draft TORs. These are shown in the attached version as 'track changes'. We are grateful for the opportunity to provide input at this stage and would further ask that if any of our proposals are considered controversial, then there should be a further brief consultation with us to try to reach a compromise.

In addition, the CRG would ask that the following general points concerning the Feasibility Study are taken into account:

1) The Consultants appointed to the study should be truly independent and that there should be no changes to the TORs without further consultation with interested parties.

2) That the study should be published directly by the consultants without any prior vetting, or reviewing by any party, including the FCO/BIOT.

3) Consideration should be given for Chagossian involvement in the study; for example if consultants visit the islands, then at least one appointed observer should be permitted to accompany them. Ideally this would be A Chagossian 'native' who can assist in traditional knowledge and provide general background knowledge about the islands where necessary, under supervision of an expert chosen by the Community.

4)We would like to obtain a guarantee that the US is agreeable to resettlement.

In parallel with the Feasibility Study we would ask for discussions and consultation on other issues that we have identified but which are not directly related to resettlement:

1) Environmental and conservation training for Chagossians be commenced in Mauritius as soon as possible but only if it is conducted without prejudice to the fundamental human rights of the Chagossians and without prejudice to ongoing litigation

2) Pension provision for 'native' Chagossians.

3) Educational scholarships for young Chagossians.

4) The establishment of a 'funeral fund' to help meet costs associated with dispersed families consequential upon the British Overseas Territories Act 2002.

5) That consideration be given to widening the scope of the Chagos "Marine Protected Area" to one that encompasses the islands themselves and which includes human involvement.

6) That the UK address the problems of family separation arising after the British Overseas Citizenship Act 2002.

DAVID SNOXELL

It was a busy few weeks for APPG coordinator David Snoxell who also found time to write an article which appeared on the Conservative Home website, a similar piece also appeared in Labour’s Tribune magazine. Reflecting on recent events, he argued that we may indeed be witnessing a watershed moment in this extraordinarily prolonged injustice:

“During a debate in the Lords in November, peers urged the Government to shorten the process so that decisions can be taken well before the election. The only way to achieve this would be to make the feasibility study six rather than twelve months. Since there have been several academic studies analysing the 2002 feasibility study over the past decade and, since significantly more scientific data is now available than in 2002, this should be possible. Clearly, speakers felt that the deadline of an election was an overriding factor.

It had taken until now to reach a point (commissioning a new study) which could have been decided when the Government came into office. In the run-up to the election, the Coalition parties had each promised to work for a fair and just solution. It was noted that the Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group had been established in 2008 to press for justice, and will have its 40th meeting later this month. It has pressed for a new feasibility study since its first meeting.”

FROM THE EDITOR

It’s quite remarkable to think where we all were twelve months ago, collectively still reeling from that now infamous Strasbourg ruling. As 2013 glides off into the sunset we can all seek reassurances from the renewed sense of hope that 2014 could indeed become a pivotal year in this struggle for justice. On behalf of the Association I would like to thank all of our fantastic supporters for all their work over the past year and wish you and your families a very happy new year.

Thank you as always for your continued interest and support,

Clency Lebrasse (Update compiler)

Wednesday 18 December 2013

Chagos Islands APPG 40th meeting December 2013

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 40th meeting on 17 December 2013

The Group reviewed the progress made since its first meeting 5 years ago, on 16 December 2008. Members recalled the purpose of the Group was "to help bring about a resolution of the issues concerning the future of the Chagos Islands and the Chagossian people". The Group had also decided that "following the end of legal proceedings (Law Lords judgment Oct 08) the responsibility for the Chagos Islanders now rests with Parliament". At its second meeting on 29 Jan 2010 the Group agreed several objectives one of which was. "A truly independent study of the practicalities and way in which a limited resettlement of Salomon and Peros Bahnos can be achieved..... drawn up in consultation with interested parties, not least the Chagossians".They were pleased to note that after 5 years the FCO had now agreed to a new study. They were disappointed that another of its objectives ("Discussions with Mauritius on the future sovereignty of the Outer Islands") had not so far begun although its objective ("Re-negotiation of the Agreement with the US by 2015, to reflect the right of the Chagossians to live on the Islands and any changes to the sovereignty of those Islands") appeared to be on course.

The Group decided that the Chairman should write to the Foreign Secretary about this and other concerns such as the need to engage Mauritius in a diplomatic dialogue concerning the future management of the Islands and of the MPA.. As Lord Luce had said in the debate " it is essential that they (Mauritius) are regarded as a vital player in any Chagossian solution". Members agreed with Lord Avebury's suggestion, made in the Lords debate, that to help break the ice the new BIOT Science Adviser, along with members of the BIOT Science Advisory Group, should have meetings with their Mauritian counterparts to discuss a joint approach to the science of Chagos, sharing data and current research. The Group decided to invite the Mauritian High Commissioner to a meeting.

Members were keen to take up the Foreign Secretary's offer of a further meeting which he had made at the last meeting with the Group on 15 December 2011.

The Group also discussed legal developments.They took note that permission had been granted by the High Court for an appeal against the judicial review of the MPA to be heard on 31 March on the three grounds of improper motive, fishing rights and EU law. Members were interested to learn that, with respect to the ruling of the Law Lords in Oct 2008, lawyers had recently written to the Treasury Solicitor alleging a miscarriage of justice, on the grounds that the flawed feasibility study and the way it had been influenced, was a key factor on which the majority judgment had been based. The letter invited the Foreign Secretary to set aside that judgment and restore the right of return,

The next meeting of the Group is on 5 February.

David Snoxell

Coordinator

Friday 13 December 2013

David Snoxell: The Chagos Islands – the tide may at last be turning

This article will be republished in Tribune, a Labour-leaning publication, on December 20th

David Snoxell is Coordinator of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group.

Last year on ConservativeHome, I noted that the climate (of Chagos discussions) had changed, but not the tide. Nearly two years later I can report that the tide is beginning to turn. But will it have done so completely by the time of the general election?

Immediately following the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that the Chagos case was inadmissible, William Hague announced last December that the Government would take stock of its policy towards the resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Its people were exiled in the early 1970s to make way for a US base on Diego Garcia. In 2002 an FCO inspired feasibility study concluded that resettlement would be precarious and costly.

Last July, Mark Simmonds, the Foreign Office Minister, announced a new study. Following a four month consultation process the draft terms of reference (TORs) were laid before Parliament last month. Feedback on the TORs, with a deadline of 18 December, was invited. The TORs will then be finalised, and consultant experts appointed to undertake the study. This process could take until March. The FCO expects the study to then take a further year.

Thereafter, Ministers will consider the findings and review all aspects of BIOT policy, including resettlement, defence and sovereignty. Unfortunately, this timetable brings the end result perilously close to the 2015 election. Indeed, it seems more likely that decisions on the study and a review of the policy would have to be held over to the next Government. While it is to their credit that the Foreign Office is this time determined to ensure that the study is seen as objective and thorough, and that the Chagossians are consulted, there is also the parliamentary timetable to be considered.

During a debate in the Lords in December, peers urged the Government to shorten the process so that decisions can be taken well before the election. The only way to achieve this would be to make the feasibility study six rather than twelve months. Since there have been several academic studies analysing the 2002 feasibility study over the past decade and, since significantly more scientific data is now available than in 2002, this should be possible. Clearly, speakers felt that the deadline of an election was an overriding factor.

Baroness Whitaker (Lab), who opened the debate, commended the draft TORs of the proposed study. These were far reaching, objective and imaginative, she said – providing a wide range of options and a comprehensive analysis of factors, including human rights, environmental, social, economic and legal. Whitaker noted that the reasoning for the abolition of the right of return and abode in 2004 had now largely been discredited by this new approach, and so should be restored. She reminded peers that the Foreign Secretary had said: “It is not in our character as a nation to have a foreign policy without a conscience, and neither is it in our interests”.

Speaking for the Labour party frontbench, in a distinctly more positive tone than when Labour were in office, Baroness Morgan urged the Government to explore the opportunities for the cost of resettlement to be shared between other interested governments, the EU and the US. She was sure that it was not beyond the wit of the US defence authorities on Diego Garcia to live alongside the Chagos Islanders and to employ them on the base. (The TORs include the possibility of resettlement on Diego).

Peers also called for Mauritius to be involved in the resettlement process since successive governments had undertaken to restore the sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius when no longer needed for defence purposes. There needed to be a dialogue with Mauritius, it was said, about the future management of the islands and of the Marine Protected Area, notwithstanding the pending Mauritian case against the MPA (at ITLOS) declared on the eve of the last election. The TORs allow for the MPA to be amended.

The tide seems to be turning. Chagossians can now, after 45 years, be a little optimistic about their future. As a first step their right to return should be restored and arrangements made to visit their homeland whenever they want to do so. With American cooperation a resettlement on Diego Garcia looks quite possible. This should feature in the extension of the 1966 UK/US agreement which comes up for renewal next year.

Thursday 21 November 2013

Chagos Islands APPG 39th meeting November 2013

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 39th meeting on 20 November 2013

The next meeting of the Group will be held on 17 December.This will be the 40th meeting of the Group since it was established in December 2008. Since that meeting the Group has continued to press for a new feasibility study.

David Snoxell

Coordinator, Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group

Thursday 7 November 2013

Chagos Newsletter November 2013

CHAGOS NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER 2013

PARLIAMENT

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 38th meeting on 9 October

The Group felt that the PQs concerning the BIOT Policy Review, answered in early September, had been helpful. It was clear that the next stage was a statement by the FCO Minister to Parliament on the results of the consultation on the Review and the proposed feasibility study which was expected this month. The Group understood that it would include draft terms of reference and that thereafter experts would be invited to conduct the study. Members felt that the consultants should be respected experts in their disciplines and of proven objectivity and independence, if the study was to be seen as balanced and transparent. The Group reiterated their wish that Parliament should be able to debate the results of the study before the summer recess in July 2014. This had been stated in the Chairman's letter to the Foreign Secretary of 16 July on the Group's views about the review of policy. It was agreed that the Chairman would respond to the forthcoming statement on behalf of the Group. Members asked the Chairman to remind the Foreign Secretary of his offer for a further meeting following their last meeting with him in December 2011.

The Group discussed possible interventions in debates and further PQs in the current session. The debate in the Lords on the Future of the Commonwealth on 17 October would be an opportunity, given the emphasis on human rights in the Commonwealth Charter, signed by The Queen in March, since the continued exile of the Chagossians remained inconsistent with Commonwealth values and the UK's promotion of human rights.

Members also discussed the need for HMG to involve the Americans in potential resettlement in view of the anticipated renewal of the 1966 UK/US Agreement in 2016. This should not wait until after the feasibility study had reported. It could be addressed in the annual round of UK/US Pol-Mil discussions usually in October. US agreement and funding, especially if resettlement were to be on Diego Garcia, should form part of the renewal of the 1966 Agreement and be discussed in 2014 when the Agreement comes up for re-negotiation.

The submission of 1 October by Minority Rights Group International (MRG) to the Ministry of Justice, concerning the UK's failure to report on BIOT in its periodic reports to the UN Human Rights Council, was considered. Members were surprised to learn that the UK had on each occasion declined to report on BIOT on the grounds that it was uninhabited, an argument repeatedly rejected by the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. They felt that the UK should be honest about its own failings with regard to human rights. They hoped that the Justice Secretary would ensure that this omission was rectified in the forthcoming Universal Periodic Review Mid-Term report.

The Group took note of articles in the Commonwealth Law Bulletin in August (Prerogative legislation as the paradigm of bad law-making: the Chagos Islands by Ronan Cormacain) and in Ocean Challenge Summer 2013 (Sharks on the lawn at Diego Garcia - but is rising sea-level to blame? by Richard Dunne). They also took note of the ILPA briefing, so far as it concerned the Chagos Islanders, for the debate on 'Requirements for those who apply for UK citizenship or nationality' in the Lords on 8 Oct, and also noted the current state of appeals to the First Tier Information Tribunal concerning the application of FOI to BIOT.

Members were pleased to learn that an international conference on the Chagos Islands had been organised by the Chagos Refugees Group in Mauritius from 29 to 31 October to mark their 30th anniversary and that the Coordinator would be speaking at it. They hoped that the UK, Mauritius and the US would participate.

The next meeting of the Group will be held on 20 November.

David Snoxell

Coordinator of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG

The recess and conference period is now behind us which meant that there were several Chagos related Parliamentary Questions which were tabled since the two houses returned. The Liberal Democrat’s Lord Avebury got us under way on the 22^nd October when he asked:

“whether they have any plans to discuss with the government of the United States the creation of a settlement for Chagossians on Diego Garcia in the context of the
renewal of the 1966 United Kingdom–United States Agreement.”

Baroness Warsi (Conservative)

“Senior officials have discussed with US officials our intention to commission a new feasibility study into the resettlement of British Indian Ocean Territory. Though the Government is supportive of the long-term use of Diego Garcia as a shared strategic asset for the UK and US, we do not anticipate formal discussions with the US about the future use of Diego Garcia until this study has been concluded.”

Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat)



“To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to include a report on British Indian Ocean Territory in their report to the Universal Periodic Review of the United Nations Human Rights Council.”



Baroness Warsi (Conservative)



“There were no specific recommendations regarding the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) in the UK’s Universal Periodic Review report in May 2012. The mid-term review document is currently being drafted, and we cannot comment further on its content at this time.”

23^rd October- Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North, Labour)



“To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will open discussions with the US Government on the re-negotiation of the 1966 UK-US agreement on British Indian Ocean Territory, and whether such discussions will include resettlement of Chagossians in their homeland.”



Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)



“No date has been set for discussions between the UK and the US on the extension of the 1966 agreement on the British Indian Ocean Territory. Though the Government is supportive of the long-term use of Diego Garcia as a shared strategic asset for the UK and US, we do not anticipate formal discussions with the US on this issue until the review of our policy on resettlement has been concluded.”

24^th October-  Henry Smith (Crawley, Conservative)



“To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will ensure that the UK's Mid-Term Report (Universal Periodic Review) to the UN Human Rights Council includes British Indian Ocean Territory.”

Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire, Conservative)



“There were no specific recommendations regarding the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) in the UK's Universal Periodic Review report in May 2012. The mid-term review document is currently being drafted, and we cannot comment further on its content at this time.”

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour MP and long-time friend of the Chagossians, has sponsored a Parliamentary Early Day Motion (EDM). It congratulates the Chagos Refugees Group on their recent conference in Mauritius which marked the 30^th anniversary since the organisation was established (full details will follow in our December newsletter). It also calls on the House of Commons to recognise the historical injustice committed against the Chagossian community and for it to be corrected by facilitating a return to the islands.

EDM number 649 which is entitled as “Chagos Refugee Association” was tabled on the 29^th October and will remain open for the remainder of this parliamentary session. It can be found here. This is the first EDM since 2010 and so it is an excellent opportunity for supporters to ask their MPs to sign and can be utilised as a gateway to engage them further in our on-going campaigns. Ideally it could even lead to some joining the very productive APPG which will strengthen our position within Parliament further.

LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST MPA JUDICIALREVIEW RULING

We are delighted to confirm that last month Lord Justice Jackson granted our legal team leave to appeal against the Marine Protection Authority (MPA) Judicial Review ruling from April. It was considered that there were “grounds of appeal (which were) properly arguable” and meant that the application for appeal was granted. At this stage it is still unconfirmed as to when the appeal will be heard, but early indications are that it could take place as early as February 2014. These things are notorious in terms of their predictability so we will closely monitor developments and confirm the date of the hearing once this is officially announced.

DAVID VINE‏

Another of our long standing prominent supporters, David Vine, has been working alongside Phil Harvey and Wojtek Sokolowski. Collectively they have put together a revised version of a model which was developed for the Chagos legal litigation to calculate compensation owed to the Chagossians as a result of the expulsion from their homeland. The full report can be found here but a brief summary as outlined by David is as follows:

· The aim of the Human Rights Standards Damages Model is to calculate damages Chagossians have suffered as a result of their expulsion from their homeland by the US and UK governments.

· The Chagossians were forcibly displaced from their homes in the Chagos Archipelago between 1968 and 1973 during construction of the US military base on the Chagossians' largest island, Diego Garcia. They have now remained in exile for more than 40 years.

· Although money cannot measure or fully compensate for the losses Chagossians have experienced, we believe it is important to provide a damages estimate so that Chagossians (and other groups) can seek proper compensation and some measure of justice.

· Our model offers a framework that allows an objective and transparent way to measure tangible and intangible damages suffered by the Chagossians and other peoples who have been dispossessed or who have experienced other human rights violations.

· The basis for our model is a 2005 United Nations resolution that reaffirmed the right of victims of gross human rights violations to reparations. Both direct victims and indirect victims, like children and other family members, are entitled to reparations.

· To calculate lost land and property, our model estimates the value of the Chagossians’ land through comparisons with 1) annual rental payments made by the United States for the military use of the Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands; and 2) Japan’s 2006 agreement to pay the United States $6.09 billion to reclaim land occupied by U.S. military bases on Okinawa and help move U.S. troops to Guam.

· To calculate lost income, we looked for small, isolated comparison populations living next to a military base like Diego Garcia who were able to enjoy the economic benefits of living next to a base. Our model holds, however, that a population that has suffered its own social and economic human rights violations (e.g., Kwajalein, Guam) is not an appropriate comparison group because properly measuring compensation demands assuming that governing sovereigns uphold the highest human rights standards, rather than assuming additional rights violations. Our model, thus, compares Chagossians’ earnings since their expulsion with the earnings of three comparison populations (France’s Indian Ocean island Réunion; the UK Overseas Territories; and the UK) representing three levels of attainment in securing economic and social rights.

· To calculate other consequential damages, including injuries to health, educational opportunities, and psychological wellbeing, among others, our model employs a commonly used methodology mandated by the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act to compensate workers for consequential damages stemming from minimum wage violations. This methodology allows an additional award of “liquidated damages” equal to back pay owed, although this doubling multiplication factor probably understates the true extent of Chagossians’ damages.

· Accounting for Chagossians’ lost land and property, lost income, and consequential damages, we estimate that total damages fall between $5.4 billion (€4.3 billion) and $13.2 billion (€10.5 billion) (expressed in international $ and purchasing power parity €).

· For reasons that we explain in the article, we believe that actual damages probably fall towards the higher end of this range.

· Because the US and UK governments have barred us (and other researchers) from Diego Garcia, our calculation does not include an estimate of what appear to be significant environmental damages caused by the US military base.

· The size of our damages estimate is a function of 1) the severity of Chagossians’ losses connected to being exiled; 2) the fact that these harms include not only losses suffered individually by each Chagossian, but also losses suffered collectively as an indigenous people dispossessed of their homeland; 3) the fact that both of these categories of loss have continued to accumulate as a result of the Chagossians’ continuing exile; and 4) the length of time the exile has continued.

*Note: This article was published in September 2013, although the publication date is 2012

David has been busy last month because he also wrote a piece on the ever expanding reach of US military bases. It largely deals with the compliance of Italy who has allowed the expansion within her territories, but does make reference to the existence of a certain base in the Indian Ocean:

While much attention has been focused on President Obama’s “Asia pivot,” the Pentagon is concentrating its forces at bases that represent a series of pivots in places like Djibouti on the horn of Africa and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, Bahrain and Qatar in the Persian Gulf, Bulgaria and Romania in Eastern Europe, Australia, Guam, and Hawai’i in the Pacific, and Honduras in Central America.

RICHARD DUNNE

An updated guide to the Chagos Islands and their physical environment, a version of which was first presented to the BIOT Policy Review Team, has been submitted to us by Richard Dunne. It makes for fascinating reading and a full version is attached to this edition of the newsletter, but one of the most striking areas highlighted looks at long term sustainability in terms of rainfall and water supplies:

The Chagos islands (Salomon & Peros Banhos atolls in particular) have the highest annual rainfall totals of all Indian Ocean atolls (Stoddart 1971b), approximately 3,750 and 4,000 mm/year (Posford Haskoning Ltd 2002).

Completely dry months do not occur on Salomon & Peros Banhos atolls (Stoddart 1971b).

Freshwater on all the islands is contained in lenses trapped in the coral basement and is suitable for domestic consumption.

The water supply ‘population capacity’ of the two principal islands in the northern atolls would be approximately 3,000 for Ile du Coin and 1,500 for Ile Boddam for an average water demand of 100 litres per person per day (Posford Haskoning Ltd 2002).

Diego Garcia obtains all its freshwater supplies from the island lenses, sufficient to support a population of several thousand military and civilian contractors.

The association eagerly awaits feedback from the BIOT Policy Review Team regarding these fascinating facts which severely undermine previous arguments that any resettlement would be unsustainable.

30^th ANNIVERSARY OF THE CHAGOS REFUGEES GROUP

As announced in our September edition, the Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) marked the 30^th anniversary since the organisation was established. A series of events has been held, the most prominent of which was the International Conference, full news of which will be included in our December edition.

The 10^th October was the day the group officially marked 30 years of existence. The Association agrees that such a milestone should be celebrated, but equally it is a note of caution to all of our supporters that this injustice has been allowed to continue for far too long.

It is in everyone’s interests that there will be no 40^th anniversary and that the organisation will instead be functioning as an autonomous body which oversees the interests of Chagossians, and that this role is administered from the Chagos Islands.

OLIVIER BANCOULT IN ARGENTINA

During a very busy month for the CRG leader, Olivier Bancoult was also invited to Buenos Aires to participate in a press conference with the Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman. An Argentine press release announced:

“Once again the UK displays its disdain for international law and double standards regarding the right to self determination of peoples, since it ignores the right of Chagossians to return to their lands and on the other hand pretends to force the right to self determination for the Malvinas question, even when the United Nations do not consider such option applicable”

Olivier went on to denounce the double standards in terms of the treatment of the Chagossians when compared to the Falkland Islanders, a contradiction that:

"ensures that gives all power to the inhabitants of the Falklands, while with we will do everything the opposite."

A short clip of the press conference can be found here.

FORGOTTEN IN THE INDIAN OCEAN

Tessa Grauman recently aired a two part radio magazine highlighting our struggle for justice. The first segment deals with the background story of the cause while the second addresses the political and diplomatic issues behind the deportation forty years ago. Olivier Bancoult, Jeremy Corbyn, Richard Gifford and Richard Dunne were amongst a number of individuals who contributed to the production.

MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP INTERNATIONAL

We were recently contacted by the international human rights organisation Minority Rights Group (MRG) regarding a submission they made in September to the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland’s Mid-Term report to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The full submission can be found here but in summary the MRG argued that the UK has an obligation to ensure that human rights treaties to which it is party to, is applied to any territories under its jurisdiction.

OLIVIER GOUJON

One of our supporters from Twitter has put together a collection of images of Chagossians on the micro-blogging social network Tumblr entitled “The Dogs of Chagos”. The post also includes contributions from interviews conducted with a number of islanders based in Mauritius.

Meri-Elysee Charlemagne is a Chagossian. Born on the island of Peros Banhos in 1972. She was deported with her grandmother Emilienne and the rest of her people in 1973 by the United States of America and the UK.

The story began 300 years ago, when escaped or freed slaves settled on dream archipelago, the Chagos islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Abundant fishing, copra work for companies Seychelles, life goes on its light rail and happy until the mid-twentieth century. The Chagos are then dependencies of Mauritius, a British colony. Decolonizing the area of the Indian Ocean, the English refuse to include the Chagos islands in the independence of Mauritius. The archipelago is sold to the Americans (ED: This was not actually the case), who want to set the largest military base of the world, on Diego Garcia, the main island of the archipelago. Small problem: the Chagossians. They became 8000 and are settled on the islands of Diego, Peros Banhos and Salomon. The deportation is organized: “At first, says Emilienne, they told us we were going on vacation, or make medical visits in Mauritius, but those who left never returned, so we are suspicious and we don ’ longer wanted to leave, so the Yanks have forced us to get on the boat and we left everything, our houses, our furniture, our animals. We travelled in the hold, as slaves, like dogs. ” The Nordvaer left Diego on June 2, 1973 with 2000 Chagossians on board. The 2000 that the British and American governments had failed to deceive. Direction: the slums of Mauritius.

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR

The newsletter will return to its regular cycle next month and will include two months of news, covering stories from November and December.

Just a reminder again that Jeremy Corbyn’s EDM number 649 can be found here.

Thank you as always for your continued interest and support,

Clency Lebrasse (Update compiler)