Chagos Refugees Group UK: 2014

Friday, 31 October 2014

Chagos Day Celebration: Sunday 2nd November

To mark Chagos Day 2014, the UK branch of the Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) are hosting a celebration for Chagossians and supporters. This will take place at the Broadfield Centre in Crawley, West Sussex and be staged on the eve of Chagos Day itself which this year will fall on a Monday. Entry is free and the event will be an opportunity to celebrate a significant day in the calendar for the Chagossian community in the UK.

Chagos Day commemorates the day in November 2000 when the leader of the CRG, Olivier Bancoult, secured a historic High Court victory over the British Government paving the way for a right of return to the Chagos Islands. The victory was subsequently superseded by the undemocratic procedure of enacting two Orders in Council in June 2004- the day of the European Elections and a good day to bury bad news as the story was unsurprisingly missed by the media whose attention was focused elsewhere.

Broadfield Centre,
Broadfield Place,
Crawley, West Sussex
RH11 9BA

4.30-10pm

Wednesday, 29 October 2014

Commons debate on Chagos Resettlement (28/10/14)

Henry Smith (Crawley, Conservative)

What progress his Department has made with the British Indian Ocean Territory Chagossian resettlement feasibility study; and if he will make a statement.

Hugo Swire (The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; East Devon, Conservative)

The independent feasibility study on resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory is on track to report by January 2015. Ongoing consultations with interested parties, including Chagossians, are taking place so that all relevant facts are considered in the analysis of the practical costs and risks of resettlement.

Henry Smith (Crawley, Conservative)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Given upcoming negotiations on extending the military base on Diego Garcia with the United States, may I have assurances from the Department that the interests of the Chagos islands people will be very much part of those discussions with Washington?

Hugo Swire (The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; East Devon, Conservative)

That is precisely why we have commissioned the KPMG report. The way that the Chagossians were treated following their removal in the ’60s and ’70s was clearly wrong, and substantial compensation was rightly paid. We welcome the US presence in Diego Garcia. It is an increasingly important asset for both our Governments, but there have been no formal discussions with the US about the possibility of extending the exchange of notes to date.

Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)

I met 60 members of the Chagos community in my constituency on Friday—a faithful people but without the right to return they once again feel that will not adequately mourn their dead as they approach All Hallows next week. Their elders are passing away without having recorded their stories of displacement, and their young are finding it increasingly difficult to find salaried employment or to visit their friends in Crawley and other places across the country. They also worry about us ceding sovereignty. Does the Minister agree that we should be doing more for those people, rather than less?

Hugo Swire (The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; East Devon, Conservative)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are no issues of any sort about ceding sovereignty—we should deal with that point straight away. The draft KPMG report, which we were not obliged to undertake, will be out on 17 November, and thereafter there will be time for all those who have been consulted to make such points before the final report early next year. That is why we have included the Chagossians in the testimony.

Peter Tapsell (Father of the House of Commons; Louth and Horncastle, Conservative)

A previous Father of the House and great friend of mine, Sir Bernard Braine, was a passionate advocate of the rights of the inhabitants of Diego Garcia when the whole idea of turning it into a base was launched. In his memory, may I say that I very much hope that the guarantees that he received from the British Government of the time about looking after those people will be fulfilled?

Hugo Swire (The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; East Devon, Conservative)

My right hon. Friend is right to remind the House of our responsibilities towards the Chagossians, and as I said earlier, the actions of the ’60s and ’70s were clearly wrong and substantial compensation was rightly paid. It is worth pointing out that the British High Court in 2008, and the European Court in 2012, ruled that the compensation was a full and final settlement of the Chagossians’ claims.

Thursday, 16 October 2014

Chagos Islands APPG 44th Meeting October 2014

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 44th meeting on 15 October.

As the new FCO Minister for OTs, James Duddridge, had felt that he was not yet ready to meet the Group Prof. Charles Sheppard, Chairman of the Chagos Conservation Trust and his colleagues Alistair Gammell and John Turner, who had requested a meeting in July, attended the first part of the meeting.

The Vice Chairman (Henry Smith MP standing in for Jeremy Corbyn MP) welcomed the representatives of the CCT and looked forward to hearing about its work. The conservation and environmental aspects of resettlement were discussed. Members were pleased to note that while the CCT mandate was to protect the unique environment of the Chagos Islands, CCT was not opposed to resettlement. Prof. Sheppard and his colleagues thought that Diego Garcia was well suited and ecologically sensible, given the available facilities and infrastructure there, though this was a decision for politicians. Members drew attention to the benefits of resettlement for conservation and the types of employment that Chagossians could undertake, especially on Diego Garcia. They agreed to keep in touch with CCT.

The Group then went on to discuss the PQs and Questions since the last meeting on 15 July. Members noted that on 4 September Mr Duddridge had said in reply to a PQ that "he expected officials to begin substantive discussions with US colleagues about post-2016 arrangements later this years, as the conclusions of the feasibility study on resettlement of Chagossians begin to become clear". It was also noted that in a letter in mid August to the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) Mr Duddridge had stated that "The 1966 Exchange of Notes provides for a two-year window (December 2014-December 2016) during which we can decide whether and on what terms to extend the agreement with the US for a further 20 years. We are clear that we will consider all aspects of US presence in any discussions on this, and the Government will of course reinforce our expectations on permitted US use of the territory." The Group felt that US co-operation and assistance in resettlement was necessary and an obvious condition for extending the agreement. The Group would engage the FAC on the renewal of the 1966 agreement.

As KPMG's September report was received just prior to the meeting it was not possible to consider it in detail. However the Group was pleased to learn that KPMG would submit a first draft of their study to FCO in mid November which would the following week be circulated to "stakeholders". Members reiterated that they expected Parliament to debate the study before Ministers made decisions on it.

Members considered the Chairman's letters, on behalf of the APPG, to the new Foreign Secretary and to Mark Simmonds, then Minister for OTs. It was decided to renew the invitation to Mr Duddridge (successor to Mr Simmonds) to meet the Group at its next meeting.

Legal developments were considered. It was noted that the decision of the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) that EIRs applied to BIOT by virtue of the extension of English law to BIOT in 1983, had not been appealed by the FCO. The Group saw this as significant progress for freedom of information. This would facilitate the work of researchers making requests for environmental information held by FCO/BIOT. The Group was also informed of the decision to grant legal aid to the Chagos Refugees Group in pursuit of their claim to the Supreme Court that the House of Lords majority verdict in 2008 had resulted from an apparent breach of the duty of candour by officials.

The next meeting will be on 3 December.

David Snoxell

Coordinator

Sunday, 7 September 2014

Chagos Parliamentary Questions Round-Up (7/9/2014)

1st September- Andrew Rosindell (Romford, Conservative):

"To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will place in the Library a copy of the commercial tuna-fishing licences sold by the British Indian Ocean Territory Government in 2010."

James Duddridge (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; Rochford and Southend East, Conservative):

"Copies of the commercial tuna-fishing licenses from 2010 were deposited in the Library of the House on 21 July 2014."

4th September- Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West, Conservative):

"To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what payments the Government would accrue from extending the lease for use of Diego Garcia by the United States for a further 20 years."

James Duddridge:

"There is no lease of Diego Garcia to the United States military under which a rent is charged. The use of the British Indian Ocean Territory (including Diego Garcia) is regulated by a series of bilateral agreements between the UK and US covering a period of fifty years. I expect my officials to begin substantive discussions with US colleagues about post-2016 arrangements later this year, as the conclusions from the feasibility study on resettlement of Chagossians begin to become clear."

Charlotte Leslie:


"To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the potential security benefits of the UK's ability to use Diego Garcia as a military base after the current lease for use of that territory by the US has expired."


James Duddridge:


"The 2012 White Paper, ‘The Overseas Territories-Security, Success & Sustainability’ made clear the strategic importance of our Overseas Territories, which give Britain a global strategic reach in support of our international objectives. The US Base on Diego Garcia represents a vital part of the Anglo-American defence relationship, remains a significant strategic asset for the UK and has previously been used for UK military operations."

Wednesday, 16 April 2014

British Citizenship for Chagossians in Forced Exile

On Thursday 17th April 2014 the Chagossian community will hold a demonstration in front of the Home Office in East Croydon about all Citizenship and visa problems. Below is some background to the problems.

(extracted from ‘Unusual Immigrants’, or, Chagos Islanders and Their Confrontations with British Citizenship by Laura Jeffery. Anthropology in Action, 18, 2, (2011)

The British Overseas Territories Act 2002 reclassified the British Dependent Territories (BDTs) as British Overseas Territories (BOTs) and awarded full U.K. citizenship to citizens of such territories. People born on Chagos when it was a British colony, who were eligible for BDT citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981, thus became eligible for full U.K. citizenship through their place of birth. According to the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, citizens of the BOTs can transmit the entitlement to U.K. citizenship to their children who are also born in a BOT. This provision would not initially have applied to the children born to Chagos islanders in exile, since they were born not in a BOT but in the independent republics of Mauritius and Seychelles. In response to this situation, the Chagos Refugees Group staged a sleep-in protest outside the British High Commission in the Mauritian capital Port Louis. Their campaign was supported in the U.K. by the Labour MPs Tam Dalyell (who was then Father of the House) and Jeremy Corbyn, who repeatedly put the Chagossian case on the parliamentary agenda. They emphasized that the Chagos islanders’ residence outwith the Chagos Archipelago was a result of their forcible displacement from that territory rather than choice. Accepting this logic, the government introduced a supplementary section to provide for the transmission of U.K. citizenship to Chagos islanders’ second-generation descendants born in exile. From the perspective of Chagossians, however, there have been three main problems with the limitations on eligibility for U.K. citizenship laid out in the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 (and the corresponding British Nationality Act 1981).

1. Privileging Marriage

According to the British Nationality Act 1981, whereas an unmarried British woman can pass her citizenship to her children, an unmarried British man cannot pass his citizenship to his children born outwith marriage (unless the parents subsequently marry). The problem for the extended Chagossian community is that – in common with other matrifocal post-slavery societies in the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean – the colonial Chagos Archipelago was characterized by female-headed households, a relative instability of sexual relationships and a low incidence of marriage (Botte 1980: 22–23; Walker 1986: 15–18). Although most of its inhabitants were nominally Roman Catholic, the Chagos Archipelago did not have a permanent Catholic priest during its period of colonial settlement from 1795 to 1973. An itinerant priest travelled around the Mauritius outer islands to perform important ceremonies such as baptisms, christenings and weddings; in between these visits, administrators apparently conducted weekly services (Dussercle 1934: 10; Dussercle 1935; Descroizilles and Mülnier 1999: 26). Chagos islanders told me that they did not necessarily get married to their partners, both because they were not encouraged to do so and because it was not expected that the union would be for life. Thus many Chagossians felt that the privileging of ‘legitimate’ children in U.K. citizenship legislation discriminated against those for whom marriage was not promoted by the British authorities. In particular, this rule affects the children born in exile to an unmarried Chagossian man and a non-Chagossian woman, who comprise a relatively common category as a result of the flows of people amongst all of the dependencies of colonial Mauritius.

2. Date of Forced Deportation

The supplementary section of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 covers Chagossians’ second- generation descendants only if they were born in exile after 26 April 1969. In 2001, Blair’s Labour government selected this cut-off date as the start of what Ben Bradshaw (then a junior Foreign Office Minister) called the 1960s Wilson government’s ‘policy of exclusion’ from the Chagos Archipelago. Writing this start date into the 2002 legislation was a way to avoid awarding U.K. citizenship to the children of those islanders deemed by government officials to have left Chagos ‘voluntarily’ prior to the forced depopulation of the territory. This start date gives rise to several problems. Firstly, since there were limited medical facilities on Chagos, it was not uncommon in the early and mid-twentieth century for expectant mothers to give birth in Mauritius before returning to Chagos, so place of birth is not a reliable indicator of residence since the children of Chagos residents could be born in Mauritius. Secondly, Chagossians and their supporters contest the claimed date for the start of the forced deportations: regardless of when the forced deportations actually began, the BIOT was established in 1965, and islanders visiting Mauritius or Seychelles had been prevented from returning to Chagos from the mid-1960s onwards. As a result of these anomalies, there are numerous Chagossian families in which those siblings born in exile prior to 1969 remained ineligible for U.K. citizenship whilst those born in exile after 1969 became eligible for U.K. citizenship. In its briefing for a House of Lords Committee debate on the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill in 2009, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) recommended removing this cut-off date to ‘ensure that Chagos Islanders ... born in exile before 26 April 1969 are British Citizens’.

3. Subsequent Generations and Spouses

Whilst the legislation provides for native Chagos islanders and their second-generation descendants born in exile, it does not include subsequent generations of descendants or non-Chagossian spouses. Ben Bradshaw told the standing committee concerned with the British Overseas Territories Bill that the government’s rationale was that extending eligibility to subsequent generations would privilege Chagos islanders vis-à-vis other BOT citizens by descent, who could not pass their citizenship to future generations born outwith BOTs. In any case, he added tantalizingly, transmission of U.K. citizenship to subsequent generations would become unnecessary in the event of resettlement of Chagos as a BOT, since subsequent generations born in or resident on Chagos would become eligible in their own right. From the perspective of Chagossians themselves, however, the issue is that since the depopulation of Chagos took place from 1965 to 1973, a whole generation born in exile has had time to grow up and produce a subsequent generation of children, who are not eligible for U.K. citizenship. The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee took evidence from the leaders of three Chagossian organizations in 2008, agreed that the fact that the islanders were no longer living in a BOT was ‘as a consequence of exile rather than their own choice’, and recommended that citizenship ‘should be extended to third generation descendants of exiled Chagossians’. Similarly, the ILPA noted that the fact that ‘the children of Chagossians are born outside the U.K. or a qualifying territory is no fault of their own but the result of their enforced exile’, and concluded that ‘few can have as compelling a claim to British citizenship as those children’. In relation to spouses, the majority of Chagossians who have married since arriving in Mauritius or Seychelles have married non-Chagossian partners, who likewise are not automatically eligible for U.K. citizenship.

Dr Laura Jeffery is Lecturer in Social Anthropology at the University of Edinburgh. She has worked with the Chagossian community since 2002, and is author of the book Chagos Islanders in Mauritius and the UK: Forced Displace- ment and Onward Migration (MUP 2011). She currently holds an ESRC Research Fellowship to explore debates about environmental knowledge in the context of the Chagos Marine Protected Area (MPA) designated by the U.K. Government in 2010, which is being challenged by the Mauritian Government under the United Nations Conven- tion on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Email: Laura.Jeffery@ed.ac.uk

Thursday, 10 April 2014

UK Chagos Support Association Annual General Meeting (AGM) 2014

UK CHAGOS SUPPORT ASSOCIATION (UKChSA)

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING (AGM)

Sunday 6^th April 2014, Pizza Express, Pimlico, London

Minutes of Meeting

1. Apologies

Sabrina Jean & Clency Lebrasse covered the apologies from members who were unavailable to join us. These were stated on behalf of George Beckham, David Snoxell, Celia Whittaker, Richard Gifford, Richard Dunne, Philippa Gregory & Marcus Booth.

2. Minutes

The minutes from the last meeting have been circulated to all members and have been approved.

3. Olivier Bancoult

Olivier Bancoult was in attendance and made a contribution on behalf of Richard Gifford.

He conveyed apologies on behalf of Richard for his unavailability during what had been a very busy week. Olivier had been visiting London due to the appeal being staged earlier in the week (which was a key factor in determining the date for this year’s AGM).

Olivier reflected upon the contribution Richard had made to the struggle of achieving justice for Chagossians, questioning the legality of the MPA and highlighting how the zone came into existence in 2010. He also highlighted how the MPA was perceived to be best way to obstruct the right of return of Chagossians to the islands.

It was pointed out that the ECHR ruled against the Chagossians on the basis that 471 former islanders received compensation in 1982. It was noted that the ECHR effectively “washed its hands” of the Chagossian community during its ruling.

Summarising the various legal actions which have taken place over the years, particular attention was paid to the past 18 months. Notably the ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in December 2012, the Judicial Review in April 2013 and the subsequent appeal which was heard in the High Court in London last week.

The appeal which concluded last week now leaves everyone waiting for the ruling to be delivered. The master of rolls at the appeal had explained that there were “lots to consider” and that we should not expect a judgement this side of June 2014.

4. Chair’s Report

Sabrina Jean addressed the AGM in her capacity as the Chair of the Association and summarised the events of the past twelve months.

Judicial Review MPA

Chagos Refugees Group leader Olivier Bancoult flew to the UK to join other Chagossians for the Judicial Review into the Marine Protection Area. The hearing had been much anticipated due to the fact that it would be the first time that Foreign Office officials would be cross-examined in relation to evidence attained from the Wikileaks cables which were released in 2010.

Although Colin Roberts and Joanne Yeadon, the former Commissioner and Administrator of BIOT respectively, were cross examined in depth about what they said to US embassy officials as reported in wikileaks cables, the judges agreed with the FCO and ruled that this evidence was inadmissible under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The judges may have got this wrong and in October 2013 our permission to appeal was granted & subsequently formed the basis for our appeal which was heard this week in London.

E-Petition

Between May 2012 and May 2013 we sought an almost impossible target of 100,000 signatures exclusively from British citizens via the E-Petitions website. We have fallen some way short of that target, but this campaign can never be regarded as a failure. If we were able to locate just one new supporter, then the exercise has been worthwhile and a success even if our overall target was not achieved.

The fact that the petition has been the driving force behind our renewed presence on the social networks and that in doing so we have found many more than just one new supporter, the petition has accomplished a number of other goals as we have highlighted this cause to new supporters and have established a stronger presence to take our message forward. The final figure for the petition which closed on May 25^th stood at 1017 signatures and even more remarkable is that we added over 300 signatures in the final two months.

But recent events remind us of where we are. The Yashika case achieved almost 180,000 signatures in 10 days, and perhaps we can learn lessons from the campaigning techniques they deployed. That was a cause that was probably driven by a core base of around 40-50 people who were able to set in motion a sequence that got their cause all over the news.

Chagos Anniversary & My Birthday

I celebrated my 40^th birthday in June last year which of course means I was the one of the first to be born in exile. It’s a coincidence which makes us all take a step back and appreciate the gravity of the time during which this heinous crime has not been realistically addressed and redeemed.

BIOT Policy Review

In June the Foreign Office finally requested feedback for its “taking stock” process which commenced following the ECHR ruling last December. My statement on 8^th July called for a completely transparent and fair process:

“Given the many experts available to advise on resettlement, the extensive research that has already taken place, and the Chagossian community’s ongoing openness to the various possibilities, we are confident that the process can be concluded far more swiftly than the estimated 18 months.

Indeed, we think it is essential that the report is completed during the lifetime of this parliament – if the government is sincere in its determination to find ‘a just settlement for the Chagossian people’, as the Foreign Secretary stated, then it must act while it is in power.”

On the 19^th November the draft reference of the Terms of Reference were published with a final version being published at the end of January. The consultants were appointed in February and it is our hope that this process will be completed during the lifetime of the existing parliament.

Chagos Islands Visit

Fifteen Chagossians from Seychelles, Mauritius and the UK visited the islands from the 27^th October until the 7^th November. The group were all natives (first generation islanders) who were born between 1922 and 1948. The trip was a success and we look forward to more opportunities for Chagossians to visit the islands. We feel that the omission of this area in the BIOT Policy Review was a mistake: nobody understands the islands like we do.

Chagos Conference

In October 2013 the CRG celebrated its 30^th anniversary since it was established. Jeremy Corbyn sponsored an early day motion congratulating the CRG on the conference and the anniversary. The EDM secured signatures from across the political spectrum: Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats, SNP, SDLP, Plaid Crymru and even Mike Hancock the Independent MP for Portsmouth South!

The CRG 30^th Anniversary conference was attended by many of our friends including David Vine, Dr Laura Jeffrey, Richard Dunne and the former President of Mauritius Caseem Uteem. The conference also included an address by APPG co-ordinator David Snoxell. We were very happy that so many were able to make the event in Mauritius last October. In January 2014 one of the attendees, Andre Oraison, organised a follow-up one day conference in Reunion which was widely publicised in the local media too.

Chagos Islands FC

We finally saw the return of our football team in February as they again took on Sealand. Unfortunately the team suffered a 4-2 defeat but we were grateful for the opportunity to see the team in action again. We now have announced a further fundraising event and we hope that the team will be involved in a lot more frequent contests which will be such a good way to ensure our struggle continues to be highlighted.

Diego Garcia Expansion Underway

interesting news was brought to our attention, the significance of which seems to have slipped largely under the radar in the wider media. Defi Media Group reported that 40,000 tonnes of rocks are being exported from Mauritius to Diego Garcia with the intention of filling in sea area to enable expansion of the military base. Furthermore Mauritian Foreign Affairs Minister Arvin Boolell seemed entirely relaxed about the news and stressed that the common arrangement did not jeopardise their own claims for sovereignty over the islands.

That may be the case, but the British Government has continued to pledge publicly that no decision has been taken over the future of the base beyond 2016 and that once the issue is on the table, Parliament will be consulted and kept informed. For a decision which is not yet taken, this would appear to be a very pre-emptive decision by the US Government to expand the base if it did not already know what the future of the Islands would hold beyond the existing lease.

Water Pollution

“When we Chagossians lived on our islands, the seas and lagoons were pristine. When the Americans arrived, they caused massive environmental degradation, including bulldozing our villages and flattening graveyards. To create building materials, they started dynamiting the lagoon of Diego Garcia, killing fish and destroying large areas of coral reef.

For many years we have been pressing BIOT to conduct an environmental audit of the effects of the US occupation. This has been consistently refused, with the explanation that the impact of the occupation is minimal. We can now see that throughout this period there have been no controls on the pollution.

We are the real guardians of our homeland. Until we are allowed to return, we think that this degradation is bound to be permitted to continue.”

The news was reported around the world and we now know that the British Government were themselves directly involved.

Crimea

We were very interested to watch with interest the reaction of the European Union and the USA when it came to the unfolding situation on Crimea. The hypocrisy of their stance over Crimea compared to their disregard for our struggle needs to be highlighted more.

5. Secretary’s Report

The secretary of the association will publish a report at a later date.

6. Treasurers Report

Peri Batliwala addressed the AGM in her capacity as Treasurer of the Association. The treasurer’s report for 2013/14 was circulated to all members in attendance.

In brief as an association are £483 worse off this year end than at the same point last year. It signals that for the year ahead our absolute priority must be to raise funds in any way we can. Although we were not successful in any of the bids for funding we applied for, it is important that the community continues to submit applications for organisations such as Lush, The Network for Social Justice and other bodies who have expressed interest in us in the past.

We must also look to our supporters if we are to continue to provide financial support to the Chagossian Community as we have traditionally done, as well as allocating funds for the campaigning and political work that has been a major priority of the past year, and as an important part of the coming year in relation to the FCO resettlement report. Our limited funding situation has meant that financial support has not been sought from or given to CRG Mauritius or Seychelles in the past year.

7. Sports Management

Gianny Augustin addressed the AGM in his capacity as the assistant sports officer. He highlighted the forthcoming football tournament which is designed to raise funds for the Chagos Islands football team. He also exclusively revealed that the side have confirmed a rematch against Sealand on the 4^th May and more information will follow in the April edition of the newsletter.

It was also emphasised that although managing the football team was extremely useful to ensuring the cause maintained a visibility, it was also a very costly exercise and that we are in desperate need of a sponsor for the side. This will be highlighted in forthcoming editions of the newsletter as it was agreed that is in everyone’s interests that the football side continued to stage matches and maintain publicity of the wider cause.

8. Update Compiler’s Report

Clency Lebrasse in his capacity as Update Compiler (newsletter editor) addressed the AGM and addressed some of the issues regarding receipt of the monthly newsletter. Supporters and committee members were reminded that the newsletter was produced once a month and that in his two year tenure as Update Compiler, there were only two occasions (October & November 2013) that the newsletter had not been distributed during the final week of the month. Therefore it was very easy for recipients to know if he had their correct (and up to date) contact details in order to receive the newsletter.

It was explained that if any recipient had not received the newsletter by the beginning of the following month, a very simple email to the UK Chagos email account would clarify why this had been the case and that it should not be the responsibility of the Update Compiler to check that every single recipient had received their own individual copy.

9. Election of Officers

Unfortunately we were not able to conduct our annual election as is customary at the end of the AGM. It was deemed impractical to request a follow up meeting in the foreseeable future due to the fact that some supporters and committee members had travelled from extremely distant locations in order to be present on the 6^th April.

It was therefore decided that for one year only, the election would be conducted by email to all supporters and committee members who were registered on the UKChSA supporter’s database. It was decided that this would be the fairest way to resolve the issue and did not unfairly penalise supporters or committee members who had made the effort to be present on the day and may not be available again for some time.

The election will be announced in the April edition of the newsletter with everyone being provided adequate notice to put their name forward to stand for election. The May edition of the newsletter would include a list of candidates for supporter’s to vote for and the results would be announced in the June edition of the newsletter with the new committee taking effect from July 1^st 2014.

10. Other Business

The Association wished to place on record its thanks and appreciation for all of the supporters and committee members who were in attendance, with a special note of gratitude for Olivier Bancoult who was able to join us for this occasion.

Attendees were also reminded that the 2015 edition of the AGM would be announced at least three months in advance so that all supporters and committee members were given as much notice as possible in order to ensure they were able to attend.

Sunday, 30 March 2014

Chagos Newsletter March 2014

CHAGOS NEWSLETTER MARCH 2014

PARLIAMENT

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group will hold its 42^nd meeting on the 6^th May.

Now that the FCO is beginning to consult Chagossians, the APPG and other ‘stakeholders’ by way of the new Feasibility Study, we can expect there to be far fewer Parliamentary Questions. On the 5^th March the Conservative Andrew Rosindell asked:

“what military personnel are stationed in each of the British Overseas Territories?”

Mark Francois (The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence; Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)

“UK Military personnel are stationed in the Falkland Islands, Ascension Island, Gibraltar, the
British Indian Ocean Territories and the Sovereign base areas in Cyprus. The establishment at each location is as set out in the following table.

Overseas territory Military personnel
British Forces Cyprus, including Sovereign Base Areas 2,825
Falkland Islands 1,060
Ascension Island 20
Gibraltar—includes UK Military and Royal Gibraltar Regiment 400
British Indian Ocean Territories 40

Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10. The exact numbers of personnel currently located in each overseas territory may vary from published statistics as personnel either change location or are deployed on operations. The other UK overseas territories have no permanent UK military presence.”

On the 7^th March the Minister for the Overseas Territories Mark Simmonds provided Parliament with the following written statement:

“I wish to update the House on our work to protect the environment of the British Indian Ocean Territory and, in particular, the island of Diego Garcia which is home to a large UK-US military base.

This Government, and the Government of our most important ally, the United States, value the strategic location of the island of Diego Garcia, and we want to see our partnership there continue.

We also share a deep commitment to the pristine environment of BIOT, and take great steps to minimise the impact of the military presence on Diego Garcia on that environment. This ranges from the troops stationed there regularly taking part in beach clean-ups to remove Indian Ocean flotsam that has washed ashore, through conservation efforts with NGOs like the RSPB to remove rats or invasive plants, to a US investment of over $30 million during 2014-15 to protect the shoreline from gradual erosion. Diego Garcia military base operates an environmental protection council which co-ordinates this activity, and the standards governing its behaviour are guided by our own scientific advisers and the most stringent relevant environmental legislation.

One area where we have been working recently with the US to ensure the highest standards of environmental stewardship is in the lagoon of Diego Garcia where we are on a path to recovery and protection of the coral that supports the island above the waves. In April last year it came to our attention that the US vessels moored in the lagoon had been discharging waste water into the lagoon since the establishment of the naval support station there in the early 1980s.

This waste water is treated sewage, and water left over from routine processes like cleaning and cooking. Though the amounts are small in proportion to the size of the lagoon itself, our policy has consistently been that any form of discharge of these substances into the lagoon is prohibited because of clear scientific advice that it would be damaging to coral in the long term. That advice has not changed, and nor has our policy.

I asked my officials to immediately establish the impact of these discharges, and in October 2013, UK scientists concluded that based on the available data, there were elevated levels of nutrients in the lagoon which could be damaging to coral.

Over the period since October, my officials have been working to agree a plan with the US to come into compliance with our no discharge policy, and I am pleased to say I have now agreed this. The plan will involve expenditure of several million dollars by the US over a period of three years to retrofit all of the vessels in the lagoon. The programme of work balances the requirement to maintain operational readiness in the region, meet international security commitments, and deal with the logistical and fiscal challenges such a large-scale programme brings with it. A comprehensive joint UK-US study is now also under way to assess and monitor the coral and marine health of the lagoon and ensure that the programme has the desired effect of reducing the levels of nutrients in the lagoon and protecting the coral.”

12^th March- Lord Avebrury (Liberal democrat)

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether (1) the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and (2) the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, apply to each of the Overseas Territories.”

Lord Faulks (The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, Conservative)

“(1) The Freedom of Information Act 2000 covers any recorded information that is held by a public authority in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and by UK-wide public authorities based in Scotland. The Act does not apply to the public authorities of British Overseas Territories.

(2)The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 implement European Council Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information and cover any recorded environmental information held by public authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and by UK-wide public authorities based in Scotland. The Regulations do not apply to the public authorities of British Overseas Territories. Gibraltar, as part of the EU, has implemented the directive through the Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment Regulations 2005.”

13^th March- Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat)

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they accept the findings of the study of the sea level in the British Indian Ocean Territory ‘Contemporary sea level in the Chagos Archipelago, Central Indian Ocean’ published in the journal Global and Planetary Change in 2012.”

Baroness Warsi (Conservative)

“We welcome scientific debate on environmental issues affecting British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), particularly as we begin our factual assessment of the feasibility of returning a civilian population to these islands. Though we welcome the scientific debate about this aspect of environmental change, both globally and for BIOT specifically, it would be inappropriate for the British Government to endorse any single piece of scientific analysis. We look forward to the resettlement feasibility study further assessing this question, although it may not be possible to come to a conclusive answer on a question on which there is a great deal of inherent uncertainty”

RESPONSE TO INCEPTION REPORT

Earlier this month the British Government published its Inception Report ahead of the commencement of the feasibility study into resettlement of the Chagos Islands. The full report is attached to this edition of the newsletter. UKChSA Chair Sabrina Jean provided the following response:

“We believe that the right of return should be restored to all Chagossians as their exile was unlawful, undemocratic, and violated their human rights. Therefore the feasibility of 'holiday rights' as envisaged in the short-stay option is not helpful. A 'short stay' option and an education programme should be put into place at once as part of expanding the current visiting programme but it does not address the right of return which is non-negotiable.

The returning Home report was the first study to adopt proper consultation with Chagossians, and a serious attempt to provide workable solutions to provide for a phased return, whilst recognising the desire of all Chagossians to have the right to return and the right to visit their homeland. I would commend this approach to the new feasibility Study team.

We note your intention to examine the current literature on conservation and science on Chagos. What is of paramount importance is that regional expertise on central scientific issues are rigorously examined, with the involvement of such world-leading experts as Prof Paul Kench of Auckland University who is the foremost expert on climate change and the effects on small islands – an issue that was dealt with in a fundamentally flawed way in the phase 2B report.

The Inception report is alarmingly silent on who is to provide the expertise to the Study, despite the promise that outline CV's would be included in the Inception report.

It is also true to say that the proposed scientific adviser Dr Andrew Price does not appear to be objective and is unfortunately close to Prof Charles Sheppard the former BIOT Scientific Adviser to BIOT and the one who is most responsible for the flawed Phase 2B Report. He is therefore considered to be neither neutral nor acceptable.”

The Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) also provided its own response to the report:

“The Chagos Refugee Group (CRG) Management Committee met on Saturday 22 March 2014, with Olivier Bancoult, its President, in the chair, in order to take stock of the draft Inception Report on the Feasibility Study for the Resettlement of the Chagossian People.

The CRG Management Committee broadly welcomes the stated scope and approach of the Inception Report and looks forward to providing assistance to the Feasibility Study team. It must be pointed out however that the current study cannot inspire confidence unless the obvious mistakes of the past Feasibility Studies are known and avoided now. The Committee raises some specific issues of its own in the main text below and has also received external input from advisers which, due to the limited time to respond, it has not had the opportunity fully to discuss. The latter input is contained in an Annex to this submission. It would wish that all of these points of concern should be addressed by BIOT and the consultants (most notably the apparent lack of objectivity of one of the proposed project specialists).

Subject to addressing these concerns, we would make three general points on the proposed scope and approach that the Committee believes need clarification and hence strengthening and amendment.

First, the consultation mechanisms proposed should ensure that consultation process is not simply a matter of the Study Team soliciting the views of Chagossians on proposals suggested by the consultants: there needs to be close collaboration in the development of proposals involving a wide representation of Chagossian views to ensure as much consensus as possible.

Second, the different options for resettlement should emerge from such collaboration and not be presented as a set of alternatives. For example, the 'small scale' resettlement may well be desirable as a pilot phase towards 'large scale' resettlement rather than an end in itself; and the limited stay option is best seen as a facility within a resettled community rather than an alternative option.

Third, the Committee feels it is important for the team to engage with expertise and experience, including private investor experience, from the Indian Ocean region and its smaller islands.

With these considerations in mind, and in line with the principles that have consistently guided CRG’s activities, and relying on the collective resources, experience and wisdom of the Chagossian people, the CRG would like to propose the following:

1. Introduction, Overview of the Feasibility Study (page 1):

To add the following bullet point:

the impact of the UK Government’s duty to fulfill its human rights obligation towards the resettlement of the Chagossian people

2.3 Resettlement options (page 2):

To state that the proposed options are not mutually exclusive and indicate that

Option 1: large-scale resettlement, could be examined with proposed Option 2 (small-scale resettlement) being the 1^st phase or a pilot phase.

As for proposed Option 3, CRG’s position is that this option is a denial of the Chagossian people’s right of return and resettlement and therefore CRG cannot and will not endorse it.

In line with this position, CRG proposes to modify the last paragraph’s hypothetical phrase as follows: ‘ …when resettlement takes place’.

3.1 Key phases of activity (page 4, para.4):

-Modeling of costs and incomes: the proposed time-span (5-10-20 years ) should also be considered as phases of the resettlement process.

-Phase II: the private sector should be involved, and not just for tourism but also for other sectors of economic activity (agriculture, fishing, handicrafts…) in a sustainable development perspective. Seychelles (and Rodrigues) to be added.

-Phase III: Page 5, last sentence: “The draft will be circulated to those with an interest…” : CRG and other Chagossian based organizations should be among them.

-Additional development data from comparable literature on small islands (French departments, self-governed UK overseas territories, autonomous islands) should also be tapped.

3.2 Analytical framework (table, pages 6 -7)

2. Legal and political factors:

Under ‘Key questions/issues for consideration’: add ‘reparation’ to human rights agreements, as follows: “human rights/reparation agreements”.

3. Environmental impact: add 'experience/role/involvement of resettled Chagossians in protection of marine/land environment'.

4. Economic prospects: add Seychelles and Rodrigues (as proposed at 3.1).

5 .Access issues: add the experience of Seychelles and Rodrigues.

7. Risks and uncertainties : to add the regional experience of disaster management plans (cyclones, climate change, and recently tsunami alert and management system).

3.3 Core study team (page 9):

CRG proposes that wider pool of experts (page 10 last para) should comprise Indian Ocean region based experts (Seychelles, Reunion, Mauritius-Rodrigues, Zanzibar)

Annex to CRG Comments on BIOT Draft Inception Report – Chagos Feasibility Study – KPMG dated 19 March 2014

The KPMG draft Inception Report (IR) dated 19 March 2014 has been produced in accordance with the clause 9 of the Terms of Reference (TOR) dated January 2014.

Inter alia the IR was required to provide “project management information” [standard format for monthly update reports; risk management plan; proposed timeframe for delivery and reporting, including monthly milestones; list of proposed experts together with curriculae vitae].

Format for Monthly Update reports

This aspect appears not to have been addressed in the draft IR.

Risk Management Plan

Again, there is no mention of a risk management plan.

Proposed Timeframe

The proposed timeframe (IR 3.1) envisages a “consultation and data gathering” phase during April – June 2014. This includes investigation of the “carrying capacity and resources” through “a visit to the Territory”. It is not clear to what extent this represents the satisfaction of the environmental and scientific aspects of the study (in particular the factors enumerated at TOR 7). There is concern that the studies required have not been adequately scoped. Certain key areas were those that were flawed in the previous Phase 2B study. In particular, are external experts to be engaged on these aspects and if so whom? (see further below).

Proposed Experts

Section 3.3 of the draft IR lists a “Core study team” of a Project Manager and Assistant and 3 ‘experts’ together with abbreviated CVs. It is not stated whether these 3 ‘experts’ are KPMG staff or external consultants although a general search indicates the latter in each case. In the absence of an extended CV for either Malcolm Summerfield or Nancy Laatunen and of readily available on-line information, it is not possible to judge their suitability and/or prior connection with the Chagos in greater depth.

Andrew Price however is known from his connection with both Charles Sheppard (former BIOT Conservation/Scientific Adviser 2003-13) and with the Chagos Conservation Trust (CCT) and through his past publication record and CV^{^[1]}. As the proposed “Environmental Specialist” Price would presumably be required to oversee all scientific and environmental aspects of the study.

Sheppard and the CCT are perceived to be ‘anti-resettlement’ when it comes to the possibility of the return of Chagossians to the islands, promoting the Archipelago as ‘pristine’^{^[2]} where conservation of the natural environment takes precedence.

Price is understood to be a close academic colleague of Sheppard, both having worked at Warwick University in the School of Life Sciences for many years. He has also travelled on a number of expeditions to the Chagos led by Sheppard. Furthermore he was a co-author with Sheppard (and others) on a recent paper concerning the Chagos which is considered to overstate the case for environmental conservation^{^[3]}, and on the recent (2012) Chagos Conservation Trust publication: “Conservation and Management in British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)”^{^[4]} which is perceived as a CCT centric view of conservation. This track record and association has the potential to seriously undermine the key principle of ‘neutrality’ in the context of this study, whether real or perceived.

Price’s own environmental/scientific work/expertise in the Chagos has been restricted to surveys of holothurians (sea cucumbers)^{^[5]}, or beach pollution^{^[6]} and he has been a co-author on other pollution papers^{^[7]}. Overall his known academic publication record ^{^[8]} is sparse, particularly in the areas specified in clause 7 of the TORs under “Environmental factors”. Although he is known to possess considerable consultancy experience, his suitability as the sole “Environmental Specialist” is less clear.

In the circumstances it is strongly recommended that other alternative candidates to Price should be investigated.

Wider Pool of Experts

The IR concludes “This core team will be supported by a wider pool of experts, the composition of which will be determined during the inception phase”. Since this draft report represents this Inception Phase, further details of the wider pool should have been included in the draft and notified to interested parties. This is particularly important given the doubts about Andrew Price.”

In addition, David Snoxell, on behalf of the APPG, has provided a summary of their response to the Inception Report:

"On 24 March 2014 the Chairman of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG wrote to Mark Simmonds, the FCO Minister responsible for Chagos, to express the Group's support for the draft Inception Report as a sound basis on which to proceed subject to reservations. These concerned the proposed appointment of Prof Andrew Price as the Environment Specialist; the Group's wish that the feasibility study should be completed by the end of 2014 so that there is time before the election for proper consideration of the results, parliamentary debate and implementation; the lack of any reference to involving or consulting the Government of Mauritius; the description of the MPA as 'international'; and a suggestion on how to make the resettlement options clearer."

CHAGOS ISLANDS WASTE WATER POLLUTION

News that the current occupants of Diego Garcia were engaging in practices which brought into question the stewardship of an alleged marine zone was reported around the world. The Independent newspaper in the UK was the first publication to pick up on the scandal and swiftly focussed on the hypocrisy of the British Government in allowing the practice to continue unchecked for so long:

“The American military has poured hundreds of tonnes of human sewage and waste water into a protected coral lagoon on the British-owned base of Diego Garcia over three decades in breach of environmental rules, The Independent can reveal.

The Indian Ocean base on the Chagos Islands has been one of the world’s most isolated and controversial military installations since Britain forcibly removed hundreds of islanders in the early 1970s, abandoning them to destitution, to make way for US forces including nuclear submarines and bombers.

The British Government has repeatedly underlined its commitment to maintaining the pristine environment of the islands, which are known as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) and were four years ago declared the world’s largest marine reserve.

Despite these undertakings, it has emerged that US Navy vessels have been discharging waste water, including treated sewage, into the clear lagoon ever since a naval support station was established on Diego Garcia in the early 1980s.

According to scientific advisers, elevated levels of nutrients caused by the waste – which have resulted in nitrogen and phosphate readings up to four times higher than normal – may be damaging the coral.

Friday night, campaigners fighting for Chagossians to be allowed to return accused the British and US authorities of double standards by using the unspoilt character of the archipelago as a reason to prevent repopulation while themselves creating pollution.”

Moscow-based Russia Today was similarly scathing in its assessment of the levels of double standards:

“The base in question – located on the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean – has been the focus of intense lobbying by supporters of the native residents, who were resettled elsewhere in the 1970s in order to make way for a US naval establishment. The British government has stated on multiple occasions that those Chagossians could not return to the island due to its effort to maintain the area’s unspoiled habitat.

Despite these claims, however, scientists have found the state of the coral in the lagoon to be deteriorating, and have singled out increased levels of nitrogen and phosphate as the possible culprits. According, the presence of these elements is likely the result of the US Navy dumping treated sewage water and other waste into the lagoon for the last three decades.

Although the British government was aware of the Navy’s behavior in 2013, it has only now been revealed to the public.”

UKChSA Chair Sabrina Jean was invited by the Independent newspaper to offer her own views on the revelations:

We are the real guardians of our homeland. Until we are allowed to return, we think that this degradation is bound to be permitted to continue.”

Just ahead of this edition of the newsletter going to press, Cahal Milmo implicated the British Government in the pollution of the waters around Diego Garcia during a follow-up piece in the Independent newspaper.

“The FCO has admitted that British ‘no discharge policy’ was not complied with by US vessels.

But in a statement to Parliament on 6 March it failed to disclose the claims that the Pacific Marlin, a 36-year-old Japanese tug which is chartered from a Singapore-based company to conduct duties including fishery patrols and operations with Royal Marines, may also have contributed to the problem.

Swire Pacific Offshore Operations Ltd, which operates the Pacific Marlin, told The Independent that it had modified the vessel to ensure there could be no accidental discharges of sewage but said it had not been shown any evidence that it was responsible for elevated levels of faecal bacteria found near its vessel.

Professor Charles Sheppard, a leading biologist from the University of Warwick, who acts as scientific adviser to the BIOT on environmental matters, reported last year that its patrol vessel was ‘a regular culprit in terms of sewage discharge’ on Diego Garcia.

The report was withheld by the FCO until this week on the grounds that its disclosure could damage Anglo-American relations until it was challenged by another academic and forced to disclose the material under environmental information rules.

Prof Sheppard wrote that the suspected discharges were going into ‘the very confined small boat basin in Diego Garcia where pathogen effects may be magnified’ and also leading to criticism of double standards from Britain's closest ally. He said: ‘Comments have been received from several sources along the lines of 'if the British ship continues to do this then why shouldn't US ships?’

Tests have found levels of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphates up to four times higher than normal levels in the lagoon, meaning damage may be being caused to coral on Diego Garcia.

Peter Sand, a lecturer in environmental law at Munich University who secured the release of Prof Sheppard's report, told The Independent that the island, which is home to about 5,000 US personnel, should be brought into the marine reserve.

He said: ‘The declaration of the reserve will remain an empty shell as long as it totally excludes the Diego Garcia military base. This may explain the desperate attempts by the Foreign Office to prevent public access to all embarrassing pollution data concerning Diego Garcia.’

FEASIBILITY STUDY EXPERTS APPOINTED

Following on from news last month regarding the final draft of the terms of reference being published, the British Government has now appointed the consultants for the long awaited feasibility study. John Vidal from the Guardian picks up the story:

“The coral islands, which have some of the cleanest waters in the world and half the total area of high quality coral reefs in the Indian Ocean, are rich in fish which would normally form the economic base of any resident community. But since Britain established the archipelago as the world's largest marine reserve in 2010, it is theoretically illegal for anyone to fish there – except for the US military who have been allowed to catch around 50 tonnes of fish for sport. The setting up of the reserve by the then-foreign secretary David Miliband was widely interpreted as an attempt to prevent any resettlement by the evicted Chagossians.

But the terms of reference for the consultants also suggest Britain may be prepared to compromise on the total ban on fishing. The team has been asked to consider eco-tourism, fishing, game fishing and "industrial development". If the Chagossians return, they have said they plan to re-establish copra production and fishing, and to develop the islands for tourism.

Britain has previously made it impossible for the islanders to return, citing both costs and sea level rise. A 2003 feasibility study led to the government concluding that resettlement would be "costly and precarious" and that sea-level rise was averaging 5.4mm a year – twice the global average – and accelerating. This was refuted by other scientists.

The study will consider many other environmental factors that could make life impossible for a small community to establish itself, but which appear to have not deterred the US military. The terms of reference specifically ask the consultants to look at how climate change could affect life on the islands in future. "This should include sea-level rise, rogue waves, coastal erosion, tropical cyclone frequency and intensity and changes in wave and wind conditions."

David Snoxell, Co-ordinator of the Chagos islands' All-Party Parliamentary Group and former British High Commissioner to Mauritius, said: ‘The FCO are to be applauded for initiating a new feasibility study which the all-party group has been arguing for since 2008. The Foreign Secretary announced in December 2012, following the Strasbourg verdict, that the case was inadmissible, that he would take stock of policies towards resettlement, but it has taken 15 months to get only to the stage of publishing terms of reference. It is imperative that the study is completed by the end of 2014 so that Parliament is consulted and decisions taken before the election. We do not want a repeat of what happened over the announcement of the marine protection area in April 2010, five weeks before the last general election, thus ensuring that there was no time to consult Parliament.’”

PARALLELS DRAWN BETWEEN CHAGOS ISLANDS AND CRIMEA

An observation made by UKChSA Chair Sabrina Jean was noticed by a Washington based weekly newspaper called The Hill. Sabrina pointed out that the British and American-led condemnation of the Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory in Crimea amounted to yet more hypocrisy given the events surrounding the depopulation of the Chagos Islands. Adam Ereli outlined the unfortunate parallels between Crimea and the Chagos Islands:

“For years, Great Britain has repeatedly used its power and influence to stymie the peaceful resolution of this dispute. In 2012, Mauritius announced that it would leave the Commonwealth if necessary in order to take the Chagos issue before the International Court of Justice. But the UK immediately amended its declaration relating to the jurisdiction of the Court so that the ICJ would not have mandatory jurisdiction if a case was brought against it. In 2010, Britain declared a Marine Protected Area around the archipelago, and in response Mauritius initiated proceedings against the UK under Annex 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The African Union and Non-Aligned Movement have expressed unanimous support for Mauritius over the Chagos issue.

Now is the time to do the right thing and begin negotiations over the return of the Chagos Archipelago to its rightful owner, the Republic of Mauritius. The era of colonialism is over. Russia’s actions in Crimea are a searing reminder that the international community will no longer tolerate the forceful subjugation of weaker states by their more powerful neighbors. Mauritius is acting responsibly, consistent with recognized international norms, to resolve this dispute peacefully. The West has the opportunity to match its words with deeds. Great Britain and the United States should do honor to their status as great powers and sit down with us to negotiate a formal, legal transfer of sovereignty.

Washington has no interest in being the subject of protracted challenges against the legality of the territory on which it maintains a vital military facility. As a close ally and strategic partner, Mauritius will continue to provide full access and basing rights to the United States on Diego Garcia. By accepting Mauritian sovereignty, the UK will not prejudice its position with respect to other colonial territories, nor will it prejudice the "defense purposes" by which it justifies its continued occupation of the islands.”

MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP INTERNATIONAL

Our friends at Minority Rights Group International have published a new report ahead of our appeal into the Judicial Review which commences at the High Court in central London on the 31^st March. The full document is attached with this month’s copy of the newsletter and calls on the British to avoid further delays in addressing the continuing injustice inflicted against the Chagossian community:

“A new MRG report says that the creation of the Marine Protected Area, and the subsequent banning of commercial fishing in its waters, effectively bars Islanders from returning to their homes. Under international law, the Chagossians have a right to return to their homeland, unless such return is not feasible, in which case they should be offered appropriate compensation.

‘The Court case highlights the pressing need for a new feasibility study to clarify, once and for all, the possible means and arrangements for return to the islands,' says Lucy Claridge, MRG's Head of Law.

‘Given that the 2002 investigation commissioned by the UK government on resettlement of the Chagos Islands was found to be seriously flawed, it is imperative that any new feasibility study must be carried out with the full participation of the Chagossians,' she adds.

The Islanders' struggle to return home has led to a decades-long legal battle in the UK courts, and culminated in a December 2012 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) dismissal of their claims to return, citing reasons based on technical grounds.”

DEMONSTRATION AT THE HIGH COURT IN LONDON

We will once again be organising a demonstration outside the High Court in central London on Monday 31^st March. This will commence at 10am and we hope as many of our incredible supporters as possible will be available to join us. The demonstration is to mark the two day appeal against the High Court rejection of the Judicial Review of the MPA brought by Olivier Bancoult last April.

CHAGOS FOOTBALL TEAM TOURNAMENT

We are delighted to confirm news of a football tournament which will be administered by the Chagos Football Association. The event is an opportunity to raise funds for our fledgling football side (we need all the support they can get after suffering our first ever defeat last month!)

The fundraiser will be taking place at the Hazelwick School on Hazelwick Mill Lane, Three Bridges, Crawley RH10 1SX. The entrance fee will be £100 per competing team and all money raised will be ploughed towards turning our up and coming side into the next Bayern Munich. Further details are available from Giany, Gino, Dorian or Sabrina.

UKChSA ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING (AGM)

A final reminder that we will of course be hosting our AGM at the Pimlico branch of the Pizza Express on Sunday 6^th April at 12 noon.

The full address is: 46 Moreton Street, London SW1V 2PB.

As always all of our wonderful supporters are welcome to come along. We are delighted to confirm that Richard Gifford from our legal team will once again be addressing the AGM, which of course will be the week following our latest date at the High Court.

Thank you as always for your continued interest and support,

Clency Lebrasse (Update compiler)

[1] http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/lifesci/people/publications/?ssn=MwZTkFw2Uz0=&inst=WARWICK

[2] At least from the marine perspective

[3] SHEPPARD, C. R. C., ATEWEBERHAN, M., BOWEN, B. W., CARR, P., CHEN, C. A., CLUBBE, C., CRAIG, M. T., EBINGHAUS, R., EBLE, J., FITZSIMMONS, N., GAITHER, M. R., GAN, C. H., GOLLOCK, M., GUZMAN, N., GRAHAM, N. A. J., HARRIS, A., JONES, R., KESHAVMURTHY, S., KOLDEWEY, H., LUNDIN, C. G., MORTIMER, J. A., OBURA, D., PFEIFFER, M., PRICE, A. R. G., PURKIS, S., RAINES, P., READMAN, J. W., RIEGL, B., ROGERS, A., SCHLEYER, M., SEAWARD, M. R. D., SHEPPARD, A. L. S., TAMELANDER, J., TURNER, J. R., VISRAM, S., VOGLER, C., VOGT, S., WOLSCHKE, H., YANG, J. M.-C., YANG, S. Y. & YESSON, C. 2012b. Reefs and islands of the Chagos Archipelago, Indian Ocean: why it is the world's largest no-take marine protected area. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 22, 232-261.

[4] SHEPPARD, C., CARR, P., GRAHAM, N., HARRIS, A., HEAD, C., KOLDEWEY, H., MEEUWIG, J., MORTIMER, J., PURKIS, S., PRICE, A. R. G., ROBERTS, C., SCHLEYER, M., SHEPPARD, A., TAMELANDER, J. & TURNER, J. 2012a. Conservation and Management in British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago).

[5] PRICE, A. R. G., EVANS, L. E., ROWLANDS, N. & HAWKINS, J. P. 2013. Negligible recovery in Chagos holothurians (sea cucumbers). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 23, 811-819.

PRICE, A. R. G., HARRIS, A., MCGOWAN, A., VENKATACHALAM, A. J. & SHEPPARD, C. R. C. 2010. Chagos feels the pinch: assessment of holothurian (sea cucumber) abundance, illegal harvesting and conservation prospects in British Indian Ocean Territory. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 20, 117-126.

[6] PRICE, A. R. & HARRIS, A. 2009. Decadal changes (1996-2006) in coastal ecosystems of the Chagos archipelago determined from rapid assessment. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 19, 637-644.

PRICE, A. R. G. 1999. Broadscale coastal environmental assessment of the Chagos Archipelago. In: SHEPPARD, C. R. C. & SEAWARD, M. R. D. (eds.) Ecology of the Chagos Archipelago. London: Linnean Society.

[7] GUITART, C., SHEPPARD, A., FRICKERS, T., PRICE, A. R. G. & READMAN, J. W. 2007. Negligible risks to corals from antifouling booster biocides and triazine herbicides in coastal waters of the Chagos Archipelago. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54, 226-232.

READMAN, J., DELUNA, F., EBINGHAUS, R., GUZMAN, A., PRICE, A. G., READMAN, E., SHEPPARD, A. S., SLEIGHT, V., STURM, R., THOMPSON, R., TONKIN, A., WOLSCHKE, H., WRIGHT, R. & SHEPPARD, C. C. 2013. Contaminants, Pollution and Potential Anthropogenic Impacts in Chagos/BIOT. In: SHEPPARD, C. R. C. (ed.) Coral Reefs of the United Kingdom Overseas Territories. Springer Netherlands.

[8] http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/lifesci/people/publications/?ssn=MwZTkFw2Uz0=&inst=WARWICK